I think anyone who try to justify violence should be banned. There should be a zero tolerance for justification of violence, it's easy to argue morally for such a stance — xyz-zyx

Agreed, but can you point to the exact posts you're referencing?

Also, are you flagging the posts in question?

My personal opinion is that Judaka should be spoken to about being generally rude, but I wouldn't say he needs to be banned for it (yet).

I'm not so sure we can as that could be seen as an silent acceptance. — xyz-zyx

I'm talking about whether it's "physically possible" to ignore someone. You're talking about how others might interpret that. How others interpret it is their problem, not mine, especially if they're ignorant enough to interpret a lack of a comment as acceptance.

Re the other stuff, I'm a free speech absolutist. I'm not in favor of banning or censoring any expression whatsoever, including incitement, slander, libel, hate speech, holocaust denial, etc. etc.

And there are established/academic philosophy professors who have endorsed antinatalism, as I'm sure schopenhauer has relayed already (since I see he responded after your post). I just don't personally agree with antinatalism, and I don't care for what I consider "agenda posting" (or "agenda calling" when we're talking about talk shows, for example) . . . but I don't want anyone banned.

My personal opinion is that Judaka should be spoken to about being generally rude, — NKBJ

He was rude to me, but I couldn't care less. I just ignore that and keep plugging away on trying to get him to think, critically, in ways he hasn't thought before; I keep getting him to try to put a bit more effort into actually doing philosophy.

I wish everyone could do that instead of being offended or triggered or whatever. If someone insults you it's irrelevant. Either you think their judgments are off-base/misconceived--in which case, why would you be offended/triggered just because someone else is ignorant and needs to learn something?--you should be trying to help them instead, or you think their judgments are on-target, in which case you shouldn't be upset with someone saying something that you think is true.

I'm saying that they have. They have lost out on pleasure.

What makes suffering supersede pleasure in that the existence of suffering means that life should be exterminated, yet the existence of pleasure isn't an equal enough reason for propagating it? It seems to me that the existence of pleasure equally counterbalances your reasons for preventing the propagation of life.

If suffering is a good reason to prevent lives from being created, then how is it that pleasure isn't an equally good reason to create lives? — Harry Hindu

Because of the asymmetry that Benatar mapped out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar

Prior to birth, there is no actual person to be deprived of anything, which is neither good nor bad. Something that could experience good but does not, is not bad (it is not good either). It is neutral. Something that could experience bad, but does not is always a good thing though. Preventing good- no actual person loses out. Not preventing bad, an actual person would lose out.

If something hurts the most rational thing to do is to examine it closely, like a doctor, diagnose the problem/affliction and treat it. For someone with my worldview suffering is a symptom of a faulty Weltanschauung. In a world of lemons it's impossible, ergo unreasonable, to look for anything other than lemonade. Plus life isn't always sour/bitter is it?

Therefore, we need to teach ourselves how to increase and prolong the pleasurable and decrease and shorten the pain in our lives. This seems more reasonable than saying life itself is the disease/affliction and needs to be prevented. — TheMadFool

What happens if there is no way around suffering- if it is intractable from the get-go?

What happens if there is no way around suffering- if it is intractable from the get-go? — schopenhauer1

I’m assuming you either live in the US or some other western country? You seem to suffer more than is normal for someone living in such a privileged place. It’s pathological.

you should be trying to help them instead, or you think their judgments are on-target, in which case you shouldn't be upset with someone saying something that you think is true. — Terrapin Station

I'm sorry, but it's not my job to make someone see the light who's treating me poorly. Come back with the right attitude and we can talk.

Apart from not being willing to be his doormat/punching bag, I also think Judaka exhibits an attitude that tells me he's not willing to change his mind. He says he is, but then gets condescending and ill-mannered toward anyone who doesn't adopt HIS positions.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m speaking as someone who has experienced your kind of suffering. A general depression and malaise that dominates every waking moment. It’s not normal and requires a shift in consciousness. I recommend seeking treatment.

Because of the asymmetry that Benatar mapped out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar — schopenhauer1

1.the presence of pain is bad;
2.the presence of pleasure is good;
3.the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone;
4.the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.

Benatar's theory is dependent upon morality being objective, when it isn't. Claiming that some state is either good or bad is subjective.

If the absence of pain is good, then how is it that pleasure (which is the absence of pain) isn't good as well? Benatar says that it isn't bad. How is that different from saying that it is good? If there is some other state besides suffering and pleasure (maybe a "neither" category), and that state doesn't qualify as suffering, then the asymmetry seems to show that suffering isn't a state that is experienced most, or even half the time, and therefore would be irrational to prevent life from being created.

I don't agree with antinatalist views, but I don't agree with your comment here, either.

If something doesn't exist, we can't say it has any properties, potential or otherwise. "They never suffered" is noting that those properties never obtain relative to something nonexistent. Same for "potential happiness never existed." — Terrapin Station

I've been thinking about this one for a while and I believe you are right. There is still something to say of his aversion to talking about positives which I think I was trying to get at here. I don't know.

I believe Judaka and Schopenhauer1 perhaps should be banned from this forum. — xyz-zyx

I don't think anyone should be banned from anything. Call me a libertarian, but I think challenge is essential to progress. Even if this is a "smear campaign" as you put it, why not let detractors give their say? If we are so right, we can win against them. If we are wrong, we lose from the get-go. Besides, I think you may be getting too paranoid about this. I have only had a pleasant conversation with Schopenhauer1. He gives me the same amount of respect as most others around here, which is to say probably a bit more than I deserve.

You say we have no right to interfere in the lives of animals, but we are causing extinctions, and if your argument that it is good to end suffering in general by any means is correct, then that could only be a good thing, because it is obvious that, whether they are aware of it or not, animals suffer too.

I hope the robot that is going to wipe my ass has a gentle touch. — Noah Te Stroete

And the robot that is going to fornicate your arse?

-

What happens if there is no way around suffering- if it is intractable from the get-go? — schopenhauer1

I can't speak for those who are truly suffering in a bad way. I'm not qualified. However I do see situations where suicide is the only option. Please note that I don't say suicide is the best option. Best options usually rank first in a list. Suicide is always the last option on any list. See, even in in extremis people prefer to live than die.

Yes, we’re born for the purpose of being used by society. Regarding my early life, I’ve often wondered, “What was that for?”; Whom was that for?”.
.
For various reasons and people, always for someone else’s benefit. Someone else’s pride and feeling of “accomplishment”(?!); Feeding someone else’s hypocritical and egotistical self-image and altruistic-pretense as “nurturing”; Someone else’s gainful-job managing a compulsory juvie-jungle propaganda-prison called a “school”; Someone else’s opportunity to act-out their jealousy of youth; And of course, ultimately, as a labor-unit.
.
Often, when uncomfortable, as when out on a freezing day, or in some kind of thoroughly undesirable adversity, I’ll say “ Shit! I didn’t ask to be born here!”
.
Antinatalists say that, and it’s true.
.
“Why did this life happen?! “
.
Antinatalists ask that, and it’s a good question.
.
Life, including specifically your life, is inevitable, and it neither has nor needs a reason, purpose or meaning. Because it’s inevitable, it isn’t your fault, or anyone else’s fault. Therefore there’s no need for regret or recrimination. Because it’s inevitable, what would be the point of objecting that it happened? It’s just literally an inevitable fact. Therefore, there’s no room, need, or even meaning, for complaint, objection or recrimination.
.
When I was in elementary school, junior-high-school and highschool, I was convinced that my life was a mistake.
.
But, because it has no purpose or reason, it wouldn’t be meaningful to speak of it as a mistake, or to speak of “loss”.
.
Expectations. Without purpose or reason, there’s no reason for expectations.
.
Without reason, purpose or expectations, there’s nothing against which to measure or define “wrongness”, loss or disppointment.
.
It’s irrelevant that we disagree about whether you have one life or a long finite sequence of them. Either way, there eventually will be relief—final ultimate relief, in ever-deepening sleep.
.
Sleep is the natural, normal, usual and rightful state-of-affairs.
.
Death doesn’t interrupt life. Life (temporarily, briefly) interrupts sleep.
.
Alright, you’re here for a while (It was inevitable, and no one’s fault). It’s temporary, and it won’t last long, so why not just enjoy it while it lasts (when it’s enjoyable*, of course, which, as we all know, isn’t always). What else is there to do?
.
*and, when it isn’t? See above. There’s nothing to do about it, it’s no one’s fault, and it was inevitable. I don’t even claim that it was for a reason.
.
Of course it isn’t necessary or important to enjoy it.
.
It isn’t a matter of requirement, need or want. No need for those.
.
Surely, if, as you’ve said, it isn’t necessary to start a life, then, in a life, there aren’t really necessities or genuine needs.
.
It wouldn’t make any sense to say:
.
“You have to enjoy it!”
.
As Ringo Starr sang:
.
“You don’t have to shout, or leap about; you can even take it easy.”
.
Hindus say that life is “for” play (“Lila”). But of course that’s voluntary and optional. …not a need, want or purpose.
.
Some anxiety and insecurity is natural and appropriate…even if this weren’t the kind of societal-world that it is. That’s just goes with having been born.
.
You say that suffering is inevitable, regardless of how good a society it is. Are you sure? In a genuinely good society, we wouldn’t suffer at eachother’s hands. Disease and injury? For any unacceptable (as judged by the individual) disease or injury, there’d be euthanasia-upon-request. …as promptly as requested
.
…or supplied or assisted auto-euthanasia on request.
.
Significant suffering, by the standards of this societal-world, wouldn’t be present in a good-society. Might you still stub a toe, or step on a board with a nail in it, or get turned down when you ask someone out? Sure, but it would be a societal-world without the worst suffering of this one.
.
Janet and I are relieved that we (at least so far) don’t have any grandchildren. …and so our family won’t be affected by the later worsening of grim future that’s on the way.
.
(I wasn’t in a relationship till I was 30, and my girlfriends (roughly my age) either didn’t need more children, or (like me) didn’t want the responsibility of parenthood. Therefore, I never had to face the responsibilities of being a parent.)
.
Schopenhauer1 makes good points, and, truth-be-admitted, do any of us not have those same feelings?
.
I’m tired of debating Materialists and aggressive-Atheists, but the anti-life question in the Antinatalist threads interests me, and is worthwhile for discussion, because it’s about our impressions about, how we feel about, how things are. …how it affects us in the most meaningful ways. These Antinatalist threads are about the basics of how we feel about life.
.
I often have the feelings and questions that are discussed in these Antinatalist threads. I bet that all of you do too.
.

Life is the big old monster that is the basis of all else

.
…certainly the basis of all that’s in life.
.

- including suffering.

.
Of course.
.

Not being born hurts literally no one.

.
Of course. Someone not conceived won’t have any reason to object to not being conceived.
.
As Mark Twain said:
.
“Before I was born, I was dead for millions of years, and it didn’t inconvenience me a bit.”
.

We should all be against procreation. It is what causes the suffering. I don't equate suffering itself with procreation, we all know that procreation inevitably leads to suffering. The great human project can be that which unites us against the principle of procreating more life. This can be our great cause. It is an inversion of the usual trope that life is always good- including the pain. Humanity can finally say, "ENOUGH!" and do something about it, by non-action - that is to simply not have future people.

.
I have no objection to that.
.
…and it might be nice if pigs could fly.
.
“If wishes were horses…”
.
Sure, universal choice of contraception or celibacy would be fine, but (as has already been pointed out here), if that were achievable, then more modest proposals, such as a really good societal-world, would be achievable too.
.
I like good sci-fi fantasy, and I’d say that a genuinely good societal-world is a better one than extinction.
.
That’s why I like calendar-reform proposals. ..not because of any claim that they’re achievable, but merely because, as I said, I like good sci-fi fantasy. …and, if there were a “Utopian-Epoch”, a grand triumphal arrival of a completely new and better societal era, then people might want a complete departure from the old ways of doing things. …a complete break with the bad-old-days.
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
9 Sa

Benatar's theory is dependent upon morality being objective, when it isn't. Claiming that some state is either good or bad is subjective. — Harry Hindu

I believe he does not if I remember his book. He takes into account subjective and objective forms of "good". He also takes into account various models like preference-satisfaction and hedonic conceptions of the good.

If the absence of pain is good, then how is it that pleasure (which is the absence of pain) isn't good as well? Benatar says that it isn't bad. How is that different from saying that it is good? If there is some other state besides suffering and pleasure (maybe a "neither" category), and that state doesn't qualify as suffering, then the asymmetry seems to show that suffering isn't a state that is experienced most, or even half the time, and therefore would be irrational to prevent life from being created. — Harry Hindu

This doesn't make sense to me. Clearly pleasure is some positive quality. If pleasure was simply more neutral, then that wouldn't change the argument.

I've been thinking about this one for a while and I believe you are right. There is still something to say of his aversion to talking about positives which I think I was trying to get at here. I don't know. — TogetherTurtle

The asymmetry which is a big part of Benatar's antinatalist argument is that absense of "good" is not "bad" unless there is an actual person to be deprived of that good. However, asymmetrically, abscense of bad is good, even if there is no actual person to enjoy this good.

You say we have no right to interfere in the lives of animals, but we are causing extinctions, and if your argument that it is good to end suffering in general by any means is correct, then that could only be a good thing, because it is obvious that, whether they are aware of it or not, animals suffer too. — Janus

I simply hold that ethics is in the realm of making decisions using reasoning and abstract ideas and as far as I know, only humans can do this. I can see your point of view, and do think there is some validity there, but I would hold the more conservative approach to this point and say that unless an animal can reason, it is not our place to make decisions of birth for them. It is bordering on forcing the issue, which I definitely think is wrong for humans to do. It is nothing if it isn't a choice.

I’m tired of debating Materialists and aggressive-Atheists, but the anti-life question in the Antinatalist threads interests me, and is worthwhile for discussion, because it’s about our impressions about, how we feel about, how things are. …how it affects us in the most meaningful ways. These Antinatalist threads are about the basics of how we feel about life. — Michael Ossipoff

I agree with your sentiment here. I think thinking about existence itself is of the utmost importance (maybe the most important topic in philosophical inquiry. Everything stems from it- all motivations, all actions, all assumptions of life, thought, and society.

The asymmetry which is a big part of Benatar's antinatalist argument is that absense of "good" is not "bad" unless there is an actual person to be deprived of that good. However, asymmetrically, abscense of bad is good, even if there is no actual person to enjoy this good. — schopenhauer1

The problem with that, of course, is that nothing is good or bad outside of an individual evaluating something that way, and really, there is nothing that couldn't be evaluated as either good or bad by some individual. That includes evaluating "the absence of potential people's good" as bad. They can't be incorrect about that, because no good/bad evaluations are incorrect (or correct).

Sure, universal choice of contraception or celibacy would be fine, but (as has already been pointed out here), if that were achievable, then more modest proposals, such as a really good societal-world, would be achievable too.
.
I like good sci-fi fantasy, and I’d say that a genuinely good societal-world is a better one than extinction.
.
That’s why I like calendar-reform proposals. ..not because of any claim that they’re achievable, but merely because, as I said, I like good sci-fi fantasy. …and, if there were a “Utopian-Epoch”, a grand triumphal arrival of a completely new and better societal era, then people might want a complete departure from the old ways of doing things. …a complete break with the bad-old-days. — Michael Ossipoff

I have no allusions we are all going to hold hands and agree in unison on this topic. The outcome is not the point, it is the coming to the realization of what is going on. That may never happen for many people, but it is always good to have a dialog. The more pondering of life itself, the better. The more we ignore and take certain conditions as simply the case, the less we are using our capacity to self-reflect and understand the situation as a whole. It is to ignore the whole for the part. We must get back to the whole.

The problem with that, of course, is that nothing is good or bad outside of an individual evaluating something that way, and really, there is nothing that couldn't be evaluated as either good or bad by some individual. That includes evaluating "the absence of potential people's good" as bad. They can't be incorrect about that, because no good/bad evaluations are incorrect (or correct). — Terrapin Station

So, why would the absence of a potential person's good be bad, if there is no actual person who is deprived? Is it bad you are not having a child that can experience good right now? If you say yes, I would like to know who is actually suffering from this.

So, why would the absence of a potential person's good be bad, if there is no actual person who is deprived? Is it bad you are not having a child that can experience good right now? If you say yes, I would like to know who is actually suffering from this. — schopenhauer1

Good and bad are evaluations that people make that are akin to yaying or booing. So it's simply a matter of someone booing the absence of potential persons' good.

Good and bad are evaluations that people make that are akin to yaying or booing. So it's simply a matter of someone booing the absence of potential persons' good. — Terrapin Station

Sure, but I'll just say, no harm, no foul. Where my decision actually prevented harm, yours didn't affect anything. Granted you can say placing weight on harm (negative utilitarianism) is arbitrary and I would then go back to the premise I've always told you. Ethics at the end of the day goes back to people's emotional weight regarding certain topics. I can try to convince of putting weight on certain things because of certain considerations.. but at the end of the day it is up to the listener to decide. I can't go any further to prove the axiology. But I've never said otherwise. To me, harm is of the utmost consideration when procreation is concerned as, I believe imposing harm is not a good thing to do on behalf of someone.

Edit: You can try to tell me otherwise, that it is good that a person to be born to experience harm..but I believe that to be wholly off base. To make someone so that they are harmed, so they "grow" is not right. To put adversity purposefully because you feel that it is good for others to experience is not right. Parents are not messianic figures bringing "freedom-through-suffering" into the world, or whatever other ridiculousness.

Wouldn't you say that booing is a type of suffering?

Wouldn't you say that booing is a type of suffering? — Terrapin Station

Nope.

So you'd have to define suffering and explain which negative/undesired states of body/mind count as suffering and which do not.

So you'd have to define suffering and explain which negative/undesired states of body/mind count as suffering and which do not. — Terrapin Station

First, I must decide whether this argument is worth it..Whether both of us really get something out of this. Sometimes, I am not sure if I am dealing with someone where philosophical inquiry will flourish or if it is just contention for contention.

The idea is that you'd have to do that in order for the stance/argument to hold water and be consistent, tenable, coherent, etc. It's up to you whether you want to bother with that work or not, but the consistency problems remain if you don't do the work. It's to your benefit. I'm just pointing out problems/objections.