/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21670366]

Refute it

[Anonymous No.21670370]

>>21670366
It would be worse to not be.

[Anonymous No.21670380]

>>21670366
Sex.

[Anonymous No.21670388]

>>21670370
Or, people that are empathic enough to become anti-natalists (to prevent their children from sufferin) are the exact kind of people that 'need to be'. Those that don't care will continue to reproduce at an exponential rate, causing suffering to increase, as kind and gentle people largely disappear. You could say this is not a problem, though. Who gives a shit if savages torture and cannibalize eachother? But it would be thousands of years until all the gentle people are extinct, and in the meantimes a lot of suffering.
That is why anti-natalists need to force themselves to out-reproduce natalists.

[Anonymous No.21670389]

>>21670366
You can't.

[Anonymous No.21670397]

>>21670366
Consent is a fantasy.

[Anonymous No.21670402]

Anti natalism is retarded

[Anonymous No.21670408]

>>21670366

1. those who are not born yet do not exist therefor no statement about their being can be made

2. truth is the essence of the world. An idea that leads to death can never be true. Antinatalist literally wipe themselves out.

3. antinatalist, like vegans, want to reduce suffering. But only beings with high intellect can be antinatalist, while less intelligent animals go on living and suffering. So if antinatalist were true, animals would suffer then reach high enough intelligence to be antinatalist and die. Endless suffering. Only hope is to keep living and reproducing to find a solution to suffering.

[Anonymous No.21670592]

I hate my parents

[Anonymous No.21670598]

>tfw enjoy being alive but still an antinatalist because i'm not an existential rapist

[Anonymous No.21670607]

Utterly useless philosophy for those who don't hate their lives. However depressed misanthropists will think he has a point and post incessantly on fourchannels about it.

Sneed.

[Anonymous No.21670634]

>>21670366
E’ery I’m alive, bby

[Anonymous No.21670639]

>>21670366
Their argument:
>antinatalists central claim is that life is harm
>they argue that you have to be alive to feel pleasure and stress this isn't guaranteed
>they argue that if you're not alive you are guaranteed not to suffer/harm
>[no guarentee of pleasure, risk of suffering/harm, therefore nonexistence is best = basic thread of argument]
>note: they also like to being up that the fact you don't have a choice in coming into existence
>they conclude that not reproducing and ending life is the optimal outcome to reduce harm

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

[Anonymous No.21670640]

>>21670639
Why antinatalists are retarded:
>no matter how many times you point out how AND why their premise is ungrounded they will still assert you must argue within the logic it sets out
>no matter how many times you point out the logic is inconsistent they retreat to the idea of their unfounded premise and assert it follows naturally
>no matter the absurdities you can show as consistent with their reasoning (i.e. you shouldn't kill yourself let alone others) they will simply change the rules
>life is valuable once it exists and yet we need to stop it from existing...that's what their bullshit boils down to and it's utterly stupid

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

[Anonymous No.21670650]

>>21670366
>creating life means you create suffering
That's one sided.
>you don't know though!
Neither do you.
>so all life should end...
That's extreme and you haven't proven life creates more suffering than joy.
>if you don't exist you don't feel either!
I don't accept that corollary because you haven't proven the aggregate of all life is suffering. Also, logic follows you kill yourself.
>no because I'm alive and that creates harm!
So you value your life and disregard your own point about nonexistence meaning suffering doesn't exist.
>for others though!
Again, you're demonstrating your life has value and I can add the corollary you kill others as well.
>...
So are you going to give me a reason not to reject your fundamental premise? Will you at least acknowledge the counter narrative I've established that underscores the logical inconsistency of your position and demonstrates your fundemental premise is weakened by your own reasoning?
>...
Hello?
>UNREFUTED!

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

[Anonymous No.21670659]

>>21670639
>>21670640
Joke's on you, I'm an emotivist/non-cognitivist antinatalist.

[Anonymous No.21670661]

[Anonymous No.21670670]

>>21670366
This is where "ethics" leads you. This entire perspective is informed by living in South Africa, where overabundance of niggers is literally going to destroy the country. But instead of advocating for total nigger death, he just comes up with this sad boi philosophy. I will fuck child into existence you mad?

[Anonymous No.21670673]

>>21670388
>to prevent their children from sufferin
But you are not preventing your children from suffering, since if you don't have them they wouldn't exist, and so have not in any way benefitted.

[Anonymous No.21670684]

>In this thread
Chad-volcel defending antinatalism
Incel defending natalism

[Anonymous No.21670735]

>>21670684
>It was real in my head

[Anonymous No.21670823]

>>21670670
Benatar is a racist. He wrote an essay on how whites are discriminated against.

[Anonymous No.21670837]

>>21670650
Appeal to ignorance.

[Anonymous No.21670863]

>>21670640
based. i read that faggot ligotti's book. what a waste of time. i swear he gets off on the idea of making others kill themselves.

[Anonymous No.21671106]

Haven't read it.
Is it based on the argument which its title presents?
If so, not really interested; if something's being harmed by my existence (which seems almost certain), then get fucked lol

[Anonymous No.21671511]

>>21670639
>>21670640
>>21670650

None of this pertains to Antinatalism. None of it is even grammatically coherent, incidentally.

[Anonymous No.21671553]

>>21670366
Already has been:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://redbioetica.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Cabrera.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi18J2VsJz9AhVQs4sKHe_sDpsQFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw29Zk_yFJxVfg1GA6qVLcJE
Antinatalism devoided of defeatism is too optimistic, anthropocentric and also self refuting. People are also not free to change, they are selfish, opportunistic, egocentric, ignorant and stupid at large. As such you can't just teach antinatalism and except everyone or even just the majority of population to simply adhere to it.

[Anonymous No.21671561]

Of course you can't teach antinatalism to everyone it is futile. But maybe antinatalism can challenge toxic optimism and the view that life is a gift.

Also there should be some kind of test to see whether or not someone is ready to be a parent (no, it is not a human right)

[Anonymous No.21671564]

>>21670823
In what year? 50 years ago that would be wrong (wrong as in incorrect not evil) but today there's definitely a whole media movement going on to make whites hate themselves for shit people of their ethnicity did centuries ago

[Anonymous No.21671574]

>>21670366
How do you measure pleasure and pain to be meaningfully compared in a utilitarian calculus?

[Anonymous No.21671585]

>>21670366
Critical Study of Benatar's book by Elizabeth Harman:
https://www.princeton.edu/~eharman/Benatar.pdf

[Anonymous No.21671604]

>>21670366
He's is wrong. The masses must be destroyed, to start a eugenic world and then eliminate suffering.

[Anonymous No.21671606]

>>21671585
Wow!

[Anonymous No.21671618]

>>21671585
>Woman
>Opinion discarted

[Anonymous No.21671675]

>>21671604
I hope you are not using that pic as an example of good breeding.

[Anonymous No.21671685]

>>21671585
fuck of Elizabeth

[Anonymous No.21671694]

>>21670366
Antinatalism has had a resurgence because of the suffering modernism is causing.

[Anonymous No.21671717]

>>21670388
>That is why anti-natalists need to force themselves to out-reproduce natalists
There is also the option to adopt.

[Anonymous No.21671718]

>>21670366
This is refuted simply: est ergo sum

[Anonymous No.21671721]

>>21671717
Then it wouldn't be the anti-natalists child, there's no telling if the child will be genetically predisposed to low empathy and high violence. Anti-natalists need to spread their genetic predispositions to empathy.

[Anonymous No.21671720]

>>21670366
I like life. You got BTFO.

[Anonymous No.21671724]

>>21671694
>the suffering modernism is causing.
Yeah, good living conditions, having anything you need, and good healthcare is suffering.

[Anonymous No.21671729]

Why do you keep posting about antinatalism? The majority of /lit/ are midwits narcissist that can't comprehend that life can be though for some people and the options of never bring another life is a right one to avoid pointless suffer. Just see the majority of the replies here and you can see that the majority are pretty retarded or down right psychopathic and show no once of compassion or anything, just further proving antinatalism point.

[Anonymous No.21671732]

>>21671724
Yes, when you trade all autonomy and organic structure for it. It's only in modern privileged society that people commit suicide in massive amounts and require intensive ant-depressant medication to function. As long as a human feels like their problems are enemies that can be reasonably fought and they have a tight-knit local community, they are happy to suffer almost any pain.

[Anonymous No.21671738]

>>21671732
So go your local church like people in the past used to do if you want a local community.

[Anonymous No.21671742]

>>21670863
Antinatalists are the biggest pseuds on the board.
>>21671511
>no matter how many times you point out how AND why their premise is ungrounded they will still assert you must argue within the logic it sets out
Thanks for proving that point.

[Anonymous No.21671744]

>>21671738
You've never been to church, have you? Fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.21671748]

>>21671744
Sounds like you're causing your own suffering and blaming modernism for it.

[Anonymous No.21671749]

>>21671724
They are all basically blacks now. Modernism directly rejects morality and ethics.

[Anonymous No.21671755]

The argument that human life needs to involve "more" suffering than happiness or any other human centric measure regarding happiness at all for anti natalism to be a valid stance is retarded. I support the slow extinction of humanity because outside of human society, this species creates nothing but suffering for the rest of this planet who manage to share it without destroying it for everyone else. This species cannot be allowed to to proliferate through space.

[Anonymous No.21671762]

>>21671748
No, you just have little understanding but an intense desire to make a fool of yourself. A church is almost always an isolated ant farm, a simulation of a community that takes place once a week, people pretend to know one another and forget once more after service ends. There is no genuine community. The church-goers have no tribalistic reliance on one another, there is no communal feeling of interdependence, it is in every way a simulation of a community.

[Anonymous No.21671763]

>>21671738
Churches are as morally and spiritually bankrupt as any other part of society these days

[Anonymous No.21671766]

My parents are basically overgrown children, how were they allowed to beget? I'm all kinds of fucked up

[Anonymous No.21671770]

>>21671762
Not really. Firstly, people go to church more than once a week. Secondly, there are sometimes initiatives to donate money to help a member of the community or someone else, which also brings people together. Thirdly, the "communal feeling of interdependence" is no different than before. People only relied on others from the community for lending money mostly, otherwise people would have their own lives with their circles of friends. It wasn't a life and death bond or whatever you're imagining is the solution to your loneliness and suffering.

[Anonymous No.21671776]

>>21671763
>these days
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum

[Anonymous No.21671796]

>>21671776
And it was the same centuries later during Dante's time

[Anonymous No.21671804]

>>21671770
I don't imagine anything to be, your psychoanalysis is cringe. I've been to church. Sunday service, wednesday service, youth service, etc.
Your first point, "people go to church more than once a week" is a lame counterpoint. The going to a rennaisance fair thrice weekly no more makes you a musketeer than once weekly. If you had reading comprehension, you'd know that it was mentioned to further drive home that Church is almost always an disconnected portion of someone's life, not unlike any other simulated activity. Very few church communities, usually only those in already isolated rural communities have "church communities" where nearly everyone that goes to a particular church are friends or acquaintances outside of service as well.
>Secondly, there are sometimes initiatives to donate money to help a member of the community or someone else, which also brings people together.
I've been a part of a few of these. It's like collecting money for pandas. Almost no-one from a church knows anyone else. I'm not talking about megachurches here either, just small 40-60 person congregations.
>People only relied on others from the community for lending money mostly, otherwise people would have their own lives with their circles of friends.
Stop making yourself look unread and under-educated.

[Anonymous No.21671811]

>>21671804
>you're stupid!!!!
Great post anon

[Anonymous No.21671892]

>>21671675
She's perfect.

[Anonymous No.21671899]

>>21671811
>Address no points, just go for the one part that I gave you literal mercy for.
If you really want to look stupid it would be easy. Ask yourself: do you really think that in a small village, individuals would depend on others solely for money? Do you think they had wal-marts? Money was not in common use for village economies: taxes were paid to the Lord in the form of resources depending upon one's profession (such as grain, eggs, chicken, cloth, etc, or services to the lord.The reason for this is because besides traders, there would be very little access to coinage in a small village. Those who paid their tax in money were typically vassals, landed merchants, and other freemen. Here is a SIMPLE article for you on wikipedia that explains some of this: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom
Yes, I used SIMPLE just for you. If you don't know how to use sources or if you need additional help, you can ask. I don't mind helping a poor soul a little bit.

Now the question is, do you think that villagers would rely on one another for solely, or even predominately, money lending? Make your guess.
For most villages, there would be one communal well, one church, one bakery (typically owned by the lord, as ovens were expensive to produce), one blacksmith for the production of basic farm equipment or tools for the lord, and, if the village were large enough, a single store for travels or visitors.
Ask yourself if you think this would foster some level of community. Would it? If you REALLY need it, I can break out the books and sources. I would have to hope you're just being contrarian, because not even the most technophilic modernists think that today's society is without its own unique, deep social alienation.

[Anonymous No.21671907]

>>21671811
Great post anon
Checked
>>21671899
Also checked.

[Anonymous No.21671916]

>>21671892
She looks like she pulls on doors that say push. She appears like she can tell her lefts from her rights. She looks like she breathes... from her mouth.

[Anonymous No.21671930]

>>21671811
>>21671899
Your most likely counterpoint will be cities in the medieval era: Yes. Cities were extremely alienating from Ancient Egypt all the way to now. Megalopeis are directly responsible for the invention of the lock, as they forced large numbers of disconnected individuals with no personal reliance on one another together. Ergo, they didn't give a shit about pissing off dude #18,401 that they would never recognize and may never interact with.
In a village, pissing off the blacksmith would result in you getting royally fucking fucked. Pissing off the miller could just mean starvation if the rest of the village wasn't willing to have mercy on you. You couldn't go it alone and fuck over randos daily or you'd get fucked. You had a vested interest in the lives of everyone in your community.
Now please read books instead of making yourself look retarded. Any cursory reading of almost any historical text (fiction too, as it also demonstrates a greater level of social interdependence) is enough to conclude that things were indeed different.

[Anonymous No.21671956]

>antinatalism thread
>majority of /lit/ seethe like a madwoman because hurt their feeling

Lmao, never fail.

[Anonymous No.21671965]

>>21670661
>*Blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.21671976]

existence is gay

[Anonymous No.21672012]

>>21671742

Absolutely nothing in those replies is even tangentially related to Antinatalism, let alone a premise.

[Anonymous No.21672114]

>>21672012
Cool story bro. Maybe if you write it one more time it will magically become true.

[Anonymous No.21672159]

>>21672114

Maybe if you write it again it will be grammatically coherent? Maybe not...

[Anonymous No.21672274]

>>21672159
>more seethe
Nope, still not true and antinatalists are still retards.

[Anonymous No.21672281]

Life is not suffering

[Anonymous No.21672461]

>>21672274
>Maybe if you write it again it will be grammatically coherent?
>Nope, still not true

[Anonymous No.21672463]

>>21670366
My rebuttal is fairly simple: there is nothing objectively good or bad, there are only preferences that can be whatever.

[Anonymous No.21672481]

>>21671604
>He's is wrong. The masses must be destroyed, to start a eugenic world and then eliminate suffering.

[Anonymous No.21672543]

>>21672461
>no matter how many times you point out how AND why their premise is ungrounded they will still assert you must argue within the logic it sets out
You know you're tacitly admitting this each time your post, right? Of course not, you can't even come up with your own insults and just recycle mine. Twice in a row.
>At this point it's worthwhile to point out antinatalists will ignore strong arguments against their case and use any excuse to stay within their own logic.
That one too.

[Anonymous No.21672555]

>>21672543
>Maybe if you write it again it will be grammatically coherent?
>Nope, still not true

At least you're right in this regard.

[Anonymous No.21672557]

>>21670366

[Anonymous No.21672569]

>>21672557

Beauty is irrelevant at best, Evil at worst.

[Anonymous No.21672572]

>>21672555
>I have no retort
Antinatalism is what happens when you're too stupid for psychopathy to pay off and too ugly to get women to fuck you and thereby validate your narcissism. Faced with the futility of your existence you get depressed and try to recreate the world in your own pathetic image.

[Anonymous No.21672576]

>>21672569
it is irrelevant to the ugly, and evil to the worst

[Anonymous No.21672579]

>>21672572
research mog

[Anonymous No.21672583]

>>21672572

Unsurprisingly, this is also irrelevant to the Antinatalist position. Surprisingly, it is also irrelevant to the "dark triad" discourse. Definitely ESL.

[Anonymous No.21672587]

>>21672576

Briefly explain the relevance of beauty.

[Anonymous No.21672624]

>>21672583
>NO! ANTINATALISM CAN EXPLAIN ALL OF THIS TOO!
>AND I THAT PAPER IS WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO!
If you're just going to dismiss everything, while never providing any detailed reasoning justifying such, that points out how pathetic and retarded you faggots are (not to mention crying about logical coherence when you're BTFO in argument) just don't even bother responding anymore. We all know your pattern already:
>>no matter how many times you point out how AND why their premise is ungrounded they will still assert you must argue within the logic it sets out
>>At this point it's worthwhile to point out antinatalists will ignore strong arguments against their case and use any excuse to stay within their own logic.
Literally unrefuted. Cope, faggot.

[Anonymous No.21672640]

>>21672624
>NO! ANTINATALISM CAN EXPLAIN ALL OF THIS TOO!

What is "this"? And when have I said or implied that Antinatalism "can explain" anything regarding your appalling posts or in general? Please learn English.

[Anonymous No.21672692]

>>21672640
>IT'S IRRELIVANT BECAUSE IT JUST IS!
I mispoke because I was laughing at you and reading the paper. It almost made me feel badly for you--then I remembered you're coping by trying to convince others life isn't worth it and started laughing again.

[Anonymous No.21672758]

>>21672692

You've underlined a question and an ideological presupposition, the latter being preceded by a statement containing five qualifications; without even knowing why, no doubt.

[Anonymous No.21672760]

>>21672640
I guess the jury is still out when it comes to whether you social rejects have a unique and valuable perspective. It's outside the scope of this study but according to everything they read and how they felt about their research it isn't looking good for you retards.

[Anonymous No.21672779]

>>21672758
Relying on formalities to carry the weight of your non-arguments won't save you, retard. It just underscores how disingenuous you retards are and further evidences:
>>no matter how many times you point out how AND why their premise is ungrounded they will still assert you must argue within the logic it sets out
>>At this point it's worthwhile to point out antinatalists will ignore strong arguments against their case and use any excuse to stay within their own logic
Also, >>21670639 is a quality of life argument. We're on 4chan and you're not going to get essay format, retard. Cope.

[Anonymous No.21672803]

>>21672760

Why keep replying just to repeatedly say nothing? But, for the sake of the cited paper, yes, it is Logical that Antinatalist views would be held by people of a certain persuasion, just as any and all other views are held by people who are likewise inclined toward them. Many categories of people would overlap to various degrees, for example, doctors/surgeons also correlate with the "dark triad" persuasion. Is medicine therefore illogical or undesirable? No. Although, given its consequences, allowing people like you to live and browse the internet, maybe it should be?

[Anonymous No.21672811]

>>21672779
>readily conceding that you consider logical coherence a formality

Sad.

[Anonymous No.21672859]

Everything hinges on Benatar's asymmetry argument, which fails. The evidence he presents in favor of it is not strong (it mostly reflects psychological dispositions) in the first place, but further, taking psychological dispositions at their face value, he fails to consider analogous counter-evidence.

Here is a concrete example. One piece of psychological evidence Benatar uses in favor of the asymmetry argument is that we do not seem sad at the nonexistence of countless potentially happy babies, the way we feel sad about the suffering of existing people. As I stipulated, let us lay aside the issue of whether psychological evidence is better explained naturalistically than by its accuracy. We have an exactly parallel psychological disposition that points the opposite direction: Namely, humans do not feel happy for all the counterfactual sufferers who fail to be born following widespread death, but they do feel sad for the loss of potential future happiness of the formerly living.

What this shows is that people in general feel far more moral sympathy for actually existing persons in both directions--good and bad--than they do for not yet existing persons. But this undercuts the psychological support for the asymmetry argument.

Laying aside the quality of the psychological evidence, there is a far deeper problem with Benatar's position. The problem is that the purported asymmetry doesn't seem to follow from any particular meta-ethical view. Benatar is very careful to avoid metaethical questions and it's pretty clear why: On almost any of the well established moral realist views, it's unclear how the asymmetry between good and bad follows. This is why he relies on psychological evidence in the first place.

[Anonymous No.21672880]

>>21672803
>Why keep replying just to repeatedly say nothing
From the guy who has done nothing but offhandedly dismiss arguments? Kek. The paper points out you faggots have faulty reality testing due to Machivellianism/psychopathy and a propensity to be depressed--these things lend themselves to the ideation one expects when it comes to a championing a philosophical outlook which relies on establishing Bantar's asymmetry and quality-of-life subarguments (and your inability to deal with arguments that reject them underscore you're a coping retard).
>>21672811
The argument is fine. You can't argue with the substance of it so you choose to assert it can be dismissed without argument. You're an ideologue and a retard.

[Anonymous No.21672882]

>>21672859

The asymmetry argument is a vulgarity, total red herring at best.

[Anonymous No.21672888]

>>21672880

Do you therefore consider medicine as illegitimate as Antinatalism?

[Anonymous No.21672890]

You guys know that moral statements aren't truth-apt right?

[Anonymous No.21672899]

>>21672882
Maybe so, but it's the core of Benatar's position which is the subject of the OP

[Anonymous No.21672907]

>>21672890
Fuck off you fat anglophile fuck

[Anonymous No.21672923]

>>21672899

I have not read any of the meme Antinatalists (Benatar, Ligotti, Cioran) and, frankly, I think that they do the position more harm than good.

[Anonymous No.21672941]

>>21672907
Lellisimo.

Seriously though, both the pro and antinatalists bickering in this thread should state their meta-ethical position and arguments for it. Before they do that it will get nowhere.

To say that antinatalism is right or wrong you must first make a good case for cognitivism and moral realism. Since no one has ever done that you're all just screaming about your feels, and worse, not even knowing that you're just screaming about your feels.

Academia is pretty trash nowadays but a lot of people here would have benefitted from at least an introductory course into ethics to acquire some semblance of coherence.

[Anonymous No.21672956]

He was right, but didn't take his solution far enough. A truly complete anti-natalist theory would desire a future where the universe itself was collapsed into nothingness.

[Anonymous No.21672960]

>>21672956
Would they become Landian accelerationists in order to maximise entropy across all of space and time?

[Anonymous No.21672969]

>>21670661
>Salome: How long shall this miserable world of finitude last? How long shall death prevail?
>Jesus: As long as women bear children.

[Anonymous No.21672984]

>>21672960
I think there are two classes of anti-natalist :
Existence and consciousness itself is fundamentally bad
and
Existence in a form within material reality is bad, but pure consciousness free from material chains of any kind is good
The former would be Landian accelerationists
and the latter would seek a total reabsorption of all consciousness into a singularity point like the big bang

[Anonymous No.21673037]

>>21672888
Nope. First, the argument isn't that dark triad features and a depressive state automatically renders arguments from people like that incorrect (for example, the paper even noted people can become depressed due to having enhanced perception/judgement). Second, while the paper doesn't affirm a conclusion outside of it's scope it does give a brief explainitory reasoning as to how such traits inform the propensity to adopt anti-natalist views (i.e. it gives two avenues of explaination, enhance judgement/outlook versus a bias toward negative ideation, and says that while it's outside the scope of their present research the background literature indicates the latter). Third, online anti-natalists aren't doctors. Fourth, you're a retard.

See that? Even though you made a bad argument I was still able to directly address it and didn't simply say "NOT RELIVANT" over and over again. Learn from that, faggot.

[Anonymous No.21673081]

>>21673037
>First, the argument isn't that dark triad features and a depressive state automatically renders arguments from people like that incorrect

Why did you cite the paper then?

[Anonymous No.21673084]

>>21672941
I think you're demanding too much. There's no way a discussion in applied ethics can get off the ground if we first have to sort out the metaphysical and epistemological issues in metaethics.

What really matters in an applied discussion is that we have a practical commitment to moral language, some sizeable overlap in the standards of moral epistemology, and our views can be expressed at least semi-independently of particular metaphysical commitments.

[Anonymous No.21673091]

>>21672888
You are deflecting every argument so far.
Im guessing youre referring to the infographic that there are a higher number of psychopaths among surgeons, lawyers, etc.
Even if that were true, a surgeon's ability to perform surgery isnt impaired by his presumed psychopathy, which might as well be an acquired trait after years of surgery training.
However, a depressed person displaying DT traits is impaired when making moral jidgements because of their propensity to fixate on personal suffering, subsequently projecting it to the world in the form of whatever-isms.
Also, I believe the primary cause is depression. Many turn to and start displaying DT traits when they are down as a reaction.
Its a simple sentiment, friend. If you dont want to have children, then dont. Dont pretend you can dictate the sexual freedoms of others.

[Anonymous No.21673093]

My life is awesome. It would suck if I didn't get to live it.

[Anonymous No.21673107]

>>21673091

Your distinction is irrelevant. The claim is that people's "bias" makes their preoccupations illogical and/or undesirable, not that it makes them better or worse at performing them.

[Anonymous No.21673136]

>>21673107
What is this non reply? Just another deflection...
I have a theory...
You've been making these threads for a while now. Your response has been to deflect and recast everything you don't agree with. But you still participate. You are still here.
Maybe... Just maybe... You are genuinely looking for a refutation. You desperately want your mind changed but can't take that step yourself...

[Anonymous No.21673152]

>>21673136

Did you even read your shitty citation?

[Anonymous No.21673154]

>>21670366
>better the devil you know
Refuted.

[Anonymous No.21673160]

>>21673152
Friend, I'm not that anon. But even this response was a shitty deflection...

[Anonymous No.21673163]

>>21673091
>depression
What you probably define as "depression", doesn't exist. Read Medical Nihilism by Stenenga, Anatomy of an epidemic by Whitaker, The Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black Disease by Metzl, or classics written by Foucault or Szasz. Psychiatry is a scam and (a useful) tool used by powerful regimes to opress those who are useless or potepotentially dangerous for them. You don't even need to look at its history, just see how it's used in modern Russia or China.

[Anonymous No.21673169]

>>21670366
life is fun

[Anonymous No.21673170]

>>21673160

Same shit-eating replies, same appalling animal grammar, same ESL cretinism, same bug-like persistence. You might as well be.

[Anonymous No.21673171]

>>21673091
If a preponderance of supporting evidence for anti-natalist positions is constituted by moral judgments of particular cases, then the presence of biases or cognitive deficits in people who evaluate the cases a certain way is undercutting evidence for those specific judgments. For example, if a deficit of empathy is associated with judging other people's lives not to be worth living, then one plausible explanation of that particular moral judgment is that the one who makes it has a difficult time imagining other people's positive affect.

This doesn't prove antinatalism is false. There could be other arguments for antinatalism that don't rest on judgment about particular cases. Or there could be an argument that some particular judgments are more trustworthy than others (for example, Singer thinks evolutionary debunking arguments are stronger against egoist positions than universalist positions).

Nevertheless, psychopathy or depression is still relevant in our explanatory model of particular judgments, and is therefore relevant in evaluating the evidence for antinatalism insofar as antinatalists appeal to judgments of particular cases.

[Anonymous No.21673172]

>>21670639
>Life is harm
I see no evidence of this. My life is fantastic, as are the lives of my kids. I'm also not caring enough to genuinely care about the lives of people outside of my family, to the point I would rather produce genuinely successful, fulfilled children even if it meant the suffering of some untold number of others.

[Anonymous No.21673180]

>>21673170
>>21673171
Ok you win friend. I'm still having children. Bai bai :)

[Anonymous No.21673192]

>>21673172

Yes, the natalist position is bestial and not Morally justifiable. We know.

[Anonymous No.21673281]

>>21673093
Well, antinatalism cares about people who are suffering.