/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14527998
what is the "certain threshold"?

>>14528013
Thats what im asking about, was the threshold ever quantified?

>>14527998
>is there neurological evidence to back this up?

Literally thousands of people a day take their own lives because; for them, the pain of existence outweighs any pleasure they get.

pain

>>14527998
No, but there's plenty of neuroscience to back up the fact that antinatalism results from mental illness.

>>14528126
>Literally thousands of people a day take their own lives because; for them, the pain of existence outweighs any pleasure they get.
And most of them don't suffer from any outstanding hardships. See >>14528902

>>14528902
>>14528908
doesn't refute the arguments for it. having a rose tinted view can also be called mental illness if it wasn't the majority.

>>14528932
>doesn't refute the arguments for it
The arguments for it are based on premises that apply only if you're mentally ill, though.

>>14528941
the premises don't care about your feelings.
life is a slaughter house looking at it any other way is insanity. look at evolution for example nothing more cruel of a process to create life.

>>14528948
>the premises don't care about your feelings.
They absolutely do, but I'm not surprised that you're too low-IQ and mentally ill to see something even so obvious.

>>14528957
life is cruel. a literal statistical fact.
you need to be an emotionally dead sociopath to either not care enough or a genuine imbecile.

>>14528961
>life is cruel.
Here you are already appealing to feelings. What a monumental retard.

>>14528962
how you look at evolution, death, natural selection any other way than to compare to a slaughter house is beyond insanity.

>>14528948
>life is a slaughter house looking at it any other way is insanity.
Why would you willingly paint yourself into this box? What a fucking retard. Jesus Christ. This, this is mental illness.

>>14528969
>offers nothing to refute this

>>14528974
Your premises are based on retarded fundamentals. For example "life is a slaughter house looking at it any other way is insanity"

>>14528966
You're still making sentimental emotional appeals, which is ironically even lower than appealing to basic intuitions. Since you concede that point, we can go back to >>14528941

>>14528977
look at evolution retard. tell me, is this not cruel?

>>14528981
Yes, dipshit. It is cruel. However, that reality doesn't encompass the entire concept of life.

>>14528979
sure there is no objectivity to this view, however, im not making a purely philosophically accurate argument (because thats impossible). but looking at life as a whole from the point of view of a human and somehow claiming its fine is stupid.

>>14528990
Do you concede that only mentally ill people subscribe to your basic premises?

>>14528993
no, obviously no. maybe those that predisposed to certain mental configurations, so called illnesses, like depression might have a higher chance to come the conclusion on their own, but obviously mentally healthy people can also reach this too.
because its not an argument purely of just emotion, and while its not objective either, again you have to be either a retarded nihilist or a sociopath to somehow not care enough to see this view.

>>14528071
Yes

>>14528999
where is the research paper on this?

>>14528962
Whats wrong with appealing to feelings?

>>14528996
>no, obviously no
Why not? It's empirically indisputable: most people don't accept your basic premises, and the people who accept them are usually mentally ill.

>its not an argument purely of just emotion,
Your arguments are based on appeals to intuition at best, if not deranged sentimental screeching like what you've been posting ITT. Antinatalism has no leg to stand on with non mentally ill people. You never even reach the stage where you can logically argue anything, since the basis of your arguments doesn't resonate with mentally sound people.

>>14529002
I measured it

>>14528984
thats the thing, just because some lives are good doesn't justify dragging some miserable lives along for the sake of it.
you wouldn't rape someone so that a 100 could exist would you?

>>14529007
>Whats wrong with appealing to feelings?
It doesn't work when only mentally ill people share your feelings. See >>14529005

>>14529011
So what? Mentally ill people are still people.

>>14529007
lets put this in simple terms.
some people are predisposed to certain patterns of thinking, some aren't.
happy people, healthy people, normal people, sure most of them couldn't reach that far to conclude that life is cruel but thats them appealing to their nature correct? because thats just a natural bias nothing more. if you could educate people on the cruelty of life you would have a hard time (note impossible) justifying existence or at the very least gambling with creating lives/evolution.

>>14529021
>So what?
So it's a mentally ill opinion, not the rigorous, rational argument its mentally ill adherents imagine it to be. You're entitled to your opinions, but don't pretend mentally sound people are rationally obligated to accept them,

>>14529023
>most of them couldn't reach that far to conclude that life is cruel but thats them appealing to their nature correct?
No. It's just that most of them don't accept the mentally ill tally system antinatalists usually base their arguments on.

>>14529029
depressed people aren't irrational, retard. bring a real argument. healthy people aren't rational either.

>>14529029
>what?
>So it's a mentally ill opinion, not the rigorous, rational argument its mentally ill adherents imagine it to be.
This is your projection. Nobody that supports antinatalism cares about rationality. They just believe in it, this bothers you.

>>14529032
>depressed people aren't irrational
I didn't argue anything about their rationality or lack thereof.

>>14529031
they don't accept it because of their bias, yes. not because they could justify life once they understand its cruelty outside of their personal experience.

>>14529033
>Nobody that supports antinatalism cares about rationality.
Jewish High Priest Benatar does, and so do most of his followers.

I am "natalist" out of pure spite against the universe and entropy. I want life to prevail, till the last drop of energy is wrung from this corpse universe.

>>14529035
>they don't accept it because of their bias
They simply don't accept your bias. That they have their own contradictory biases is a contributing factor, but on the most basic level, people who aren't mentally ill simply have no reason to entertain antinatalism, since it is based on your biologically dysfunctional values and intuitions (biases).

>>14529039
>someone I don't like is a jew, therefore they're wrong and cringe

>>14529039
Of course not. The argument is believed or not, and this bothers you. Why do people believe in antinatalism? They just do. You cant accept other persons believing in something you think its wrong and it makes you seethe.
Do you believe theres a "logical way to be wrong"? Lmao

>>14529010
You have beef with the creator, I understand. Majority people with mental illness have a gripe with the universe.

>>14529051
>Of course not.
Why are you lying, kike? (Rhetorical question, of course)

>>14529039
>its illogical
>its emotional
>only mentally ill persona believe in it
So a lot of people believe in it?

>>14529056
>People that believe X dont believe X
>no you are wrong
Why do you care what mentally ill people believe?

>>14529059
LOL @ all the incoherent responses I'm getting. As if to prove my point.

>>14529054
>Majority people with mental illness have a gripe with the universe.
True, so what is the problem then? Whats your argument?

>>14529065
Cool bro

>>14529067
You're quoting it, retard.
People with mental illness today could be people without mental illness tomorrow. The claim is just because some have a good life doesn't mean others have to participate when miserable. My challenge is they don't have to be miserable.

>>14529048
so they're biased and won't agree? fine it just makes then willfully ignorant cowards and really just bigots at the end.
plus it doesn't stop anyone from pressing the red button regardless of what "healthy" people think.

>>14529098
>so they're biased and won't agree?
They're "biased" in the same sense you're "biased", but that's besides the point, since the whole basis for your arguments is your own "bias", and people who don't share this bias have no reason to take your arguments seriously whether they are unbiased, or biased differently. How many times do you need this basic fact explained to you before you wrap your little head around it? You know, you should just come over and choke on my dick and get slapped around a little and get fucked; I will cure your "antinatalism" overnight.

nothing makes /sci/ seethe harder than /pol/tads except for antinatalists.

>>14529110
im not exactly claiming that my subjective view is objective. nor anyone's view is. obviously, retard.
but what im saying is that despite our biases, we can all come to the same conclusion. like when this retard >>14528984 admitted that evolution is a cruel process. we both have a different bias but we both agree that evolution as a process is cruel. all im saying is that by the same way both me and retard anon agreed on this, we could (and eventually should) agree on antinatalism.

>53 posts and none answer OP's question
Good job as always /sci/

>>14529120
>despite our biases, we can all come to the same conclusion
No, because the sole basis of your position is your "bias".

>we both agree that evolution as a process is cruel.
This has no bearing on the validity of antinatalism.

>>14529120
You have a mental illness, your inability to perceive life outside of solely misery is the leading indicator that you're mentally unwell. Your demonstration here that you're incapable of even arriving at the point I was making in my comment is indicative of your delusional state. Please seek help from a qualified professional and don't @ me, dipshit.

>>14529134
Based retard. The creator nods in approval.

>>14527998
Loss aversion is somewhat similar to this. In behavioral economics the pain of losing X amount of money is generally worse than the pleasure of gaining X.

Though it does not then follow that life is not worth living, or that having kids is immoral. The fact that most people want to continue living and that most people are happy to have experienced consciousness is direct counterevidence.

Regarding the personal situation of antinatalists, I think should be legal and accepted to euthanize yourself if you find life is too painful to continue. It's a win-win. Antinatalists get to exit from the existence they find so intolerable, and the rest of us are spared their whining.

>>14529090
Cool belief bro i support your right to believe in things

>>14529134
I don't perceive life solely as misery, and definitely don't see my personal life like that. as im not mentally ill. I never said I was depressed my bias and view is philosophical/intellectual or observational. I have the tinted rose view just like you, I just happen to also have the decency to take them off for a few seconds to consider other lives unlike you.

>>14529152
>I never said I was depressed my bias and view is philosophical/intellectual or observational.
I don't think so.

>>14529160
from baseless subjectivity to ad hominem. check mate, imbecile.

>>14529152
> I just happen to also have the decency to take them off for a few seconds to consider other lives unlike you.
I am sure they'll canonize you for this. You fucking hero.
>>14528969
>Why would you willingly paint yourself into this box?
Is this not a consideration of others?

>>14529152
>I never said I was depressed my bias
>observational.
>life is a slaughter house looking at it any other way is insanity.
Okay, chief. What an intellectually philosophical bias to display.

>>14529167
>baseless subjectivity
You mean like all of your screeching ITT? (Not that it's possible in principle of antinatalism to have any objective basis.)

>>14529146
you could kind of justify the life worth living part. the creation of life part however is, even without the antinatalist view is odd.
at least for me, I never understood the need or rationale behind procreation other than the pleasure of sex of course.

>>14529171
>I never understood the need or rationale behind procreation
Why does it need a rationale?

>>14529171
>I never understood the need or rationale behind procreation
Nobody asked you what you dont understand and nobody cares. You surely love talking about yourself

>>14529177
im not making an argument here. just purely talking about my view before antinatalism on procreation
im saying that at best I always found it odd as a concept (marriage, relationships) and at best disgusting (pregnancy, birth) even as a male not having to endure this.

>>14529184
at worst*

>>14527998
Try living with Chronic pain you idiot. Some people live with a condition where being in bad pain is the DEFAULT mode of existence for them.

>>14529184
At some point you mature and see it in a different light.

>>14529193
there you go natalist anons. keep on procreating and don't mind poor anons like him, because peronal muh life so good amirit?

>>14529193
Many people live with chronic pain.

>>14529197
Why do you keep having these emotional spergouts? I thought you were pretending that your position is "philosophical"? You really sound like you need to get fucked.

>>14529198
try living with one without contemplating suicide every hour dofus.

>>14529202
>I thought you were pretending that your position is "philosophical"
Nobody pretends that. You are imagining what others are thinking and then get angry and lash out at your imagination

>>14529202
why do you keep being selfish and not caring about the destruction you leave because of natalism? and keep hiding behind muh you're mentally ill! and my life is good so its ok lol

>>14529208
Are you capable of rational discussions at all, or do you want to come over and gag on my dick?

>>14529198
and for many it fucking sucks ass. Tehre are some people who have severe mental illness and all the meds they tried out either don't work or drop in efficiency.

>>14529203
Many people live with chronic pain. They don't have to live, but they choose to. You, on the other hand, have never experienced any real degree of suffering.

>>14529216
>Tehre are some people who have severe mental illness and all the meds they tried out either don't work or drop in efficiency.
It's mostly sentimental and irrational normies like you forcing them to stay alive, though, so I'm not sure what your point is.

>>14529213
apparently all you're capable of is ad hominem and derailing the conversation. you know its wrong, you're just a sperging coward.

>>14529217
What the fuck are you trying to do? Convert people to your religion?

>>14529222
>all you're capable of is ad hominem
Not really. I've already explained to you patiently why your position doesn't afford you any higher ground: you are arguing based on nothing but your biologically dysfunctional emotions.

>>14529226
>doesn't afford you any higher ground
What the fuck are you talking about? This isnt a football game

>>14529223
>What the fuck are you trying to do?
Give you a reality check. You see things the way you do because you're a loser. Countless people have gone through things worse than anything you or your jewish extinction cult leader can imagine, and think you're ridiculous. Why do you pretend to speak for others?

>>14529229
>What the fuck are you talking about?
The fact that you're just screeching about your subjective emotions. Hate to break it to you, but other people simply don't feel the way you do.

>>14529230
>seething this hard, because a philosophy and an ethical examined view on life threatens your existence and way of useless life

>>14529244
>my emotional spergouts threaten your entire existence!!!
No way you actually believe this.

>>14529250
you're the one posting wojaks lmao

>>14529252
I'm the one rubbing your nose in some inconvenient facts that undermine your Jewish cult leader's point.

>>14529230
>Why do you pretend to speak for others?
quite simply because we know better, and those survivors than in your imagined head lived simply because they didnt know any better.

>>14529252
Pretty much.

Poe's law II:
>any faggot who relies on memes for community approval is surely wholly reliant on said faggotry

to anon that keeps calling benetar a jewish cult leader
how the fuck does that help anyone?

>any faggot who relies on memes for community approval is surely wholly reliant on said faggotry
Says a drone while practically begging for his buddy to pat him on the back in return.

>>14529257
>quite simply because we know better
Nice of you to demonstrate the depths of your narcissistic, delusional mental illness so blatantly. :^)

>>14529264
>how the fuck does that help anyone?
It helps those to whom evolution has shown its cruel and uncaring side, I guess.

>>14529268
come on man, you really look at life, everything from the first rna/dna molecule to modern man and all the violence in between and somehow dare claim that its alright? throwing ad hominems here and there like calling a philosopher a jewish cult leader?
it looks to me you're the one whose a delusional narcissist who can't let go

>>14529282
>you really look at life, everything from the first rna/dna molecule to modern man and all the violence in between and somehow dare claim that its alright?
Yes.

>calling a philosopher a jewish cult leader?
That Mossad shill is not a philosopher. Try reading some actual philosophers and maybe my answer to your other question will make more sense to you. In the meanwhile, you can come over and ride my dick for a bit to ease your female hysteria.

>>14529290
>Yes.
then I can just dismiss you as a cruel, selfish and uncaring person.
and so can most people if they see through what life really is.

>>14529296
Sure, you can have your childish little tantrum, but it doesn't make your position any more substantial.

> so can most people if they see through what life really is.
Most people aren't mentally ill like you, so they don't see things the way you do.

>>14529290
antinatalism aside, your obsession with jews is something else.

>>14529302
I just find it uncanny how there's a jew behind nearly every aberrant and degenerate idea floating around in the normiesphere.

>>14529297
There is a wildcard under their sleeve that you don't see and won't ever see coming. its a shame people like you lack self reflection and empathy.

>>14529379
You have always been, and will always be, an unintelligent drone. Nothing more ironic than to watch an antinatalist whine something about self-reflection. If you were capable of it to any degree, you wouldn't make a faux philosophy out of your own mental illness and emotional spergouts.

>>14529391
Nobody here is talking about philosophy except you.

>>14527998
There is a lot of pain out there overall, not sure if pleasure is its flip side though, I don't know how he's defining either. Would bet he has a serious neurological disorder of some kind. Life is full of bants that he can't take and so he spews this junk from his little desk in his little cloudy room.

>>14529393
Why do you keep responding to my post with this absolutely schizophrenic drivel? I realized you are either insane or a shill the first time you did it and I just don't care anymore.

>>14530331
You really like talking about yourself

>>14530344
Why do you constantly think I am talking about you when I'm talking to or about other people? Do you understand the concept of other posters ITT, kike?

>>14528932
>doesn't refute the arguments for it
There are no arguments for moral convictions.

>>14528948
Kill yourself then lol
The rest of us will keep on going

>>14528981
What’s wrong with some cruelty? I think evolution is quite beautiful and grand. My ancestors overcame evolution’s challenges for billions of years, and so have I. You, on the other hand, apparently cannot even handle comparably cushy modernity.

>>14529010
>just because some lives are good doesn't justify dragging some miserable lives along for the sake of it.
Why not?
>you wouldn't rape someone so that a 100 could exist would you?
I’d rape someone purely for fun if I was confident I’d get away with it.

>>14530353
>You, on the other hand, apparently cannot even handle comparably cushy modernity.
Modernity is not cushy. Modernity is making people so ill it disrupts all of their basic biological functions. Modernity is making people so ill they want to kill themselves.

>>14529171
>I’m a mentally ill loser who doesn’t understand the appeal of being a parent
Good riddance to your subpar genes I guess.

>>14528902
Got any links sounds interesting? hopefully it isn't just some
>people who are mentally ill are more likely to not want to force someone to exist

>>14530358
>Modernity is not cushy.
It objectively is. There’s more people than ever before and we’ve never been less vulnerable to disease, weather conditions, hunger, or thirst.

>Modernity is making people so ill it disrupts all of their basic biological functions. Modernity is making people so ill they want to kill themselves.
I suppose so, but nevertheless the average person is much less likely to be killed by the weather, a lack of food, or a lack of water than they’ve ever been previously. Food is extremely plentiful, so much that large portions of the population have become obese, and air-conditioned interiors are easily accessible.

>>14530362
Existing is good. If you don’t like existing, then kill yourself. I recommend suffocating in an inert gas.

>>14530365
>There’s more people than ever before and we’ve never been less vulnerable to disease, weather conditions, hunger, or thirst.
Those are all, ironically, subjective metrics, unlike the metric of how many people are suffering so badly they want to die even under your supposedly favorable conditions.

>>14530368
>Those are all, ironically, subjective metrics
No.

>>14530369
>my IQ is 80
Yes, I knew that the moment you spouted that worthless shart about how "cushy" are conditions that disrupt an organism to the degree that it forfeits all of its basic biological imperatives.

>>14527998
Wrong premise. Opposite of pain doesn’t have to be pleasure nor does pleasure = a life worth living.

>>14530410
Normalgroids can't real in anything but the most primitive and nihilistic terms so your point is lost on them.

>>14527998
Actually there's a fine line between pleasure and pain.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvc5FyigF5Q

>>14530520
>Actually there's a fine line between pleasure and pain.
Pseuds deserve to undergo a Mexican cartel execution to give them some perspective.

>>14528126
Some people are so oversaturated with pleasure that it just becomes painful to them.
Then there are some people that just turn pain into pleasure.

My problem is more along the lines of feeling nothing and I think that causes more suicide that pain or pleasure in our world nowadays.

>>14530524
>My problem is more along the lines of feeling nothing and I think that causes more suicide that pain or pleasure in our world nowadays.
See >>14530522

>>14528902
>antinatalism results from mental illness.
And mental illness results from living in a toxic social environment.
I.e. "why would I bring my kid into a world we're they're mindlessly injected with poison with no real oversight and then forced to work to pay off debt in a ponzi scheme economy?"

Mental illness is purely subjective to the working environment of a society and it's fundamentally flawed as a concept because of this subjectivity.

>>14530522
>>14530527
>Pseuds deserve to undergo a Mexican cartel execution to give them some perspective.
But that's often a real psychological coping mechanism to such torture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQqjHechnj4

It's a vicious cycle even.

>>14530529
>And mental illness results from living in a toxic social environment.
Fair enough. We agree that your perspective results from you being the product of a degenerate environment.

>>14530541
>We agree that your perspective results from you being the product of a degenerate environment.
Absolutely and that environment is called modern society.
A dense pack tin of sardines that we call our society.
And the ludicrous abominations that are unnatural that manifest from it.

Such as organisations paid to shill and psychologically manipulate people for profit.
They're bound to make some mental illness, yes.

>>14530545
Okay. What do you want me to do? Pat you on the back? Glad we agree that your perspective is a product of mental illness and a sick environment, rather than some profound philosophical revelation rooted in reason and reflection.

>>14530546
No what I'm trying to say is that humanity is universally mentally ill now. Even ostracised tribes can't avoid it.
I for one say we should go all in with it.

>>14530550
Okay. What do you want me to do? Pat you on the back? Glad we agree that your perspective is a product of mental illness and a sick environment, rather than some profound philosophical revelation rooted in reason and reflection.

>>14530366
antinatalisms point is that something can't have a preference before it exists but could have a preference to not exist once it does - do you think anti-natalism requires you to think existing is a bad thing? I recommend reading the wikipedia page or a 10 minute youtube video if that's easier for you before having opinions on things, before you start pulling some insults out your arse I'm not mentally ill, an anti natalist and I also think existence is good

>>14530571
>antinatalisms point is that something can't have a preference before it exists but could have a preference to not exist once it does
That's not a point. That's a trivial observation from which nothing follows directly.

>>14527998
The logic is sound. There exists a hell of an asymmetry between pain and pleasure. I wouldn't accept tooth drilling without novacane for ten minutes in exchange for twenty blowjobs from a supermodel or your mother. So right away we see pain is more bad than pleasure is good.

The core philosophy of antinatalism, Antifrustrationism, is sound, in that it is never productive to make preferences that need satisfying i.e. nobody laments the lost pleasures of never having been, but existing beings do lament suffering.

Schopenhauer said “If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?”

Also we don't now for sure the suffering ends at death, what with recurrence theories, big world and quantum immortality, so we really could be fucking-over a new consciousness that way. Not to mention if some ASI gets off the ground and goes all LessWrong.

The bet arguments against it or any pessimistic philosophy are personal ones. Namely that they destroy the will, codify depression and whatnot.

Utilitarian arguments aside, I would call it the ultimate in empathy.

>>14530601
>The logic is sound.
>I wouldn't accept tooth drilling without novacane for ten minutes in exchange for twenty blowjobs from a supermodel or your mother. So right away we see pain is more bad than pleasure is good.
This is what counts as "sound logic" when you're mentally ill...

>>14530607
Also the best responses are grade school ad hom. Forgot to mention that bit. Thanks for the demonstration.

>>14530612
There's nothing to respond to. Your statement is an utter nonsequitur. You have not demonstrated the validity of your asinine pain vs. pleasure calculus.

>>14530616
Would trade an hour of the most horrible pain imaginable for two of the greatest pleasure possible?

For a sample of the pain, hold a lighter to your thumb right now. I imagine the worst pain considerably worse than that.

>>14530624
*Would you trade

>>14530492
Your point is also lost on me as I can't comprehend what you're trying to say.

>>14530353
>overcame evolution’s challenges
They are dead. Idiot

>>14530624
>Would trade an hour of the most horrible pain imaginable for two of the greatest pleasure possible?
No, but you're just demonstrating your utter lack of comprehension again. Who said it's valid to weigh pleasure vs. pain in the first place? All you're doing is to provide counter-examples of the validity of your own premise.

>>14530634
How so?

>>14530624
Would you trade a momentary but severe increase of pain for a future of less pain?
You dont actually need to answer since we know people would and already have.

>>14530638
Demonstrate that the opposite of pain is pleasure

>>14530638
>How so?
"How so" what? This is not even a congruent response... I'm asking you again: who said it's valid to weigh pleasure vs. pain in the first place?

>>14530640
Sure, but the fact I'm even forced into this sort of calculus further demonstrates the cruelty of substantiating consciousness. I would sooner spare the soul from having to wish for less pain through unrealistic trade-offs.

>>14530646
You can call it what you want; Extreme ends of the scale of valence. Don't argue semantics.

>>14530650
Calm down.

>>14530655
Who said it's valid to weigh pleasure vs. pain in the first place? Notice how you're forced to repeatedly deflect, because the basis of your mentally ill ideology is actually unsound and indefensible.

>>14530652
>Extreme ends of the scale of valence.
Prove that they are on the same scale at all. It doesn't seem to be the case based on your own examples.

>>14530659
I didn't deflect.

see >>14530652
response two

Humans have states they find agreeable and disagreeable. They have a valence scale. Just rephrase it as "would you spend x amount of time on the far negative end of your valnce scale for 2x amount at the positive."

You're hung-up on language.

>>14530666
Who said it's valid to weigh pleasure vs. pain in the first place? Notice how you're forced to repeatedly deflect.

>>14530667
Yeah you can keep saying that but its not becoming any truer.

>>14530668
>its not becoming any truer.
It's becoming truer every time you ignore the following question:
Who said it's valid to weigh pleasure vs. pain in the first place?

>>14530670
I dropped that terminology in favor of the most bare bones terminology. Again, keep circling back around if you want to argue in bad faith.

An avoidance state is unwanted by definition.

>>14530676
>I dropped that terminology in favor of the most bare bones terminology
You have simply asserted the existence of some abstract scale in your head in order to avoid a question you can't answer.
>"would you spend x amount of time on the far negative end of your valnce scale for 2x amount at the positive."
Prove that there is such a scale.

>>14530682
>Prove that there is such a scale.
Prove that inherent in existence there are states we find decidedly negative and others we welcome? I would hope this was a prior.

>>14530685
There exist states that we desire, and states that we avoid, and there are varying degrees to each one. That's the only prior you have. Now prove the validity of your imaginary scale that puts the former states on one end and the latter on the other.

>>14530690
>Now prove the validity of your imaginary scale
ok, here you are
>There exist states that we desire, and states that we avoid, and there are varying degrees to each one

>>14530694
Still waiting for you to justify putting them on one scale. You will churn out hundreds of asinine posts trying to avoid this burden of proof because your position is logically untenable.

>>14530697
That there is a negative state to exist in, that has varying degrees of negativity, is all you're being asked to acknowledge.

What is the alternative?

>>14530701
>That there is a negative state to exist in, that has varying degrees of negativity, is all you're being asked to acknowledge.
No, I'm being asked to acknowledge the validity of a scale that puts "negative" experiences on one end and "positive" experience on the other, but you have no justification for it beyond your insistence to call them "negative" and "positive" in a patethic attempt at sophistry.

>>14530702
So what is the alternative. How do you quantify something you like and something you dislike with all gradients in-between other than to call it a scale?

>>14530704
>How do you quantify something you like and something you dislike with all gradients in-between other than to call it a scale?
You don't "quantify" them at all, since there is clearly no objective and consistent way to do so, but even if we imagine otherwise, you have not provided any justification for quantifying them on a single scale.

>what is the alternative
To quantify them on two separate scales, but again, I don't even accept the validity of trying to "quantify" something that exhibits so much flux; to the degree that people weigh pain against pleasure at all, they do so in a completely ad hoc and inconsistent manner.

>>14530711
>To quantify them on two separate scales
How can the least amount of pleasure not entail something that can be reasonably defined as suffering? Hedonic zero?

>>14530716
>How can the least amount of pleasure not entail something that can be reasonably defined as suffering?
What the fuck are you talking about? The least amount of pleasure is simply no pleasure, and states with no pleasure can range from transcendent to neutral to abject suffering.

>>14530721
>and states with no pleasure can range from transcendent to neutral to abject suffering.
Almost sounds like a scale with suffering on one end and a relief state at the other.

Let's keep going in circles though.

>>14530726
>Almost sounds like a scale with suffering on one end and a relief state at the other.
You are legitimately psychotic. I've literally just pointed out to you that there can be variying degrees of suffering while pleasure stays constant, and even that is if I accept your fundamentally invalid idea of quantifying pain and pleasaure.

>>14529046

Wouldn't that be death prevailing?

>>14530729
I'm not psychotic, prodromal maybe, but I have to treat these things on a linear scale simply based on desirability.

Even if I'm some kind of sick masochist who is getting pleasure out of a nociceptive event, I have polar extremes of avoidable and desirable states.

>>14530360

Antinatalism is the only perennial idea.

>>14530739
>the cunt seizes the opportunity to start babbling about herself
Don't care. My point still stands that you can't logically justify your retarded pain-pleasure scale, or even just trying to quantify pain and pleasure. The real world simply doesn't confrom to your kindergarten model.

>>14530746
Which face would you rather be?

>>14530746
also
>>the cunt seizes the opportunity to start babbling about herself

lol, what?

>>14530750
Did your position really just degenerate into "arguments" based on emoticons? All other things being equal, I'll take less pain over more pain, but all other things are never equal, nor do they live on a single scale. How did you become so retarded?

>>14530351
The rest of you will keep making more "me's" by accident over and over. I would rather all go extinct. ending my self doesnt do a thing in the grand scheme of things.

>>14530768
>The rest of you will keep making more "me's" by accident over and over
They can kill themselves, too. Maybe in the future we'll have some type of screening and abort people destired to be mentally ill and miserable like you, though.

>>14530772
do you not see how cruel you are? do you not see the joke and irony of any action or attempt to fight against this world? be it evolution or entropy? just constantly feeding the machine, the burning house.

>>14530778
Hop on my dick.

>>14530607
not him.
but literally what he said, its the most wise and empathetic conclusion. you are all criminals and I don't say that lightly. all that capacity for intelligence wasted for ultimately selfish primitive instincts. we are on the same page you moron, the problem is that people like you are too thick to see.

>>14530761
>Did your position really just degenerate into "arguments" based on emoticons?
tongue-in-cheek, but also a rather elegant example of a valence scale of pain states

>I'll take less pain over more pain
And we arrive at the beginning. Thank you!

>>14530351
Sounds like an argument for antinatalism. Why would I force someone to make such a weighty choice? Suicide isn't falling off a log, even for your darker pessimists.

>>14530795
Hop on my dick to cure your female hysteria.

>>14530802
Not him, but age/weight? London?

>>14530801
>a rather elegant example of a valence scale of pain states
It's not an example of your imaginary pain-vs-pleasure scale. I guess you could draw one in MS Paint, but that still doesn't prove the validity of such a scale. Anyway, there is no sense talking to you. You are beyond retarded. You seriously sound too drugged with anti-psychotics to keep track of a conversation.

>>14530807
>You seriously sound too drugged with anti-psychotics to keep track of a conversation
I'm drug-free my man. I grow weed but I don't smoke it anymore.

>my man
And there you have it.

>>14527998
Thinking in that manner is stupid.

>>14530815
ebin maymay, my man

>my man

>>14530826
At least meme right.
The reddit nomenclature you're wanting is "my dude."

>>14530817
at worst its painful at best its meaningless and pointless. you can't win.

>at least meme right, my dude

>at worst its painful at best its meaningless and pointless

>>14530833
Every antinatlism thread ends up in this state where the opposition argues semantics, shits the bed, runs down the clock and calls it a win. No wonder their influence is growing.

>>14530839
Call me back when you can logically justify your retarded pain-pleasure scale and provide premises for your position that aren't derived purely from your mental illness.

>>14530843
I really have no need. Someday you'll be in an ER in bowel-shattering pain and when the nurse offers you morphine you can tell her "well you can't just reduce my suffering like that, its not a scale or something. Just change it to transcendental suffering, please"

>>14530875
>i have no need to actually argue my point rationally
Then why did you shart out this complaint? >>14530839

>someday you'll have a really painful boo-boo and you'll ask for morphine
Maybe. And what of it? I will still see you for the pitiful degenerate that you are.

>>14530886
>complaint?
Observation?

>degenerate
back to
>>>/pol/
a cancerous place where you belong

>>14530904
>Observation?
What's your observation? That people simply shit all over you when you come here and have your emotional tantrums? Call me back when you can logically justify your retarded pain-pleasure scale and provide premises for your position that aren't derived purely from your mental illness.

>>14530652
>, but the fact I'm even forced into this sort of calculus further demonstrates the cruelty of substantiating consciousness
There's nothing cruel about this, its just an artefact.
>would sooner spare the soul from having to wish for less pain through unrealistic trade-offs.
They're neither unrealistic nor did they stop procreating.

>>14530914
>emotional tantrums
lol, yeah how can I compare to a paragon of composure such as yourself? I'll wait for you to find the appropriate soiijack..

>>14530652
>Don't argue semantics.
It's not semantics when you a cannot give simple definitions b provide any proof that they are on the same scale.
Some derive pleasure from pain (masochists) but that shouls be impossible according to your arbitrary scale

>>14530920
Call me back when you can logically justify your retarded pain-pleasure scale and provide premises for your position that aren't derived purely from your mental illness.

>>14530925
No, I addressed it directly. Even a masochist has states of greater and lesser desirability.

>>14530929
>Even a masochist has states of greater and lesser desirability.
Nothing to do with what was asked of you.

>>14530929
>No, I addressed it directly.
>Begins talking about desirability
yeah I dont think so pal.
Im still waiting for that demonstration where the opposite of pain is pleasure.

>>14530937
That's fun to say, but it actually does. Especially when the claim was that I deny the existence of masochists, as its more a special case of inverted desire.

>>14530939
>Im still waiting for that demonstration where the opposite of pain is pleasure.
So they twenty or so comments about people having avoidance states whatever the nature are just nothing?

>>14530944
>it actually does
It doesn't. It's just another pathetic attempt to reframe your position when faced with its retarded contradictions. Now you've changed your scale to one that ranks things by their "desirability", but less desirability doesn't imply more suffering, so it has nothing to do with your retarded claims, you vile trog.

>>14530951
>but less desirability doesn't imply more suffering
So at what point in an extremely undesirable state can I be said to be not suffering? Why the distinction?

>>14530955
>So at what point in an extremely undesirable state can I be said to be not suffering?
That's your problem, not mine, you actual retard. Your new scale doesn't afford you to objectively establish any such point. It's really funny to watch you try to dance around the basic problem that your position lacks coherence.

>>14530965
I would have assumed you had at least an example to back up "less desirability doesn't imply more suffering." It would seem that's exactly what it would imply, even if the state was some sort of masochistic inversion of what we normally consider to be suffering.

>>14530976
>I would have assumed you had at least an example to back up "less desirability doesn't imply more suffering."
It's completely trivial. I will leave it to you to find such an example in your next post. Failure to do so will be a conslusive demonstration that you're an imbecile.

>>14530979
Give me one state that you don't want to be in but are not to any degree said to be suffering in that state. Prove the distinction if its so obvious.

>>14530984
>Give me one state that you don't want to be in
LOL. The vile rat is trying to backpedal out of the dead end it worked itself into by lying. Who said anything about "states that you don't want to be in"? We're just ranking states by their desirability now, in accordance with your own proposition.

>>14530989
Yeah, silly me thinking that in any given life there things that you want to happen to you and things you would rather avoid.

>>14531001
LOL. It just keeps coming back to your inability to comprehend the difference between ranking things by their level of desirability, and categorizing them as desirable and undesirable with varying degrees. You keep trying to conflate these two because you legitimately have some kind of intellectual disability.

>>14531006
So we cannot rank things on scale from most to least desirable, but we can classify them as such with varying degrees?

>>14531011
>So we cannot rank things on scale from most to least desirable
Is that what I said? Listen, anon, it's time for you to face the fact that you are extremely unintelligent.

>>14531012
>Is that what I said?
Yes, that is what you said. We can categorize something by how much we'd appreciate encountering it, be we cannot give preference to the objects in that category, or to give preference on a scale is the mark of extreme unintelligence, or something.

>>14531018
>that is what you said.
LOL. Show me where I said that.

>>14531022
>the difference between ranking things by their level of desirability, and categorizing them as desirable and undesirable with varying degrees
Right here. The only distinction I see is that you say there is one, and asking for an example has been trying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-hPz2Q6Tow

>>14531036
Pop filter, get one.

>>14531024
>Right here
Does it say you can't rank things by their level of desirability there?

>>14531045
No, it posits a distinction between ranking on a scale from most to least desirable and categorizing something as such but with varying degrees.

I guess I don't see that distinction.

>>14531036
>uhhh it's not to say that uhhh there is not people, if not even most, that are uhhh mentally ill within that branch of uhhhhhhhh philosophy

>>14531048
I didn't post that btw. More like someone dropped a big turd in our friendly conversation.

>>14531047
>No
But you were claiming the opposite just a minute ago. Go ahead and try to lie about it now. LOL

>I guess I don't see that distinction.
Not my problem, retard. Ranking things by their desirability doesn't establish any cutoff point where things become "undesirable". It only gives you a means to compare which of two things is preferable.

>>14531062
>Ranking things by their desirability doesn't establish any cutoff point where things become "undesirable"
So if I rank something very low on the desirability scale I'm not allowed to consider that thing undesirable?

>>14531069
>So if I rank something very low on the desirability scale I'm not allowed to consider that thing undesirable?
No, because ranking things by their desirability doesn't establish any cutoff point where things become "undesirable". Is this point difficult for you to understand?

>>14531071
>Is this point difficult for you to understand?
I suppose so. So does there exist a class of states we can regard as undesirable? Why can't we rank them as downstream from more desirable states? What is an undesirable thing other than something less than desirable?

>>14530944
>So they twenty or so comments about people having avoidance states whatever the nature are just nothing?
Show me in one comment that the opposite of pain is pleasure.
Avoidance isn't pleasure now is it.

>>14531074
>So does there exist a class of states we can regard as undesirable?
Sure.

>Why can't we rank them as downstream from more desirable states?
You can, but they will receive a low rank by virtue of their undesirability, not undesirability by virtue of their low rank. In and of itself, the rank doesn't give you information about whether or not something is intrinsically "undesirable", unlike explicitly categorizing things as desirable or undesirable.

>What is an undesirable thing other than something less than desirable?
You're a moronic label thinker working himself into a corner with a sloppy and kike-like use of language. "Less than desirable" =/= "less desirable than".

>>14531085
>the opposite of pain is pleasure
They're not some perfect opposites, but they're partially defined by their distance with regard to desirability.

>>14531088
Of course saying something is less than desirable is not the same as saying one thing is less desirable than the other. I'd like to know how an undesirable state does not by its nature have low desirability.

>I'd like to know how an undesirable state does not by its nature have low desirability.
LOL. These "people" simply need to be shot.

>>14531107
Getting shot ranks low on my desirability scale.

>>14531114
No one cares. It's simply impossible to run a civilized society when it's teeming with clinical and demonstrable subhumans like you. You drag everyone down to your level and make actual discussion impossible.

>>14531103
>They're not some perfect opposites, but they're partially defined by their distance with regard to desirability.
Alright show you’ve shown that they aren’t opposites at all.

>>14531114
Kek

>>14527998
Dear diary,
>take psychedelics during good times
>convince myself that we live in perfect universe and nothing wrong can ever happen
>later, become homeless for unrelated reasons
>walking through London
>experience the low state spoken of in the quotation
>previous belief system disproven
>nothing can ever compensate for the misery I feel in this moment; how I feel now is the disproof for any ultimate good in the universe
>5 years later
>bounce back completely
>better life now than I ever had on psychedelics or ever before
>feel fantastic every day
Life has its ups and downs. I'm sorry about all the blackpilled people ITT and their experiences, partly because these negative spirals, when communicated, make life worse for everyone. But it's not the be-all and end-all! There is light at the end of the tunnel, and life will always have its surprises. I'm ready to go back into that low state again if need be, and that makes me free

>>14530529
>>And mental illness results from living in a toxic social environment.
>I.e. "why would I bring my kid into a world we're they're mindlessly injected with poison with no real oversight and then forced to work to pay off debt in a ponzi scheme economy?"
That accounts for some of it.

But why did one of my coworkers chop off his dick? He's working the same job as me, under the same conditions, in the same city under the same conditions and laws. Why did he chop off his dick while I was able to retain some shred of my sanity under the same social conditions?

I think it probably has something to do with my coworker getting raped as a kid, and having a schizophrenic jewish mother.

>>14531205
This. The evaluation of events changes drastically depending on the context and whether or not they are actually happening in the present. Antinatalist muppets are truly devoid of basic self-reflection.

Despite all the name calling so far, this thread and all these posts (by mostly 2 anons?) are quite interesting. I can see both points.

>>14531369
Based imageboard sightseer.

>>14531369
4 anons, 2 on each side of the arguments. each 2 of one side easily mistaken for the other.

>>14527998
Physical or mental pain? I suffered with extreme and constant pain for two years due to spinal prolapses and I feel like a certain part of me has been taken away - my drive, my enjoyment of things. But I would honestly attribute that to laziness, since being unable to walk is a lifestyle change I still haven't fully yanked myself out of, almost four years on from surgery, which is obviously conducive to depressive feelings.

>>14531513
from my limited experience with physical pain I would say that physical is a lot more direct and instant than mental pain. with mental you have some space to contemplate things.

>>14527998
>David Benatar
Hmmm... How big is his nose?

>>14529230
>Why do you pretend to speak for others?
>>14529257
>quite simply because we know better
Kek, literal (((we)))

>>14528902
I mean, antinatalism may be rational if you are some poor third world loser with objectively very bad life. But pampered first worlders being anti-natalist is the most cringe thing in existence

>>14530831
I win because I'm smart. You lose because you're stupid and can't reason above your ability. If you believe in what you write at all and not trolling.

>>14531915
that would be ecofascism not antinatalism fren.

>>14531881
>>14531894
>>14531915
Why do /pol/tards always try to derail the conversation to make it fit their narrative?
muh david benetar is le jew!

>>14530831
There are winners and losers. You're a loser, it's okay, that's how natural selection works.

>>14531945
Feel free to prove it's wasn't (((we)))

>>14531974
literally just a philosophy. pol schizo

>>14531945
Antinatalism is such a dumb idea intentionally argued in bad faith, it can be reasonably explained only as a subversion propaganda for goyim.

>>14531982
Oy vey, who is this Benatar traitor?? Why would we want our goyim cattle to go extinct? We want more wagies, debt slaves and ZOGbot cannon fodder to die for Israel. :^)

>>14530365
>Food is extremely plentiful
are you sure its not just stolen from the future? via fait debt based printing?

>>14531988
You will have no children and you vill eat ze bogs.

>>14531986
Not go extinct, but to change its racial composition. Guess who reads philosophy and who doesn't. Whites are just too smart.

>>14527998
>>14531288
Related, I suppose?

>>14531974
>>14531982
If you call this Jewish subversion then you must be a neo nazi. And neo nazis say that you should grab a gun and shoot other people which just results in the vilification of the ideology in order to save a race that is the object of your worship.
Antinatalism is a different ideology which focuses on the person himself, not his race, so it's basically not a religion. Escaping pain itself rather than sacrificing yourself for someone else

>>14531993
Antinatalism would drive humanity extinct those starving the Jews of the livestock.
Do not speak to me of whites being the only thing that can stop the Jews, whites worship Jews more than any other race. Who voted to recognize and fund Israel the moment it was founded?

>>14530358
>Modernity is not cushy. Modernity is making people so ill it disrupts all of their basic biological functions. Modernity is making people so ill they want to kill themselves.

This, if one attests Darwin than one can easily see that mans' survival heuristics arn't optimised for zoo life. Some appease to learned helplessness easier than others.

I give the example of individuals who think anger is intrinsically bad. That is the mindstate that prevents the dog in

https://study.com/academy/lesson/how-seligmans-learned-helplessness-theory-applies-to-human-depression-and-stress.html#:~:text=Dogs%20who%20had%20previously%20been,you%20that%20you%20are%20helpless.

from moving.

Just look at the stress in the lions eyes, I unironically see this same stare in the youth of today

>>14532007
>And neo nazis say that you should grab a gun and shoot other people which just results in the vilification of the ideology in order to save a race that is the object of your worship.
And why they do it if doesn't solve the problem?

Pleasure =/= absence of pain
Pain / pleasure false dicho
Whole argument hinges on his definition of pain which I'd bet he's taking to be self-evident, when it's not, what qualifies is obviously subjective past nervous system survival instinct response. Unless he's done other work, here's a case of academia protecting entertaining or controversy for controversy's sake frauds. Never read a word he's written and also not one other post in this thread.

>>14532007
The joke is on you, 90% of /pol/ is CIA niggers and paid shills.

>>14532025
antinatalists are usually morons but they say they don't have any illusions over their philosophy when it comes to the world.
the only solution left is a promortalist/efilist one. a natural conclusion of antinatalism.

>>14532014
>Who voted to recognize and fund Israel the moment it was founded?
The situation became more obvious since then. The problem is not what they do, but what they can do. Gun ownership is existential threat to globohomo and no jew worshiping can compensate it.

>>14532025
To get it out of their system. It makes them feel good. They lack awareness and nuance in public perception

>>14532048
Couldn't care less, paid shills and CIA are white supremacists

>>14532067
>Evangelical gun holding flyover state subhumans in charge of resisting Israel and Jews when they love Jews more than any other group of people on this entire planet

>>14531945
Then why don't you prove antinatalists argue in good faith?

>>14532072
>implying election results are legitimate

>>14532080
Antinatalism is not about faith. It's a rationalist philosophy

>>14531357
>Antinatalist muppets are truly devoid of basic self-reflection.
BASED

>>14532173
on the contrary, antinatalist have done their calculus already. and the answer is that life is overwhelmingly dangerous and unstable. the odds are not in your favor.

I will gladly assist any nihilist that is too much of a pussy to kill themselves. to stand idly by would be cruel

>>14532190
Emotional screeching is not a rational decision-making process.

>>14533900
pessimism, retard

>>14528071
Yes. It was like 5 pains.

>>14527998
No because both that threshold is individual and subjective and that ratio is individual and subjective. The amount of subjects needed to get a clear picture is unrealistic and even then it is impossible to quantify such a subjective experience.

>>14533910
It is if you take into account human species-typical behaviours that involve outwardly expressing certain mental processes, which can facilitate a more fluid type of reasoning, rather than suppressing certain emotions/frustrations which will linger in the mental workspace and inhibit supposed rational thinking.