/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19111917]

>The greatest salvation is to have never been born into this world.

Refute this, you literally can’t.

[Anonymous No.19111933]

>>19111917
Greeks and philosophical pessimists agree.

Copers will cope.

[Anonymous No.19111945]

I toss my hat into the ring.

[Anonymous No.19111951]

i disagree, having been born i get to experience what life has to offer, then i get to die and be at peace just like those who were never born. its literally the same as not being born but better

[Anonymous No.19111953]

>>19111917
>I love my life, despite the hardships. In fact, overcoming hardships and rejoicing in our personal triumphs is one of the my favorite aspects of life. The philosophers can seethe and debate to their hearts desire, but me, I'll keep living in the moment and enjoying this gift.

[Anonymous No.19111960]

>>19111917
That's not salvation, that's nothingness. It's like saying that the safest way of having sex is not having it.

[Anonymous No.19111964]

>>19111960
>It's like saying that the safest way of having sex is not having it.
What's the problem here?

[Anonymous No.19111967]

>>19111953
me when I'm tortured by a cartel like a boss

[Anonymous No.19111973]

>>19111917
You have to understand the context behind this. Zeke is a child soldier from a race of humans that, at any moment, can be transformed into mindless unstoppable killing machines. He never hated humanity, he hated himself and his own kind for the monsters they were.

[Anonymous No.19111974]

>>19111951
Thankfully life is so short. We can easily tolerate an eternity of no existence, but a century of living provides all kinds of suffering with it. Happiness is a passing moment, suffering is all there is in this world.

>>19111953
Those are all instincts set by nature. You are a monkey, a slave to your instincts. To be alive is to be a slave.

>>19111960
Safest way of doing drugs, is not doing them. Why play a game that is rigged against you from the start?

[Anonymous No.19111984]

>>19111953
>Haha, life is so great guys! Suffering is part of the process and overcoming it is great!

[Anonymous No.19111992]

>>19111967
>>19111984
>bad things happen to a handful of people, so it's better that 7 billion shouldnt exist
>sent from my iphone
kill yourselves.

[Anonymous No.19111996]

>>19111917
Only what exists can be saved. The salvation function operates on objects. Its output on nothingness is undefined, like dividing by zero.

[Anonymous No.19112003]

I'm white so this doesn't really apply to me

[Anonymous No.19112022]

>>19111992
>Handful

Everyone suffers. We instinctually cope by reminding ourselves ‘that there is good also!’ Our brain keeps us alive since we possess a survival instinct. If we lost that instinct and given true freedom, everyone would rope.

[Anonymous No.19112072]

>>19112022
ok but stubbing your toe once and a while is a little different than getting your face carved by a cartel or being lit of fire

[Anonymous No.19112085]

>>19111917
Both Eren and Ymir literally refuted it.

[Anonymous No.19112089]

>>19112072
True, when I see those videos, it reminds me that there are those that suffer even more than me. It only strengthens my opinions. The very fact you can put people through so much pain that it will literally bypass their survival instinct is horrifying.

[Anonymous No.19112106]

>>19111917
I enjoy being alive and I am thankful for my parents for giving me life, since I am not mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.19112123]

>>19112106
>not mentally ill
>on 4chan
Pick one

[Anonymous No.19112258]

>>19111917
By being born I am granted salvation through Christ. To have never been born is to never know Christ or eternal life.

[Anonymous No.19112307]

>>19112258
Your religion is a lie to control gullible idiots like you. No moral being would create anything as awful as hell.

[Anonymous No.19112320]

Ok, now what are you going to do about it?

[Anonymous No.19112378]

>>19111917
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_xXC37CDSw
You sound like these catladies and faggots in the comments

[Anonymous No.19112402]

>>19111917
Awesome. Why don't they tell this to the Chinese, Indians, and Africans who overpopulate the world with their filth? Why does this have to be reminded to first worlders?

[Anonymous No.19112410]

>>19111953
Why would Gigachad say something so cringe.

[Anonymous No.19112463]

>>19111917
then i'll just have to do with the second greatest salvation.

[Anonymous No.19113829]

>>The greatest salvation is to have never been born into this world.

What is not cannot be saved.

[Anonymous No.19113838]

>>19111917
Then go kill yourself for fucks sake people like this are really insufferable

[Anonymous No.19113841]

>>19111917
not-being is unknowable and as such cannot be compared with being

[Anonymous No.19113859]

You choose to turn away from God. You choose to hold your opinion as Truth. You'll have no one to blame but yourself on judgement day. Dont let your arrogance destroy you- all of you. You are loved and we don't want you to perish.

[Anonymous No.19114018]

>>19111917
Salvation implies being saved, if you never existed in the first place, then what are you “saved” from?

[Anonymous No.19114030]

>>19114018
I should have actually read the thread before replying

[Anonymous No.19114072]

They condemn life.

[Anonymous No.19114235]

>>19111992
>>bad things happen to a handful of people
Bad things happen to literally everyone.

[Anonymous No.19114236]

>>19114072
His life is a condemnation of his thought. May God have mercy on him.

[Anonymous No.19114932]

>>19111973
such a based image, my phone background

[Anonymous No.19114968]

>>19111917
Tatakae

[Anonymous No.19116276]

>>19113859
>Be loveable and wise creator
>Want everyone to worship you, if they don't they suffer for all eternity.

Sounds bullshit. In reality...

Religious Leader: Follow these things I say, because they come from a God, if you don't follow what I - uh God says, you will suffer!
Literally brainwashing 101

[Anonymous No.19117315]

>>19111951
>but better
you innocent thing

[Anonymous No.19117327]

>>19112307
>No moral being would create anything as awful as hell.
No moral being would create anything as awful as Earth for that matter.

[Anonymous No.19117763]

>>19112022
>Our brain keeps us alive since we possess a survival instinct.
What about people who kill themselves? Or people who sacrifice their lives to save others? There's no real hard and fast 'survival instinct' as you put it, people generally want to live and are afraid of death and mortal danger on an instinctual level, sure, but obviously it can be overcome through rationalization. You seem to think the reason all people don't arrive at an anti-life conclusion is because the survival instinct prevents them from thinking rationally about their own suffering; I would argue that the survival instinct only really kicks in during dangerous situations where the threat of death is real and immediate. In the safety of ones own home the survival instinct wouldn't prevent someone from coming to rational conclusions about the decision to commit suicide.
The simple truth is that most people choose to live, not because they are blinded to their own suffering, but because their pain is manageable, and is in most cases eclipsed by their happiness and enjoyment of life. I'm fairly certain that the antinatalist preoccupation with suffering and the dismissal of happiness stems from the depression the proponents of antinatalist seem to experience or have experienced. Why would suffering so obviously be considered ethical grounds for the cessation of life, but happiness never considered grounds for the continuation of life? Unless, of course, you were yourself a depressed individual, who couldn't conceive of people's happiness outweighing their suffering, and dismissed such an idea out of hand as the coping mechanism of an irrational person. This is the way antinatalists cope with their own misery- by assuring themselves that everyone else is suffering or suicidal; or at least, that they would be if they weren't so overridden by their 'survival instincts'. But antinatalists don't seem to realize that the experience of suffering is also, at some level, a result of 'survival instincts', and if the choice to continue life can be dismissed as irrational on that basis so can the choice to end life; suffering and pain are your instincts telling you to take take action to remedy your situation, and suicide is just the easier way out of experiencing that suffering.
All that being said, I am sympathetic to antinatalists and their cause, and I hope they continue to have no children and die premature deaths at their own hands.

[Anonymous No.19117797]

>>19112378
Someone needs to make an edit of this...cut it down to 30-45 seconds and add random cats meowing. The end could be her dying in a palliative care ward with no one around.

[Anonymous No.19117821]

>>19111917
Easily refuted: Anyone who makes that argument and doesn't kill themselves is a hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.19117852]

>>19117763
Pessimism is Perennial Truth

Wisdom Of Silenus:
>"You, most blessed and happiest among humans, may well consider those blessed and happiest who have departed this life before you, and thus you may consider it unlawful, indeed blasphemous, to speak anything ill or false of them, since they now have been transformed into a better and more refined nature. This thought is indeed so old that the one who first uttered it is no longer known; it has been passed down to us from eternity, and hence doubtless it is true. Moreover, you know what is so often said and passes for a trite expression. What is that, he asked? He answered: It is best not to be born at all; and next to that, it is better to die than to live; and this is confirmed even by divine testimony. Pertinently to this they say that Midas, after hunting, asked his captive Silenus somewhat urgently, what was the most desirable thing among humankind. At first he could offer no response, and was obstinately silent. At length, when Midas would not stop plaguing him, he erupted with these words, though very unwillingly: 'you, seed of an evil genius and precarious offspring of hard fortune, whose life is but for a day, why do you compel me to tell you those things of which it is better you should remain ignorant? For he lives with the least worry who knows not his misfortune; but for humans, the best for them is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature's excellence; not to be is best, for both sexes. This should be our choice, if choice we have; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can.' It is plain therefore, that he declared the condition of the dead to be better than that of the living."

Hegesias of Cyrene, Death by Starvation:
>The book was called Death by Starvation or The Death-Persuader. According to the Roman orator Cicero (lived 106 – 43 BC), the entire book was essentially an argument for why everyone should just give up on life and kill themselves.

Ecclesiastes 4:1
>Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun: I saw the tears of the oppressed-- and they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors-- and they have no comforter.
Ecclesiastes 4:2
>And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive.
Ecclesiastes 4:3
>But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.


THE DIALOGUE OF PESSIMISM, MESOPOTAMIAN WISDOM
>What then is good? To have my neck and yours broken, Or to be thrown into the river, is that good?
>Who is so tall as to ascend to heaven? Who is so broad as to encompass the entire world?

First Two Noble Truth of Buddhism:
>dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence in the realm of samsara;
>samudaya (origin, arising) of this dukkha, which arises or "comes together" with taṇhā ("craving, desire or attachment")

[Anonymous No.19118094]

>>19112378
Someone needs to make an edit of that video: >Cut it to about 45 seconds
>Most of it would be different cuts highlighting how often she says "I'/"me"/"myself"
>Cats meowing in the background intermittently
>"Say I'll regret it" "say I'll change my mind"
>"Just getting your tubes tied" "they're acting like they're injecting me" "A disease" "just birth control"
>"Talking about me" "I hear them"
>"I've thought about it" "my decision"
>"Society is fixated" "fixated" "intrusive"
>"Ask me 'don't I want to leave anything behind'"
>"Behind"
>"me" "me" "myself" "me" "myself" "my decision"
>Dissolve to a palliative care ward
>Silence [save dull beeps and hissing sounds of medical equipment]
>Last shot is her old in a hospital bed
>No one is around to hear her last words
>"Myself...me." <death rattle>
>Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee [fade to black]
>Meow

[Anonymous No.19118119]

>>19113838
>why don’t you le kill yourself then heh checkmate get btfo’d by my superior intellect
there has to be at least one of these midwits in threads like these it’s like a law

[Anonymous No.19118136]

>>19118119
It's a valid retort.

[Anonymous No.19118283]

>>19118136
it’s really not. the whole point is to never have existed in the first place, it’s not to exist and then end it all. once you exist it’s too late, killing yourself or not will not change that

[Anonymous No.19118349]

>>19118283
That's begging the question. You have to come up with an argument as to why it's ok to continue existing if not existing is better. "Well I already exist so there's no longer a choice" isn't an argument because the existential thesis of antinatalism is that existence is inherently net negative. By continuing to live how are you benefiting? If you are benefiting you then have to argue without the assumption of the absolute at the centre of the argument.

[Anonymous No.19118353]

Being is literally identical to Goodness, and evil is a privation of Being/Goodness, ergo existence is fundamentally better than non-existence. Also, these antinatalist arguments always employ consequentialist ethics which is very cringe

[Anonymous No.19118456]

>>19118349
once you are brought into existence you are faced with the same survival instinct anyone else is. no matter how well you know existence is a net negative it is still difficult to inflict violence on oneself. on top of that committing suicide only furthers the suffering of others. from the moment you are born you are trapped but to not exist in the first place alleviates that trap. I don't really agree with antinatalism but to simply say commit suicide is not a logically valid solution when you consider all the contingencies life brings with it vs not existing at all

[Anonymous No.19118730]

>>19118456
It is still valid because your statements still beg the question. The bottom line is that antinatalism assumes an absolute and is self-defeating once you force the person arguing to justify their continued existence in terms of that absolute. It's nihilism in a thin disguise.

Survival instinct is invalid because the argument assumes a rational actor. You're also positing that a momentary negative experience, "inflict[ing] violence on oneself," is at a greater cost than the value offered--and the assumption is that not existing is optimal. In so doing you open the door to scale and invite the idea of a positive existence while also refuting the absolute. As far as other people being upset--the argument is that you no longer exist so the perception of other's pain isn't a factor. Besides, their existence is a net negative as well so how are they justified in remaining alive? Maybe the most humane thing to do would be to euthanize others as well for the greater good--it would certainly cease the continuous ongoing and potentially limitless suffering that will come in the future. Hell, over 7% of all people who have ever existed are alive at this moment--taking action now would mean we're doing it early!
>From the moment you are born you are trapped but to not exist in the first place alleviates that trap
That begs the question. Nonexistence is an option so you are not trapped, you have to prove why nonexistence is no longer the rational choice to make once you are alive. The fact that "contingencies life brings along" exist means you can't argue in terms of an absolute value in nonexistence because you're assuming positive values by not killing yourself.

[Anonymous No.19118795]

>>19118730
the whole point is you can NOT be rational once you are alive though. it's not assuming a rational actor it's assuming that once you are brought into life you are unable to think about it rationally. which is why people cling to it despite knowing it's pitfalls. and positing suicide as a "momentary negative experience" is a bit reductionist. I mean suicide is a messy procedure no matter how you go about it not to mention failed suicide. and yes it is nihilism that's never been argued. not taking other people's pain into factor is not invalid. antinatalists are not psychopaths they don't intend to cause pain for others or to kill others for their own philosophical beliefs. i think there's some fundamental misunderstandings you have about antinatalism. again agreeing with it's extreme nature is difficult. I don't do so myself. I just get where they're coming from. the dichotomy between continuing existence and bringing about a new existence is still something worth pondering even if you don't agree with it

[Anonymous No.19118857]

>>19118730
you seem to love saying begging the question but your use of it seems to be begging the question itself. not existing in the first place is an option. killing yourself AFTER you have been brought into existence is a separate matter. you are conflating the two.

[Anonymous No.19118889]

>>19111917
Can't compare nothing to something. It's nonsensical. We have no other perspective other than our living one, so we can't say nothingness is better.

[Anonymous No.19118976]

>>19118795
I don't misunderstand antinatalism. The fact is the devil is in the details.

The whole point isn't that you "cannot be rational once you are alive" (we're having a rational discussion right now). The whole point is devaluing existence which is embodied by the potential of not existing. You want to start the argument from the premise that not existing is an optimal value but are unable to maintain that value without an absolute (which is entirely hypothetical by the way...a corollary I haven't directed pointed out yet). You can't affirm the value of the absolute or even maintain the supposed value of the basic premise which underlies the entire argument.

I said that antinatalism is nihilism in a thin disguise. I don't believe that all people that think it's a valid system of ethics are psychopaths--I do however challenge them to maintain the values they profess in the face of reality. They can't and their argument becomes circular and begs the question.

That's how you refute antinatalism--you bring the basic assumption to the forefront, demonstrate that the assumption is based on an absolute value (bonus: show that it is in fact a hypothetical), and then challenge them to base the claim in reality as it stands.

Not existing is inherently better than existing...care to demonstrate? Why not?

[Anonymous No.19118986]

>>19111917
I'm happy. The usual /r9k/ sadfag response is "cope". I have nothing to I need to cope with. I am just happy.

Consider yourself refuted.

[Anonymous No.19119081]

>>19118976
the fact that we can have moments of rationality does not negate the overall irrational nature of humanity. and you keep saying absolute. no one besides you has said it is an absolute the fact that we can debate about it does prove it is not absolute just like most things, what they are saying is that there is an asymmetry. antinatalists do maintain their values by choosing not to bring others into existence. the devil is in the details like you said. you are conflating the harm of bringing someone into existence without consent vs already existing. but I do see your points I just don't think your approach to debunking antinatalism is sound.

[Anonymous No.19119104]

>>19118976
the reason it doesn't beg the question is because antinatalist see the suffering of the world greatly outweighing the good for most of human life. there's no circular argument it's just based on the bare facts of suffering and death being the bare facts of life.

[Anonymous No.19119114]

>>19111917
Because the unbaptized unborn burn in hell, faggot.

[Anonymous No.19119132]

>>19111917
That's like saying the greatest sacrifice god could have made is not bringing jesus into the world. The act of salvation cannot occur without a conscious because it is the material overcoming its materiality

[Anonymous No.19119134]

>>19119104
and to add onto this because you will say again this begs the question. Death and suffering are universal in every life, but many lives have very little pleasure in them if you look outside the developed world and even within it. Pleasure is just a small alleviation usually from suffering, a painkiller to take away a pain but that does not negate the existence of the pain itself

[Anonymous No.19119160]

>>19119114
>the nothing burn in the fictional bad place
k

[Anonymous No.19119263]

>>19112410
I think it’s the same guy who always ruins the threads,

[Anonymous No.19119282]

>>19111917
for you

[Anonymous No.19119525]

>>19118976
>Not existing is inherently better than existing...care to demonstrate? Why not?
wow you really got me I shall now will myself to never have existed.
think about what you are saying for more than a couple seconds. to commit suicide means you must exist. the WHOLE POINT is to NOT exist. how are you not getting this?

[Anonymous No.19119585]

>>19119525
Are you retarded? Existence ceases when you die, dipshit. Having never existed is synonymous with nonexistence after you cease to exist...because you don't continue existing. Are you actually fucking retarded?

[Anonymous No.19119698]

>>19119104
Let's go for clarity + new ground. First, we're not arguing if people are rational, that's a slide. We've assumed that antinatalism (AN) can be expressed by rational people and suicide can be a rational choice. This isn't the point—the point is the basic premise of AN being an argument that nonexistence isn't just favorable but also optimal when weighed against existence (there's an assumed pragmatism there as well).

Aside from existing/not existing being as absolute as things get—we're discussing the fundamental premise of AN. Again, this is that nonexistence is the optimal outcome with regard to life. My position is that this is in fact an absolute but you cannot justify its practicality outside of a (hypothetical) premise without undermining it. The reason it's an absolute is that you assume the weight of all experience as the key fundamental and make an assertion based on the supposed aggregate. In asserting the total weight of experience as negative, and selectively judging practicalities, you also beg to posit individual experiences. So suicide?

The point of bringing up suicide is to make an ANist justify their premise given that they appeal to the total weight of human experience. Pragmatically, how is a life justified once it exists but not before it exists? That door has been opened above and AN is pragmatic to the assumption of its own premise. Most arguments will attempt to justify remaining alive as a reduction of harm. First, how can you now justify claiming such ground given the absolute nature of your own premise? You will no longer exist so human experience is nullified (which is optimal) and by your own calculus mass suicide would reduce the harm caused by future life immeasurable (7% of all humans are alive right now so we're getting things early). Second, if you now scale to individual experience why was such not a factor before? Doing so opens the door that you've accepted a false aggregate and I can now appeal to your arguments as examples of beneficial aspects of experience. The main thing is you have actually undermined the basic assumption that the aggregate of all human life is suffering. You want to take an absolute premise but apply it with a scalpel when you see fit and you're willing to justify doing so by undermining the initial justification of the absolute itself. Inconsistent.

Antinatalism. It's an absolute premise that unjustifiably posits as a logical tautology. In fact, AN is a rhetorical tautology and retreats in on itself by begging the question of its basic premise even after it's been made to admit that it's optimal ends do not justify pragmatic means—it's actually self-defeating here in its abandonment of the absolute in order to posit experiences it deems harmful in aggregate. Unjustified logical tautology and a blatant rhetorical tautology--as far as formal and informal logic goes that's pretty much as refuted as something can get.

I'm going to watch a movie.

[Anonymous No.19119713]

>>19119525
Because I don't accept your premise and you can't justify it. How are you not getting that? (Also, other anons have joined our discussion...I'm not being rude and would have gone for the obvious KYS joke/meme when/if things turned sour).

[Anonymous No.19119718]

>>19111917
>non-existance can have a quality [salvation] apart from not being in the category of existance
this is logically inconsistent
or is it equal
becuase the only quality not shared by both is being "thrown out" ( I dont know the fancy greek word)

[Anonymous No.19119737]

>>19119585
>Having never existed is synonymous with nonexistence after you cease to exist
Not him, but it isn't and that's the entire point of antinatalism.

[Anonymous No.19119837]

>>19119737
Are you going to make a privation argument? Go on.

[Anonymous No.19119859]

>>19111917
>social anxiety and tranny thoughts that came back 10 years after therapy
Wish I was aborted senpai

[Anonymous No.19120060]

>>19119859
take your pills Alice

[Anonymous No.19120260]

>>19112307
You're the gullible idiot that got jewed by cartoons amd video games. Why are you devoting so much of your time to this if you don't believe in God or an afterlife? Utterly illogical lol. You completely misunderstand the concept of hell, please actually read a book instead of spending all your time jerking off and sitting mindlessly in front of the electronic jew. Man is in a fallen state, and the whole world was affected by our decision to turn from God. You were built in the image of the creator, you in turn have the power to create. Go outside, see how everything connects together flawlessly. You matter. If you don't, if you think there's nothing after death, then what the hell are you doing wasting your time with a fruitless debate?

[Anonymous No.19120349]

>>19119698
your whole argument was based on rational actors. I don't think you understand what you're talking about. You throw around all these terms as if you understand them (tautology, begging the question, corollary etc) when you are incapable of understanding the basic nuance of what's being stated. just go watch your movie philosophical discussion is a little too complicated for you. maybe learn what the terms you use actually mean while you're at it.

[Anonymous No.19120375]

>>19119698
suicide would be the correct solution but again like you said people are not rational so our irrationality prevents us from going through with it for the most part barring those whose will to die is stronger than their survival instinct.

[Anonymous No.19120429]

>>19119698
there is nothing absolute about it. it's simply weighing the good and the bad and considering that. your argument is just a strawman.

[Anonymous No.19120442]

>>19111984
he has a gf btw

[Anonymous No.19120458]

>>19120442
yea im sure they fuck all the time

[Anonymous No.19120462]

>>19120349
My entire argument isn't based on rational actors; were you seriously that filtered? I even said "we're not arguing if people are rational," that doing so would be a "slide," and ended the by saying why it "isn't the point."

As far as terms go--they were used correctly. You're free to point out where they weren't and I'm free to point out that taking issue with semantics, instead of discussing the arguments, is usually the last step of a filtered pseud who subconsciously wants to derail the convo so they can convince themselves they haven't been BTFO'd.

>>19120375
Never said people weren't rational (literally the opposite). Besides, it isn't an argument about rationality itself--it was merely asserted that rational arguments are possible and if you're not willing to accept that there's no point having a discussion.

[Anonymous No.19120490]

>>19120462
weren't you the one assuming "rational actors"?
>>19118730
if not apologies I was getting you mixed up with someone else your arguments seemed similar to theirs. and if we are NOT assuming rationality and as I've said before it is a matter of semantics. namely existence after birth is ok but starting a new life is not (in an antinatalist sense). again im not an antinatalist Im just tired of people telling them to go kill themselves. not only is that logically invalid in the case they are making it's a bit fucked up for a philosophical discussion especially considering the depressed state most antinatalists are in

[Anonymous No.19120523]

>>19111960
>safest way of having sex is not having it.
irrefutable

[Anonymous No.19120528]

>>19119713
>Because I don't accept your premise and you can't justify it
>so I’ll just misrepresent your entire argument and say that suicide is the same thing as never being born in the first place
anon you might seriously be retarded. I’m not even arguing one way or the other you just can’t comprehend the fundamental point of anti natalism apparently. that’s all I’m trying to get across

[Anonymous No.19120532]

>>19111917
Snk is forever tarnished in my mind due to the horrifically bad ending, such a shame.

[Anonymous No.19120556]

>>19117315
im not entirely a numale bugman so even well above average suffering isn't quite so big of a deal to me that id wish to never be born, though i will still probably end up having to commit suicide because of injury interfering with my life

[Anonymous No.19120789]

>>19118136
>>19118349
>>19118730
>>19118976
>>19119698
>>19120462

>>19120490
>>19120528
As far as rational actors are concerned I merely assume such are possible. It doesn't really matter--if existence is posited as irrational I can still use the same arguments (while also disagreeing on that point, which would make it a slide). In accepting it, I merely cede that someone can make a logical argument in favor of antinatalism but I also argue that someone can fairly rationalize suicide via the same common denominator--the assumption that not existing is better than existing. That's the initial point of entry regarding an objection concerning suicide as a conceptual retort against antinatalism.

There are no points in my argument that are dependant on peculiar semantics. I've used terms correctly and fairly (and, again, you're free to take the time to point out specific instances). Semantics in this sense concerns taking issue over arguments withou due diligence...not their intension or the logical relations which I have laid out clearly above as open for a direct retort. Acting in good faith as far as the formal semantics are concerned is all I'm obligated to do--the point is I'm free to make an argument using those terms and they haven't been manipulated for the sake of "arguing semantics."

I reject the claim that you can establish an absolute over human experience as a sum that is negative. Establishing such a claim, for the reasons given above, relates to suicide, again for the reasons given above, in such a way that is relevant and underscores a fault in a strong antinatalist program. The point is I don't have to accept the before/after distinction and that you're asserting it without justification (which would entail refuting the actual arguments I have made). In this instance, you are fallaciously and disengeuously "arguing semantics" in the colloquial sense.

I'm not telling anyone to go kill themselves. As I've argued toward a refutation of antinatalism the opposite should be assumed. I do not accept that there is a mutually exclusive relationship between summing human experience before and after birth--the onus is on you to build that argument and not merely state it. I reject your hypothesis for the consistent and valid reasons stated above. Part of refuting something means you're free to attack it on the grounds of premises--I've fairly chosen the central premises and laid out an argument. So far, you've just asserted I have to accept a before/after distinction as such for no reason--in the meantime, I've laid out actual arguments as to why I will not and have been fair enough to directly argue the points you brought up naturally and as they were generated.

If you want to leave the discussion, that's fine. But pretending you've refuted something or directly dealt with any of the concerns or issues I've raised is dishonest and there's a complete written record of our discussion that asserts such.

[Anonymous No.19121060]

>I like my live
bingo bango you lose

[Anonymous No.19121088]

>>19111917
what cartoon is this? thanks.

[Anonymous No.19121124]

>>19121088
It's from the most recent season of Attack on Titan

[Anonymous No.19121137]

>>19120789
Again suicide is not something that’s a retort when most antinatalists would see it as a good thing. You’re just trying to straw man arguments here. No one is saying it’s absolute no one is saying you’ve been absolutely refuted and I don’t want to leave the argument. In fact you were the one saying you’ve BTFO’d us pseuds and were going to go watch a movie. So it seems you just don’t want to consider the nuance of the point at all. As someone who fundamentally agrees with you and is pro natalist I just think you lack the rigor to argue against antinatalism in good faith.

[Anonymous No.19121151]

>>19121124
Thanks. Goddamn the IMDB rating is high af. Is it really that kino? Or overrated by "weebs"? The only anime I've watched was Spirited Away and it was magical and interesting. I might just watch this to see what I'm missing.

[Anonymous No.19121162]

>>19120789
Your argument about how you can just reject the claim is quite literally begging the question. As regards to suicide it would be rational from an antinatalist standpoint and many do go that far. But saying it’s the absolute necessity for antinatalism fails to understand nuance. So far you haven’t provided any evidence as to why life is a net positive

[Anonymous No.19121164]

>>19121151
don’t bother. the ending shit the bed and i’m not even being contrarian here it was disappointing to everyone

[Anonymous No.19121170]

>>19120789
>has no idea what he’s talking about
>insists he’s btfo’d everyone ITT
delusional

[Anonymous No.19121204]

>>19121151
It's kind of polarizing, as you can tell from the other anon's response. Personally I liked it, but I would hate for you to dislike it and be turned off from watching more anime. If you liked Spirited Away you should watch some more studio Ghibli movies first

[Anonymous No.19121220]

>>19121164
Damn, that's disappointing. Still seems like it got the most out of such a simple premise.

>>19121204
>Ghibli movies
Good idea

[Anonymous No.19121258]

>>19111917
Based Zeke

[Anonymous No.19121617]

>>19120789
You're simply coming at this from a theistic view where a priori all existence is good.

The principle argument that ANs make is one based on the presumption that their enemies are in fact atheists, or, those who don't have any metaphysical views about the innate goodness of the world. They are arguing against modern opponents, rather than older theistic ones. If you think the universe is good, then of course you can't not think human life is intrinsically good, if not:

It's not about proving a positive to a nothing (though I can assure you you can't actually validly assign 'good' as a predicate to the universe), but assuming the opposite, an inverse of Augustine's argument; existence is bad, and a privation of it is good. Thus we attribute a positive 'bad' to existence, and say that everything that thus isn't in the universe, is good. Universe= -5; even if I can't properly attribute anything to non-existence, by knowing empirically of the single alternative, I can say that it is bad. An important point: I'm not saying the universe is inherently metaphysically bad (though I do believe this), but that it is accidentally bad. That, as entities that are seemingly whole and suffer from dissolution both partway and entire, living in a universe of perpetual flux where anything stable is destroyed, we must necessarily be slowly eaten away at, in a most painful and worthless manner.

First I reject the premise of rationality. All existent things favour their own existence. Yet there are beings that do act in a manner not beneficial to their self's, yet beneficial to the whole of their genus. The individual's self is overwritten by the genus's. This is self-sacrifice. The point here being that we, much as any, are acting in a manner conducive to this just described phenomena, and as such, can be described as irrational. If so, suicide would not directly be any rational rebellion against a metaphysical hellscape, but an statistical outlier, a mutation, unimportant to the rest of the body. Suicide is possible, to some, because of something like 'even a broken clock is right twice a day'. Despite being creatures built for a specific purpose, a purpose in defiance of the inherently chaotic and dissolving universe, order, we occasionally, in a few individuals at least, can stare at the abyss straight on. This doesn't affect the majority, in fact, can't, yet still is a valid and true understanding.

Humans are conditioned by evolution for a specific purpose, order. But the universe is inherently chaos. The way humans create order is through intelligence. The greater the intelligence, the more prone it is to glitches, errors and so on. The more prone a thing is to errors, the more necessary it is to be A effective in its task to makeup the losses of the malformed, and B replaceable I.E. spares. (BTW, this isn't a 'boohoo I'm so smart it makes me sad argument; 'Intelligence' is human intelligence compared to say animal ones.)

[Anonymous No.19121664]

>>19121617
>The principle argument that ANs make is one based on the presumption that their enemies are in fact atheists,
Bullshite, read >>19117852
antinatalism has its roots in metaphysical traditions too.

[Anonymous No.19121670]

>>19121664
Yes, and humans have their roots in fish what's your point?

Metaphysics grounds most belief systems, yet that doesn't mean you can't argue between them. I'm specifically denying that the world is inherently 'designed' to be both good or bad, rather, it is accidentally bad.

[Anonymous No.19121674]

>>19121670
>it is accidentally bad.
Faggot

>Utopian optimism is depressing and ruthless. I remember for instance my encounter with Teilhard de Chardin. He was babbling enthusiastically on the cosmic evolution toward Christ, the Omega point, etc. I finally asked him what he thought of human suffering. 'Pain and suffering,' he said, 'are simply accidents of evolution.' I left at once, indignant, refusing to converse with someone so mentally defective.

Cioran

[Anonymous No.19121938]

>>19116276
You choice brother:
Anger or love, complaining or gratitude, despair or hope.
God is merciful. God is love.

[Anonymous No.19121993]

>>19112320
i like how this guy immediately jumps to killing the pregnant gf instead of not having sex or practicing non-penetrative intercourse
he puts the onus on the woman when he's the one with the monkey brain going against his own anti-natalism, slinging his go-gurt everywhere
im sure each of those faggots would kick and scream if someone tried to kill them

[Anonymous No.19122086]

>>19111992
>>bad things happen to a handful of people, so it's better that 7 billion shouldnt exist

Yes.

[Anonymous No.19122098]

>>19111917
Rarity accrues meaning and value, in the universe life is incredibly rare, meaning that despite all of that even a single life has value.
Pain, suffering and all that bad shit are things that you feel due to your environment not due to life itself being there, for the most part.

[Anonymous No.19122100]

>>19118353
>Being is literally identical to Goodness

Why?

[Anonymous No.19122739]

>>19120458
(some) girls don't mind fucking monsters.

[Anonymous No.19122742]

>>19122100
cuz it's an affirmation instead of a negation.

[Anonymous No.19122764]

>>19121137
I'm back. (Also I did go watch a movie; if the thread died I was giving an explanation for my absence--you can check time stamps if me doing something else is an issue for some reason).

There are two lines of thought under discussion. The initial is that suicide is irrelevant to a refutation of antinatalism. I built an argument wherein it plays a part that you have not answered. It doesn't matter if an antinatalist accepts suicide is the ethical choice--all that matters is it's relevant. Further, I can argue that suicide is unethical in aggregate using the same line of argument as the overall refutation (besides, if your position is in favor of mass suicide and you haven't done it--I can appeal to that and use whatever rationalizations you promote against the second towards refuting antinatalism which was the second line of thought). These arguments are built in such a way that they support one another.

You state I have made straw men just as you've accused me of other fallacies--I'll say the same thing in regard to that as I said before. I have laid open my argument and you're ignoring it in favor of fallacious assertions without evidence; rejecting a premise and giving valid arguments as to why is not a "staw man." You are distracting from my arguments instead of meeting them (that is what a pseud does when they're BTFO and I even elucidated that slide above).

As far as me not accepting nuance--you're the one asserting that I have to accept your premise. That doesn't make sense given that I'm attempting to refute it. I don't have to argue under your terms; it is your job not to be disingenuous and prove that I have to accept that principle. Aside from that, it is your job to show where my actual argument is fallacious in regard to it. Notice that I am not forcing you point blank to accept things in order to have this debate--that's not have built an argument works.

My issue is in regard to the aggregate of human experience as assumed by antinatalism--I do not have to accept that this is true especially given that it's the point I am using to refute it.

As far as good faith goes--you're not meeting my arguments, choosing to state they presume logical fallacies without arguing why, and asserting I have to accept a point I have built an argument against without giving a justification as to why this is so. Basically, you feel you disagree with me but are unable to meet the challenge.

>>19121162
It isn't. Begging the question would be assuming the opposite of the absolute in order to weaken it (which is not what I have done). Again, you're stating I'm begging the question but aren't giving justification to that assertion. Is not the central assertion of antinatalism that nonexistence is optimal over existence? Choosing that line to attack isn't ignoring nuance--especially if I clearly state and define the term. I reject that premise and give my argument as to why without begging the opposite.

1/2

[Anonymous No.19122796]

>>19121162
I don't have to directly provide evidence as to why life is a net positive in order to build my argument against antinatalism--besides, you do that for me by arguing against suicide. My argument is why I take issue with that assumption and not why the opposite is true (which is actually corollary). Again, I have given arguments as to why the two things (antinatalism and suicide) are related that you have not met directly,

[Anonymous No.19122815]

>>19121617
>You're simply coming at this from a theistic view where a priori all existence is good.
My argument has nothing to do with theism and there's no a priori assumed. That's a gross mischaracterization.
>First I reject the premise of rationality
Rationality isn't a "premise" of my argument and I've literally stated so above and provided clarification.

Are you starting a new line of discussion/given up undermining my actual argument?

[Anonymous No.19122825]

>>19122815
I'm a different anon. Please, actually try to engage with the substance of my post.

[Anonymous No.19122834]

>>19121170
>filtered by the argument
>copes and puts words in my mouth
I didn't insist everyone is BTFO but you certainly are here.

[Anonymous No.19122858]

>>19122825
It doesn't engage with the substance of my own so it's a new line of conversation. I'll engage it later if the thread is still up..

[Anonymous No.19122874]

>>19122858
I attempted to show how the world can be validly considered as bad, and thus, justify suicide.

If you don't think that's sufficiently related to your post, that's your prerogative; it certainly seems so to me.

[Anonymous No.19122879]

>>19111917
Eh it implies you know everything. Unironically read the book of Job.

[Anonymous No.19123557]

>>19122834
>doesn’t even understand the topic
>continues to act like he’s refuted anything
>gets called out on it
>”y-you’re just coping get BTFO I win I win”
actual pseud in denial

[Anonymous No.19123606]

>>19114235
yet most people don't wish to die, curious

[Anonymous No.19123809]

>>19121617
Fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.19123899]

>>19122874
I didn't say it was irrelevant but rather another line of conversation. If someone challenges you to refute something, especially if it's an online debate in a forum, the likelihood of a slide is 100%. One also has to meet the challenge in a tight space. Again, the narrower topic of discussion was specifically if suicide is a valid retort against antinatalism and I've taken the affirmative while ceding to the context of the thread. Find the arguments above and treat them as is necessary—I'm going to go meta because I'm not repeating myself.

Refutation--the initial step is to recognize and layout the strong program of whatever you're supposed to be refuting; this means focusing on the fundamental core argument underpinning the given doctrine. The point is to show the position to be weaker than assumed via focus at the core—this isn't creating a straw man but directly addressing a fundamental assumption (in this case an unwarranted pretext). In so doing, we begin to build an alternative position to the initial imposition of the core.

It's expected that people will be disingenuous as they take offense to the fact you're attacking the affirmation of the core (e.g. “fallacies--muh perimeters!”). They've internalized X and want you to refute A via their condition that it is derived via X which is itself tautological. This is why a lot of online debates become masturbatory and people begin to talk past one another: one knows A is true because X is immovably grounded—argue against A and one retreat to X. But I won't argue piecemeal A(s) when they're predefined in the overall context of X—I will do the above and weaken X in order to establish an A is open to attack via the assertion that X is irrefutable.

1/2---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Anonymous No.19123909]

>>19122874
Re >>19123899
The next step is to affirm that the context of X is being used as a sleight of hand. I don't have to argue an alternative and all I have to do is show you no longer affirm it in the strength you did before. Piecemeal A(s) will not appeal to X here, which further hinders the initial premise as being irrefutable, The key point is that you now have to change the character of X in order to make it applicable to the new arguments.

At best, you can argue for a weaker program. However, if this is so you've ceded the ground claimed via the core assumption, which assumes irrefutable authority from a (supposedly founded) calculus, that weighed existence as negative and nonexistence as a (pragmatic) means to an end. You're arguing the positives of existence for me. Basically, your argument turns into suicide isn't pragmatic because X no longer applies; but the only way you made it apply in the first place was via a strong program build on a falsely assumed absolute. You're now also refuting the strength of X and asserting that its context isn't absolute—sleight of hand.

Now, the last stage is to retreat back to X and argue that it is in fact fundamental. Its absolute nature is under question. The onus isn't on me (unless I accept false characterizations of my argument) and we go back to square one. However, why are we now establishing something if it was posited as irrefutable? It's a retreat to X, loop to infinity.

2/2---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Anonymous No.19123932]

>>19123899
>>19123909
Well this is all marvelous, but you haven't even bothered to give my post the slightest show-in.

If you want to give lectures on logical fallacies and the inability of democratic debate to come to any proper and useful conclusion, that is your prerogative; but to come into a post where the op has put forth a postulate, presumably with the intention to give and receive disparate views that diverge from his own, and then attempt to claim a moral victory by dressing down the combatants by the impossible folly of their task, seems rather silly to me.

Debate, don't debate—it's all the same to me. Just don't waste other peoples time. I could've not bothered with writing that (and this) post if I knew you weren't going to likewise extend the courtesy.

[Anonymous No.19124064]

>>19123932
Ok tiger, calm down. You invited yourself into the chain of discussion under the pretext that it had to do with what I wrote. As seen above, it didn't.

I intended to branch off separately from resolving the train you jumped into. Given that you're now projecting your own narcissism and derailing things because you're personally frustrated I'm glad I hadn't gotten to it yet.

[Anonymous No.19124076]

>>19120458
I bet he eats pussy real good with that angler fish mouth of his

[Anonymous No.19124114]

>>19111917
>>19111973
>tfw remembering all the kino SnK brought us, only to culminate in that absolute dogshit trainwreck of an ending
I will never get over my butthurt

[Anonymous No.19124272]

>>19111974
>Happiness is a passing moment, but suffering isn't!
retardation

[Anonymous No.19124286]

>>19111917
The greatest salvation is being able to decide what you want to do with your life. If that ability to decide leads you to killing yourself, it's still far better than being refused a choice.

[Anonymous No.19124337]

>>19114932
Too bad the author is a fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.19124341]

>>19124337
(Not the image, I meant Isayama)

[Anonymous No.19124578]

>>19121938
You should read about the problem of evil.

[Anonymous No.19124595]

>>19111917
If life is so awful, kill yourself right now. Do it.

[Anonymous No.19124813]

>>19124578
There isn't any. Men are evil because they turn from God, but through theosis we stave off evil as we are born again into True Life. Put down the mental jerkoffs of "philosophy", anon. They make you stray from the Truth.