Sweet reminder that there are no successful arguments agains

If the subject never exists, then it's not going to experience the good and the not bad.

File: nietzsche-styling-over-christians.png (503KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 500x667px

Sweet reminder that this way of thinking measures the value of things according to pleasure and pain, which is to say according to incidental states and trivialities. A foreground way of thinking and naivety, and nobody who is conscious of both formative powers and an artist’s conscience will fail to regard it with scorn as well as pity.

In human beings, creature and creator are combined: in humans there is material, fragments, abundance, clay, dirt, nonsense, chaos; but in humans there is also creator, maker, hammer-hardness, spectator-divinity and seventh day: – do you understand this contrast? And that your pity is aimed at the “creature in humans,” at what needs to be molded, broken, forged, torn, burnt, seared and purified, – at what necessarily needs to suffer and should suffer?

It is hilarious how the natalists try to argue with the antinatalists, the latter of whom are like an enemy in the middle of war threatening to commit suicide. It's not just the antinatalists who shouldn't reproduce, then, but even many of the natalists, such as for instance all those who try to argue with the antinatalists.

The successive decline of religion, nationalism, sanctity of blood ties and institution of marriage, have created the Individual — unknown to lower cultures or earlier phases of the master race's culture — who is, like all advances, something of a double-edged sword, which many use to advance and improve their lives (or, more correctly: the future of their genes), but which others flail about and cut themselves with. So on the one hand the individual no longer feels a responsibility towards his gods, nation, tribe or family to reproduce, because these are outdated, marginalized institutions — and JUSTLY marginalized (since their era has passed precisely because the culture has advanced beyond them) — that no longer hold any authority over anyone but a minority of backwards losers, but on the other hand, the philosophy that is destined to replace them — that of the Overman and the Eternal Recurrence — has not yet had sufficient time to take hold and lend reproduction a new meaning — a stronger and more glorious meaning than it has ever had! — and as a consequence the meaning of reproduction in the general culture is currently lacking to such a degree that — for the first time in history — a growing number of degenerates are even campaigning for its destruction (anti-natalism). As a result of all this the majority of the population seems to have turned over completely to hedonism, and the last thing on their minds is to undertake the laborious task of propagating themselves — which is of course a good thing, because in this way the hedonists are removing their failed genes and gene configurations from our gene pool.

>>9228959
You serious my man? Should I respond?

>>9228833
Lemme fix this chart for you:

X exists:
>Presence of pain (Bad)
>Presence of pleasure (Good)

X never exists:
>Absence of pain (Not bad)
>Absence of pleasure (Not good)

You have to weigh potential pains/pleasures to make an ethical judgement.

Also,
>Finally, I should like to thank my parents and brothers for all they do and for all they are. This book is dedicated to them.
I know this isn't a contradiction, because he isn't affirming the value of their lives, but god damn does it walk right up to the line. Honestly strikes me as cowardly.

>>9228833
is this worth a read? is it the definitive anti-natalist text?

looks so edgy I just want to print it at work already and "forget" it in the printer :')

>>9229601
this. "x never exists" is always 0/0, while "x exists" may be weighted either +, -, or 0. in my life (so far) it has been weighted towards the +, as has my wife's, and, i suspect, so has my son's. assuming it continues that way, by op's simplistic argument, it would have been wrong for me to not "create" him, and thereby decrease his overall + experience to a 0. conversely there are people who knowingly have children into - scenarios, and that's a different moral consideration.

>>9228833

>what is BDSM

>>9229638
>is this worth a read? is it the definitive anti-natalist text?
It is, yeah.

>looks so edgy I just want to print it at work already and "forget" it in the printer :')
Wow that's, thats actually ...wow I think you got it!!! *dialling Benatar* dude it's over, antinatalism is over, you got nailed, no, no, yeah, no, hear me out, hear me out dude, someone on the internet just debunked the whole argument, it's over man

not really, research suggests political opinions are highly heritable. if you want long-term extinction of the species, you should seek to have many children yourself, and convince like-minded individuals to do the same

>>9229601
Your valuation is covered on page 40 of the book linked above.
> Honestly strikes me as cowardly.
Yeah sure, and if he said "Fuck you, parents. Sincerely, Benatar" you would cry "edgyyyy" a trillion times more.

>>9229699
Maybe so, but that's definitely at a fight with the toll on creating someone, if you concede that it's tremendously immoral, so it's not an easy decision regardless.

I think it's fair to say that the Earth will collapse with the amount of people we have right now doing what they're doing anyhow. The only decent argument I've seen against antinatalism is a similar one of yours, but it proposed to reach a complete understanding of the universe, so that we can make sure no other big bang ever happens.

>>9229725
>I think it's fair to say that the Earth will collapse with the amount of people we have right now doing what they're doing anyhow.
if your antinatalist view stems from environmentalist concern, i don't think you need to trouble yourself with risibly inefficient methods of population control such as individual restraints on fertility, as technology already has terrifyingly efficient methods in store. the future is genocide via biological warfare

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601213/the-extinction-invention/

>>9229725
He doesn't set forth an argument, just waves his hands around and then says that his assessment should be gospel. This technique is all over the book.

As for the aesthetics, I'd rather him be edgy and consistent than family-friendly and self-contradicting. Besides, his assertion only has merit in relation to its edginess to begin with.

>>9228833
>caring about hurting others

That spook right there destroys your argument

>>9229699
even if this paradox has some truth to it in theory, female anti-natalists basically don't exist.

>>9228833
Idealism is not an argument. It never will be.

File: FKaF2RD.png (40KB, 825x635px)

40KB, 825x635px

Your argument falls apart if the individual making the decision doesn't base it entirely on the presence/absence of suffering.

The only people who will register your argument are people already inclined to agree with it.

>>9228833
Picture is already blatantly wrong.
Why is presence of pain bad?
Why is presence of pleasure good?
I disagree that pain is bad inherently. It is a state that tells us to urgently change it. Doesn't mean it is bad.

Anti-natalism is a joke. It is for those so decadent that any potential for discomfort is a reason for non-existence.

What a fucking retarded useless thread.

and the world starved and burned for another thousand years