/lit/ - Literature

>>23309826
>Asymmetry argument
Is a tautology that can be rejected and/or interpreted differently. Anti-natalists aren't very bright so they're completely filtered by this fact and will assert its validity while attempting to monopolize its interpretation. This is the core of their ideological belief structure and they are unable to be anything other than disingenuous when responding to criticism directed toward it.

>Quality of life argument
Is the real justification for anti-natalism. Whenever you point out it's subjective and unquantifiable anti-natalists will just deflect back to the asymmetry tautology while pretending it isn't central to their argument (yet whenever they bring up their anti-natalist bullshit they always sperg on and on about quality of life). Even Benatard himself admits it's only "vaguely true."

>Suicide
Deep down anti-natalists don't actually believe their own bullshit and make excuses so as to avoid the logical conclusion of their worldview. What's more when they reduce their argument back to a tautological stance, as retarded ideologues are wont to do, they betray the fact it coheres with morally atrocious outcomes (like mass murder and suicide).

>Anti-natalists
Are ideologically possessed sad sacks who project their negative ideation out onto the world. They don't actually care about the reduction of harm and are simply obsessed by violence and misery. They are prone to mental illness and personality disorder and let their resentment guide their experience of the world.

Anti-natalists are annoying morons and the only thing they have right is that they themselves shouldn't breed (note: most of them only come to this conclusion because they know they'll never find a willing partner that will put up with their bullshit).

>>23272487
>Asymmetry argument
Is a tautology that can be rejected and/or interpreted differently. Anti-natalists aren't very bright so they're completely filtered by this fact and will assert its validity while attempting to monopolize its interpretation. This is the core of their ideological belief structure and they are unable to be anything other than disingenuous when responding to criticism directed toward it.

>Quality of life argument
Is the real justification for anti-natalism. Whenever you point out it's subjective and unquantifiable anti-natalists will just deflect back to the asymmetry tautology while pretending it isn't central to their argument (yet whenever they bring up their anti-natalist bullshit they always sperg on and on about quality of life). Even Benatard himself admits it's only "vaguely true."

>Suicide
Deep down anti-natalists don't actually believe their own bullshit and make excuses so as to avoid the logical conclusion of their worldview. What's more when they reduce their argument back to a tautological stance, as retarded ideologues are wont to do, they betray the fact it coheres with morally atrocious outcomes (like mass murder and suicide).

>Anti-natalists
Are ideologically possessed sad sacks who project their negative ideation out onto the world. They don't actually care about the reduction of harm and are simply obsessed by violence and misery. They are prone to mental illness and personality disorder and let their resentment guide their experience of the world.

Anti-natalists are annoying morons and the only thing they have right is that they themselves shouldn't breed (note: most of them only come to this conclusion because they know they'll never find a willing partner that will put up with their bullshit).

>>23243916
At least you stopped sperging.

>>23183206

>>23096132
>How does one refute antinatalism without involving God in the equation?

Anti-natalism isn't complicated. There are basically two core arguments you have to contend with: the asymmetry argument and the quality of life argument. The asymmetry argument is flawed methodologically (it can't be proven; even Benatar admits it's only "vaguely true") and the quality of life argument is subjective (and when you take into account the proclivity anti-natalists have toward mental illness and personality disorder the fact their conclusions are rooted in a negativity bias becomes obvious).

The real problem is that anti-natalism is so simplistic at its core that it's easy to become ideologically possessed by it. One can give well-thought out reasons to reject the asymmetry argument and anti-natalists will just retreat to asserting its basic form which is tautological. You can explain the subjectivity of the quality of life argument but anti-natalists with just do one of two things: they'll insist that it's objective without responding to detailed arguments as to why it's subjective and/or minimize its importance in regard to their position as a whole (note that for the latter you can also make a good faith argument as to why it's central to accepting their conclusion and they will just insist it is not without directly addressing what you say).

That's the problem with these threads. When you have a discussion with an anti-natalist you're speaking to someone who has self-indoctrinated into an ideology they believe cannot be disproven. They can't understand when their core principle is being criticized so they will deflect by asserting a tautology while attempting to monopolize how outcomes related to it must be interpreted. Even after you point out this behaviour to them they won't address it because ideologues are incapable of arguing in good faith. They get BTFO every single time they make one of these stupid threads but will always come back again and fall into the same insufferable pattern.

>>22828288
>i also dont think that antinatalism is an ideology
It is and you can tell by the way its structured and how people who adhere to it fail to address valid alternatives when they "respond" to criticism.

>>22766599

>>22599384

>>22575445
Remember, attempting to debate ab anti-natalist is a pointless endeavor as they will always follow the same pattern:
>asserts tautology
>won't interact with arguments as to why it can be rejected
>monopolizes the interpretation of the tautology vis-a-vis reality
>won't interact with counter-arguments

>>22536118
>because people will point out valid reasons to reject the axioms of anti-natalism, deny the anti-natalist monopoly on their interpretation, and when confeonted we'll make shit up to save face when it's pointed out we have a defective emotional outlook and our sense of reality is contaminated by mental illness

>>22388181
>NOT BAD THO!
Arguing with antinatalists is pointless unless you just want to make fun of them. Their entire argument is based on insisting you accept their axioms and allow them to maintain a monopoly on how they are to be interpreted. You can lay out reasons as to why their axioms should be rejected (i.e. by way of making qualitative arguments and/or flaws in their logic), point out that their worldview can be used to justify bad-to-horrendous moral outcomes (i.e. undermining the idea antinatalism is about eliminating suffering), and punch holes in Benatar's interpretation itself--all of this will flow in one ear and out the other with them. They're ideologically possessed cognitively rigid retards who really just want to project their own sense of misery out into the world.

>>22297287
Arguing with antinatalists is pointless unless you just want to make fun of them, anon. Their entire argument is based on insisting you accept their axioms and allow them to maintain a monopoly on how they are to be interpreted. You can lay out reasons as to why their axioms should be rejected (both by way of making qualitative arguments and/or flaws in their logic), point out that their worldview can be used to justify bad-to-horrendous moral outcomes (i.e. undermining the idea antinatalism is about eliminating suffering), and punch holes in Benatar's interpretation itself--all of this will flow in one ear and out the other with them. They're ideologically possessed cognitively rigid retards who really just want to project their own sense of misery out into the world.

>>22113417
>sperg
Don't care. Antinatalism is the most pathetic retarded cope of an ideology I've ever come across (and I've read Message to the Black Man in America and Ayn Rand).

>>22106123
>"One of the implications of my argument is that a life filled with good and containing only the most minute quantity of bad–a life of utter bliss adulterated only by the pain of a single pin-prick–is worse than no life at all."
>t. David Benatar
Benatar is ideologically dogmatic in his thinking. He's forced to make idiotic assertions in order to avoid the fact he can't weigh the sum total of human experience nor admit his argument rests on subjectivity instead of his retarded logic square (pic-related).

>>22101668
>the meme makes me seethe
That's the point. People who aren't retarded anti-natalist fags find humor in the absurdity of your ideology. Adherents and fellow-travelers become angry because their belief system has been attacked and undermined. See >>22101594.

>>22073062
>You're going to die.

>>22066713
>You know you’re just a midwit, right? Actually a midwit.

>>21799233
>It can't be refuted.
Benatar begs the question insofar as antinatalists like to retreat to logical tautology. This is actually what carries the weight of their argument--not the rational elucidation of such. For example, one may interpret that murder/suicide is logically consistent with the same tautologies forwarded by antinatalists. Only a Machiavellian psychopath, which are common within antinatalists, would want to agree.
>>21799267
>filtered
The point is that it cannot be weighed.

>ABSENCE OF PLEASURE IS "NOT BAD" GUYS!
>THAT'S BETTER THAN BAD!
>Q.E.D.