>tfw anti-natalism makes the most sense to me but I still

>>35532640
adoption literally is the most rational choice

>>35532683
Uh the op probably shouldn't be a parent at all. Just an assumption and wanted to throw that possibility out there.

>>35532683
They would never allow a single guy to adopt.

>>35532714
>wasting time, effort and money on someone else's spawn not even they wanted.
highly illogical

>>35532640
>he fell for the anti-natalism meme
Let me guess. You're a Male Rights Activist as well?

>>35532714
>Uh the op probably shouldn't be a parent at all. Just an assumption and wanted to throw that possibility out there.

A caring parent is a better parent than no parent at all, in virtually any situation

the very fact that OP cares, or at least wants to care, about a child is enough

>>35532732
>They would never allow a single guy to adopt.
This is a commonly held myth about the adoption system, actually single men just don't really apply

Obviously there's many reasons for that, social stigma against single men adopting among other things, but there is nothing barring single men from adopting a child legally

>>35532757
Can you point me to some places that argue against it? Id be really interesting in seeing them.

>>35532955
Why don't you tell me why it makes sense now and I will argue against it?

>>35532765
You can care but just remember that the road paved to hell is littered with good intentions.

>>35533069
Not being able to consent to being born. No matter what you will experience negative things in life and if you never existed you wouldn't have so by bringing someone into this world you become responsible for putting them through things they never even wanted in the first place and most of it will be bad.

Just to explain further too I'm not depressed and I have a very good life generally speaking, but I think what I said above still makes a lot of sense and stops me from ever pursing becoming a father. I don't understand how someone could disprove it and I would feel awful becoming responsible for someone's pain.

>>35533237
>Not being able to consent to being born.
Why is this important?
>No matter what you will experience negative things in life
Yes, so what?
>Things they never even wanted
How is it that someone who isn't alive can want something?
>and most of it will be bad
Will it? Two things for you to do then. Prove that is the case, and demonstrate why that is a bad thing.

Bring your arguments to their conclusion. All you did was say a bunch of stuff.

>>35533335
I don't feel comfortable about the idea of forcing someone into existence when they can't even do anything to stop it. Not feeling anything will always be better than experiencing negative things because by definition a negative or bad experience is just that. I don't know how else to explain that to you. I thought you would have an argument to why life is worth it and bringing a child into it is okay but you're just throwing words around. I thought you'd have something good. Too bad.

Gathering a child isn't the same as being a dad

>>35533451
You are not fulfilling your end of the bargain, you are an idiot.

>I don't feel comfortable about the idea of forcing someone into existence when they can't even do anything to stop it.
This isn't an argument. Your feelings are irrelevant, you have to justify why your feelings are an appropriate reaction using reasoning. Otherwise they are just that, illogical emotions. Why should anyone care what is you feel? This is what I mean when I say, bring your arguments to a conclusion. An argument is:

x
y

x + y ---> z

All you've done is state an x, do you see what you are missing here you idiot?

>Not feeling anything will always be better than experiencing negative things because by definition a negative or bad experience is just that

Because you refused to make this argument (because you are an idiot) I will state it for you, this is what you should have done you absolute moron.

Humans will always experience suffering in life. Suffering should never be experienced in any circumstances (Why?), it is much better to not exist than to feel any amount of suffering (Why?). Therefor you should not have children, because it introduces a capacity to suffer.

There, finally something I can argue against except in this case you didn't actually support your conclusion. Nobody actually believes this, you know that right? Not even YOU believe it. How can I say that nobody believes it? Very simple, if someone were to believe this, then they would immediately kill themselves. You yourself said that not feeling anything will be better than experiencing negative things, and you are bound to experience something negative again in your life, so go on, kill yourself. Killing yourself would bring about the better result according to your logic, yet the world still has 7 billion people living here. It's quite obvious that nobody actually believes this, not even you. Now your job is to answer the statements with a (Why?) and my argument here. Do it so I can finish up.

>>35533849
Okay that makes a lot of sense. So it's like I don't actually believe it but thinking I do or convincing myself overtime reaffirms my bias view on life?

>>35533930
You can't believe it. It's impossible. If you actually believed it, you would have acted out your belief. If you thought that it's better to not exist than to suffer, then you would end your existence right now, because suffering in any sense, is unavoidable. So then, there must be something here in this life that you think justifies existing in a world filled with suffering. There is a reason you haven't killed yourself. It should be rather obvious what that is, it's the capacity to experience the opposite of suffering, happiness. You give birth to a person so they have the capacity to experience happiness.

Using the exact same logic that anti-natalists use, I can say that NOT giving birth to a child is immoral.

>You cannot experience happiness if you do not exist.
>Experiencing happiness is better than not experiencing happiness.
>Nothing can outweigh the positive value of happiness.
>Happiness is at some point, inevitable, just as suffering is.

See, it's not hard.

>>35534017
That's a great point. I was having tunnel vision and looking only at the pessimistic side when by the very same logic I was using to apply it could also be used against it. As for the not killing myself the first thing that came to mind is the guilt of leaving my mom, dad, and grandpa and for them to have to go through seeing me dead. Thanks for being patient enough to explain this out. It's very easy to have a negative world view but I like what you're saying a lot. Was there any specific Philosophy you have read about that helped you believe what you do or was it just yourself and your own experiences?

>>35534085
I don't know how I came to that conclusion, because he never answered these questions:

>Suffering should never be experienced in any circumstances (Why?)
>It is much better to not exist than to feel any amount of suffering (Why?)


Presumably the same way that antinatalists did, except mirrored.

>>35532640
How the fuck would anti-natalism ever make the most sense unless the person in question had severe mental issues or terrible genetics?

>>35534122
>As for the not killing myself the first thing that came to mind is the guilt of leaving my mom, dad, and grandpa and for them to have to go through seeing me dead.
Yes, but that guilt is just another form of suffering, which can be ended by killing yourself. So there's no real way around the suicide argument. Well there is, in some sense. You could argue that it is for some reason impossible for you to kill yourself, or you fear killing yourself. It's hard to extend that argument to seven billion people though, so it's not a real refutation.
>Was there any specific Philosophy you have read about that helped you believe what you do or was it just yourself and your own experiences?
I didn't read anything about it, someone has probably made different and similar arguments against it. I just have a penchant for thinking in these terms. Use https://plato.stanford.edu to learn some basic stuff about philosophical topics. Pros and Cos or whatever. This is the relevant article for this. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parenthood/

>>35533237
>Not being able to consent to being born. No matter what you will experience negative things in life and if you never existed you wouldn't have so by bringing someone into this world you become responsible for putting them through things they never even wanted in the first place and most of it will be bad.
I don't get how anti-natalists can argue from the POV of someone who literally doesn't exist.

>>35534276
Thanks for the links. I'll look into it as much as I can anon.

File: granny.jpg (56KB, 654x710px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 654x710px

>>35534017
you are equating suicide with not existing. OP has no surefire avenue to end or prevent his existence. The point of AN is to spare a living thing this type of dilemma. Of course every living thing has, at some point, a pro-living bias.

Taking oneself out of the game is extremely difficult in personal and societal terms, and not solely because life is star-spangled wonderful or even necessarily tolerable. I'd prefer to spare an individual this pain in the first place. It's not worth potentially bringing someone into the world who will see life from a hospital window just to scratch some selfish itch.

AN is a question of value. Suffering is important, even if you think it has no objective value, it has value relative to a thing with a central nervous system. It's not worth it.

Suicide is not equal to non-existence from the standpoint of a person whose only experience is existence.

>>35534017
>>You cannot experience happiness if you do not exist.

missed this nugget. Happiness would have to be on equal footing, and dosed in equal amounts with suffering. Life doesn't work that way.

>>35534377
>you are equating suicide with not existing
Yes, unless you believe in an afterlife, but if you do, you need to adhere to the religion's ethics, which doesn't support anti-natalism.
>OP has no surefire avenue to end or prevent his existence.
Go jump off a tall building, shoot himself, he has plenty of stuff.
>The point of AN is to spare a living thing this type of dilemma
What dilemma?
>Of course every living thing has, at some point, a pro-living bias.
Well, why is that then?
>Taking oneself out of the game is extremely difficult in personal and societal terms
So what? It still ends suffering, which is a better state according to anti-natalists.
>I'd prefer to spare an individual this pain in the first place.
Okay, I don't care what you prefer. Your preference of something doesn't it make morally true.
>It's not worth potentially bringing someone into the world who will see life from a hospital window just to scratch some selfish itch.
Why?
>AN is a question of value. Suffering is important, even if you think it has no objective value, it has value relative to a thing with a central nervous system. It's not worth it.
Not sure I understand what you're saying.
>Suicide is not equal to non-existence from the standpoint of a person whose only experience is existence.
Sure seems like it to me, how is it not?
>Happiness would have to be on equal footing, and dosed in equal amounts with suffering
Equal footing? You mean 1 "unit" of Happiness has a value of say 1, and one "unit" of suffering has a value of "-1"? Is that what you are trying to say? Well, why isn't it that way? Actually this is a more complicated argument, I'll hide my cards for a bit unless you pick up on it.

>>35534500
fearing an afterlife is not the same as subscribing to religious dogma

jumping off a building is a very simple process with no negative consequences or emotional distress leading up to it, right? Also, the dilemma would be one faced by say, those experiencing cancer, poverty, other chronic illness/disability. Living things have a bias toward existing because it is all they know, if we understood exactly what ending life entailed, the argument would be different. My preference does not exist to be evaluated by you, but rather it is the deciding factor in the possible infliction of suffering.

This is not as complicated as it should be. When tools started talking about the value of suffering, things got murky and eventually, just silly. If one of your vertabrae in your spine gets crushed, I don't think you'll argue the value of the pain relative to your quality of life. AN solves the problem by not bringing any new spines into the game.

>>35534741
>fearing an afterlife is not the same as subscribing to religious dogma
You can't fear an afterlife unless you believe in an afterlife, that usually requires religion. I can't think of any religions that demonize having children, especially not ones followed by Westerners. More importantly though, if we're introducing afterlife, we may as well throw this whole argument out the window, because there very well may exist a "pre-life", your argument would fall apart.
>jumping off a building is a very simple process with no negative consequences or emotional distress leading up to it, right?
It doesn't matter how distressful it is, because in doing it you are ending suffering which according to anti-natalists is unquestionably the best end result.
>Also, the dilemma would be one faced by say, those experiencing cancer, poverty, other chronic illness/disability.
I still don't understand what you're trying to say, you need to be specific about what the dilemma is.
>Living things have a bias toward existing because it is all they know.
Is that what you're saying the reason is? I'd argue against that, but I just realized it's not necessary. To be clear you're agreeing that most people would prefer to exist than to not exist?
>My preference does not exist to be evaluated by you, but rather it is the deciding factor in the possible infliction of suffering.
You really don't get the point. Your preference as you stated it, is just that a preference. It's not an argument. You need to justify your preference.
>This is not as complicated as it should be
Yeah, you really haven't caught on here have you? Well here's a hint. What is one unit of "suffering" worth and what is one unit of "happiness" worth? Start there to see just why it's complicated.
>When tools started talking about the value of suffering
Yes this is relevant too, and also very complicated.
>If one of your vertabrae...
What? Of course I would. Do you think I'd just roll over and die because of pain?

>>35534958
you don't understand why a life of illness or even just human need and discomfort could be less than preferred? Because this is the argument you're fighting in like nine different ways. Also, you have to stop framing the afterlife/prelife debate in dogmatic terms. Could be awesome, could be shit, the point is I don't know and you don't know. On the off chance one of them is shit, I may have the power to prevent it. I'm not going to play russian roulette with another persons head on the line if I don't need to.

And this "unit of suffering, tee-hee" thing is getting annoying. Obviously I don't get it. Please explain

>>35534958
>What? Of course I would. Do you think I'd just roll over and die because of pain?
missing the point, would you spare another that pain if it was in your power, even if it meant they never got to eat ice cream?

>>35532640
>fantasize about being a father

Literally why

>>35535174
>you don't understand why a life of illness or even just human need and discomfort could be less than preferred?
Okay, that makes sense, but how is that relevant? People want to live, if they didn't, they would choose to die. Therefor to live, even in a state of suffering is preferable to death. Death is just the process of bringing one thing that was once into existence into nonexistence, so you can draw a clear comparison between not being born and death. If anti-natalism is a moral truth, then people in general would prefer to die (absence of suffering) rather than to exist (presence of suffering). That's not the case, as we all have chosen to live rather than to die. This means we prefer to live, which means anti-natalism is false, and its exact opposite is true. People not yet born would much rather prefer to be born than not be born. This is the argument I made earlier.

This whole shitty philosophy seems like it was made by a depressed retard who never had the balls to kill himself.

>>35535208
No, that would be up to them, not me. Nice oversimplification acting as if "eating ice cream" is all that is good in the world.

>>35532640
Just get girls pregnant and run. I'm seriously planning on knocking up a bunch of religious roasties across the world and bailing out on them. It's the most patrician fetish. A natural form of dominance

>>35535372
>People not yet born would much rather prefer to be born than not be born.
source? You talk to these people? You are operating on a bias of having been born, you oversimplify suicide and the conditions leading up to it. Nobody chose to live, we only choose to continue to live.

AN is a matter of personal choice. No one said it is the hot new thing that should be forcefully implemented. I am glad that it gets people talking and evaluating the quality of our lives. Responsibility in breeding can benefit those already born.

Thinking that life is a prize to be deprived of is weaker than the reality of suffering as it relates to those unlucky enough to experience it. Just because I live in comfort for the time being, that does not make it acceptable for others to suffer in a qualitative way. But they will, billions will, for generations.

I can exercise personal choice. I can't make anyone else do shit. You seem confident enough in your argument to impose shit on others.

>>35535396
>Nice oversimplification acting as if "eating ice cream" is all that is good in the world.
the reader is free to extrapolate and cite better things than ice cream, but the tippy-top best life, which I am certain that you and most others aren't living, better outweigh the horrors.

hell, not even the worst aspects, it better be, on average, less arduous than simply the mundane