khaled

Yes it does. The most popular argument for example, the "it's an unconsented imposition that can be harmful so it's wrong" that I hear very often has ...

I never said so. I was implying that all the ways of reaching the antinatalist conclusion come with ridiculous side effects, and the best way to argue...

False. You are still alive hence playing the game of life. If you stop snapping your finger, you will suffer exactly as you would IRL. Yes you still d...

Yes. But comes with ridiculous baggage oftentimes. “Everything is wrong” also consistently leads to the antinatalist conclusion but also leads to char...

Would you think it’s wrong if someone genetically engineered a severe disability into their child? Because in this case, similar to the birth example,...

What? This isn’t about “their terms” and “our terms”. You offered a comparison that is invalid. Every antinatalist is aware that people generally like...

Huh? This doesn’t make any sense. Let’s start slowly. You use the term “the game of life” quite often so when you say “game” that’s what I assume you’...

An AN would tell you it’s not a valid comparison because in the case of saving someone, there is someone to be hurt for you failing to save them. In t...

How exactly is it doing so? Which thing have I attributed to you that shouldn’t have been attributed to you? I’m very interested in seeing you answer ...

And I reply to his pessimism point later. This was in response to “Doesn’t shope give many reasons why life is too difficult a game”? No, you give non...

No. Because everything he said, everyone is already aware of. The conversation typically goes like this: shope: Having kids is an action of type X and...

And I wasn't saying that. I was pointing out that despite everyone agreeing with your principle, they don't agree with your conclusion. That doesn't m...

Agreed. I’m not pushing for a particular position though. You and shope are trying to convince others of AN. So you must show why the standard by whic...

How do you differentiate between when a game is “too hard” (too hard not to suffer) and not? In other words, what makes someone who says that “escapin...

You emphasize this here: So again, your issue is not with how difficult it is to escape the game, but how difficult it is to escape suffering within t...

That they cannot do. But they can snap their fingers and leave any suffering they may be experiencing and thus, no one has ever complained. Call that ...

The point is "If this is X, why can it not be made more X? Therefore this is not X" is not valid at all. Depends on your standard I guess. In other wo...

But in this case life remains inescapable. So clearly your problem isn't so much with the inescapability from "the game" itself, but rather the inesca...

So does this make it ok to impose life in this scenario?

Yes it is a utopia. No there are no consequences to not doing anything. I don't understand what you're asking?

False. I just didn't reply to it at first because it wasn't addressed to me. This makes as much sense as "If bikes are fast why are there cars???!?!??...

There are no consequences to not doing something. No need to work, no need to do anything you don't want to do. Let's start with that.

The way to show that ridiculous statements are ridiculous is to show their ridiculous consequences. The point is that a utopia is just as difficult to...

Seeing as you've refused to commit to any position no matter how many times I asked you "How do you differentiate between ok and wrong impositions", a...

So above a certain difficulty of escape (where escaping comes with dire consequences) inflicting something is wrong. That's your current criteria? No ...

But that's patently false. It is not inescapable. You've cited multiple ways to escape it:

You can also opt out of life if you really wanted. So "inescapable" doesn't seem to be it (in quotes because neither is inescapable). What else? Or ar...

But we know and have agreed previously that not all no opt out positions are wrong to impose. So how do you tell apart the ones that are ok to impose ...

So you’re saying what we think is out there is what out there? Well that’s ridiculous. There were plenty of things people thought were out there that ...

Or what I think is the best approach: Passive resistance. Don't argue with them. Don't make a big deal about it. Just don't let people into your estab...

That's not what I'm saying. To be pro-vax has no upfront cost. To be antivax has a huge upfront cost. It comes with ostracization and belittlement. Af...

I've had one conversation with one where I was the hostile one and they actually were pretty reasonable. He ended up citing me a post with 50 studies ...

I'm all for vaccines, but this doesn't help either. I think there is something like hazing going on with anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers and such. They pa...

What we think is out there is what enters the conversation. Unless you're saying they're the same thing? Agreed, that is the intention. But we don't k...

Maybe. That would make you an anti-realist about apples. But you admit the independent existence of something other than yourself, namely, the raw per...

The “raw perceptual data” Isaac was talking about. It’s the view the raw perceptual data exists regardless of what we say about it. Point is just this...

Your existence is independent of your thoughts. You can think you exist. You can think you don’t exist. Either way you exist. That’s what I meant. Sam...

Sure. But you’d be a realist about at least yourself or your thoughts. Who is a realist about the world we see anyways? No one has been like that sinc...

Sure. But it can't enter the conversation, and it can't be found out. Maybe the way things seem to us IS the way they are, but that just means we got ...

Yup. If I had to pick one it would be realism. I just wonder what you're supposed to say to someone who replies "no" to this. Whether it be by saying:...

I’d say that any talk of the way things are is talk of the way they seem to be. Not that “the way things are is what they seem to be”. Though pragmati...

Ok. This is not a problem for realism. This a problem for someone who is convinced that “what we see is exactly as it is” but that’s not realism as sa...

Does "whether or not stuff depends on what we think" depend on what we think? If it does, you're not really an anti-realist, as you admit realism is j...

So, when you perceive X, X was in large part created by you. But X was created from a "raw material of perception" as well. Are you saying even the "r...

Not really. Realism is the idea that there is stuff independent of what we say about it. It's not the idea that a specific object (say, the sky) is co...

People tend to say so and so is natural or unnatural to support or condemn respectively, not realizing that they’re making a naturalistic fallacy.

I could just name: "Is not a great ape" as the trait that animals possess that makes them ok to kill for food. There is no fundamental difference betw...

It wouldn't be a category error it would be a logical error. I'm saying it's ok to kill X for food if X is BOTH: Not a great ape (~A) AND Not within t...

I'm coming up with another rebuttal. One that does not require one to think that cannibalism is ok. Ah I see. My bad then. I don't understand why that...

What you did was impose a definition that favors you when I'd already stated what I meant by it. How so? What category am I mistaking with what other ...