/lit/ - Literature

It wouldn't feel good if we weren't supposed to do it

>>21691781
Why not just leave them to suffer?
Having kids is not about "reason" in the first place, which is why these types always win out in a "debate".

>>21691781
>Why Are You Still Alive?
>No Really, Why Haven't You Killed Yourself?
Simple as. You don't need an entire book.

>>21691786
Does that include raping children?
Cos pedophiles do that all the time

>>21691798
>Does that include raping children?
Yes, you're supposed to marry them after but that can be excused because our deranged society doesn't allow it.

>>21691808
True
I do agree
All feelings are valid and come from some place of order in nature

>>21691781
Their argument:
>antinatalists central claim is that life is harm
>they argue that you have to be alive to feel pleasure and stress this isn't guaranteed
>they argue that if you're not alive you are guaranteed not to suffer/harm
>[no guarentee of pleasure, risk of suffering/harm, therefore nonexistence is best = basic thread of argument]
>note: they also like to being up that the fact you don't have a choice in coming into existence
>they conclude that not reproducing and ending life is the optimal outcome to reduce harm

Why they're refuted:
>antinatalists can't validate their central claim as they cannot weigh the total value of life in aggregate (the best they can do is assert individual bad things happen)
>[this is all the refutation that is needed: they cannot draw logic, let alone an extreme conclusion, from a central claim they are unable to prove; simple as--but lets go on to point out their bad logic]
>they place the weight of guaranteed outcomes on detractors but they don't have prescience to forsee the outcome/value of individual lives (let alone the aggregate of all life which they are assuming) but...
>antinatalists are attempting to prove their conclusion and thereby the onus is on them produce a stable logic based on a proven premise
>however, any single example of value in life automatically contravienes their premise and contradicts the logic they attempt to assert
>[antinatalists are generally filtered by this because they still affirm their premise even though reason has been given to reject it]
>we may come to the idea of suicide and ending life (which is logically coherent with their outlook while showing their values are actually incosistent)
>suicide automatically means an end to suffering, any harm caused doesn't exist for the victim (aside, the absence of existence means you can't even weigh such anyway)
>denial of suicide is an affirmation that value exists in life (or else why not? note that they won't even admit that suffering is short relative to continued existence, they really want to avoid clearly weighing anything)
>if the antinatalist says it affects others a consistent logic follows that they kill them as well (the sooner the better in fact--stop them from reproducing which puts an end to countless future lives)
>alas, the anti-natalist will assert their original logic no longer applies once they are alive (again, affirming the value of existing and demonstrating their logic can actually be harmful)
>the last bastion is they HAD no choice to exist (convienently it doesn't matter that they have one now) but again there are plenty of examples of lives worth living

>>21691781
You don't need any arguments for having children. Ever noticed how anti-natalists are always on the offensive?

>>21691822
Chud moment

>>21691822
Why antinatalists are retarded:
>no matter how many times you point out how AND why their premise is ungrounded they will still assert you must argue within the logic it sets out
>no matter how many times you point out the logic is inconsistent they retreat to the idea of their unfounded premise and assert it follows naturally
>no matter the absurdities you can show as consistent with their reasoning (i.e. you shouldn't kill yourself let alone others) they will simply change the rules
>life is valuable once it exists and yet we need to stop it from existing...that's what their bullshit boils down to and it's utterly stupid

At this point it's worthwhile to point out antinatalists will ignore strong arguments against their case and use any excuse to stay within their own logic. It must also be noted that trolls responses of "I guess I'll kill myself and others" are retarded: the point is life is valuable and you fail to prove otherwise. You affirm an extreme conclusion, ending all life, based on a demonstrably flawed premise and inconsistent logic. Refuted. Stop making these retarded threads now.

>>21691811
I agree. Acting on impulse is natural. People with a passion for cannibalism shouldn't have to restrain their carnivorous urges to placate The Man.

>>21691834
A cannibal creates the taboo
Thats called dialectics

>>21691822
>creating life means you create suffering
That's one sided.
>you don't know though!
Neither do you.
>so all life should end...
That's extreme and you haven't proven life creates more suffering than joy.
>if you don't exist you don't feel either!
I don't accept that corollary because you haven't proven the aggregate of all life is suffering. Also, logic follows you kill yourself.
>no because I'm alive and that creates harm!
So you value your life and disregard your own point about nonexistence meaning suffering doesn't exist.
>for others though!
Again, you're demonstrating your life has value and I can add the corollary you kill others as well.
>...
So are you going to give me a reason not to reject your fundamental premise? Will you at least acknowledge the counter narrative I've established that underscores the logical inconsistency of your position and demonstrates your fundemental premise is weakened by your own reasoning?
>...
Hello?
>UNREFUTED!

Anti-natalists are fucking retards. There is no wonder as to why the "How to be an Antinatalist" wikiHow is mostly devoted to teaching them not to be annoying.

>>21691825
Stop making your lack of foreskin my problem. I love Israel btw

>>21691825
Anti-natalists are likely to be mentally ill (i.e. depression/personality disoders).

>>21691789
It is pretty easy to counter that. I don't want people around me to be sad so I will wait or let nature take me. I am not really suicidal anyway, but the old
>why haven't you killed yourself then
is pretty shit

>>21691829
>ignore strong arguments against their case
What arguments? So far I have seen talk of arguments and the "kill yourself now", but that is not strong. I am not an antinatlist, but I don't think I want to have children simply because I am not sure what I would do if they either became ill or suffered greatly, or did great harm or cause major suffering onto other people, or they turn out like myself who most of life don't really want to exist. Looking at the future we are going into makes it even harder to want kids

>>21691883
>I am not sure what I would do if they ... did great harm or cause major suffering onto other people
haha are you serious?

>>21691897
Yes, why wouldn't I be? If I create something that does something I would feel responsible even if that thing had a will of its own

What is funny is that you have all these /lit/-virgins that talk like they will ever have a kid. This goes for both sides of the argument. Dont worry guys, it is not important for you

>>21691854
>Ad hominem

>>21691939
>Ad hominem isn't a valid rebuttal

>>21691941
Based
>>21691939
Autist

There no know books that counter the antinatalism because antinatalism is very basic idead behind and that is to avoid suffer at all cost, and no one, I mean no rational compassionate human being can deny that, only actual narcissist psychopath think that avoid suffering is somehow a good thing, so, when you see does /lit/ poster talking about the value of suffer, you better be aware that they are likely psychopaths and narcissist, because they don't actually care about the feeling of other people, so yeah, antinatalism is basically irrefutable unless you're a mentally ill narcissist psychopath.

>>21691939
>research, which was replicated by the way, shows that anti-natalists exhibit depression and personality disorders
>this is relevant to how people judge Bentar's quality of life argument
Keep coping.

>>21691781
That chart is the full-fledged autism of utilitarianism in action
>muh pleasure-pain dichotomy
K Y S

>>21691939
>>21691968
The jury is still out when it comes to whether you social rejects have a unique and valuable perspective. It's was outside the scope of this study but according to everything they read and how they felt about their research it isn't looking good for you retards.

FYI: the argument isn't that dark triad features and a depressive state automatically renders arguments from people like that incorrect (for example, the paper even noted people can become depressed due to having enhanced perception/judgement). While the paper doesn't affirm a conclusion outside of it's scope it does give a brief explainitory reasoning as to how such traits inform the propensity to adopt anti-natalist views (i.e. it gives two avenues of explaination, enhance judgement/outlook versus a bias toward negative ideation, and says that while it's outside the scope of their present research the background literature indicates the latter).

>>21691786
Read Kant.

I still haven't heard any good arguments.

If you accept that you have a duty to do NO harm, and you believe that birth is the start of life, then you have a duty not to create life, which is full of pain.

What you COULD argue is that you don't have a duty to do no harm, or you could argue that birth is NOT the start of life so you aren't causing pain or some schizo tier shit like "If you give birth to a child during a world war, you are somehow not responsible whatsoever for that child's shit life"
Whether or not life "has value" is irrelevant since the debate here is about whether or not YOU are causing harm.

>>21692075
Why should we not do any harm?
That is already the presumption
Utilitarian "ethics" are for children

the shit mfs get into when they define the goal of their life as the avoidance of pain rather than the enjoyment of life. s m h

>>21692075
>noooooo, you have to ignore whatever value exists in life and can only argue in relation to the fact that harm exists
You guys are so unbelievably stupid (it's this >>21691829 every time). We shouldn't be surprised though given your propensity towards depression/personality disorders that place a limit on how you're able to interpret reality (i.e. >>21691854/>>21691968/>>21691992).

>>21692108
>I decide how much pain the 'value' of life is worth on another beings behalf!
Justify all these claims

>>21692117
>>they place the weight of guaranteed outcomes on detractors but they don't have prescience to forsee the outcome/value of individual lives (let alone the aggregate of all life which they are assuming) but...
>>antinatalists are attempting to prove their conclusion and thereby the onus is on them produce a stable logic based on a proven premise
See how predictable you retards are? I don't have to prove all life is worth living and I can even accept that some lives are not.

>>21692136
>I can guarantee a pain-free life for a being I don't even control
Another massive claim

>>21691883
Sadness after someone's death is the same biological mechanism as procreating.

>>21692164
I never made that claim and I don't have to in order to show your argument can be rejected. Thanks for illustrating that you guys are prone to depressive ideation and personality disorders.

>>21691883
>I don't kill myself because there are reasons to live beyond my own subjective pleasure or lack thereof
Careful, you might be onto something there.

>>21692201
Actually, it seems to have been the centre of your argument. You are claiming that life can be pain-free and I want to hear your argument for that.

>>21691821
This. The worst thing you can do to a child is create him for a set reason or purpose, like a 3rd world family grooming their kid to be a doctor in America to save them all from poverty, or any couple in general having kids just because it's expected of them. Anything reason deeper than "Because I wanted you here" is only going to put pressure on the kid.

>>21691789
Selection bias, you can't argue with dead people, retard.

>>21691829
I have yet to see a strong argument against. I imagine were there one you would see far fewer antinatalists. Nobody wants to be a pessimist.

>>21691781
>burping hurts!! Waaaaaaah woah is me for being alive!
Pfffft what a faggot

>>21692215
Nope. The centre of my refutation is that you can't prove the aggregate of existence is harm. I don't have to prove the inverse--the point is that it's impossible, retard. The standard cope is to deflect that it isn't the basis of your argument (e.g. by asserting I have to argue that nonexistence isn't the negation of harm...which is a tautology and can't carry the weight of your argument in relation to the real world conclusion you're trying to forward) and/or that we have to reject it by accepting it's logic (which is also absurd given how it changes the rules for life that already exists, an admission that it has value).

The premise is ungrounded, the logic is inconsistent, and the conclusion is extreme. On top of this there is hard evidence that anti-natalists are likely to have a warped perception of reality (i.e. they tend to have mental illnesses such as depression and are more likely to have personality disorders relating to the dark triad) that makes them poor arbiters when it comes to the subject matter we're discussing.

>>21692320
>I have yet to see a strong argument against.
This remains unrefuted: >>21691822. Lots of seethe and frequent deflection attempts in line with (>>21691829)
> I imagine were there one you would see far fewer antinatalists. Nobody wants to be a pessimist.
See >>21691854. People who subscribe to anti-natalist views are prone to depression and personality disorders that flavor how they interpret reality.

>>21692342
>you can't prove the aggregate of existence is harm
Interesting, so I can harm people and then pay them and I've done nothing wrong since on balance, they -might- end up happier in the long run.

>>21692305
I held a seance recently and your grandfather said you're a huge disappointment to him. So much so, in fact, he said he wishes he had been an anti-natalist.

>>21691781
i thought this was /lit/ and not /schitz/
youve fallen for the ultimate demoralization blackpill and pretending that being a failure is actually based is just a cope.

the ruling class push antinatalism among the lowest classes in order to destroy generational wealth among the middle class, and to suppress birthrates among the lower classes so they can 'justify' immigrant-slave labor to sabotage the wealth and power of the lower/middle classes. You are a retarded animal and you should feel blessed nobody has bothered to put you out of your misery.

>>21692373
>still making shit up
You have to forgive them because anti-natalists don't know they're being disingenuous. They're really just that retarded.

>>21692394
You made the statement. Now explain how the "aggregate" is relevant to someone that wants to commit no harm.

Start like this "You are allowed to hurt people if..."

>>21691883
Everybody is already effectively dead you idiot, just kill yourself. You're literally implying that living is a good thing that's worthwhile because we can form happy families and communities who value each other's being alive. Faggot.

>>21692425
not that anon but you want a pseduo-philosophical hot take on this bullshit? alright: babies arent people. Humans are, by default, born incomplete and premature. it therefore follows that a baby literally can not suffer, as it isnt conscious and is incapable of comprehending suffering and thus giving birth is not causing harm.

>>21692425
I never made such a statement and it was a slide. It's perfectly reasonable to envision that someone could accept money in order to be tortured/murdered and feel that the result is somehow a net benefit (e.g. there's an old Johnny Depp movie with that plot). However, the way we construct laws is toward how a crime impacts society at large (i.e. you are prosecuted by the state and not the individual) and under that rubric someone cannot consent to having a crime committed against them (i.e. if you tell me I'm allowed to kill you it's still a crime). It's beside the topic at hand and doesn't relate to the reasons I've given to reject anti-natalism.

The reason "aggregate" is relevant to anti-natalism is because it underscores the sleight of hand taking place. No existence = no harm is a tautology. However, what you're actually arguing is that life should not exist because harm exists. To fairly argue this point the onus is on you to prove that the aggregate of life is harm (i.e. the tautology doesn't allow you to make such an assertion automatically and the best you can do to prove such is to cherry-pick extreme examples where death is a good opition). So, the extreme conclusion that life should not exist can't be set out in detail and you have to retreat to an abstract tautology to carry the weight of it. Simple as.

We can go beyond that for how the argument plays out in the face of the most common criticism in these threads. When suicide is brought up the standard deflection is that the rules have changed in relation to life which now has value (i.e. creating non-existence is a harm). However, it's logically valid to assert that you will not have access to this supposed harm and that preventing others from facing it (e.g. by killing them) grants them access to non-existence and therefore the absence of harm. It also may prevent them from creating more life (and more harm) and if you extrapolate this out you can argue the harm you avoid by offering non-existence outweighs any short duration of harm created in the immediant.

So that's the problem with anti-natalism. It's adherents think you have to refute a tautology that defines harm as something that can only come to be if existence exists. However, the conclusion they're arguing is that life should not continue because it creates harm. Therefore, you have to demonstrate that the extent of harm relating to life justifies the idea that it shouldn't continue. When suicide is brought up anti-natalist admit the implicit value of life and change the rules (retreating to the tautology once again). Aside, there's the evidence that anti-natalists have a warped perception of reality due to depression and personality disorders.

Anti-natalism is retarded. Imagine propping up your self-esteem by arguing life isn't worth living to strangers on the internet.

>>21691822
Agree with your other points but the suicide thing is retarded. It assumes that people act in accordance with their rational viewpoints which is a naive as fuck worldview and moreover is the basis of liberalism which is a pants on head retarded system. People neither act in accordance with their rational viewpoints nor are they obligated to, time to get over that fact nigger.
Other than that, solid points. I'm not an antinatalist by the way, that hidden assumption just irritates me.

>>21692598
>The reason "aggregate" is relevant to anti-natalism is because it underscores the sleight of hand taking place. No existence = no harm is a tautology. However, what you're actually arguing is that life should not exist because harm exists.
Seems weak given that I've mentioned my life, or even yours exactly zero times. You have not proved that the "aggregate" of harm and 'good' is relevant to someone that wants to do no harm.

>However, it's logically valid to assert that you will not have access to this supposed harm and that preventing others from facing it (e.g. by killing them) grants them access to non-existence and therefore the absence of harm. It also may prevent them from creating more life (and more harm) and if you extrapolate this out you can argue the harm you avoid by offering non-existence outweighs any short duration of harm created in the immediant.
Agreed.

>>21692720
It doesn't assume people are rational. It demostrates anti-natalists not only change their rules but also undermine their premise in so doing.

>>21692723
>You have not proved that the "aggregate" of harm and 'good' is relevant to someone that wants to do no harm.
I have and you're failure to directly address it demonstrates your own faulty reasoning ability. Cope.
>Agreed.
Thanks for underscoring the fact anti-natalists have a warped sense of reality due to proclivity toward depression and the dark triad (i.e. psychopathy and Machiavellianism).

>>21692732
Criticizing their behavior isn't criticizing the argument. You can conclude that suicide is a rational response to the situation but still refrain from doing so, because - and I know this will come as a shock - human beings can think rationally but are not rational beings.
Another way to put it, are you criticizing ANTI NATALISTS, or are you criticizing ANTINATALISM? The suicide critique does the former, not the latter, the anti-natalism position is capable of admitting yes sure suicide is a rational response without changing its core argument at all. Obviously in reality, if you're an anti-natalist, any total fucking retard knows that more goes into suicide than a rational decision, like the courage to actually carry the act out, the overcoming of compassion towards others you love and who love you who you know will suffer if you do it, your instincts that want you to survive, etc. Oh shit looks like there's much more going on than rational thinking!
Again, not an anti-natalist, and the other point on the aggregate view of life is enough to counter the position. This error in logic I'm describing is just so painfully retarded that it actually pisses me off.

>>21692756
>I want to do no harm
>Okay well if you just do a liiiiittle harm and lots of good it doesn't count!
Does this sum up your argument?

>>21692765
Again, I'm not arguing in favor of anti-natalism and therefore I don't support any of the conclusions that can be derived from it (e.g. suicide). However, the most common retort in these threads is asking them why they don't kill themselves. Their own explainations, with specific regard to the necessity that they prove life has less value than non-existence, undermine the premise at the core of their argument and bring out the idea of life having value. It's logically coherent to be an edgelord like this retard (>>21692723) and that can be tied to the idea that anti-natalists have a tendancy to have depression alongside Machiavellian/psychopathic traits that colour their view of the world and interpriation of reality (note that this doesn't automatically make their views incorrect but it's relevant when the argument is in relation to perception--the excerpts from the research paper I posted make that clear).

>>21692784
Nope.

>>21692802
> However, the most common retort in these threads is asking them why they don't kill themselves. Their own explainations, with specific regard to the necessity that they prove life has less value than non-existence, undermine the premise at the core of their argument and bring out the idea of life having value.
Yes, I'm aware. What I am saying is that the points on this are retarded because the anti-natalist position is capable of modifying the stance on suicide in either direction without changing its core argument, which can essentially be summed up as "its better not to be born". Hence my lines here:
>the anti-natalism position is capable of admitting yes sure suicide is a rational response without changing its core argument at all.
So if its modifiable either way without touching the core premise then why are you criticizing it? Because you're not criticizing anti-natalism, rather anti-natalists, as I said in my above post. And this theme runs throughout your writing. And I do suspect, furthermore, that its closely linked to the notion "okay if you believe that why not kill yourself", like that's actually what you would probably say if they did modify the suicide position, hence your "they will suggest their original logic no longer applies once they are alive" bit in your post I responded to originally.
> and that can be tied to the idea that anti-natalists have a tendancy to have depression alongside Machiavellian/psychopathic traits that colour their view of the world and interpriation of reality
Imagine my shock. You can be biased and still come to the correct conclusion on something however. Moreover the causality question is at play here, but all this is retarded, all this is low-hanging fruit, it attempts to weaken the PR for anti-natalism by criticizing those who adhere to it, which is a logical fallacy.
>note that this doesn't automatically make their views incorrect but it's relevant when the argument is in relation to perception
Yeah its nice you caught this but still, the criticism stands.

>>21691781
Anti-natalism is rooted in the idea that causing birth can result to create a life filled with suffering and no value. If you concede that a suffering being can be created: you must either determine that: life is too risky to create, or life must be created responsibly and ethically. The first point is where you get your standard anti-natalists, while the other produces something resembling a eugenicist. If reckless sex produces the chance of an orphan emerging or a single parent household: don't conduct reckless sex. If your baby has some disease that will significantly disrupt the child's life to the point of complete and utter suffering: abort it in the womb or advocate for post-childbirth euthanasia. The line between what type of life is given value is not clear, as what people may see as an ethical life will change each generation.

The only result of this outlook is abstention from reproduction, or the practice of eugenics to the point of culturally accepted MAiD prescriptions for anyone with a debilitating disease. If that's something you don't thing should happen, perhaps the anti-natalist assumption does not apply to the world, and that even the most pitiful of lives should exist, even if only suffering can come about from it.

As for the consent to live: it's a Grelling-type logical paradox where One's consent can not be given before One's own existence; therefore, consent to living is given by the parents. I should note that the transfer of the ability to consent is not given after childbirth, and has historically been bestowed after childhood. After this period, One can --just to point out the obvious-- only consent to One's own continuing existence, if you don't consent you can simply kill yourself (which I believe some people in this thread are arguing about.)

>>21692861
>Yes, I'm aware. What I am saying is that the points on this are retarded because the anti-natalist position is capable of modifying the stance on suicide in either direction without changing its core argument, which can essentially be summed up as "its better not to be born"
Again, my argument isn't that anti-natalists disprove their argument by failing to commit suicide. My argument is that the rationale they use to justify that decision is linked to the idea of value (which undermines their position) as well as demonstrates flaws in their reasoning (how they define non-existence as a value higher than life). The fact they use a tautology that isn't actually tied to their conclusion automatically means their logic will be inconsistent. Sucide, particularly the way it is commonly framed in these threads, is an illustrative example of this fact.
>So if its modifiable either way without touching the core premise then why are you criticizing it?
See above. Also, the excuses you gave as to why someone won't commit suicide do not undermine the idea that it's linked to a perception of value that logically coheres against their premise. The idea is that anti-natalism doesn't make sense because of the part of the argument you say you agree with; it's not a corollary that you must commit suicide if you believe in anti-natalism. It's an illustrative example that it's difficult to rationalize not doing so within their own logic.
>You can be biased and still come to the correct conclusion on something however
Yes, that's what the rest of the sentence you didn't greentext outlines.
>Yeah its nice you caught this but still, the criticism stands
It's not something that had to be caught. I premptively addressed it because your reasoning is flawed in regard to how you're characterizing the argument. The suicide example isn't the core argument against anti-natalism and I never claimed that just because someone is prone to negative ideation doesn't mean they're automatically incorrect (the paper specifically addresses this). However, perception of life is relevant to Benatar's argument and is one more reason to be suspicious of someone promoting anti-natalist views.

>>21691781
Antinatalism is fundamentally a liberal ideology, insofar all the forefathers of liberalism had freedom from bodily harm / suffering as an ultimate end-goal. This basically allows them to use utilitarian logic, and if by their calculations they end up deciding life's value is on average negative, antinatalism is a reasonable conclusion.

This leads to the following angles of attack:
>Claiming their calculations are wrong, finding counterexamples, etc.
Might work, but probably futile. No one actually has the data to calculate this properly, and no one will. Furthermore the calculations differ from antinatalist to another, and are likely made up bullshit based on feels anyway. Arguments like "You are assigning too much negative value on physical pain, as adrenaline will significantly reduce it, and one can get used to a degree of chronic pain" etc.
>Noting that even if life is on average a negative, it's not so for everyone
Conditions that create a meaningful life can thus be fostered. Can easily end up in trying to improve society somewhat. Might not work if they're a hopeless doomer that philosophically assigns a negative value to all lived experience, no matter how pleasurable it might be. Arguments such as "Life can be pleasurable, and parents should only have children if they can sufficiently provide for them." etc.

Or alternatively you can work from a non-liberal or post-liberal standpoint. These reject the fundamental claim that life can be summarized through some kind of positive value / negative value calculation, or that freedom from suffering would in itself be at all meaningful. This will lead to an axiomatic standoff, so honestly the best you can do is to tell the liberal fucknut to off themselves in some gruesome but amusing manner - not because it would demonstrate logical consistency on their part, but merely because it would be most pleasant to witness.

normals don't suffer

>>21693309
Kek, based paramedic.

>>21693072
>Again, my argument isn't that anti-natalists disprove their argument by failing to commit suicide. My argument is that the rationale they use to justify that decision is linked to the idea of value (which undermines their position) as well as demonstrates flaws in their reasoning (how they define non-existence as a value higher than life). The fact they use a tautology that isn't actually tied to their conclusion automatically means their logic will be inconsistent. Sucide, particularly the way it is commonly framed in these threads, is an illustrative example of this fact.
Maybe I'm somehow being clear enough. My point is that this is all a secondary concern. Even if you think you've caught the anti-natalists on not really believing in their own position through some rhetorical trickery, which is what everything you're saying comes down to, that still has no effect on the validity of the position itself. That's what I'm saying and have been saying. Do you get it?
Its like debating a Christian and doing some magic trick bullshit and getting him to mistakenly admit he doesn't believe in God. Okay, cool. That has everything to do with the Christian, nothing to do with the validity of Christianity. Whether or not the anti-natalist's view of suicide is rational or not makes no difference, because IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE CORE ARGUMENT EITHER WAY, meaning its SECONDARY, meaning if you caught them, they could conserve the core argument by simply changing to the other stance on suicide. "Okay fine you got me, suicide is rational now, let's proceed." You make him look like a hypocrite, but it has nothing to do with the position itself. You've tricked yourself into thinking it has something to do with the position.
>Also, the excuses you gave as to why someone won't commit suicide do not undermine the idea that it's linked to a perception of value that logically coheres against their premise.
Again, this is a secondary argument that's beside the point. I'm not going to get into it, I don't give a shit about it. I don't agree with the premise that its all about "value", that's a framework you're tacitly trying to push, but let's say I did. That still proves nothing about the position, it just proves the anti-natalist secretly values life. Good job. His position can still be rationally correct even if he personally doesn't secretly believe in it. Return to the Christian example above.
>Yes, that's what the rest of the sentence you didn't greentext outlines.
My next greentext was the rest of it, chill.
>However, perception of life is relevant to Benatar's argument and is one more reason to be suspicious of someone promoting anti-natalist views.
Yeah, this is the whole thing right here. Reason to be suspicious of SOMEONE. Not reason to be suspicious of the POSITION. Just "someone promoting anti-natalist views". How do you talk around this the whole time then just Freudian slip it at the end of your last post?

>>21693755
>My point is that this is all a secondary concern.
Yes. It's a side point as alluded in the original post (>>21691822)
>that still has no effect on the validity of the position itself
It does when it comes to how suicide is generally framed within these threads. Usually anti-natalists will argue that suicide creates harm and therefore remaining alive doesn't contradict their ethos. However, this displays that the idea of non-existence as somehow no longer the supreme principle and is an admission that life has value in some real sense. It forces them to question the way they conceptualize non-existince beyond their a priori nonsense; it shows the logic doesn't hold in a singular way in real world scenarios (i.e. non-existence isn't always for the best).
>Do you get it?
Yes, and I've told you why it's relevant to the discussion and was never held it as the proof that anti-natalism is incorrect. It's an illustrative example.
>1) Anti-natalism contains a hidden premise that cannot be proven. (Main point)
>2) Anti-natalists argue a tautology instead of the premise that justifies their conclusion. (Criticism of their response and constant claim they can't be refuted)
>3) If the tautology is taken at face value you can justify suicide/murder. Some are fine with this or at least pretend to be while others will enact a telling series of mental gymnastics to justify their own train of logic. (ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE of how the tautology may be used; it's selected because it is specifically the most common criticism offered in these threads. If the anti-natalist admits they're ok with suicide/murder they can be ignored (they're still basing this on an unprovable premise); if they're not ok with it, it's an admission that life has value. The point is they don't get to monopolize the interpretation of the tautology and it's logically consistent that non-existence should always be better than existence if you do what they failed to do and weigh outcomes (i.e. they won't exist so harm doesn't exist for them, they prevent future harm in regard to who may have otherwise been born, etc). It mimics their style of argument and points out it's absurd. It's a side point.)
>4) Anti-natalists are prone to depression/Machiavellianism/psychopathy and the expected worldview attributable to such, as it relates directly to perception of life, calls into question lay followers judgement of Benatar's argument.
It isn't just a rhetorical trick that anti-natalists are using. The point is the hidden premise exists, it can't be proven, they're hiding behind a tautology, and the tautology can logically cohere to things which they may not wish to justify (unless they wish to display the depressive/machiavellian/psychopathic tendencies proven to be overrepresented in those whose ideation leads them to champion anti-natalism).

>>21691781
Unborn children couldn't give consent therefore giving birth to them is not wrong.

>>21691781
>father leaves before birth
>extent of pain: lifelong
Opinions discarded. What a drama queen

>>21691918
True, but I wonder why this specific argument riles them up so much.

And not a single book was recommended.

>>21691781
Having children is not bad. Let everyone be free to do it, if it is.

>>21692282
Yes, it seems that it is unjustifiable to have children. Having them for the sake of having them makes no sense. And having them for a reason is cruel.

>>21691822
>>21691829
>>21691842
>>21691854
>>21691968
>>21691992

Still copy-pasting the same stuff like a cretin?

>>21695494
>still seething others enjoy life

Why would any of you have kids?
Most people here seem to base their decision wholly on political matters, and normalfags base it wholly on hedonism or have kids literally by accident.
I'm not an antinatalist, but I don't see a point in having kids. I don't see a point in life at all.
Leaving aside the "maybe le bad things happen" side of things, what the fuck is it for? So I have something else to entertain myself with until I die? So my kids can consume the finest goyslop? So they become the next Ted Kaczynski because their dad was too much of a pussy to do it himself?

>>21694763
Antinatalist chads win once again.
>S-seethe!
Not a book, sorry

>>21691781
Hans Jonas makes compelling arguments that life is valuable in itself throughout his authorship.
As for countering anti-natalism, isn't it as easy as just rejecting basic bitch hedonistic utilitarianism? Doesn't the entire thing fall apart once you no longer consider suffering to be the maximally most evil thing that should be avoided at all costs?
It seems very easy to reject the idea. That there is a single sadfagging autist here who still insists it cannot be refuted is quite simply just a result of his autism. Clinical autism, not meme-autism. That is what compels him to make the same thread weekly for years on end. That is also what makes it impossible for him to understand the counterarguments he is presented with every time. Just clinical autism.

>>21696139
I'd have kids because I love my life and my children very likely would too.
Simple as.

>>21696175
>I love my life
It's strange how foreign a concept this is to me lel.
I guess this is "normalfag hedonism".
What is your secret to loving life, anon?

>>21696192
Acceptance and humility.

>>21696175
> I love my life and my children very likely would too

What if they're born with a disability?

>Antinatalism is based
>Trying to convince people antinatalism is based is cringe
It's like trying to convince a healthy man that he's sick. I'm all for humanity to end, but arguing for that is pointless

>>21696538
What if a 7 foot tall black man called Tyrone Jackson captures you and makes love to your butthole without consent the next time you leave your house tho?