What you've just made is an argument for suffering as the supremely immoral facet of your ethical worldview.

Merely saying that doesn't make it true. Demonstrate it.

Because a foundational premise of anti-natalism is that suffering is always bad; this is demonstrably untrue.

Suffering is always bad. The very fact that suffering is often considered a means to attain life experience and wisdom is bad in and of itself. There is nothing good about living in a universe where existential growth is achieved through suffering--that represents a dire flaw in existence--or at least, the sentient experience.

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.

Uh. No. The best way to live anti-natalism is to not have kids.

The #1 thing the world needs right now is advocates for anti-natalism. Diminishing the number of anti-natalist advocates is the worst possible way to survive the philosophy.

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.

They're SENTIENT, genius. They can feel pain, regardless of their autonomy.

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.

Which they don't have right now. Suicide is still illegal in most countries--you can't guarantee yourself a safe exit, and even then, killing yourself doesn't undo your birth.

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.

I don't--but you specifically singled out non-adults in your post.

Regardless, just because we don't have "autonomy" in the traditionally intuitive sense, we still have to read our little script. I can't see the future--I don't know what's going to happen, but I can consciously give my best effort to influence the future.

This isn't an argument.

Wasn't supposed to be, buddy-o'-pal.

Quote from: Fuddy Duddy II on January 23, 2016, 08:22:59 PM

Quote from: challengerX on January 23, 2016, 08:12:40 PM

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.

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. 👍

Kind of the opposite of childishness to have restraint and concern for others, tbh.

Really though anyone who honestly wants to reproduce instead of adopt because "they want their own" is the equivalence of an ape.

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.

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. It seems like the biggest facet that people take issue with, or even offended (again going back to the idea that this claim co-opts others' agency in determining what is and isn't good for themselves). There's a pretty strong argument for life -- particularly human life -- being a net wrong inflicted on our planet, as evinced by extinctions and climate change. All of that leads to a strong argument for not introducing more humans into the population, maybe even of humans choosing self-extinction. I think the strongest manifestation of anti-natalism exists in the idea that the population and footprint of the human race needs to be drastically and immediately reduced.

Weirdly enough, the person in the video explicitly defines the moral framework from the perspective of human consciousness, so it doesn't really tread into the objective-morality territory I'm talking about above.

"maybe if I argue semantics that will make my death cult seem better"

It's not arguing semantics. You're trying to belittle the philosophy by implying that suffering isn't that bad.

It IS that bad.

Your advice is to just lie down and die. It's retarded.

My advice is to stop creating things that can suffer. Because no one wants to suffer, or live in a universe where it's even possible to suffer. Imposing that on anybody is the single most evil thing that I can think of.

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.

But they WILL be sentient.

Which, like I said, makes you even more evil. You're forcing someone to live for at least two long decades before they can finally make the decision about their own lives--and at that point, they've been too heavily ingrained in their lives to ever want to give it up. They've become attached to too many things, too many people, and just like you, they've likely been heavily conditioned into believing that life is this wonderful thing that is totally worth continuing.

Personally, anti-natalism would be much more compelling if it dropped the whole "birth = imposing suffering" thing.

But, as I've demonstrated, there's nothing wrong with it. You are imposing suffering. You're putting a sentient organism into existence--it matters not that they can't make conscious, informed decisions for themselves until adulthood.

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?

and just like you, they've likely been heavily conditioned into believing that life is this wonderful thing that is totally worth continuing.

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.

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?

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?

Quote from: Turkey Sanders on January 23, 2016, 07:59:34 PM

Because 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.

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.

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?

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.

Quote from: eggsalad on January 23, 2016, 08:56:25 PM

Suffering 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.

You can choose to make that trade, but I do not see how you can make it for others without risking that they will not feel the same.

Quote from: Turkey Sanders on January 23, 2016, 08:48:11 PM

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.

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.

Hold up. Are you now telling me that if I raise my child to be a vegan anti-natalist feminist-socialist, that it's okay to give them life? Of course it's morally reprehensible to give birth to them, but the cause of anti-natalism needs mouthpieces.

Quote

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?

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.

Not at all. I'm asking you to tell me why killing an infant isn't a morally preferable solution to letting it live a life in which it will experience suffering. Rape is abhorrent; murder frees a person of all future suffering, which is ultimately the purpose of not giving birth. Anti-natalism seems to perfectly justify the [humane, quick] murder of all those that cannot be converted to followers of anti-natalism because 1) their "agency" has been corrupted by a lifetime of influence telling them life is worth living, 2) their net effect on the planet is bad (they cause more suffering than joy), and 3) they may have kids, which you've said many times is the most evil thing a person can do. Murder might be evil, but surely it pales in comparison to birth.

Gonna be frank here: I'm not interested in talking to you about this. I'm trying to talk to Verbatim; don't put arguments into his mouth.

Why 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 PM

Quote from: Tsirist on January 23, 2016, 09:03:06 PM

Why 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

Where is the spiritualism in that?

the idea that consciousness exists past physical means
i know the experience of existence itself is surreal and not necessarily sensical
but
it's a deep rabbit hole

Quote from: Tsirist on January 23, 2016, 09:04:04 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 23, 2016, 09:03:28 PM

Quote from: Tsirist on January 23, 2016, 09:03:06 PM

Why 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

Where is the spiritualism in that?

the idea that consciousness exists past physical means
i know the experience of existence itself is surreal and not necessarily sensical
but
it's a deep rabbit hole

Unfortunately you don't just get to ignore potential problems for your perspective.

Quote from: eggsalad on January 23, 2016, 09:05:58 PM

Quote from: Tsirist on January 23, 2016, 09:04:04 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 23, 2016, 09:03:28 PM

Quote from: Tsirist on January 23, 2016, 09:03:06 PM

Why 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

Where is the spiritualism in that?

the idea that consciousness exists past physical means
i know the experience of existence itself is surreal and not necessarily sensical
but
it's a deep rabbit hole

Unfortunately you don't just get to ignore potential problems for your perspective.

The idea of consequences in the afterlife for your actions begets all actions.
You cannot say to not do something because it'll negatively effect your afterlife, because it could very equally improve your afterlife. Or it might even hurt your afterlife to not do these things.