I'm talking about something much broader than that. — Terrapin Station
You contradicted yourself in your confused response as well, in one instance denying any possible consideration of the person to be (they arent born yet) then turning around (in other posts) and allowing that consideration (how they will suffer as a person after being born) when it supports your argument. — DingoJones
I don't want to argue with you but the thing is the WAY you argue is what's so weird. You argue the principles themselves and then when it no longer works out you go back to your "But actually I don't use principle based approaches" crux. That's why I called you a troll. Because you DO principle based ethics, for a bit, by arguing why this principle is better than that or what motivation there is behind this principle etc but then you turn back to saying "But actually I don't use principle based approaches" at the first sign of inconsistency
If you don't do principle based approaches don't argue the principles themselves. Every time I argue with you I think you're suspending your disbelief and actually doing a principle based approach only for it to end with "but actually I don't do principle based approaches". If you don't, don't argue the principles themselves because that's called oing a principle based approach — khaled
Again, if you don't do principle based ethics, you shouldn't be debating principles. And if you DO suspend your disbelief with doing principle based ethics and decide to debate principles then you at least should continue suspending your disbelief until the debate is over. Not go back to "But actually I don't do principle based ethics" the second a contradiction between a principle and your behaviour arises. — khaled
"Asshole attitude". Really dude? Because you have been the absolute pinnacle of gentlemanly, chivalrous conduct? "Asshole attitude" coming from you means absolutely nothing no offence. — khaled
I don't think you are considering everything. Just because a child is born with defects, she's not doomed to a miserable life. Parents can provide proper care and do the best to make their offspring's life as good as possible. For the most part, in modern society, illnesses can be treated and disabilities managed. As long as you're a caring parent and are willing and able to provide as much as you can for your child, I see no reason not to have kids.I don't think this is good enough still. Would you agree to someone betting all of your life savings on some random business that has a 4 or 5% chance of failing miserably? Sure the chance is low but why take the bet in the first place for someone you don't know? Especially when so much is at stake — khaled
Holy shit, im not talking about Benatars asymmetry. Im not even really talking about that part of the antinatalist argument at all.
In this last post, I was pointing out a contradiction that you made, and before that I was pointing out a double standard you keep trotting out. These are not based on the weakness of Antinatalism, they are based on logic and they attack the way in which you are making your argument. (With misapplied logic). Evidently you are completely clueless as to what you are actually saying and instead consider your points well made not by their merit but merely by the repetition of words you’ve read in Benatars argument.
So nothing you have responded with shows any comprehension at all about what is being said to you. (By me). — DingoJones
You contradicted yourself in your confused response as well, in one instance denying any possible consideration of the person to be (they arent born yet) then turning around (in other posts) and allowing that consideration (how they will suffer as a person after being born) when it supports your argument. — DingoJones
Yes it is. That is exactly what you are doing. You have made a subjective evaluation about suffering, and are arguing against and morally condemning other people (parents/would be parents) based on that evaluation (foist number one), in addition to making a decision on behalf of somebody else (anyone born!) based on your own evaluation about suffering. (Foist number 2). — DingoJones
Im talking about you using your own sense of suffering and life not being worth the suffering etc and applying that to everyone — DingoJones
I don't think you are considering everything. Just because a child is born with defects, she's not doomed to a miserable life — Purple Pond
I see no reason not to have kids. — Purple Pond
As long as you're a caring parent and are willing and able to provide as much as you can for your child, I see no reasonnot to have kids. — Purple Pond
“hey asshole, mind your own fucking business. Only one person gets to make this decision, me. If life sucks, there is a real simple exit option.” — DingoJones
Most people would, because most people do not view life and suffering the way an Antinatalist does — DingoJones
but its certainly not the case that most people wish theyd never been born. — DingoJones
It is as if having children is taken to be the default position - against which the antinatalist must present his case and challenge. But it should be seen the other way round, with inaction as the default — Inyenzi
It is as if the justification for creating a problem, is that one will do their very best to mitigate the harm caused by it — Inyenzi
one where you are starting a life — schopenhauer1
It is as if having children is taken to be the default position — Inyenzi
you did not make the choice to be born by definition. And you said it yourself, only one person gets to make that decisions and it SHOULD be you — khaled
I wasn't talking about that at all when I made the comment about my opinion of what's called "suffering."
You can't stop thinking about it, so you interpreted my comment as if that's what it's about. — Terrapin Station
What broader thing are you talking about? This debate has always been in the context of antinatalism. It's even the name of the thread. That is the subtext of all these sub-debates. — schopenhauer1
You may have some personal restriction that everything you say in a thread has to have some relation to the initial post of the thread or the thread title, but I don't. At least half of the time I don't even have any idea what thread I'm posting in, because I really couldn't care less. I prefer chatting. I have no personal restrictions that we have to stick with some topic so that every post, every comment (in every post) has to relate to that topic somehow. — Terrapin Station
I'm fine with a thread going in various directions. I don't necessarily have anything against that. What I do have something against is what khaled was implying in several posts back when you are talking about something else, and then you all of a sudden use that comment to talk about the topic at hand, thus you can always weave in and out and say, "no I wasn't using that argument for that topic then, but now I am". Which is more than a bit dodgy. — schopenhauer1
You'd only do that if you basically insist that everything has to relate back to the initial topic/subject of the thread. — Terrapin Station
I'll gladly move on from that particular line of reasoning. It makes no sense to believe that one's own interpretation of suffering should dictate another's life so, yeah I'd gladly accept that you are not talking about that, because that might mean you actually take that position. Of course if it is, then the topic focuses on antinatalism again. But as you admitted, that particular reasoning is not about antinatalism. — schopenhauer1
Again, this isn't about antinatalism specifically, but I see it more as "One's attributions of what counts as suffering should not dictate what anyone else is required to do a la needing to make sure that you don't experience what you count as suffering." — Terrapin Station
There is no bar set because there's no theoretical limit to the amount of suffering a person can experience. It's all about tolerating risk. Is it worth the risk to produce an offspring? Like I said, it depends.This is what I have a problem with, that the bar is set at “miserable life”. “It’s ok Timmy at least you’re not suffering as much as those Chinese sweatshop workers making your clothes”. — khaled
I'm finding it very difficult to make sense of this analogy. A potential baby is nothing, has nothing. So you can't deprive it of anything.Would you imagine if someone invested all your life savings on a mediocre deal that lost you money without your consent then had the nerve to say “hey, at least you’re not broke amirite?” — khaled
I disagree. If there's a good chance that the child will grow up to live happy healthy life, and a very small chance that they will suffer tremendously, it's worth the risk.Having a child while knowing there is a RISK they suffer tremendously (in spite of your best care and effort) is pretty bad. — khaled
How about because you want a child? Children can give lots of joy to the parents. It also happens to be very likely that the child is grateful to be born, so it isn't selfish.Why are you taking the risk for someone else in the first place? Because YOU like life? That’s no good reason. — khaled
Okay, are you applying that to the principle of starting a life (antinatalism debate) or someone who is already born (not antinatalism debate)? If it is the first or both, then it is an antinatalism debate. — schopenhauer1
There is no bar set because there's no theoretical limit to the amount of suffering a person can experience — Purple Pond
I'm finding it very difficult to make sense of this analogy. A potential baby is nothing, has nothing. So you can't deprive it of anything. — Purple Pond
I disagree. If there's a good chance that the child will grow up to live happy healthy life, and a very small chance that they will suffer tremendously, — Purple Pond
it's worth the risk. — Purple Pond
How about because you want a child? — Purple Pond
It also happens to be very likely that the child is grateful to be born, so it isn't selfish. — Purple Pond
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.