/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21636175]

Somehow, after all those years, this book still unrefuted by the simple fact that people don't have any argument for:

Justify pointless suffering
Playing russian roulette with a children's life

Bassicaly people can't refute the simple line of thinking:

>do you want to have children, bro?

>nah, man, I don't think is worthwhile to bring a new life without knowing for sure that don't won't suffer a terrible fate, or have a difficult life, life can be good and all for some, but still don't justify playing dice with someone's life just for the sake of reproduce like a retard animal.
That kill the avarage /lit/tard.

[Anonymous No.21636184]

>>21636175
Why would I want to refute it? Antinatalists willingly remove themselves from the gene pool. It’s a win-win

[Anonymous No.21636194]

>>21636184
Thank God, Imagine being such barbaric animal that just want to satisfy his own ego and bring a child into this world just for vanity sake, lmao. Breeders are retard.

[Anonymous No.21636200]

>>21636194
>Imagine being such barbaric animal that just want to satisfy his own ego and bring a child into this world just for vanity sake, lmao
What are you gonna do about it, pussy?

[Anonymous No.21636209]

>>21636200
Nothing, just have a brood, bro, and enjoy your fruits of your stupidity and egoitism. Not my problem.

[Anonymous No.21636214]

>>21636194
>Breeders
Buzzword used by feminized minds. No need to take you seriously. Enjoy your funkopops good sir.

[Anonymous No.21636225]

>>21636175
1. Humans do not create life, GOD creates life.

2. The unborn do not exist, therefor you can't wrong them

3. Antinatalism destroys itself, it is by definition self defeating.

4. Only beings with a high intellect can choose to stop having children, other animals will continue to have them. Therefor continue to suffer until by your logic they to become intelligent enough to stop having children, and so on. Antinatalism which claims to be against suffering, paths the way to eternal suffering.

5. I have never in my life met an antinatalist who was not depressed or has been severely so in his life. Maybe it is heavily bound to your world view? More connected to your own life experience than to logic?

[Anonymous No.21636234]

>>21636175
>>21636175
I do not jewish “writers” nor support the jewish publishing mafia

[Anonymous No.21636257]

1. You've never been truly in love, so you just don't know what life can be.. You've told yourself you've been in love before, but what you had wasn't actually it. Your ego has difficulty processing this information.

2. Your parents did not love you, so you do not understand how you can safely bring a child into this world.. Again, the problem is your unfortunate experience and lack of information.

A person can lead a happy and good life of love is present. Author of this book is simply unaware of the power love has. Both he and his antinatalist followers reveal themselves, and we should take pity. The problem is too common

[Anonymous No.21636259]

>>21636234
Lmao, back to /pol/, you low IQ nigger.

[Anonymous No.21636263]

>>21636184
fpbp

[Anonymous No.21636307]

>>21636259
Stop kvetching

[Anonymous No.21636311]

>>21636175
Why would you post this again day, after day, after day? FUCK OFF

[Anonymous No.21636320]

>>21636175
How many times.are you going to make the exact same thread?

[Anonymous No.21636326]

>>21636320
IDF pays him exactly 1 shekel for every post and 2 shekels for every copy they get some westerner to buy

[Anonymous No.21636329]

>>21636175
weekly thread of
>suffering is... LE BAD

[Anonymous No.21636331]

>>21636329
And that somehow wrong?

[Anonymous No.21636337]

>>21636175
Benatar argues within the framework of moral realist negative utilitarianism. You must first convince people that this is the correct ethical position, which is far form obvious. But to argue within that framework:

If we want to minimise suffering in the known universe across space and time, it is not obvious that promoting antinatalism a la Benatar optimises for this. If his message were to be as successful as realistically possible, it would mean that the people sensitive and intelligent enough to not only even learn about this subject but also practise it opt out from procreation. The dumb and the cruel simply will not be convinced by rational argument. So all this does is provide a selection pressure against the type of people that strive for a world with less suffering in it. In the long run a world inherited by the dumb and the cruel will likely lead to more net suffering being experienced by conscious beings than if all those sensitive and intelligent people never encountered antinatalism but were, say, to adhere to a kind of secular Boddhisattva mentality where they dedicate themselves to the most pragmatic methods of minimising suffering for all sentient beings. It is not unreasonable to suggest that this involves actually having a higher percentage of intelligent, compassionate people among the populace.

As fantastical as his ideas may seem, someone like David Pearce is actually a more realistic negative utilitarian than Benatar.

If you really want to defend antinatalism a Kantian/deontological approach actually makes more sense.

[Anonymous No.21636339]

Antinatalists cannot understand that they are the defect, not life itself. The fact that most people enjoy life, and don’t consider having children immoral, proves this.

[Anonymous No.21636386]

>>21636337
In addition, to argue the extreme and unrealistic optimal outcome: Even if you manage to make all humans go extinct or even all life of earth, it is no guarantee that once we have abandoned stewardship of our corner of the universe that life will not evolve again in ways that are worse and create more net suffering. Maybe the best way to minimise suffering is to become a space faring multi-planetary civilisation that colonises our entire light cone in order to diminish the amount of negative hedons wherever it goes.

Perhaps if you really want to prevent and alleviate suffering you must first become benevolent Gods. Therefore the ethical thing from a negative utilitarian position is to put all effort towards this goal.

[Anonymous No.21636411]

>>21636331
Yes? Can you objectively show me that suffering is bad?

[Anonymous No.21636418]

For fuck's sake the last antinatalism thread isn't even dead yet, have some mercy

[Anonymous No.21636427]

>>21636411
Yes, it doesn't feel good to feel it at all.

[Anonymous No.21636432]

>>21636427
>doesn't feel good to feel it
I said objectively, that's subjective by definition

[Anonymous No.21636449]

>>21636427
That's circular reasoning buddy, babby's first fallact

[Anonymous No.21636463]

>>21636175
>Justify pointless suffering
1: there is no need to justify it, I reject whatever hedonist ethical framework you have chosen.
2: it isn't pointless, it is part and parcel of the precondition for meaning as such, namely life.

I don't want to debate you. You've posted this thousands of times for years and have been demolished an equal amount of times, but you are delusional. To anyone reading along who are interested in non-retarded vitalist philosophy, that speak of the metaphysical value of life as such, I'd heartily recommend Hans Jonas.

[Anonymous No.21636474]

The most chad negative utilitarian is Brian Tomasik who subscribes to non-cognitivism but still wants to decrease suffering fully accepting it's just his arbitrary feels that drive him to do so.

He's also not as speciesist as most antinatalists and cares about bug and potentially videogame NPC suffering.

https://reducing-suffering.org

[Anonymous No.21636490]

The ONLY based correct view on this matter is -strict natalism-, people should be born, but only from those that are capable of being a good parent, and overall good person, and that, sadly almost all of people fail to be a capable person or to be a good parent and good human being. In short: only those deem good and capable should reproduce, otherwise, should not.

[Anonymous No.21636511]

>>21636490
This goes against all the founding myths of the West and can likely only be implemented in China or something sadly

[Anonymous No.21636513]

>>21636175
How am I supposed to respect your irrefutable argument when you can't even speak English?

[Anonymous No.21636528]

>>21636225
Ironically i consider that point four definitely destroyed antinatalism completely.
Subhumans must be pulverized. They are incredibly stupid and reproduce worse than rabbits, they are the most dangerous parasites.
I don't know how but high intellect antinatalists must have children to fulfill the end of eliminating suffering.
The only other solution would be to destroy the planet.

[Anonymous No.21636535]

>>21636528
Metzinger had a fun argument that a benevolent superintelligence would probably put humanity out of its misery.

https://www.edge.org/conversation/thomas_metzinger-benevolent-artificial-anti-natalism-baan

[Anonymous No.21636562]

Life is worth living. There, antinatalism refuted, it's that easy

[Anonymous No.21636581]

>>21636562
>*Blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.21636589]

>>21636562
>>21636581
I forgot the pic

[Anonymous No.21636594]

>>21636562
>Life is worth living
Why?

[Anonymous No.21636626]

>>21636411
It is 100% certain that after I hammer you in the eye with a nail, you will never need an objective argument for why suffering is bad.

[Anonymous No.21636634]

>>21636463
How is suffering the precondition for meaning?

[Anonymous No.21636645]

>>21636634
no suffering = no conflict = no action = no meaning

[Anonymous No.21636646]

>>21636535
>The superintelligence knows that one of our highest values consists in maximizing happiness and joy in all sentient beings, and it fully respects this value. However, it also empirically realizes that biological creatures are almost never able to achieve a positive or even neutral life balance. It also discovers that negative feelings in biosystems are not a mere mirror image of positive feelings, because there is a much higher sense of urgency for change involved in states of suffering, and because it occurs in combination with the phenomenal qualities of losing control and coherence of the phenomenal self—and that this is what makes conscious suffering a very distinct class of states, not just the negative version of happiness. It knows that this subjective quality of urgency is dimly reflected in humanity’s widespread moral intuition that, in an ethical sense, it is much more urgent to help a suffering person than to make a happy or emotionally neutral person even happier. Further analysing the phenomenological profile of sentient beings on Earth the superintelligence quickly discovers a fundamental asymmetry between suffering and joy and logically concludes that an implicit, but even higher value consists in the minimization of suffering in all sentient creatures. Obviously, it is an ethical superintelligence not only in terms of mere processing speed, but it begins to arrive at qualitatively new results of what altruism really means. This becomes possible because it operates on a much larger psychological data-base than any single human brain or any scientific community can. Through an analysis of our behaviour and its empirical boundary conditions it reveals implicit hierarchical relations between our moral values of which we are subjectively unaware, because they are not explicitly represented in our phenomenal self-model. Being the best analytical philosopher that has ever existed, it concludes that, given its current environment, it ought not to act as a maximizer of positive states and happiness, but that it should instead become an efficient minimizer of consciously experienced preference frustration, of pain, unpleasant feelings and suffering. Conceptually, it knows that no entity can suffer from its own non-existence.

>The superintelligence concludes that non-existence is in the own best interest of all future self-conscious beings on this planet. Empirically, it knows that naturally evolved biological creatures are unable to realize this fact because of their firmly anchored existence bias. The superintelligence decides to act benevolently.

[Anonymous No.21636651]

>>21636175
I ironically wrote an essay about why it is immoral to keep on living while others suffer and that we should blow the earth up to end all suffering. That was in 8th grade.
Imagine your philisophy being at the level of a 14 year old.

[Anonymous No.21636675]

>>21636651
Well, what is your philosophy currently?

[Anonymous No.21636697]

>>21636339
>Those who wan to be free cannot understand that they are the defect, not slavery itself. The fact that most slaves enjoy slavery, and don’t consider having children immoral, proves this.

[Anonymous No.21636708]

[Anonymous No.21636733]

>>21636194
What about Pewdiepie?

[Anonymous No.21636737]

If you really believed what you preach you'd kill yourself right now

[Anonymous No.21636743]

>>21636737
Life is good for me, but maybe can't be for my child, I'm not taking chances to give born to a suffering kid. Cope and Seethe, dumb ass.

[Anonymous No.21636744]

>>21636737
Hell yeah crow wanna go eat some garbage in the park later

[Anonymous No.21636777]

>>21636744
>>21636737
i meet you guys there

[Anonymous No.21636798]

>>21636257
You are missing the point
Yeah, some people live good lives, but many don’t
Birthing children into this world when you don’t know how they will have it is immoral because you can’t protect them from suffering
Some people being happy isn’t a refutation of the point, it’s literally what he said

[Anonymous No.21636814]

>>21636675
>your philosophy
Dude, i couldn’t give less of a turd about what my philosophy is. Philosophy is for autists who believe in definitions as truth and who are so vain they can’t stand the fact that no matter how intelligent you are, your brain is limited and you can’t figure everything out. Just live.

[Anonymous No.21636868]

>>21636708
Quite a few layers of subliminal messages here, very sneaky

[Anonymous No.21636873]

>>21636814
It remains a philosophical position. I think it's realism or idealism.

[Anonymous No.21636886]

Philosophy literally doesn't matter. Only what happens in reality matters. Genghis Khan killing millions and spreading his genes across Asia was truth.

[Anonymous No.21636972]

>>21636184
David Benatar has a wife and kids.

[Anonymous No.21637310]

>>21636886
>philosophy literally doesn't matter
>Genghis Khan's philosophy matters
erm...

[Anonymous No.21637327]

Antinatalism is such a deeply polarizing issue that it's not even worth discussing in any public sphere. You could argue there isn't anything to discuss in the first place. Either procreate or don't. Feel free to feel good about yourself for not procreating, I don't care. Good for you. It's like believing in God, there is nothing to be discussed. It's a personal thing

[Anonymous No.21637349]

>>21636257
>true love