What you've just made is an argument for suffering as the supremely immoral facet of your ethical worldview.
Because a foundational premise of anti-natalism is that suffering is always bad; this is demonstrably untrue.
If you can provide a morally justified reasoning for not killing yourself, from the framework of anti-natalism, then you have provided an argument against anti-natalism itself. According to you, your very existence causes others suffering. Because suffering cannot be minimized in any morally adequate way, the best way to live anti-natalism is to not exist.
You can't in one instance claim birth is an imposition on another person while in another not vehemently arguing for the complete autonomous moral agency of that person. If they are not completely autonomous, then birth couldn't possibly be an imposition.
If you believe in a deterministic worldview in which humans are completely incapable of free will, independent of any influence or impetus, then you must believe humans are incapable of autonomous reasoning.
This isn't an argument.
It's as if you order a sandwich and you don't like it, and along comes Mr Antinatalist to tell you if you were dead you wouldn't have eaten that sandwich you disliked. It's one of the most retarded ideologies around.
That's the childishness of your ideology though. Something bad happened? Just don't have kids and wait to die. 👍
Quote from: Fuddy Duddy II on January 23, 2016, 08:22:59 PMQuote from: challengerX on January 23, 2016, 08:12:40 PMIt's as if you order a sandwich and you don't like it, and along comes Mr Antinatalist to tell you if you were dead you wouldn't have eaten that sandwich you disliked. It's one of the most retarded ideologies around.Oh, yeah, eating a sandwich you don't like. That's totally what I'm concerned about in life.Not murder, genocide, rape, torture, thievery, war, poverty, oppression, extortion, starvation, disease, depression, pain, suffering, death--all over the world, to almost every single goddamn human fucking being on this planet, for the past four billion years. You're right--all of that is comparable to eating a bad sandwich.Thank you. Thank you for showing my philosophy for the blight it truly is.That's the childishness of your ideology though. Something bad happened? Just don't have kids and wait to die. 👍
Quote from: challengerX on January 23, 2016, 08:12:40 PMIt's as if you order a sandwich and you don't like it, and along comes Mr Antinatalist to tell you if you were dead you wouldn't have eaten that sandwich you disliked. It's one of the most retarded ideologies around.Oh, yeah, eating a sandwich you don't like. That's totally what I'm concerned about in life.Not murder, genocide, rape, torture, thievery, war, poverty, oppression, extortion, starvation, disease, depression, pain, suffering, death--all over the world, to almost every single goddamn human fucking being on this planet, for the past four billion years. You're right--all of that is comparable to eating a bad sandwich.Thank you. Thank you for showing my philosophy for the blight it truly is.
Either way, they achieve autonomy after enough brain development. Which makes you even more evil for defending it--you're basically saying that all sentient life is sentenced at least twenty long years, forced to live, before they have the right to kill themselves.
"maybe if I argue semantics that will make my death cult seem better"
Your advice is to just lie down and die. It's retarded.
It's just a toxic mindset that appeals to the depressed who want to feel morally superior to others.
We're all apes, in case you haven't realized.
That's not what I was saying at all. The discussion of infants not being morally autonomous is a response to the claim that birth is a denial of that person's agency. An infant doesn't have agency or the ability to use logic to make decisions about themselves. Birth is no more an imposition than feeding, bathing, entertaining, or napping a baby. Infants are not sapient, nor are they sentient.
Personally, anti-natalism would be much more compelling if it dropped the whole "birth = imposing suffering" thing.
and just like you, they've likely been heavily conditioned into believing that life is this wonderful thing that is totally worth continuing.
By that logic, you could rape and murder and infant if you wanted to.Are you going to make that argument? Are you gonna argue that it's okay to rape babies?
Quote from: Turkey Sanders on January 23, 2016, 07:59:34 PMBecause a foundational premise of anti-natalism is that suffering is always bad; this is demonstrably untrue. By the way--if you're going to make this argument, that suffering is good because humans can learn or derive wisdom from it, I could easily argue that the wisdom I have derived from the suffering that pervades our existence has manifested itself as anti-natalism.
Quote from: Fuddy Duddy II on January 23, 2016, 08:50:25 PMQuote from: Turkey Sanders on January 23, 2016, 07:59:34 PMBecause a foundational premise of anti-natalism is that suffering is always bad; this is demonstrably untrue. By the way--if you're going to make this argument, that suffering is good because humans can learn or derive wisdom from it, I could easily argue that the wisdom I have derived from the suffering that pervades our existence has manifested itself as anti-natalism.Well sure, and of course it'd be true (your experiences of suffering has led to your belief in anti-natalism). But you'd also be telling me that suffering could result in something good, which undermines your entire premise.
So have anti-natalists been conditioned, too? Because again, any argument against suicide is an argument against anti-natalism. Tomorrow, you will suffer and impose suffering on others. Tell me why you should allow that to happen.
What if I just murdered it? It wasn't capable making decisions; it was less sentient than a dog. It wasn't conditioned into believing life was worth living. How is killing it (quickly, of course) not a morally preferable solution to letting it live a life in which it will experience suffering?
Suffering does not have to be absolute for anti-natalism to be sound.
Quote from: eggsalad on January 23, 2016, 08:56:25 PMSuffering does not have to be absolute for anti-natalism to be sound. Of course it does. Verbatim has said many times on here than any amount of suffering nullifies any potential good that may be experienced in life.
Well sure, and of course it'd be true (your experiences of suffering has led to your belief in anti-natalism). But you'd also be telling me that suffering could result in something good, which undermines your entire premise.
Quote from: Turkey Sanders on January 23, 2016, 08:48:11 PMSo have anti-natalists been conditioned, too? Because again, any argument against suicide is an argument against anti-natalism. Tomorrow, you will suffer and impose suffering on others. Tell me why you should allow that to happen.Because the importance of my message far outweighs the piddly amounts of suffering incurred by my existence. I'm a pacifist vegan anti-natalist feminist socialist. Chances are good that I'm not going to be harming anything.
QuoteWhat if I just murdered it? It wasn't capable making decisions; it was less sentient than a dog. It wasn't conditioned into believing life was worth living. How is killing it (quickly, of course) not a morally preferable solution to letting it live a life in which it will experience suffering?You also mentioned children and teenagers. You'd be okay with murdering and raping a child or teenager, because they aren't "autonomous." That's what you're telling me.
Why would you want to be antinatalist if you can't know what happened before life or what happens after death?
Quote from: Tsirist on January 23, 2016, 09:03:06 PMWhy would you want to be antinatalist if you can't know what happened before life or what happens after death?shut up you filthy spiritualist
Quote from: eggsalad on January 23, 2016, 09:03:28 PMQuote from: Tsirist on January 23, 2016, 09:03:06 PMWhy would you want to be antinatalist if you can't know what happened before life or what happens after death?shut up you filthy spiritualistWhere is the spiritualism in that?
Quote from: Turkey Sanders on January 23, 2016, 08:53:18 PMQuote from: Fuddy Duddy II on January 23, 2016, 08:50:25 PMQuote from: Turkey Sanders on January 23, 2016, 07:59:34 PMBecause a foundational premise of anti-natalism is that suffering is always bad; this is demonstrably untrue. By the way--if you're going to make this argument, that suffering is good because humans can learn or derive wisdom from it, I could easily argue that the wisdom I have derived from the suffering that pervades our existence has manifested itself as anti-natalism.Well sure, and of course it'd be true (your experiences of suffering has led to your belief in anti-natalism). But you'd also be telling me that suffering could result in something good, which undermines your entire premise. Suffering does not have to be absolute for anti-natalism to be sound. It just has to be possible. As long as it exists, it will be irresponsible to create life, because not doing so entails no risk or consequence.
Quote from: Tsirist on January 23, 2016, 09:04:04 PMQuote from: eggsalad on January 23, 2016, 09:03:28 PMQuote from: Tsirist on January 23, 2016, 09:03:06 PMWhy would you want to be antinatalist if you can't know what happened before life or what happens after death?shut up you filthy spiritualistWhere is the spiritualism in that?the idea that consciousness exists past physical meansi know the experience of existence itself is surreal and not necessarily sensicalbutit's a deep rabbit hole
Quote from: eggsalad on January 23, 2016, 09:05:58 PMQuote from: Tsirist on January 23, 2016, 09:04:04 PMQuote from: eggsalad on January 23, 2016, 09:03:28 PMQuote from: Tsirist on January 23, 2016, 09:03:06 PMWhy would you want to be antinatalist if you can't know what happened before life or what happens after death?shut up you filthy spiritualistWhere is the spiritualism in that?the idea that consciousness exists past physical meansi know the experience of existence itself is surreal and not necessarily sensicalbutit's a deep rabbit holeUnfortunately you don't just get to ignore potential problems for your perspective.