Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 10:14:10 AM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:11:29 AM

Yes.

Wouldn't that imply a lack of objective morality?

Who said morality was a part of any of this?

How does subjective meaning NOT involve morality.

Subjectivity comes from the nature of values, some of which are comments on how we ought to act and thus moral. Affording subjective validity to all values and thus meanings is patently ridiculous.

Obviously no one is. But you can't stop the universe from doing so.

I would like to see the universe try and stop me.

I'm an advocate for a philosophy that I believe in. I'm going to fucking TRY to get people not to have kids.

Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:15:34 AM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:11:29 AM

Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:08:08 AM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:06:26 AM

Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:02:32 AM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:01:54 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 10:00:45 AM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 09:56:17 AM

Because there's nothing inherently wrong with suffering, which seems to be the entire reason for wanting to eliminate it.

For the fifth time, it's NOT.

There's nothing inherently wrong with suffering--that doesn't mean it HAS to happen. That doesn't mean it HAS to exist. Invariably, it is BETTER if there is NO suffering.

What's the point of nonexistence?

Conversely, what's the point of existence?

There isn't, until you give it purpose.
And giving something purpose is what everything's about.

The universe will continue to exist with life with it as much as we want or don't want it to. To appreciate it for its beauty and accomplishments is better than to sit around pouting about how you with everything was an empty void of nothingness.

So the point of existence is subjective?

Yes.

That would also include the possibility that any number of persons don't find a purpose in existence, right?

Just because they failed to find their purpose, that doesn't mean they didn't have the potential to find one for themselves.

One point for anti-natalism is that if life wasn't imposed upon that individual, he or she wouldn't have had to suffer through that lack of purpose. It's cutting off suffering before it can happen.

I'm playing devil's advocate here by the way. I do agree with Verb that there is no purpose, but I prefer the chaos of life and development to a lack of it. That doesn't mean that existence or chaos is an objective right or good, just that it's there.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 10:22:38 AM

Quote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:19:13 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 10:12:38 AM

potential

That right there. Why should we put a precedence on those who can exist but don't?

At least in my opinion, we should worry about the people who already exist before we worry about those who are yet to exist. What we already have is more important than what we can have.

Nothing you just said contradicts any part of our arguments.

If it doesn't, then what point are you trying to make?

1) Creating life creates suffering
2) Limit suffering from those who exist

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 10:22:38 AM

Quote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:19:13 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 10:12:38 AM

potential

That right there. Why should we put a precedence on those who can exist but don't?

At least in my opinion, we should worry about the people who already exist before we worry about those who are yet to exist. What we already have is more important than what we can have.

Nothing you just said contradicts any part of our arguments.

If it doesn't, then what point are you trying to make?

The fact that the disutility is potential doesn't negate the negative moral value of procreation, since the imposition of life is the very thing which actualises the potential.

Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:23:14 AM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:18:46 AM

Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:15:34 AM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:11:29 AM

Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:08:08 AM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:06:26 AM

Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:02:32 AM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:01:54 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 10:00:45 AM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 09:56:17 AM

Because there's nothing inherently wrong with suffering, which seems to be the entire reason for wanting to eliminate it.

For the fifth time, it's NOT.

There's nothing inherently wrong with suffering--that doesn't mean it HAS to happen. That doesn't mean it HAS to exist. Invariably, it is BETTER if there is NO suffering.

What's the point of nonexistence?

Conversely, what's the point of existence?

There isn't, until you give it purpose.
And giving something purpose is what everything's about.

The universe will continue to exist with life with it as much as we want or don't want it to. To appreciate it for its beauty and accomplishments is better than to sit around pouting about how you with everything was an empty void of nothingness.

So the point of existence is subjective?

Yes.

That would also include the possibility that any number of persons don't find a purpose in existence, right?

Just because they failed to find their purpose, that doesn't mean they didn't have the potential to find one for themselves.

One point for anti-natalism is that if life wasn't imposed upon that individual, he or she wouldn't have had to suffer through that lack of purpose. It's cutting off suffering before it can happen.

I'm playing devil's advocate here by the way. I do agree with Verb that there is no purpose, but I prefer the chaos of life and development to a lack of it. That doesn't mean that existence or chaos is an objective right or good, just that it's there.

If you prefer life's chaos, then why wish for an end to all existence? There is no middle ground.

I think you missed the part where I said that I'm playing devil's advocate here since I understand the argument.

That's not ego.

It's EXACTLY ego.

"I want to be a father. I want to extend my bloodline."

Ego.

It'd be id,  actually.

No, uh, yeah, it's ego. I know what I'm talking about. Been at this for two years. I'm not talking about Freud's model here.

1) Creating life creates suffering
2) Limit suffering from those who exist

So... parenthood sucks and don't be a parent?

The fact that the disutility is potential doesn't negate the negative moral value of procreation, since the imposition of life is the very thing which actualises the potential.

But why potentials? Why are we dilly-dallying around in hypotheticals?

Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:25:25 AM

1) Creating life creates suffering
2) Limit suffering from those who exist

So... parenthood sucks and don't be a parent?

Yes and no. Being a parent does involve suffering, but there are ways to be a parent without creating new life, e.g. adoption. The second point covers that: adopting a child will promote limiting their suffering (if you're able to, that is.)

Quote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:29:50 AM

Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:25:25 AM

1) Creating life creates suffering
2) Limit suffering from those who exist

So... parenthood sucks and don't be a parent?

Yes and no. Being a parent does involve suffering, but there are ways to be a parent without creating new life, e.g. adoption.

Now adoption is something I can support.

...what?

Is something about what I said confusing? Because I can't see it.

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:29:45 AM

But wishing for no existence at all is obviously stupid and futile. Might as well just off yourself if that's what you want, rather than being an insufferable edgelord.

Yeah, wow, that would accomplish a lot.

Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:30:25 AM

The id is your natural impulses, no? Procreation is one of those.

If we're going off of Freud's model (I wasn't, initially), the ego is what seeks to sate the id.

The ego mediates the superego and id. Anti-natalism would promote that the superego take precedence over the id on the subject of procreation.

Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:31:29 AM

Quote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:29:50 AM

Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:25:25 AM

1) Creating life creates suffering
2) Limit suffering from those who exist

So... parenthood sucks and don't be a parent?

Yes and no. Being a parent does involve suffering, but there are ways to be a parent without creating new life, e.g. adoption. The second point covers that: adopting a child will promote limiting their suffering (if you're able to, that is.)

Which is always a plus, yes. Adoption is a fantastic thing, be it for children or pets.
Better to give those without homes a home, after all.

And that's what's being said here. Verb's not saying to kill all the babies, he's saying to not bring new life into suffering. If you want to be a parent still, adopt so that a being that's already been born- that's already tainted by the suffering- can life live with less of it.

Quote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:29:50 AM

But why potentials? Why are we dilly-dallying around in hypotheticals?

Sorry, what? Since when was it possible to talk about actualities without potentials, since the latter necessarily precedes the former.

One proposition of anti-natalism, as least as far as I can tell, is that a potential person should hold more precedence than an actual person. That sounds rather preposterous to me.