You're making a mistake here. The pleasure of raping is not the same as the pain of being raped. — TheMadFool

In the example you gave there wasn't even any pleasure, only pain forced upon someone, so that means it would make the case where I applied your reasoning upon even "stronger".


You haven't refuted anything, and are now talking some stuff reminding me of a strawman-smokemirror about other alleged Antinatalists. You are not responding to my arguments whatsoever, since I did point that out more than once this has to be considered arguing in bad faith at this point.

As a last attempt to have an actual debate that you are refusing so far (I wonder why), please respond to my arguments, not some strawman-Antinatalist, and at least these two points I made, everything else isn't even close to a debate but an intentional waste of time:

• Do you agree with “forcing people into painful and deadly situations is wrong”?
  If so – congratulations you are now an Antinatalist, if not, you have no argument against someone forcing you into a painful and deadly situation.
  
  
• You are constantly referring to how “happiness” has to be taken into account.
  Being deprived of “happiness” is suffering, as you certainly wouldn’t want a life without any “happiness”, so the experience of “happiness” is the release of the suffering of the painful craving of happiness.
  
  Empty void isn’t suffering a deprivation of happiness obviously, so
  Why do you think it were a good idea, to create and multiply the problem of craving happiness, especially if the absence of creating the problem solves it as perfectly as it could possibly be solved?
  
  There is no band-aid (temporary release of the craving for happiness) needed if you don’t put a knife into someones chest (unnecessarily creating the suffering that is the craving of “happiness”) in the first place.

Do you agree with “forcing people into painful and deadly situations is wrong”? — Zn0n

Yes, I agree but that doesn't yet make me an antinatalist because to agree here doesn't necessarily mean we immediately recommend nonexistence as the solution. There are other ways to go about dealing with this issue. We could work toward making the world a better place, a place where pain needn't be a part of our lives at all.

You are constantly referring to how “happiness” has to be taken into account.
Being deprived of “happiness” is suffering, as you certainly wouldn’t want a life without any “happiness”, so the experience of “happiness” is the release of the suffering of the painful craving of happiness. — Zn0n

Can you provide a complete, accurate, description of our world without including happiness? No, right? For antinatlists to make their case they have to demonstrate, prove, that every waking moment of our existence is a living hell. That, as of yet, isn't the case. Sorry.

Why do you think it were a good idea, to create and multiply the problem of craving happiness, especially if the absence of creating the problem solves it as perfectly as it could possibly be solved? — Zn0n

You're not factoring in the dynamic nature of the world - things change, we will, and in this potential for change there's the possibility, no matter how small, that the future won't be simply a perpetuation of the dismal conditions, antinatalists are so eager to point out, that characterize our past and future.

Also, what of the nature of pain I took a lot of effort explaining to you? I'll reiterate it below for your consideration:

Antinatalist: There is suffering in existence. Ergo, the antinatlist says, we shouldn't exist.

Me: We don't want to suffer because we don't want not to exist. So, to say that we shouldn't exist doesn't make sense for the reason that suffering implies that we don't want not to exist. Antinatalism is a contradiction: We don't want not to exist (that's the reason we suffer). We shouldn't exist

We could work toward making the world a better place, a place where pain needn't be a part of our lives at all. — TheMadFool

Using people to get to this far off better place, which may never actually be anyways, is not moral. Yet not procreating a new person does harm to no one. So this would not be a viable alternative, if you indeed didn't want to do things like use people or not cause unnecessary harm (for whatever reasons, even if it comes from the best of intentions).

Can you provide a complete, accurate, description of our world without including happiness? No, right? For antinatlists to make their case they have to demonstrate, prove, that every waking moment of our existence is a living hell. That, as of yet, isn't the case. Sorry. — TheMadFool

So you aren't looking at @Zn0n's point. That is that even happiness is a sort of deficit, as the "not having happiness (or pleasure)" is itself a harm. Thus this whole need-cycle can be circumvented itself.

You're not factoring in the dynamic nature of the world - things change, we will, and in this potential for change there's the possibility, no matter how small, that the future won't be simply a perpetuation of the dismal conditions, antinatalists are so eager to point out, that characterize our past and future. — TheMadFool

But you admit: "no matter how small". See above about "using people" and their inevitable negative experiences for some far off better future.

Me: We don't want to suffer because we don't want not to exist. So, to say that we shouldn't exist doesn't make sense for the reason that suffering implies that we don't want not to exist. Antinatalism is a contradiction: We don't want not to exist (that's the reason we suffer). We shouldn't exist — TheMadFool

This whole scheme/strawman you set up here just doesn't fly. The "not wanting to die" itself is a fear, a negative experience. The evolutionary reason for physical pain doesn't make it any less of a negative experience. Creating that very fear, and the very pains that go along with our evolutionary machinery, itself does not have to be created in the first place. Fearing death is a non-issue here. It has nothing to do with not creating suffering in the first place. Not being born and not wanting to feel pain or fear of death are different things and you are (purposely?) equivocating it.

Using people to get to this far off better place, which may never actually be anyways, is not moral. Yet not procreating a new person does harm to no one. So this would not be a viable alternative, if you indeed didn't want to do things like use people or not cause unnecessary harm (for whatever reasons, even if it comes from the best of intentions). — schopenhauer1

I'm tired of repeating myself so I won't. While there's the expression, "preaching to the choir", that suggests I do the opposite and argue with you, there's also the phrase, "a leopard can't change its spots". So, I'd like to take this opportunity to bow out of this discussion, not because I didn't benefit from it but because I have nothing more to offer you. Thanks and good luck.