David Benatar VS Jordan Peterson

[Anonymous No.10514759]

I think Benatar destroyed him. Anyone else have any thoughts?
https://iono.fm/e/516604

[Anonymous No.10514777]

i ain't clicking that shit nigga

[Anonymous No.10514785]

>>10514777
It's safe. I'm listening to it now.

[Anonymous No.10514790]

>>10514777
Here's the link from reddit then
https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/7p73c0/jordan_b_peterson_vs_david_benatar_up_now/

[Anonymous No.10515023]

>>10514759
Not a fan of Peterson but so far I'm finding his arguments much more compelling. A Nietzschean vs. a Schopenhauerian. I take the Nietzschean.

[Anonymous No.10515036]

>>10514759
I couldn't imagine a more autistic argument if I tried.

[Anonymous No.10515125]

>>10515023
The thing about the Nietzschean is that he has no arguments by design, it's just an aesthetic bias towards the status quo.
>we can show specifically what makes sentient life such a shitshow and pose the question whether continuing it is worth it
>MUH ERADICATION OF BEING AND CRYPTOTHEOLOGY

[Anonymous No.10515132]

>destroyed harris
>obliterated peterson

jesus christ i thought benatar wasn't a pro-mortist

[Anonymous No.10515139]

>>10515125
Isn't the aesthetic bias more compelling anyway? >muh dialectics.
Who cares

[Anonymous No.10515143]

all antinatalist arguments rest on ulilitarian ethics which makes it wrong by default.

[Anonymous No.10515147]

>>10515143
What's your beef with utilitarianism?

[Anonymous No.10515148]

thanks for the heads up opi

[Anonymous No.10515154]

>>10515143
all non-religious ethics rest on nothing desu, they're equally nonsensical

bye bye god is nihil reich

[Anonymous No.10515161]

>>10515147
its focus on happiness is baseless.

[Anonymous No.10515163]

>>10515143
Nope, you can argue it from a deontological perspective as well.
puu dot sh slash yXUdH/ce34367d31.pdf

[Anonymous No.10515177]

>>10515161
But what does have a base?

[Anonymous No.10515180]

>muh principles
>muh consent
philosophy was a mistake

[Anonymous No.10515181]

>>10515163
you can't just drop a 10 page article and call it a day. summarize the argument or point me to to the relevant section of the article.
>>10515177
why are you asking me?

[Anonymous No.10515188]

>>10515177
BEING

[Anonymous No.10515198]

>>10515154
Even religious ethics are baseless. Just because a very powerful being says "x is right and y is wrong" doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous No.10515203]

>>10515181
Read the abstract, retard.

[Anonymous No.10515215]

>>10515203
He only tells his position in the abstract now how he got to that position. I'm reading through the article now and it appears that he's resting what he says on his own intuitions about happiness and suffering, which isn't making a strong impression on me.

[Anonymous No.10515224]

>>10515188
What philosopher are you echoing?

[Anonymous No.10515242]

why do people make fun of nihilism but take antinatalism seriously
why not just kill yourself if you think your life is 99% suffering

[Anonymous No.10515244]

>>10515163
Yeah all he's saying in the article is that its plausible there are "prima facie duties" that give reason to be an antinatalist. He doesn't explain why he considers them plausible or why anyone else should consider them plausible.

[Anonymous No.10515248]

>>10515163
>>10514759
>antinatalism developing and flourishing among White South Africans, who are collectively shamed for colonialism and racism.
Coincidence? I think not.

These are just projections of their anxiety.

[Anonymous No.10515252]

>>10514759

>Some fag trying to justify himself never getting laid with ridiculous arguments about life being like a bad show at a movie theater and some fag trying to justify his 6 billion monthly patreon income with vague talk about chaos and cleaning up your room

I think the winner is everyone who chose not to participate.

[Anonymous No.10515255]

>>10514759
God I can't stand this "humanity was a mistake" nonsense.
If life is not worthwhile because there's suffering then do us a favor and kill yourself so we don't have to listen to your dismal drivel anymore Bena-faggot

[Anonymous No.10515257]

CRAWLING IN MY SKIN

[Anonymous No.10515260]

>>10515257

>death cult figurine visible

Gee, who would have guessed.

[Anonymous No.10515304]

>>10515242
baka senpai can you really say people shouldn't take antinatalism seriously when you clearly haven't yourself?

[Anonymous No.10515314]

>>10515242
I don't know anon, I was personally wondering why people like you post this same retarded "argument" every time this topic comes up.
Maybe if you take two seconds to get even the shallowest exposure to Benatar's position you would realize he makes a point of differentiating between not bringing new lives into being vs. terminating already existing lives.
And also maybe people in general don't actually "decide" to continue living or not in any sort of rational or conscious way. I'm pretty sure most people who do commit suicide aren't all like:
>Hmm, looks like I can safely conclude life is not worth living based on this impersonal logical argument written down here. I'll just position my shotgun like so and *BLAM*
You don't have the benefit of clearheaded rationality when it comes to tampering with deep-seated pre-rational survival instinct. That'd be like expecting because someone is a surgeon that they could calmly cut open their own torso and remove a tumor based on their rational knowledge that they'd be better off without it. You theoretically could cut yourself open like that, but you probably wouldn't, primarily because your instincts would keep you from even beginning to try.
People who do kill themselves are usually going to be severely fucked up mentally and emotionally to be able to override basic survival impulses like that.
Props to Slobodan Praljak desu because he offed himself while staying cold as ice, but again, he's the exception, not the rule. Same with that monk who set himself on fire and just calmly sat down to let himself get burned to death. How many people do you think could pull that off?

[Anonymous No.10515321]

>>10514759
Most people “destroy” Peterson. The guy is a fucking moron

[Anonymous No.10515329]

>>10515321
Correct.

[Anonymous No.10515334]

>>10515257
>>10515260
Are you actually retarded enough to think that's Benatar?

[Anonymous No.10515352]

David never explained how he gets from there being more suffering than pleasure in a typical life to the position that you shouldn't bring in another life.

[Anonymous No.10515358]

>>10515352
The conclusion should be pretty obvious if you're not a stone-cold asshole.

[Anonymous No.10515367]

>>10515358
I guess you can't explain it either. Seems like this whole antinatalist thing rest on just having the same intuitions you have without trying to justify those intuitions.

[Anonymous No.10515378]

>>10515352
It requires you to accept that life is only worthwhile if it contains more positive than negative, which it gives to justification for

[Anonymous No.10515380]

>>10515257
based Anekantavad

[Anonymous No.10515384]

>>10515378
Edit: which it gives NO justification for

[Anonymous No.10515397]

>>10515367
The thing about justification is that it always stops at unjustified basic beliefs or goes forever in a regress. Regress is problematic for obvious reasons and "You shouldn't cause unjustified suffering" (unjustified in the sense that humanity has no quest or purpose and all other things being equal there ought to be either nothing at all or more happiness than suffering, which isn't the case in the majority of lives) is such a canditate for ethical bedrock that I would have to think you're mentally handicapped if you deny it. What are you really after, a mathematical proof from axioms that are located in your ass?

[Anonymous No.10515398]

Philosophers aren't afraid of death nor life.

[Anonymous No.10515410]

>>10515147
found the britbong who is stuck in 1850 and who prays to numbers and money.

[Anonymous No.10515433]

>>10515352
>>10515378
Nah, it's not just about bad > good.
Do you feel bad about all the potential children you *haven't* had in the past decade? Have you deprived "them" of anything by not bring "them" into existence?
Not creating life is *not bad*. That's a key part of his argument. You can't feel bad without the prerequisite of existing.
You can on the other hand relieve suffering in a way that's good through euthanasia even though the person or animal you do this for will no longer exist after. We recognize this in the common practice of putting to sleep pets with cancer. The dog you put to sleep doesn't need to continue being alive for the end of his suffering to be a good thing. So the asymmetry extends beyond just weighting the bad as greater than the good and into the stance that there isn't anything harmful to a potential life when it comes to refraining from creating it and there is something good about eliminating harm even when the subject of that harm doesn't exist. Fundamentally, the harm and the good of these situations are not actually mirror image balancing forces like people imagine them because you need to exist in order to even have the capacity for feeling deprived of a good thing.

[Anonymous No.10515434]

>>10515397
From "You shouldn't cause unjustified suffering" it seems like you're making the mother responsible for all pleasure/pain in the babies life. How is the mother the cause of all that?

Also, why do you think that "causing" that suffering is only justified if the happiness in the life of the baby outweighs the good?

[Anonymous No.10515445]

Wow Peterson is actually extremely annoying in this thing. Why does he try to debate philosophy, he's fucking terrible. He keeps moving the goal posts, jumping to conclusions, misrepresenting the opponents arguments, misunderstanding, using rhetoric and even playing to his emotions. This is just terrible

[Anonymous No.10515461]

>>10515433
your euthanasia example as a way to justify the asymmetry is silly. in that example the suffering already exists and putting an end to that suffering is what people feel good about. in the case of not bringing into existence another life there is no suffering that you are putting an end to so they aren't the same sort of thing. I don't feel good or bad about not bringing into existence another life for that reason.

[Anonymous No.10515464]

HAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.10515474]

>>10514759
This guy should really fucking stick to archtype analysis of works of fiction: he's actually good at that.

[Anonymous No.10515483]

>>10515464
the internet has made it possible for people to be heard who shouldn't be heard beyond the confines of their small little worlds. it really needs a more tiered hierarchy.

[Anonymous No.10515495]

youtube link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsyZcKUP_-k

[Anonymous No.10515503]

>>10515147
If net benefit for humanity justifies action, then all of this board should kill themselves, myself included

[Anonymous No.10515521]

You could make a much more compelling case for eugenics than for that anti-natalist crap.

[Anonymous No.10515525]

>>10515461
>there is no suffering that you are putting an end to
You're preventing suffering.
By your argument here vaccines aren't a good thing because they prevent instead of treating an already present disease.

[Anonymous No.10515533]

Just listening to it, 25 minutes it and I think Jordan is winning this.

> Jordan: "Why is ignorance bad?"
> David: "Well, uh, because knowledge is something that's valuable. It's the flip side of it."

I don't know how David become a professor with this kind of logic.

[Anonymous No.10515537]

>>10515525
>You're preventing suffering.
Obviously. That was my point. That is different than putting an end to it.
>By your argument here vaccines aren't a good thing because they prevent instead of treating an already present disease.
No. This is another silly example because being born could lead to pleasure and pain whereas getting a disease is only bad.

[Anonymous No.10515547]

>>10515533
when making a decision, having more information is better than having less information because your scope of choices is larger, and so is your personal freedom. knowledge can permit greater freedom, since it lifts the restraints of ignorance.

i do not see how knowledge is the "flip side" of ignorance, just like "heat" isn't the flip side cold. cold is simply the absence of heat.

[Anonymous No.10515565]

>>10515547
I agree with you. I just thought that even just defining something by it's opposite is somewhat evasive and isn't truly answering the question. It just leads to the question: "then why is knowledge good?" It was a somewhat sophistic move on David's part.

[Anonymous No.10515574]

>>10515547
Why is freedom good?

[Anonymous No.10515584]

>>10515547
It could be argued that ignorant folks live a much better life than those who are not. If you are an ignorant individual, you can find happiness in everything, be it popular music, shit movies, tv shows, ridiculous hobbies and you have much more companionship as you are more likely to enounter someone with these crap tastes.

[Anonymous No.10515595]

>>10515537
>That is different than putting an end to it.
Different in that they're two distinct concepts sure. Different in that one counts as good and the other doesn't though I don't see as a reasonable stance.
>being born could lead to pleasure and pain whereas getting a disease is only bad.
That's not actually relevant to the analogy's point which was just to show why it isn't reasonable to claim prevention somehow doesn't count just because it's "different" from elimination. More specifically both the prevention and the elimination in that analogy involve disease, so you can't claim that makes the prevention scenario seem unfairly good since it's an apples to apples comparison with an elimination scenario that also involves disease.
Also not putting a dog to sleep could "lead to pleasure and pain," dogs with cancer can still have moments of enjoyment in spite of their condition. So again you have an apples to apples situation with the original prevention scenario vs. elimination scenario.

[Anonymous No.10515606]

>>10515574
empirical evidence seems to suggest that complex organisms dislike confinement. humans also seem to give off the impression that they do not enjoy slavery. it would seem that freedom is something that humans enjoy. there is no inherent reason or argument as to why its good or bad.

in that vein, being dead is also something the majority of animals and humans do not prefer, since is minimises freedom. apparently, life likes to have choices, and it uses those choices to propagate and adapt.

[Anonymous No.10515610]

>>10514759
As an antinatalist I have to say it dismays me that the chief exponent and most eminent figure in antinatalism couldn't argue his way out of a paper sack.

[Anonymous No.10515614]

>>10515584
ignorant folk do well until they are faced with hardship or a complicated situation. they will then depend on external help to manage the situation. like if your car breaks down in the desert. you're fucked if you can't repair it. as long as it doesn't break down, sure, ignorance can be bliss. or least not a burden.

[Anonymous No.10515616]

>>10515260
It's just a stuffed tiger bro.

[Anonymous No.10515618]

>>10515610
Did you read the book? Obviously not every point can be developed with their due care in an hour especially when a crypto-theologian brainlet is shouting on top of you.

[Anonymous No.10515626]

>>10515584
Yeah, that was another flaw in his argument too.

> Suffering is bad, pleasure is good
> Ignorance is bad, knowledge is good
> Being ignorant can be more pleasurable than being being knowledgeable

This to me says that ignorance can be good and knowledge can be bad.I feel like he really needs to define "good" and "bad" but 40 minutes in, he hasn't. Peterson is kind of making him look stupid, while not really even makes great points. David just seems like a miserable dude who doesn't like his life so doesn't think other people should have kids. lol

[Anonymous No.10515628]

>>10515595
>Different in that one counts as good and the other doesn't though I don't see as a reasonable stance.
I wasn't making that case. I was just saying that I feel good about one and don't feel good about the other. I'm not making the claim that you're making which is that we can jump from these intuitions we have to the claim that its actually good to those things. I was just saying I don't share your intuitions.
> the analogy's point which was just to show why it isn't reasonable to claim prevention somehow doesn't count just because it's "different" from elimination
That wasn't the claim I was making. See above.
>More specifically both the prevention and the elimination in that analogy involve disease, so you can't claim that makes the prevention scenario seem unfairly good since it's an apples to apples comparison with an elimination scenario that also involves disease.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
>Also not putting a dog to sleep could "lead to pleasure and pain," dogs with cancer can still have moments of enjoyment in spite of their condition. So again you have an apples to apples situation with the original prevention scenario vs. elimination scenario.
Don't understand this either.

[Anonymous No.10515631]

>>10515628
>good to those things
good to do those things*

[Anonymous No.10515636]

>>10515626
he shouldn't have went down the "good or bad" route. or better and worse. they both wouldn't even be arguing if either one thought ignorance was a good thing. peterson is using time constraint and complexity to bore down on his opponent, who is struggling to sift through the semantic trickery thrown at him.

[Anonymous No.10515637]

>>10515610
It's almost as though antinatalism is inherently ridiculous to the point of philosophical and imaginative stultification; but then what do I know? I'm one of those "pro-sentience" types.

[Anonymous No.10515638]

>>10515614
>ignorant folk do well until they are faced with hardship or a complicated situation.
It depends on how you define ignorant. A man can have a stable profession, raise kid well and be an igmorant of his condition as a man. I believe you can find examples of this everywhere.

they will then depend on external help to manage the situation. like if your car breaks down in the desert. you're fucked if you can't repair it.
Very few are capable of surviving under such an extreme condition. This is a bad example.

[Anonymous No.10515639]

>>10515023
If Peterson is a Nietzschean I'm fucking Rasputin reborn. Namedropping Nietzsche while completely ignoring a lot of his main points is not being a nietzschean at all.

[Anonymous No.10515650]

>>10515626
>David just seems like a miserable dude who doesn't like his life so doesn't think other people should have kids. lol
Exactly how I feel about all this "movement", even discussing it probably lowers one's IQ.

[Anonymous No.10515652]

>>10515618
the problem is Julio Cabrera an antinatalist already BTFO this argument and basically everyone else does who says "bad for whom"? There is a fundamental and intractable double-standard built into the asymmetry argument and even now Benetar seems to recognize this, he's reverted to bolstering it with an appeal to emotion. There is a simple fix as far as I can tell and that is looking at good and bad in relation to the presence of needs, wants and impulses. Since a need or want is a condition which is yet to be fulfilled we can categorize all the good things as the mere amelioration of a perpetual series of wants, needs and impulses. Why bring someone into existence so they can pretty much fight to satisfy the conditions that were already satisfied by their nonexistence?

[Anonymous No.10515662]

>>10515652
Antifrustrationism is just the asymmetry in a different set of clothes, the basic sentiment is the same.

[Anonymous No.10515668]

>>10515636
The whole argument is based on existence being worse than non-existence. He needs to explain why he thinks that, which leads to a discussion of good and bad. One could refute him there even though I find it to be the less interesting aspect of the argument. However, since they did go down that route for awhile we saw that David's own sense of good and bad is contradictory, so it makes me wonder why he is claiming existence is so bad, if bad is such a fuzzy thing to him. Nonetheless, I understand your point. In my opinion, both of these guys are highly sophistic and none really has a clear argument. They're asserting preferences ultimately.

> David: "Non-existence is preferable to existence, and here are some shaky reasons why *insert some shaky empirical data*. "
> Peterson: "Existence can be justifiable though, and here are some shaky reasons why *insert some shit about archetypes*."

I still haven't heard a very serious argument out of either of them, but I think Jordan is right to call David out on his definitions of good/bad and how one measures that without bias.

[Anonymous No.10515669]

>>10515652
>Why bring someone into existence so they can pretty much fight to satisfy the conditions that were already satisfied by their nonexistence?
How can you satisfy something by not existing?

[Anonymous No.10515679]

>>10515669
It's (vacuously) true that the non-existent have no unsatisfied preferences, ie. all their preferences are satisfied.

[Anonymous No.10515681]

>>10515628
>I feel good about one and don't feel good about the other
You haven't made an argument for why prevention should be considered less good than elimination.
>That wasn't the claim I was making.
That's exactly the claim you were making. You objected to prevention as somehow not the same as elimination. I provided an argument why there isn't a meaningful difference between the two as far as this topic goes. Saying you describe this alleged difference in terms of "you feel good" / "you don't feel good" doesn't change that.
>I don't understand what you're saying here.
You claimed the vaccine (prevention) vs. treatment (elimination) analogy was "silly" because disease is only bad while life can be both bad and good. I explained why that's irrelevant because the vaccine analogy was only an analogy for showing why it's not reasonable to treat prevention as different from elimination. That disease is only bad doesn't matter at all for that analogy and that can be seen by the fact both the prevention and the elimination in that example are about disease. It's a wash. Any added badness to the prevention example because it's about disease is equally added as badness to the elimination example because it's also about disease. There is no reason to object to this analogy for that specific reason.
>Don't understand this either.
You brought up how prevention of suffering by not creating new life would involve preventing both good and bad things. I pointed out that doesn't matter because euthanasia in fact would involve eliminating both good and bad things. It's similar to the last point. You're making objections to alleged differences between prevention and elimination which just aren't there.

[Anonymous No.10515693]

>>10515668
His concepts of good/bad are probably some subjective bullshit like a bad life is that which enables suffering, bad person is someone who inflicts suffering unto others. Completely ridiculous, in saner times, would be ridiculed in a comic play by Aristophanes and sent to a house for mad people.

[Anonymous No.10515703]

>>10515693
I agree 100%. I think even getting to the point where one is even considering anti-natalism as a viable position just shows lack of courage in a man. He should probably kill himself, he has nothing to offer the world except to bitch and tell everyone "hey, I'm pathetic and life sucks so either don't fuck, wear condoms/take birth control, and get abortions because I hate myself and hate you too."

[Anonymous No.10515747]

Last point I'll make, anti-natalism seems based in the idea that existence couldn't be improved to a point where it's better than worse for most people. I would contend and say theoretically life could be such that it would be better than worse, given the right conditions. But even then, would life be worth living without those aspects which we consider bad? Is pleasure island what David wants? Does he wish he was wealthier, taller, handsomer, etc. and everything was easy?

I don't know the answers. But I think the premise is wrong, and that even is life was good and always good it might be kind of boring.

Suffering is what makes a man. A man is what I'd like to be.

I'm 44 minutes into this thing and I'm quite bored with it now. Going to just close the tab.

[Anonymous No.10515751]

>>10515703
>I think even getting to the point where one is even considering anti-natalism as a viable position just shows lack of courage in a man.
But it equally shows a lack of ear for the spiritual world. Most men have natural tendencies toward one or the other; the rarest both. Antinatalism marks a massive failing on both fronts. A man both exoterically and esoterically waylaid by total haplessness.

I just feel bad for these guys, and I'm not exactly acing life right now either. But this is giving up on another level. Where's the fight in them?

[Anonymous No.10515754]

>>10515681
>You haven't made an argument for why prevention should be considered less good than elimination.
And I wasn't trying to nor do I need to. I wasn't saying that one of those things is actually good and not the other. I was just saying what my intuitions are about those two examples and explained an obvious difference between them. Pointing out the difference wasn't meant to support any claim that those things are actually good or bad, they were just meant to explain why I feel different about one and not the other. If I euthanasized my dog that was suffering I would feel good about him not suffering any more. I do not feel good about not having given birth to another person.
>Saying you describe this alleged difference in terms of "you feel good" / "you don't feel good" doesn't change that.
You have it wrong again. I wasn't trying to describe the difference between the two examples with those terms. I just just saying how I feel about those two different examples.
>the vaccine analogy was only an analogy for showing why it's not reasonable to treat prevention as different from elimination. That disease is only bad doesn't matter at all for that analogy and that can be seen by the fact both the prevention and the elimination in that example are about disease. It's a wash. Any added badness to the prevention example because it's about disease is equally added as badness to the elimination example because it's also about disease
Again you seem to be thinking that I pointed out the differences in order to justify that how I feel about certain behaviors makes those things actually good. I wasn't. In the case of vaccines I would feel good about getting one/giving one and I would feel good about treating a disease. Me saying that doesn't support what you're saying because I'm just saying how I feel about those things. You're trying to say that because I feel good about both of those things that there is no difference between prevention and elimination. I disagree because a difference existing between those things is not dependent on how I feel about them. Me feeling good about a case of prevention and a case of elimination does not mean that all cases of those two things would be good.

[Anonymous No.10515758]

>>10515669
same way you can satisfy a mathematical equation. Words mean different things in different contexts, who knew.

[Anonymous No.10515760]

>>10515703
Anti natalism boils down to wanting a species to go extinct. It's not actually a philosophical position or anything. Just a desire to rid earth of humans because that is the effect of it. Now we can argue about the possible merits of that on a more sane and clear basis. I'll do that: it's meaningless. There is nothing special it unique about humans that warrants their destruction. The universe at large seems to do just fine with us.

[Anonymous No.10515775]

>>10515445
He has been doing this since the very beginning, what's happening here is that you now disagree with him. You should suspect any academic that breaks down in tears in the middle of a lecture, he's either a con man or not stable enough to deliver classes. And I'm saying this as someone who had a teacher start tearing up while reading a passage of a text who constantly makes me do the same.

[Anonymous No.10515789]

antinatalists were always the boring guys at the party who watched the funny guys and secretly hated them for it

this is a fact

[Anonymous No.10515798]

>>10515637
Yeah you are. I think antinatalism is one of the easiest things to argue. Both Benetar and Peterson are just bad rhetoricians.

[Anonymous No.10515804]

>>10515798
Don't leave us hanging then. Make the strongest case you can for it if its so easy.

[Anonymous No.10515809]

>>10515329
What do you think he means there?

[Anonymous No.10515817]

>>10515751
I agree entirely.
>>10515760
Yeah, it seems like he's asserting an aesthetic preference, which I don't mind but it's just the preference of a pussified, low-test man. My aesthetic opinion is that the world would be better without people like him.

[Anonymous No.10515827]

>>10515574
Obviously because not having freedom is bad.

[Anonymous No.10515850]

>>10515606
>People like being free to do things, so people should be free to do the things they like.
This is begging the question.

[Anonymous No.10515854]

>>10515850
I like being free to murder and rape, so I should be free to do so. Now back off you fucking nazi.

[Anonymous No.10515856]

>>10515143
>all antinatalist arguments rest on the only logically rigorous school of ethics

I sure hope so.

[Anonymous No.10515859]

>>10515177

[Anonymous No.10515861]

>>10515856
do your best shot at making a case of it because no one else itt has even tried to do the impossible.

[Anonymous No.10515864]

>>10515854
Laws maximise freedom when humans live closely together.

[Anonymous No.10515873]

>>10515321
I think he has good intentions, but he tends to get overexcited and as a consequence he misses on a lot of nuance in opposing viewpoints.

[Anonymous No.10515875]

>>10515662
yes a set of clothes that actually articulates the argument.

[Anonymous No.10515878]

>>10515864
They maximize human freedom in the sense that people are free to attend to their duties; they do not maximize freedom in the sense of "I can do whatever I like".

[Anonymous No.10515891]

>>10515873
Have you seen the video where he cries while reading some ode to the individual?
Beyond sad, the guys is making 50k with a bunch of fools

[Anonymous No.10515903]

>>10515242
>>10515248
>>10515252
>>10515255
>>10515257
>>10515521
>>10515626
>>10515637
>>10515703
>>10515747
>>10515751
>>10515789
>>10515817
>"Finally, the optimist’s impatience with or condemnation of pessimism often has a smug macho tone to it (although males have no monopoly of it). There is a scorn for the perceived weakness of the pessimist who should instead ‘grin and bear it’. This view is defective for the same reason that macho views about other kinds of suffering are defective. It is an indifference to or inappropriate denial of suffering, whether one’s own or that of others. The injunction to ‘look on the bright side’ should be greeted with a large dose of both scepticism and cynicism. To insist that the bright side is always the right side is to put ideology before the evidence. Every cloud, to change metaphors, may have a silver lining, but it may very often be the cloud rather than the lining on which one should focus if one is to avoid being drenched by self-deception. Cheery optimists have a much less realistic view of themselves than do those who are depressed.”

[Anonymous No.10515920]

>>10515242
Maybe because I'm in no hurry to see the sequel.

[Anonymous No.10515923]

>>10515903
This sounds like some faggot shit, desu. "Oh no, he's being a man and being strong. How dare he. He must be delusional and I'm smart and right about everything."

[Anonymous No.10515924]

>>10515903
What a load of shit, lol. A depressed person's view of self is just as loaded with spooks as an average optimist. Pure pessimists just seem to be filled with exponentially more psued crybabies.

[Anonymous No.10515925]

>prevent suffering = good
>prevent happiness = neutral

do anti-natalists REALLY believe this?

[Anonymous No.10515940]

>>10515804
When most of the people arguing against antinatalism are using Tu Quoque, I really don't think its worth it.

[Anonymous No.10515943]

>>10515903
Everybody is submitted to suffering throughout his life and yet most people chose to remain alive despite of the knowledge that they will experience even more suffering. With that in mynd, it is fair to say that it is worth living despite of the suffering. Anti-natalism is ridiculous, it is a suicidal idea from someone who lacks courage to do it.

[Anonymous No.10515960]

>>10515789
It might be a fact, however its not an argument my dear chap.

[Anonymous No.10515967]

>>10515940
nice excuse for getting out of making the argument

[Anonymous No.10515969]

>>10515334
In all fairness for someone whose never seen Antekantevad that's entirely reasonable.

[Anonymous No.10515974]

>>10515923
It has something to it. For example this faggot's post >>10515747 climaxes into something as if ripped from a self help book for redditors.

[Anonymous No.10515986]

>>10515940
Tu quoque arguments aren't logical refutations. The point is to show the hypocrisy of your interlocutor. Calling it a logical error is to assumer to point was designed as a logical refutation in the first place, which tu quoque usually never is. It's just our way of mocking faggot anti-natalists who don't kill themselves but preach all day about how life sucks.

[Anonymous No.10515987]

>>10515925
>>prevent suffering = good
>>prevent happiness = neutral
You need to check how many points each one gets.
Prevent suffering 100 points - our greater goal
Convincing people to have less children 1 point
Convincing woman to abort 5 points - 20 points if the woman dies in the process
Prevent happiness - 0 points because it will eventually lead to suffering.
Buy books on anti-natalism and help with the advance of the cause - from 10 points to 30 points depwnding on your commitment to it.

It is on the book you should read

[Anonymous No.10515991]

>>10515903
Brainlets got bodied by this anon, desu.

[Anonymous No.10515993]

>>10515974
All he said is that we could improve life and that suffering is potentially a good thing that makes life a bit more interesting sometimes. Doesn't seem off to me.

[Anonymous No.10515999]

>>10515943
it isn't all that easy to override one's biology with a bit of abstract thought

[Anonymous No.10516002]

>>10515903
>>10515974
>>10515991

samefag

[Anonymous No.10516005]

>>10515967
no the excuse is that I'm lazy. But really, if "omg like kill yourself" passes for an argument then I already have an idea how this will play out. I'm not one of those preachy antiatalists who goes around griefing "breeders" and what not. My chief concern is not getting my hands dirty. If everyone wants to keep doing this crazy bullshit for millennium after millennium then they can go right ahead.

[Anonymous No.10516021]

>>10515986
No the point is they have no point. The problem with using Tu Quoque on me is I'm openly hypocritical anyway. In fact I think its more or less impossible to proceed from a set of abstract ethical premises entirely to the letter and in good faith.

[Anonymous No.10516028]

>>10516002

[Anonymous No.10516032]

>>10516005
only two posts in this entire thread used that dumb kill yourself "argument". no one is convinced by your "I have the best arguments but I'm too lazy to share them" game you're playing btw

[Anonymous No.10516036]

>all these people who think suffering is bad

[Anonymous No.10516040]

>If pain outweighs pleasure, life is not worth living
Is this genuinely their argument?

[Anonymous No.10516046]

>>10516005
>If everyone wants to keep doing this crazy bullshit for millennium after millennium then they can go right ahead.
The only BS is your existence

[Anonymous No.10516054]

>>10515987
what am I reading here? did voluntary celibates really devise a point system to quantify suffering? how many points do you get for offing yourself?

[Anonymous No.10516074]

>>10515999
that speaks volumes to the weaknesses of this particular set of abstract thought

abstract mythological thought can give people near suicidal levels of courage, whereas this pathetic antinatalism crap can't override anything

[Anonymous No.10516077]

>"better to not have been"
>doesnt kill himself

ahaha the hypocrite

[Anonymous No.10516078]

>>10516046
Yes mine and all the others.

[Anonymous No.10516084]

>>10516077
ah hadn't thought of that one.

[Anonymous No.10516090]

>>10516074
this

[Anonymous No.10516091]

>>10516084
And you still cannot give a response to that other than "oh, how original"

[Anonymous No.10516105]

>>10516091
What are you talking about? I just entered the thread.

[Anonymous No.10516116]

>People would not choose to have the greatest pleasure possible at the price of having the worst pain possible, and that demonstrates that pain is worse than pleasure
>Virtually everyone everyday decides to continue living and this shows us that, um, uhhh, well that doesn't count because people are dumb ;)

The anti-natalist of Benatar's variety necessarily has to trot out some false-consciousness bullshit to explain why everyone hasn't killed themselves.

[Anonymous No.10516117]

>>10515242
Why should people take an illiterate faggot who can't even read some pages of Benatar like you seriously?

[Anonymous No.10516118]

>>10515198
It does when an allpowerful being does

[Anonymous No.10516124]

>>10515987
>Prevent suffering 100 points - our greater goal
why is that the greatest goal? what is the "suffering" that is so bad to anti-natalists that it's worth it to discontinue life itself, even if it means preventing all future happiness?

>Prevent happiness - 0 points because it will eventually lead to suffering
even if we got everybody on the same page to stop existing, nature would create life again possibly an infinite number of times, we don't have any control over that

>suffering
can I get a real, hard definition of what people mean when they say this? isn't all suffering bio-chemical the same way pleasure and happiness is? why place all this emphasis on something so arbitrary

[Anonymous No.10516129]

>>10515903
normies btfo

>>10515924
>what is depressive realism

[Anonymous No.10516133]

>>10516118
An all-powerful being can bridge the is-ought gap?

[Anonymous No.10516136]

>>10516116
>>People would not choose to have the greatest pleasure possible at the price of having the worst pain possible, and that demonstrates that pain is worse than pleasure
Who wouldn't? Jesus.

[Anonymous No.10516140]

>>10516036
most suffering in this world is about as useful as self mutilation

[Anonymous No.10516145]

>>10516105
Well, give a response, if suffering is so unbearable why don't you do it?

[Anonymous No.10516146]

>>10516116
TU QUOQUE

Q
U
O
Q
U
E

[Anonymous No.10516147]

>>10516133
Of course. God isn't bound by logic, otherwise he wouldn't be all-powerful if he were submitted to the rules he created himself.

[Anonymous No.10516161]

>>10516145
What? I never said life is unbearable

[Anonymous No.10516163]

>>10516116
samthony squanchtano here
the world's busiest antinatalist nerd

[Anonymous No.10516166]

>>10516146
>attacking inconsistent logic is merely accusing someone of hypocrisy

kek

[Anonymous No.10516171]

>>10516161
Let's have a beer and stop with these anti-natalism thoughts then, buddy

[Anonymous No.10516173]

>>10516163
>squanch

[Anonymous No.10516188]

>>10516140
an unsubstantiated claim

[Anonymous No.10516190]

>>10516171
I'm pretty sure you got the wrong guy. I didn't even know about this "philosophy" until I listened to these two retards.

[Anonymous No.10516199]

>>10514790
>antinatalism
how is this meme even still alive?

[Anonymous No.10516201]

>>10516188
>what doesn't kill you makes you stronger xdd

[Anonymous No.10516207]

>>10515903
Not even an antinatalist but nice. This upsets the computermale teleological slavehordes...

[Anonymous No.10516210]

>>10516166
>wah why haven't you killed yourself yet, you're harshing my fee fees with your negativity

Very logically rigorous stuff anon

[Anonymous No.10516221]

>>10516133
If there is a God then creatures can be created which have a legitimate telos, or end, so yes the "ought" issue is resolved.

[Anonymous No.10516228]

>>10516210
strawman

[Anonymous No.10516230]

>>10516190
Yeah, never mind then, fellow

[Anonymous No.10516233]

Does Benatar actually exist? Can't find any public lectures/interviews or photographs of him that aren't actually and inexplicably Peter Singer

[Anonymous No.10516237]

>>10516129
>what is depressive '''realism'''
shit

[Anonymous No.10516240]

>>10516228
Oh, so you do know what a logical fallacy is then ;^)

[Anonymous No.10516248]

>>10516221
>if something was created for a particular purpose by powerful being, then the thing should serve that purpose

nope, still have the is-ought gap there

>b-but it's a fact that it has that purpose!

exactly

[Anonymous No.10516260]

>>10516248
The telos *is* the ought. The fact that the creature "ought to do X" is part of the creature's being.

[Anonymous No.10516268]

>>10516166
Antinatalism already had its sacrificial lamb. Mainlander did exactly what you're suggesting at the soonest possible moment after publishing his manuscript. So I guess that mere act constitutes the argument to end all arguments. I'll put you down under "antinatalism" then? I mean your singular argument is in tatters now.

[Anonymous No.10516269]

>>10514759
>antinatalism
So is the University of Capetown like the South African equivalent of Evergreen State? Of all the possible issues you could deal with as a professional, from fluid dynamics to metaphysics, this slobbering retard chooses antinatalism. Boggles the mind. Not defending Peterson at all but seriously wtf

[Anonymous No.10516271]

>>10516233
yea well according to him it doesn't make sense to exist so why would he?

[Anonymous No.10516276]

>>10516260
that's about as convenient as most arguments of a theological bent.

[Anonymous No.10516283]

>>10516140
What evidence do you have for this? Suffering is the only thing that effects change.

[Anonymous No.10516286]

>>10516268
Mainlander had a mental breakdown.

[Anonymous No.10516291]

>>10516271
His existance has the potential to end many lives, thus creating greater good.

[Anonymous No.10516295]

>>10516276
There's no reason that the answer has to be complex and difficult. Perhaps you find the problem so difficult because you ignore the obvious and grasp around looking for another way that isn't there.

[Anonymous No.10516297]

>>10516291
>ruining the joke

[Anonymous No.10516303]

>>10515775
What passage

[Anonymous No.10516306]

>>10516286
why, because he committed suicide? This is a nice circular reasoning racket you got going here normies.

[Anonymous No.10516310]

Hilarious how almost all anti-natalists are part of the most priviledged class of people in existence. Makes me sick to my stomach to see white libs say shit like this when it's obvious that the most they've ever suffered in life is being left out of Emma's engagement party or having to walk across the airport parking lot in 10 celcius weather.

[Anonymous No.10516311]

>>10516201
If youre not a bitch then yes.

[Anonymous No.10516314]

>>10516295
>There's no reason that the answer has to be complex and difficult.

That's exactly what I say as an antinatalist.

[Anonymous No.10516318]

>>10516306
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Mainl%C3%A4nder

>From February of that year on, Mainländer's mental collapse – which has been compared to the collapse Nietzsche would suffer years later[9] – became apparent. Eventually, descending into megalomania and believing himself to be a messiah of social democracy,[8]:124 on the night on April 1, 1876, Mainländer hanged himself in his residence in Offenbach, using a pile of copies of The Philosophy of Redemption (which had arrived the previous day from his publisher) as a platform.

[Anonymous No.10516321]

>>10516311
well then you should try out bleach eye drops and the high-stakes game of pedestrian chicken.

[Anonymous No.10516333]

>>10516321
If you survived those you would in fact be stronger. Would you want to fuck with someone who intentionally poured bleach in their eyes? But really, you're missing the point of the saying, stronger means wiser not physically stronger.

[Anonymous No.10516335]

>>10514759
How can a non-brainlet actually argue for a position that logically ends in no more human beings existing? Is this really a thinly veiled environmentalist thing?

[Anonymous No.10516340]

>>10516318
Yeah I know what it says and I seriously question the motives of the people relating it. Is there a single suicide in history that has been regarded as the result of a rational rejection of one's life?

[Anonymous No.10516342]

>>10515775
>You should suspect any academic that breaks down in tears in the middle of a lecture, he's either a con man or not stable enough to deliver classes. And I'm saying this as someone who had a teacher start tearing up while reading a passage of a text who constantly makes me do the same.
Are you talking about the video of him reading a new year's resolution about the individual?

Tell us about this teatcher, what was the passage?
I see nothing wrong if it is a terrific poem though I'd never do that.

[Anonymous No.10516343]

>>10516321
that saying is understood to refer to things that happen to you. doing things to yourself is not relevant

[Anonymous No.10516350]

>>10516310
You’re confusing muh climate change childfree XD antinatalism with this kind I think. Only autists and outcasts are into this.

[Anonymous No.10516359]

>>10516333
I think you're missing the point. Even Nietzsche was being sardonic when he said it.

"Out of life's school of war: What does not destroy me makes me stronger"

[Anonymous No.10516381]

>>10516343
according to people in this thread they could kill themselves on a mere whim and continue to perpetually subject themselves to the woes of life in order to undergo this very vitalizing process.

[Anonymous No.10516384]

>>10516359
Not that guy, but I don't think he was being as sardonic as you think. He believed suffering was necessary for greatness. He actually wishes suffering upon his readers (I don't recall where).

[Anonymous No.10516385]

>>10515314
You literally cannot refute this. Those with "kill yourself" argument BTFO.

Since someone mentioned Mainländer: He introduced the concept of "will to die", on the premise of a suicidal God. It went like this: God couldn't bear his existence anymore and wanted to kill himself but was unable to do so without creating the universe as we know it. So he did it, the universe was born, we and the world we are living in is God's decaying body, which represents his will to die. He argued that in humans the will to die is not only overwhelmed by the will to live, but buried deep down in the abyss of the unconscious. Yes, you want to kill yourself, you just haven't realized it yet, or become W O K E like Mainländer who hanged himself with copies of his own work - Philosophy of Redemption as a platform. He really meant it, he was serious and adhered to his words.

[Anonymous No.10516390]

>>10516190
>I didn't even know about this "philosophy" until I listened to these two retards.

not familiar with the wisdom of silenus? schopenhauer? this board is a fucking sewer

[Anonymous No.10516409]

>>10516385
No the point is anon, its coercive. I mean the guy died for his beliefs. When people do that, you have to accept their position, otherwise what point would there be in that person committing suicide?

[Anonymous No.10516421]

>>10515314
Your argument might prove to have any merit if people didnt kill themselves all the time. People come to the conclusion that life isnt worth living and hurts too much all the time.

Also >implying a surgeon wont perform surgery on himself given no other option

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32481442

[Anonymous No.10516443]

>>10515242
Because of survival instict, fear of nothingness, fear of predeath pain and because why am I the one who has to fix my parents' mistake? They get the easier part, they get to enjoy and I have to do the hardest thing in the world. Plus I can fail and end up not being able even to finish myself for decades (this is to blame on euthanasia not being legalised in my country).
You can say "if you are antinatalist why not kill yourself already" only if euthanasia is legal. Even then not sure if it legit to say it.

[Anonymous No.10516450]

How many Christians in this thread are willfully divesting themselves of riches and fully dedicating themselves to the Lordship of Jesus Christ? How about I just say that Christianity is devoid of merit because a vast majority of Christians aren't even close to as pious as this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xToBFczRFrQ

[Anonymous No.10516458]

>>10515314
why is enabling hypothetical suffering of an unborn person worse than denying pleasure of the same unborn soul? Why is suffering undesirable? Why do you think you can generalize your own life experience to others? So many questions so few edgelords to answer.

[Anonymous No.10516466]

>>10516458
>denying
>soul

there you go again

[Anonymous No.10516473]

>>10516443
>fear of nothingness
Kill yourself you goddamn retard. This is Disney tier, fairtale level delusion. Muh nothingness, I can't believe this shit. The absolute state of physicalists who think God is imaginary but just substitute their own magic sphaghetti monster in the form of "nothingness".

[Anonymous No.10516485]

>>10514759
Peterson actually got him in this one.
Benatar admitted that he didn't have the "epistemic confidence" to kill the sleeping person because he he has an interest in continuing to live
Peterson rightly countered that he couldn't then have the "epistemic confidence" to be an anti-natalist
If people default to have an interest to not exist, and Benatar openly admits this, then not bringing new life into existence actually denies the potentiality of the interest itself

[Anonymous No.10516495]

>>10516485
default to have an interest to* exist

[Anonymous No.10516509]

>>10516295
>There's no reason that the answer has to be complex and difficult.

You've never actually tried to solve a philosophical problem, have you?

[Anonymous No.10516531]

Anti-natalists can only be defeated through bullying

[Anonymous No.10516550]

>>10516359
There's nothing in the context of the quote which makes it appear sarcastic. It's listed alongside several other aphorisms.

The interpretation of it as sarcasm is from ultra-losers who instinctively associate war, military, and strength with negativity. Basically subhumans.

[Anonymous No.10516556]

>>10516473
>>10516550
pol has ruined this board

[Anonymous No.10516594]

>>10516550
we can surmise if he meant it as an unambiguous endorsement of the attitude, he would plainly say it himself rather than attributing it to some source. .

[Anonymous No.10516625]

>>10515533
>I don't know how David become a professor with this kind of logic.

I don't know how you come to /lit/ with this kind of english.

[Anonymous No.10516655]

>>10516485
the thing is the truth of an argument also has nothing to do with who is convinced of it.

[Anonymous No.10516684]

>>10516556
I'm being honest here. This has nothing to do with politics, it's simple metaphysics 101. Try externalizing the concept of nothingness, hint:it's not nothing. There is no such thing as no thing. No thing is still a thing. Athiests conceptualize it qualitatively as a black empty void which is somehow the default state of (non)existence for some unknown reason.

There is no better way to signal to everybody that you're in the 100-120 IQ midwit bracket.

[Anonymous No.10516748]

>>10516684
Are you saying the possibility of an eternal soul makes the generation of new sentience somehow less perilous?

[Anonymous No.10516867]

>>10515987
this post is satire, right? I can never be sure with the hordes of reddit utilitarians running around and spewing retarded shit like this unironically

[Anonymous No.10516886]

>>10515224
some nah-tsee

[Anonymous No.10516943]

>>10515464
I was mostly with him until the last sentence..

[Anonymous No.10516947]

>>10516485
It's not about ending existing lives. it's about not grabbing a soul out of non existence and it going through life that is mostly desire, boredom and misery.

people that kill themselves tend not to sit down with their notepad and outline the emptiness of life. you cash out when your back is against the wall and you can't see yourself going on. there's an extreme EXTREME amount of mental suffering that makes it override the physical suffering in killing yourself. there's isn't a button you push, and poof you're gone. no matter what method you choose to off yourself, you have to destruct the body and the body is the physical manifestation of your survival instinct.

[Anonymous No.10516978]

>>10516473
I don't even think God is imaginary. But I fear he might be. Plus, if I kill myself I will certainly not be awarded if he exists.
I hate Harris for example, but fuck the pain is unbearable, I have hard time believeing Jordan and not following Benatar because of that.

[Anonymous No.10517068]

>>10515925
existing = risking (between good and bad). Risking is bad, maybe not categorically bad, but it's more bad that not risking.
non-existing = not risking. Not risking is not good, but it's not bad either. It's neutral.

Risking is gambling. Is gambling a good thing? Yes - if you win. No - if you lose. When you say for some person "he is a gambler", can someone say "wow, good for him, I admire him"? No. If you say for someone that he is non-gambler, it's not like saying "he's a university professor" (which is a good thing - to be admired, but it's neutral). You are just saying that he's not bad. You are basically not saying anything about him (=not existing at all). And if the gambler and loses his house he's ultra bad. If he wins he's ultra good (because he will be rich and respected because of the fortune).
Therefore non-existence if neutral.
Gamblers fuck up more than they secure themselves a good life (at least in financial welfare aspect). It's same with parents. It's even worse actually, gamblers who lose fuck up themselves (and sometimes their children), and parents who lose ALWAYS fuck up their children (plus it can be only that the children bear the consequences, and the parents get away somehow - why the fuck should someone else bear the consequences of the person responsible).

[Anonymous No.10517174]

>>10514759
The antinatalist is an individualist; bringing in existence is treated as if that existence would be alone, rather than an endless push towards something, or even a plurality of things. I can't like him.

[Anonymous No.10517229]

>>10515242
honestly, i've kind of started to enjoy suffering

[Anonymous No.10517307]

antinatalism is good because antinatalists don't reproduce

[Anonymous No.10517965]

This thread has proved Foucault right

[Anonymous No.10517977]

>>10516237
it's proven to be correct bucko

normies are literally too blinded by optimism to make correct predictions.

[Anonymous No.10518295]

this thread shows perfectly what happens when atheism is the norm

[Anonymous No.10518709]

>>10515198
>Very powerful
Only it is of superlative power, omnipotent.

[Anonymous No.10518718]

>>10514759
Benetar's book rested on the thesis.
>You're just too dumb to know absolutely horrendous life actually is

[Anonymous No.10518740]

>>10518718
Which turns up to be true if you read the relevant psychological literature.

[Anonymous No.10518800]

>>10517977
You can't 'prove correct' that life is objectively depressing. External action and internal reaction are not synonymous. It's a bunch of fucking spooks. In fact this thread is pretty good evidence that hard pessimist are mostly resentful crybabies towards 'normies' and the inferior of mind.

[Anonymous No.10518825]

>>10518800
That's not what depressive realism is, silly. It means that people who are depressed make more accurate predictions/observations about objective reality.

Non-depressed people suffer from more cognitive biases than depressed people. Depressed people rate their own performance more accurately, for example.

[Anonymous No.10518829]

all optimistic people delude themselves and are full of self deception and illusions

[Anonymous No.10518898]

>>10518825
Then I don't see how that follows from the original two comments. Depressive feelings making external outcomes more predictable doesn't make life itself depressing. 'Spooks' in the first reply was meant as the value/emotional attachments to the nature of the self, not degree of capability in reality. My disagreement with >>10515903 wasn't that pessimist don't evaluate themselves better, but the implication that realism towards the self must necessarily be depressive.

[Anonymous No.10518934]

>>10514759
Oh please, anti-natalism is a non-starter.

[Anonymous No.10518936]

>>10514759
Well that was kind of a waste of time. It basically came down to:
>There is more bad in life than good so people shouldnt be put into that situation.
>No, there are ways you can live so that you have more good than bad.
>No way thats impossible.
Or he would say:
>But thats only fine for the people who are already alive
Wtf?

[Anonymous No.10518950]

Also i guess ill say that i was pleased that peterson only brought up archetypes once and that was only to say that he liked them.

[Anonymous No.10518959]

>>10518829
True of pessimists as well.

[Anonymous No.10518972]

>>10518959
pessimists are the realists, dhimwit
your logic fails

[Anonymous No.10518986]

anti-natalism to me seems like a philosophy that's fueled primarily by depression, similar to nihilism. Therefore it's essentially impossible to argue against it, since the proponents don't see a point in anything. The real answer to "there's no point in anything" is that we don't fucking know if there is, so you can't say there isn't.

[Anonymous No.10518988]

>>10516421
>people kill themselves all the time
Wrong. The highest national suicide rate is still only 0.03% (Sri Lanka).

[Anonymous No.10519050]

>>10518972
Lol, stay self-delusioned pet.

[Anonymous No.10519135]

>>10518986
How old are you?

[Anonymous No.10519441]

>people making all these dumbass arguments again and again
David Memetar literally argues against most of the points that continually get brought up in like the first 10 pages of his book. Read a book, homo's.

[Anonymous No.10519710]

>>10518718
yes but unironically

[Anonymous No.10519712]

>>10517965
what did that faggot frog have to say on all this?

[Anonymous No.10519717]

>>10516450
Good post fren

[Anonymous No.10519735]

In a world where people were killed by scaphism and this thing I don't even know why humanity thinks it deserves to continue. The greatest threat to humans is the absolute depravity of other human beings.

[Anonymous No.10519761]

>>10519712
That humans are fucking retarded animals

[Anonymous No.10519787]

>>10516340

Japanese seppuku rituals are as rationally made choices as suicides get.
>Ya fucked up
>I'll gut myself boss

If the best your '''messiah''' can offer is a depressive episode offing straight outta r9k you got some catching up to do.

[Anonymous No.10519807]

>>10515903

>If I preemptively admit I am a faggot, then it wont matter that people will call me a faggot when I'm being a faggot.

Jesus. I was just memeing at first, but this passage convinced me he is bona fide Peter Singer tier.

>It is an indifference to or inappropriate denial of suffering,

The use of the word inappropriate: completely unfounded, highly revealing.

>The injunction to ‘look on the bright side’ should be greeted with a large dose of both scepticism and cynicism.

The injunction to be a little crying faggot should be greeted with a large dose of contempt and ridicule.

>Every cloud, to change metaphors, may have a silver lining, but it may very often be the cloud rather than the lining on which one should focus if one is to avoid being drenched by self-deception. Cheery optimists have a much less realistic view of themselves than do those who are depressed.”

>Benatar argues from the uncontroversial premise that pain is, in itself, a bad thing.

Apparently not as bad as being "irrational". Fuck, anglo-philosophy is so fucking terrible, holy shit.

[Anonymous No.10519821]

>tfw antinatalism is completely pointless since the people who either already are or will be convinced by it weren't going to find a woman who would want to reproduce with them anyway

Women have been perfected through thousands of years of evolution to sniff out weakness and reject it. Wearing it on your sleeve doesn't make a difference.

[Anonymous No.10519826]

>>10519735
People are pretty bad, but honestly I think you'd need about a trillion times more atrocities before we could even approach being as great an evil as disease in general accounts for.
Those of you who haven't had a serious chronic illness yet probably imagine living with one is just some mild inconvenience that you treat with some magic pill the doctor gives you. The reality is more like we have hardly anyway of managing these conditions and medical treatments range from "safe but barely changes anything at all" to "shut down your fucking immune system and give yourself lymphoma." So the afflicted are welcome into this new reality and learn to slowly fall apart in the spare time away from work until eventually if they're lucky some family of theirs gives them the dignity of getting to stay at home and die in their own bedroom.
And of course if you're super-healthy and make it all the way to old age problem free then you're almost guaranteed some sort of end life horrible illness like cancer or heart disease. If you're lucky your heart stops while you're asleep and you never deal with any trouble the whole way through from birth to death, though even this is making an assumption that dying in your sleep is something you won't notice, and I'm not sure that's true. Might be more like when you suddenly realize you're dreaming on a hotter than expected night and you're torn between wanting very badly to wake up so you can take off the blanket vs. being paralyzed and unable to move or scream.

[Anonymous No.10519833]

>>10519735

>thinks it deserves to continue

This thread is a really good case study of slave morality.

[Anonymous No.10519838]

>>10519821
>Women have been perfected through thousands of years of evolution to sniff out weakness and reject it.
If that were true all those people alive today matching the behavioral criteria you're claiming is getting filtered out by sexual selection filters would be alive today.

[Anonymous No.10519841]

>>10519821
>>10519821
*wouldn't be alive today.

[Anonymous No.10519845]

>>10519826
disease doesn't have a motive. Disease doesn't have the rational faculties to say "no I'm not going to torment someone" but humans however do.

[Anonymous No.10519850]

>>10519821
orly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNKRnFQRooI

[Anonymous No.10519864]

>>10519845
>disease doesn't have a motive.
I don't see how that makes disease less bad than people. Does it really matter whether or not the source of something horrible happening to you was inflicted with motive or not?
>humans however do
Not really. Brain activity is properly modeled by ordinary Newtonian physics, you can't even use shit quantum flapdoodle mysticism to try to invoke "free will." Our actions just have more convoluted physical causes than other events in the world might.

[Anonymous No.10519877]

>>10516947

Survival instinct means life good.

[Anonymous No.10519890]

>>10519864
>materialism

[Anonymous No.10519907]

>>10519838

That presupposes that antinatalism is genetic, which is ridiculous. Behavior isn't fully defined by genes. Becoming an antinatalist may have something to do with being a dud, but more often than not it will stem from a lifetime of failures, bad decisions, and being a whiny bitch.

Case in point, this thread.

[Anonymous No.10519913]

>>10516947

>it's about not grabbing a soul out of non existence

Time is le flat circle, lmao.

[Anonymous No.10519941]

>>10519907
You're the one who presupposed it was genetic by claiming it was a behavior being filtered out by sexual selection, you just don't realize it.
If it isn't genetic then there would be no incentive for women to filter based on that non-genetic behavior. It wouldn't change the outcome of their offspring either way *unless* it were genetic.

[Anonymous No.10519994]

>>10516335
how can a non-brainlet not be able to fully understand and inhabit every philosophical position.

[Anonymous No.10520078]

>>10514759
if you experience more suffering than pleasure and you live in a western nation in the 21st century you have only yourself to blame. you're just bad at life.

[Anonymous No.10520097]

>>10520078
>Diseases don't exist or aren't common for Western nations in the 21st century or
>Disease do exist and are common but they're all self-inflicted
Not sure which one you're arguing for, but both are pretty retarded.

[Anonymous No.10520104]

>>10519850

[Anonymous No.10520150]

>>10519941

>If it isn't genetic then there would be no incentive for women to filter based on that non-genetic behavior.

There's more to sexual selection. One major thing could be looking for a mate who would try to fill his role as father instead of listening to Linkin Park and reading Benatar.

[Anonymous No.10520159]

>>10520150
>try to fill his role as father
So your goal is to be cucked into taking care of someone else's child?

[Anonymous No.10520266]

>>10520097
Chronic diseases so painful that they outweigh all the pleasures of life are in dact pretty damn rare.

[Anonymous No.10520486]

>>10520266
Pain isn't the only sort of suffering. It's not necessarily painful to need an ostomy bag for example, but I don't think most people want a piece of their intestine pulled through their abdomen for liquid fecal matter to involuntarily pour into a taped on plastic bag every hour or so.
>>/ck/thread/S9910049
(Inflammatory Bowel Disease risk is ~0.8%, which is 8 per every 1,000 new lives brought into the world, or 2,824 per every new 353,000 or so births per day on average)
Around 2.5 million people have multiple sclerosis (immune system attacking your brain, leads to paralysis and eventual inability to use a bathroom without a special aide and/or an ostomy bag and catheter).
2.4 million people have lupus (immune system starts attack random parts of your entire body).
14.1 million people with cancer.
65 million people with COPD (not even being able to enjoy the simple "pleasure" of unobstructed breathing)
And that's like two seconds of the most half-assed effort at listing a few conditions out, so citing the somewhat low risk of any one in particular doesn't mean much in terms of the general risk of having at least one of some sort of horrible disease.
https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/overview/index.htm
>Chronic diseases and conditions—such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and arthritis—are among the most common, costly, and preventable of all health problems.
>As of 2012, about half of all adults—117 million people—had one or more chronic health conditions.

[Anonymous No.10520693]

>ctrl f: "consent"
>0 results

Come on guys

[Anonymous No.10520709]

>>10515147

It's a pretty strong spook

[Anonymous No.10520713]

>Arguing with anti-natalists

Why would you even do this? The decision to embrace existence or not is prior to any real reasoning on the subject, not a rational conclusion. Discussion on the topic is inherently pointless.

Kinda disappointed that JBP would even choose to engage with such insufferable edgelords.

[Anonymous No.10520744]

yeah humanity was a mistake

I mean the only beings that don't think so are humans what does that tell you?

[Anonymous No.10520785]

>>10520713
This.
Pain and pleasure, joy and suffering are by their very nature subjective.
If you decide life is worth living you make it so.
If you decide life isn't worth living you make it not so.

[Anonymous No.10520803]

>>10520486
>and preventable of all health problem
you BTFO your own argument

[Anonymous No.10520816]

>>10520104
nice work anon, saved

[Anonymous No.10522029]

>>10520159

>this is the level of discourse from antinatalists

How about.. both.. genetic fitness.. and behavioral fitness in terms of fulfilling the father role.. and then the combination of them.. and then fathering the child and being a father to the child.. as has been par for the course for thousands upon thousands of years.. is what women sexually select for.. damn.. really made me think.

But thanks for confirming that antinatalists are just /r9k/ crossboarders on Peter Singer tier philosophy. And you should honestly quit pornography bucko.

[Anonymous No.10522057]

>>10515143
Benatar uses the deontological argument to argue for anti-natalism.

[Anonymous No.10522064]

Why would anyone want to have children when they're just going to be a slave to an employer for the rest of their life? I can understand if you were a peasant or something, but it's a completely worthless and cruel action now.

[Anonymous No.10522339]

If you want a good laugh/cry, go click on the account of any poster on r/antinatalism (or sort the posts by new and see the less popular posters).
Never before have I seen such a resentful, stunted, pathological, and blind group of people.

[Anonymous No.10522353]

>>10522339
For example, I clicked on a random profile and found this. This is your average r/antinatalism and r/sanctionedsuicide poster

[Anonymous No.10522542]

>>10520713
>The decision to embrace existence or not is prior to any real reasoning on the subject
This doesn't undermine their arguments. Case in point: Benatar has talked before about whether he has kids or not is irrelevant to his arguments. If he does, the arguments might still be right, he'd just be a hypocrite.

Similar response to that stuff Peterson was spouting about people inferring conclusions from the arguments that they should go out do hideous things like shoot up a school. It's doesn't make the arguments wrong, and you've not disproved anything. (I say that in spite of the fact that it seemed like Peterson didn't even grasp the difference between pro-mortalism and anti-natalism as the podcast hosts mentioned at the end.)

[Anonymous No.10522570]

>>10520803
No, you just can't read.
"Most preventable" doesn't mean "most cases are preventable" and it obviously isn't even in reference to all chronic diseases. You can prevent type 2 diabetes, but there is no known way you can prevent autoimmune diseases (including type 1 diabetes) for example.

[Anonymous No.10522614]

>>10520803
>>10522570
Also not much of an argument to say 50% of adults having a chronic disease isn't a bad thing because some of them could have prevented it.
Suppose all of that population could have prevented their chronic disease. The portion of preventable cases is of course nowhere near all of them, but suppose it is for the sake of argument.
Then you're bringing a child into a situation where there's a 50% he'll fuck up and give himself a chronic disease. In a way that's even worse than if it weren't preventable since now he's dealing with a lifelong state of bodily failure and has to deal with blaming himself for fucking up.

[Anonymous No.10523008]

>>10522057
>muh plausible "intuitive" duties

[Anonymous No.10523284]

>N-n-no antinatalism and promortalism are DIFFERENT I swear

God you people are retarded. Please don't have children. Just leave it to the rest of us

[Anonymous No.10523292]

>not being a pro-mortalist
Cucks

[Anonymous No.10523502]

>Peterson asks Benatar to define ignorance
>instead he gives a fucking list of things he considers bad
>Peterson tries to get him to tie those examples back together into a definition of bad by asking why ignorance is bad given that according to Benatar it isn't tied to utilitarianism memes.
>because knowledge is good, obviously

Jesus Christ /lit/, I can understand being suspicious of JP, given that the cult which has formed around him makes him out to be far more than the psychology professor with a layman's knowledge of philosophical thought he is, but how can any of you be contrarian enough to side with this idiot who can't string together a coherent argument to save his life?

[Anonymous No.10523697]

>>10518740
Sounds like a bad move in terms of my enjoyment of life

[Anonymous No.10523721]

>>10518740
Good job not actually specifying which arguments the relevant literature makes and appealing to authority instead mang.

[Anonymous No.10523756]

>>10522570
>>10522614
>having to prick yourself with a needle occasionally and avoid sugary foods makes life not worth living
I'm sorry daddy didn't show up to your 12th birthday last week son, but you'll recover.
>>10522353
I really just want to give this person a hug.

[Anonymous No.10523775]

>>10515248
memes aside, this is probably true

[Anonymous No.10523786]

>>10523756
I think it's more the slipping into comas because you forgot to eat a candy bar earlier and/or way they stop healing properly and a stubbed toe turns into an infection needing their foot amputated to resolve that are the bigger concerns there.
And again that's just one condition, I wouldn't even rank diabetes as that bad compared to a lot of the other ones listed earlier.

[Anonymous No.10523804]

>>10514759
>memerson speaks that slowly
>podcast can't be listened at 4x speed
sorry but i can't do it

[Anonymous No.10523806]

>>10523008
...Okay.

Its based on the premise that individuals have no right to use others as a means to an end arguing that in the case of bringing children into the world that the child as an individual is used as a means to an end. That their subjective experience of reality, which is on the whole one that is negative, is different to that of the wish to have a child by the parents which brings an autonomous agent into the world against its will.

How an agent that has no 'will' until its matured sufficiently can have choice over power over its decision to exist is a difficult one to explain or even if its a question relevant to the discussion as the onus is on the parents who know or are at least capable of knowing what existence is like and must consider bringing a child in to the world more carefully. Presumably those that do want to have children will and Benatar and co will not.

I havent not read Benatar but this what I have gathered from listening to him and the reasoning I have presented here is one which I presume to be a long the lines of his own.

[Anonymous No.10523818]

>>10514759
The whole discussion breaks down to the question if existence is worth it despite an unavoidable part of suffering.

After all the answer to this question is based on a subjective point of view and depends on ones personal life and values.
Considered as a moral issue antanatalists will always have the better arguments as it is a uncertain speculation to give birth to a child while assuming that it will later value its existence despite suffering. If it doesn't value life over suffering then bearing the child inflicts harm which was not necessary to being with.
I think that Peterson mentions some important points regarding daily human practices but Benatar wins the debate philosophically.

[Anonymous No.10523830]

>>10523502
The whole argument seemed to be them running up against walls with Benatar constantly stating what Peterson is doing and letting him know that he knows what he is doing and Peterson going on wild tangents.

Also when Benatar started talking and Peterson started talking over him he stopped talking.

[Anonymous No.10523838]

>>10515547
>when making a decision, having more information is better than having less information because your scope of choices is larger, and so is your personal freedom. knowledge can permit greater freedom, since it lifts the restraints of ignorance.
then you value freedom more than "happiness", or "pleasure" or whatever utilitarian meme Benatar uses, otherwise knowledge is only good if it opens more paths of "pleasure" than it causes pain by acquiring it

[Anonymous No.10523858]

>>10515614
so at that point you are valuing knowledge because it increments the chance of survival, the retard may have an overall more pleasurable life and then suffer a bit while dying in the desert because of his retardedness, while the knowledgeable person survives and keeps suffering in his terrible life

[Anonymous No.10523897]

>the virgin jungian
>the chad antinatalist

[Anonymous No.10523910]

>>10515789
>antinatalists were always the boring guys at the party who watched the funny guys and secretly hated them for it
this meme with Benatar when?

[Anonymous No.10523944]

>>10516116
>>People would not choose to have the greatest pleasure possible at the price of having the worst pain possible, and that demonstrates that pain is worse than pleasure
>implying those are 2 different things

[Anonymous No.10523977]

>>10523786
>it's better to die than lose a foot
seriously how bland is your life?

[Anonymous No.10524005]

>Getting intellectually assraped by Sam Harris
that should have been the end of Peterson right there but election cancer keeps suckling off the dick of their internet daddy

[Anonymous No.10524027]

>doesn't want to be filmed at a fucking debate panel

is he deformed or something? what a fucking wierdo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJYwN2X7IbI

[Anonymous No.10524035]

>>10519807
>>Every cloud, to change metaphors, may have a silver lining, but it may very often be the cloud rather than the lining on which one should focus if one is to avoid being drenched by self-deception. Cheery optimists have a much less realistic view of themselves than do those who are depressed.”
>>Benatar argues from the uncontroversial premise that pain is, in itself, a bad thing.
>Apparently not as bad as being "irrational". Fuck, anglo-philosophy is so fucking terrible, holy shit.
yeah, i don't get that retardation, if all that matters is net pleasure, why then introduce that "self-deception bad" trickery to handwave the "happy retard" paradox

[Anonymous No.10524042]

>>10523830
>Benatar constantly stating what Peterson is doing and letting him know that he knows what he is doing
This was an unfortunate consequence of Benatar trying to engage and answer Peterson's points and then Peterson's sophistry shining through with "and here's this other reason I take issue with it".

The bit where Peterson pressed Benatar to give a definition of good and bad was also unfortunate for Benatar but he didn't push his point about the compatibility with multiple ethical conceptions of the good quick or forcefully enough. Unbelievable that Peterson kept falling back to a hedonistic utilitarian position though and somehow tried to twist it then that it was a bad position to take.

[Anonymous No.10524045]

>>10524027
ahahaha holy shit

http://no.procreation.day.free.fr/benatar.htm

[Anonymous No.10524205]

>>10523977
>to die
That's not antinatalism. You would compare someone not being born to someone being a living diseased person, not someone being alive and dying with someone being a living diseased person.
Also every part of a diabetic's body is in a pretty bad place, their hearts, gums, kidneys, brains, etc. You'd be pretty stupid to think diabetes is some walk in the park, I definitely wouldn't want any part of those problems.
And again, diabetes isn't even anywhere near the worst of those diseases.

[Anonymous No.10524319]

>>10524205
>not being born
>not someone being alive and dying
explain the difference.
>>10524205
>I definitely wouldn't want any part of those problems.
Nor would I but neither would I wish I hadn't been born.
>>10524205
>diabetes isn't even anywhere near the worst of those diseases
So are you admitting diabetes doesn't make life not worth living?

[Anonymous No.10524361]

does anybody have the transcript of the debate?

[Anonymous No.10524439]

>>10524319
Someone who's already alive has a wanting for pleasure and an involuntary / instinctual aversion to dying, neither of which apply to someone who hasn't been born. There's a difference between taking away heroin from an addict vs. never giving someone heroin to begin with. In both cases the person already exposed now has wants that the unborn person or the unaddicted person don't.
>diabetes doesn't make life not worth living
No, saying there are a variety or much worse diseases on top of diabetes isn't saying diabetes isn't bad enough on its own, it's saying you're only scratching the surface of how bad things are.

[Anonymous No.10524449]

>>10524361
please anons

[Anonymous No.10524453]

>>10524439
>wanting for pleasure and an involuntary / instinctual aversion to dying
why do you allow unattainable desires and irrational instincts govern your behaviour? do the rational thing and correct the mistake of being born.
>>10524439
>isn't saying diabetes isn't bad enough on its own, it's saying you're only scratching the surface of how bad things are
>>10524439
So you wanna go down the list and have a discussion about what conditions are bad enough to make life not worth living?

[Anonymous No.10524467]

>>10524453
I don't blame you for being stupid enough to believe in free will since you had no choice, but that's pretty stupid FYI.

[Anonymous No.10524474]

>>10524467
People kill themselves all the time, why can't you?

[Anonymous No.10524914]

>m-muh suffering :(
Why are antinatalists such cowards?

[Anonymous No.10524968]

>>10524449
please!

[Anonymous No.10525012]

>not committing to your beliefs
http://www.vhemt.org/

[Anonymous No.10526034]

>>10515809
It's a pretty basic tautology that we simply cannot know what is true and what is false without an unchanging true base for us to build other truths on. That's God.