schopenhauer1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollyanna_principle Real phenomena. More like I'm saying, people don't even know that they have a tendency for selective...

Besides the fact that people report more positively than actual lived moments day to day, besides the fact that people often identify with that which ...

So you're the arbiter and interpreter of what most people think? Ha, same for you

Even with your very callous and indifferent way of looking at suffering (for how other people may experience it versus you, let's say), YOUR decision ...

I did that in the last post.

No it would make it a huge category error. You would be applying it to specific instances, when at the procreational decision-making level, it prevent...

One of your bad arguments is the "suffering of parent" for not begetting someone else that would be harmed argument, yes.

Conceptualuzations of the universe and the universe are two different things. To take the perspective of the universe is to jump over the impossible. ...

I think it's important to recognize that when we conceptualize and imagine universes, we always keep a human point of view on it. What we cannot do is...

That's one of them. The other one is this whole cause thing. It is self-evident that being born is the one condition that allows for all other sufferi...

All of these things would then assume that people are to be used (for reincarnation, for spiritual entities, for future of humanity as a whole, etc.)....

@"Terrapin Station" Exactly. Someone suffering by not creating the causes or conditions that will occasion all other suffering for/ on behalf of anoth...

Again, my answer to this is that if pro-natalists are right, suffering will ensue for someone else- will be created wholesale for someone else. If ant...

Right on :up: . You get the absurdity of Terrapin Station's argument, and understand the AN argument, just as well. I don't understand why he can't.

So suffering is not qualified by "suffering that comes from.creating all harmful experiences for someone else?"

Yes, suffering by not using ANOTHER person's life that will cause all other instances of harm for that person, is irrelevant as it is suffering had fr...

Frustrated because you aren't doing something that causes a life that contains harm for another person? I am okay, letting that person stay frustrated...

Never existing and suicide are not the same. In fact, that is another pro-antinatalist argument. Either live out life, or kill yourself is pretty damn...

Right, the antinatalism argument is at the procreation level, and you are arguing from some post-birth perspective about consent. Not the same.

Actually response above is a very good rebuttal to your comment. Not only his ideas, but add to that, one is "damage" from not doing anything TO someo...

Your bad arguments about "causally-pegging" something for one. Irrelevant in the case of the procreational decision. It's simply a red herring... quic...

Ironically, you are doing this by posing shoddy argumentation. So, there's that. The parents "feelings" matters not in regards to starting SOMEONE ELS...

Ok, that's good. I just know how these go sometimes. They eventually just lead to frustration as one side may not be trying to actually get anywhere.

I wouldn't indulge Terrapin Station with his absurd consent rabbit hole. He likes to get conversations on a holding pattern loop. It reminds me of a l...

That's a strawman and classic trope against AN. AN is not promortalist. Decisions regarding birth are different than decisions about continuing to exi...

Legal definitions dont need to apply here. That is one definition. Antinatism is clearly about decisions made at the procreational level. That is to s...

I dont have to show how every connection leads to birth. By definition, all forms of suffering come from being alive in the first place. If you want t...

Antinatalism simply pegs all forms of suffering to being born. It is a KNOWN that life contains various amounts and varieties of suffering and negativ...

The same with khaled, all their arguments can be subsumed in the one I just gave. It can be characterized in a way that still takes your objection int...

In this case, Andrew. Your current conversation with him.

I think he means that other people have different considerations and evaluations of life. Not knowing what those considerations are beforehand, abstai...

A variety of reasons, which I refuted by demonstrating it is putting the agenda of the parent's outcome for the child at a premium over and above harm...

I do not see why an ethics regarding procreation, shouldn't involve harm, being that it is someone else's life that is in question here. In the case o...

I actually dont think consent is off the table, but that's another argument. Right now, I'm merely establishing how nonexistent people implies somethi...

No I see antinatilism like veganism, advocate but not enforce. It's a matter of personal ethical understanding and philosophy.

It's relevant when discussing nonexistent or potential people.

But your points feed right into mine, so to not demonstrate how your logic about non-existing things not having certain things apply to them (seemingl...

Dude, I am. I already said the point I'm getting at.. but I can walk you through it slowly, and in your case, in a circular holding pattern kind of wa...

Then I can't help you.. Keep on missing the point.

Knock knock..hello..Because with your SAME LOGIC of NON-EXISTENT people, we can say that there is no harm to any actual person who is NOT born, but th...

Ok, you have to be freakn trolling me right now. It's about your CONSENT argument. If you want a quote here it is:

Either you are being purposely evasive of what I have brought up as a consequence of your own argument, or you are really not understanding how much t...

It absolutely does though. Your little paradox about no one existing for consent cuts both ways. You say, "People do not exist in the first place, pri...

Because your little supposed paradox cuts both ways. No one exists to be deprived of anything either. That is David Benatar's main point in his Harm o...

Even if I was to distill this argument down to collateral damage- by having someone who did not want to go through life in the first place, you create...

I present to you my thread on this subject: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6202/work-should-be-based-on-quantity-of-boredom-involved

It's a nonsensical question. The point in never existing (which can never happen to the ones who already exist) or for potential new people? The assum...

Laziness scares many because if all were completely lazy, the techno-economic system breaks down. You need those ingenious go-getters to make stuff. W...

That perspective is off.. If you never existed, there is no mattering in the first place. There is no you to be deprived of anything in the first plac...

I find this argument of "creative" inherent capacities to be a slippery slope to justify the very "ever-hungry" (x economic system). The realities wer...