What do you mean by this? — Prishon

And for @schopenhauer1, in case further explanation is useful.

When we have an experience, like a surprise party, it causes physiological sensations (retinal and audio stimulation, raised heart rate, digestive changes etc) our brain tries to guess the causes using predictive models based on previous experiences (sometimes from years ago, sometimes from milliseconds ago). So increased heart rate at a surprise party might go "oh, my heart's beating faster, why might that be? I'm at a surprise party, I like those, I expect it's 'excitement'". In other situations the exact same physiological response might be interpreted as 'anxiety' because the circumstances are such that this is what you've learned to call it there.

There's no objective thing 'excitement', or 'anxiety'. They're both socially constructed models of physiological signals.

If nothing else just reply to the last paragraph.

My main point here is that OB can obtain in a surprise party, but it wouldn't be a surprise to me if the actual experience matches the report because often surprise parties have elements people like in it and so may not be reporting wrong if they say, "I like it". — schopenhauer1

And my main point is that exact paragraph but replace “surprise party” with “life”. You disagree with this evaluation because you think life is “at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden” while surprise parties are “full of elements people like”. Where is your evidence this is the case?

It here being a very discrete event in their life versus many hours experiencing things other than they like — schopenhauer1

Ok stop with this. Surprise parties also often last many hours and for an introvert like me are MOSTLY comprised of things other than I like. This “single event vs many events” distinction is not real.

Because life has more than events that we just like in it going on in the lived experience — schopenhauer1

So do surprise parties…. According to most reports. Which you arbitrarily decide not to trust. More on his in second to last paragraph.

If they believe too much imposition is wrong, then why not be AN? — schopenhauer1

Literally everyone believes too much imposition is wrong. The statement is true by definition. And they’re not AN.

I am claiming impositions are often underreported and that often people are mistaken as to how much imposition there is imposed on them. — schopenhauer1

I agree that this is the crux of the disagreement so let’s focus on it. I’m claiming you have no evidence for this claim. Remember: you don’t have access to what an experience felt like for another person. So you must choose to decide whether or not trust their report, without any evidence about whether or not it’s accurate.

For surprise parties, you choose to trust the reports, so when people say they liked it you believe they actually liked it. For life you choose not to trust the reports, so it must be bad given that everyone says it’s good.

This is an arbitrary inconsistency. What evidence do you have that most people are lying about life but not about surprise parties? What evidence do you have that surprise parties are actually pleasant while life is an inconvenience or terrible burden?

Was it really that the serf's view was the only thing that changed the unjustness of serfdom — schopenhauer1

Yes. But this doesn’t come into the debate yet. I could agree that there is fundamentally something wrong about serfdom and still make all the same arguments.

The main question I’m asking you is: How did you come to the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong about life but not surprise parties. Please trace your steps and tell me.

That doesn't quite work, because one's own evaluation of the harm done can be completely different from the evaluation of another, hence the slippery slope: — Tzeentch

But one often has a pretty reasonable estimate of how much harm they'll suffer vs how much harm they'll inflict by doing an action. In some cases it's pretty clear. For instance: Is it really reasonable for a sadist to believe that his pleasure from torturing compares to the victim's pain?

If, however, one comes to the sensible conclusion that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to judge what is good for others, then one will realize one must always tread carefully when imposing things on others — Tzeentch

Right. And one way to tread carefully is by making it so that:

One could simply treat one's own needs as just as valuable or less valuable as those of others. So don't do something to others that is harmful unless the alternative is equal or way greater harm onto yourself. — khaled

And then using common sense.

Anyways I want to ask you this: If a thief is about to stab you what justification do you have to stop them? Or is it not right for you to stop them?

Remember your needs are insufficient here. And to stop them is an imposition on them. Tread carefully!

There's no objective thing 'excitement', or 'anxiety'. They're both socially constructed models of physiological signals. — Isaac

You assume both to have the same physiology. The raised heartbeat may be same in both cases. But thats about all...

But one often has a pretty reasonable estimate of how much harm they'll suffer vs how much harm they'll inflict by doing an action. — khaled

Maybe. I cannot be the judge of that. I'm quite skeptical of a parent's ability to reasonably estimate the life of their child.

One could simply treat one's own needs as just as valuable or less valuable as those of others. So don't do something to others that is harmful unless the alternative is equal or way greater harm onto yourself. — khaled

This is not a bad start, but it is not enough. A person often times is not even able to accurately determine their own needs, let alone those of another.

Anyways I want to ask you this: If a thief is about to stab you what justification do you have to stop them? Or is it not right for you to stop them? — khaled

I would argue that in this situation one's needs are sufficient, because they extend only to oneself (self-preservation). One's life and body belong to the individual, and thus one is justified in protecting oneself.

It is the thief whose apparent needs extend to others, and therefore he who must tread carefully and doesn't.

Anyways I want to ask you this: If a thief is about to stab you what justification do you have to stop them? Or is it not right for you to stop them? — khaled

If the thief was my daughter I would ask her to stab carefully. Im her father!

I would argue that in this situation one's needs are sufficient, because they extend only to oneself (self-preservation). — Tzeentch

:chin:

In this case your needs clearly extend to the thief no? You need the thief to stop. Self preservation implies a party you’re preserving yourself from (by imposing on them).

Your needs extend to the thief just like the thief’s needs extend to you. He needs the money, you need to kick him in the face (in both cases to survive)

So if your argument for why said needs are insufficient is that “they only extend to me” that’s not true in this case. So by your first statement, your needs (to kick him in the face) would still be insufficient to justify stopping the thief (since they extend to the thief. Violently).

You assume both to have the same physiology. The raised heartbeat may be same in both cases. But thats about all... — Prishon

I try not to 'assume' when it comes to matters about which some facts can be established.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5390700

Does imposing on someone the need to pick from a range of options negate the fact that the imposition leaves out never having the option to not play the game of options in the first place? — schopenhauer1

If the imposition informs you of a greater reality that perhaps you were oblivious to as opposed to some petty personal desire or conditions thereof, what do you think? Some dude calls me on the phone, "yo man your house is on fire", assuming it actually is and he wasn't the one who started it, that's more of a helpful and courteous gesture than an imposition. I'd think so at least.

I don't think so. The thief imposes on their victim first, by threatening their life with direct physical violence. The imposition that follows by the victim is of a different nature than the thief - it is a reaction - protecting that which is rightfully theirs: their life and their body.

But maybe the right thing to do is to turn the other cheek? I'm willing to consider that option.

I try not to 'assume' when it comes to matters about which some facts can be established — Isaac

What do you mean then when speaking about anxiety and excitement? Both exist independently of what we think about them.

I try not to 'assume' when it comes to matters about which some facts can be established. — Isaac

Before every establishment of facts assumptions are made.

it is a reaction - protecting that which is rightfully theirs: their life and their body. — Tzeentch

But you said needs like these are insufficient.

So are they sufficient now?

The imposition that follows by the victim is of a different nature than the thief — Tzeentch

I agree, but this isn’t reflected in your blanket statement that your needs are not sufficient to impose. Here is a care where they are.

But maybe the right thing to do is to turn the other cheek? I'm willing to consider that option. — Tzeentch

I’m not.

But maybe the right thing to do is to turn the other cheek? I'm willing to consider that option. — Tzeentch

That's what Jesus did. How noble it may be (I would be in awe if you really did that!), in reality, the gun (and less, the knife) rules suppreme. Cowardly as that might be, but I dont think a robber jumps you empty-handed. Well, he was empty-handed off course and thats probably the resson he muuged you.

But you said needs like these are insufficient.

So are they sufficient now? — khaled

The need itself is not, however perhaps the need in conjuction with an assault on something that unquestionably belongs to the individual is sufficient. Perhaps the need in conjuction with the thief's mistake of imposing is sufficient. Maybe a combination of those, or maybe there are more we could think of.

Note, it is not the need that may justify an action, it is the thief's imposition that justifies it.

assault on something that unquestionably belongs to the individual is sufficient. — Tzeentch

That doesn't quite work, because one's own evaluation of what belongs to who can be completely different from the evaluation of another, hence the slippery slope

Perhaps the need in conjuction with the thief's mistake of imposing is sufficient. — Tzeentch

Note, it is not the need that may justify an action, it is the thief's imposition that justifies it. — Tzeentch

So you can't impose anything on anyone unless they impose first?

Say there is a drowning person and a sleeping ex-lifeguard on the beach. You can't swim to save them. Do you impose on the sleeping ex-lifeguard by waking them up to save the drowning person?

That doesn't quite work, because one's own evaluation of what belongs to who can be completely different from the evaluation of another, hence the slippery slope — khaled

I was talking about the individual's physical body. I hope we can agree that the individual's physical body belongs to the individual.

So you can't impose anything on anyone unless they impose first?

Say there is a drowning person and a sleeping ex-lifeguard on the beach. You can't swim to save them. Do you impose on the sleeping ex-lifeguard to wake them up? — khaled

The nature of the examples you are comparing is different. I can explain to you why, but you are smart enough to see it yourself.

As I said earlier, impositions, if they are to be done at all, must be done with the utmost carefulness. Does the individual possess enough wisdom and insight to judge this situation accurately: a life can be saved and at most what can be lost is the lifeguard's temporary sleep.

Then perhaps he may take the risk of imposing. But even then it is a risk, you see? It required an accute situation of distress to force our hand, no time to discuss and deliberate.

Violence rules the land of the dead, in both the physical, intellectual and spiritual sense.

I consider the ones handling the the guns (or any tech-weapon) very alive. Oppenheimer lamented himself for having become dead after his contribution to the bomb. So in a way you are very right indeed.

guess, what counts as "instinct"? The thought, "I want a baby because X" doesn't seem like an instinct. It does seem like a preference though. Because the preference is tied to a biological phenomenon it may be people are mixing up the preference for an instinct. An instinct to me involves things like automatic responses to stimuli. — schopenhauer1

Maybe instinct isn't the best term of use, but I don't think preference is the right one either. I suspect children typically represent hope. When all other reasons are lost, it's the children we're told we have to look out for. The hope for a better tomorrow, this is a life-long project for people. To take that away from them would be tantamount to the destruction of their entire reason for being, probably many would find it cruel.

I agree with you that never being born is preferable to being born, because life is truly rotten. But because it is so rotten, I think it is understandable why people would cling to something - anything - to make it less rotten, even if it means bringing someone else into the mess. If you figured out how to get by without having kids, that's cool, good for you, but not everyone wants to live without hope. What do you propose we substitute, if not children?

We keep tumbling into the next generation, children are born because their parents were born because their parents were born because their parents were born...the best any person can do, if they can find it in themselves, is to not have children and accept that there is no hope. That is a very bleak worldview and so it is not surprising that most people will reject it, and I don't think we can blame them.

Just to clarify before this progresses too much further, what you're describing is not Optimism Bias (as in the psychological phenomena). Optimism bias is about expectations, not recollections.

As I've already explained (to the wall it seems), there is no such thing as experience which is not constructed, it simply does not exist. You are comparing two falsely distinguished entities. The experience at the time and the recollection of it later are both constructed in the same way by the same regions of the brain, one has no primacy over the other in any ontological sense. — Isaac

I have seen it both future and past. I can agree about the brain constructing things. That idea actually favors my argument though. There is no "one" version, yet the one reported is given as accurate. All I am trying to explain is that what we "think" and what we "thought" and what we "hope" and what we "did" and what "happened" can all be different to a degree that the report, should not be taken as "this is the one to pick" just because it is a report.

There's no objective thing 'excitement', or 'anxiety'. They're both socially constructed models of physiological signals. — Isaac

Fair enough.

And my main point is that exact paragraph but replace “surprise party” with “life”. You disagree with this evaluation because you think life is “at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden” while surprise parties are “full of elements people like”. Where is your evidence this is the case? — khaled

Your explanation of my reason for the difference is what is inaccurate here. First, I do believe there can be "good experiences". I do believe people can experience surprise parties as "good experiences". I do believe that right after the surprise party, if you asked them, "Was the surprise party good", they may say "yes" and it would be roughly accurate to what they experienced. I also believe you could have someone (like yourself maybe), who had some not pleasant experiences, and actually thought it was negative in its duration. I can someone asking, "Was the surprise party good" and the answer being "yes".. why? Cultural reasons (surprise parties are SUPPOSED to be good). Cognitive bias (well.. you saw your friends so that's what you will remember..). Anyways, the details aren't important as much as the illustration. Now, you will say, "This is like life!". What I am saying is because this is ONE event, it is very skewed, and skewed heavily in the case of alignment of lived experience and report. Life truly has multivarious events of all shapes and sizes in just one day, let alone, a week, a month, a year, a lifetime. From here, is where I will stop my explanation because you will then ask for articles and I am just not interested in that in this setting. So if you want Dr. Von Nostrums latest trend on duration and Optimism Bias, sorry don't have the time or inclination to stat digging into peer review journals on this particular one. Perhaps if you want to start a thread and bring that into it, I will join. I think though, even on this theoretical scale, it is plain enough to see the difference in the two that the disanalogy is apparent.

Ok stop with this. Surprise parties also often last many hours and for an introvert like me are MOSTLY comprised of things other than I like. This “single event vs many events” distinction is not real. — khaled

I think this is another "We're going to have to agree to disagree" as we are repeating here and I am not interested in a large justification regress when I feel this is sufficiently apparent enough through simply its magnitudes of difference and my explanation thereof that the difference doesn't need to be explained much further.

For surprise parties, you choose to trust the reports, so when people say they liked it you believe they actually liked it. For life you choose not to trust the reports, so it must be bad given that everyone says it’s good.

This is an arbitrary inconsistency. What evidence do you have that most people are lying about life but not about surprise parties? What evidence do you have that surprise parties are actually pleasant while life is an inconvenience or terrible burden? — khaled

Yes we are repeating, what I was afraid of... I've said what I had to say. One more explanation..
1) Most people like chocolate ice cream.. a minority does not. You give them chocolate ice cream and have them report on it. Most say they like it.

YOU are saying this is analogous to ALL the events of life itself being like "Most people like chocolate ice cream". I am saying, that this analogy is not even comparable. A life time of events versus one event (one which indeed is pleasurable to many people), is not the same as experiencing a large time interval of events that were neutral to unpleasant, aggregating it over many years and reporting "Life is good". Just not the same.

I will say this.. Perhaps it is not JUST duration. The example you picked was pretty skewed. If you had provided a more neutral or ambiguous one then perhaps you would get closer to the idea of reporting on life itself.

Yes. But this doesn’t come into the debate yet. I could agree that there is fundamentally something wrong about serfdom and still make all the same arguments. — khaled

Not sure what you mean here.

That idea actually favors my argument though. — schopenhauer1

No it doesn’t. It doesn’t favor any argument. Just because it challenges the status quo doesn't mean it supports alternatives.

There is no "one" version, yet the one reported is given as accurate. — schopenhauer1

Right, and even if we accept this it gives no reason to accept that life is “an inconvenience or a terrible burden”.

Life truly has multivarious events of all shapes and sizes in just one day, let alone, a week, a month, a year, a lifetime. — schopenhauer1

Sure. So do surprise parties. People are capable of experiencing multivarious events and concluding that the sum of the events was good. You choose not to believe them for no reason only when it comes to life.

I think though, even on this theoretical scale, it is plain enough to see the difference in the two that the disanalogy is apparent. — schopenhauer1

Not to me. Putting "apparent" in front of something that you have no justification for thinking is apparent doesn't make the thing apparent.

I think this is another "We're going to have to agree to disagree" as we are repeating here and I am not interested in a large justification regress — schopenhauer1

This has nothing to do with "justification regress". I'm telling you that, just like life, a surprise party lasts for a certain duration (although much shorter) and has multivariable experiences. I don't understand how that's debatable.

You think it's disanalogous because you begin by assuming that life is bad to awful. More on that last paragraph.

A life time of events versus one event (one which indeed is pleasurable to many people), is not the same as experiencing a large time interval of events that were neutral to unpleasant, aggregating it over many years and reporting "Life is good". — schopenhauer1

But the difference is not significant for the purposes of the argument

Do you or do you not believe that someone can examine a long event, full of variable experiences, and accurately report that it was good or bad? Because every time I make any analogy to life you reply "Ah yes but life has variable experiences and is long so people's reports are false and it's actually at least an inconvenience and at most a terrible burden" as if that follows in any way. Even if we accept that people have an optimism bias only towards long events (something I've been begging you to justify without any success), that STILL doesn't lead to the conclusion that life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden.

I will say this.. Perhaps it is not JUST duration. The example you picked was pretty skewed. If you had provided a more neutral or ambiguous one then perhaps you would get closer to the idea of reporting on life itself. — schopenhauer1

What makes you think I'm the one that's skewed and not you? What makes you believe that a surprise party is so unlike life, despite having a similar percentage of people reporting that they like the experience for both?

You refuse to address the question I specifically requested you address, if you address nothing else in the last comment.

I will repeat it again: You think life is "at best an inconvenience and at most a terrible burden". How did you come to this conclusion? Please retrace your steps and tell me. Reply to nothing else in this comment, but just address this question. This is the second time I request this, so kindly address it.

It's a very bold claim to make that everyone's reports of their quality of life are wrong, and that you know how it's "really like". You need to justify this claim. Every time I make an analogy between life and anything largely reported to be positive (which life also is by the way which is precisely why I liken it to other things commonly reported to be positive) you automatically say that's disanalogous. You start by assuming that life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden. You do not prove this you assume it.

Anyone who thinks that life is either bad or awful will obviously not want kids. But you want more than that. You claim you know that life is bad or awful for everyone, despite the vast majority assuring you they don't think it is. What is your justification behind this belief.

Yes. But this doesn’t come into the debate yet. I could agree that there is fundamentally something wrong about serfdom and still make all the same arguments.
— khaled

Not sure what you mean here. — schopenhauer1

You wanted to establish that there are some impositions that are "fundamentally wrong", even if the person being imposed upon doesn't think of it as an imposition. I disagree, but I'm pointing out that's insignificant. I can agree that some impositions are fundamentally wrong while still doubting that life is one such imposition like I'm doing right now.

Things to consider:
1.) The duration and the kinds of experiences matter here. Duration means there's a lot more experiences, which means memory can cherry-pick. The intensity and magnitude of the experiences in life are also that much more extreme, meaning the kind of pains being overlooked are that much more. Similarly, an event like, "Eating an ice cream cone" is a very limited event. The report can roughly match the experience being so short, and not being of a pervasive but always changing nature that characterizes life itself versus one very limited event within life.

2.) Similar to above, a single event is more of a subgenre of a subgenre of life itself. Life itself involves pervasive routines one has to fulfill to keep alive.. work, maintenance, etc. It is not one discrete event that one can analyze. Reporting on pervasive, yet constantly changing events that occur over a lifetime are just of a different kind than a discrete event that is not pervasive like a surprise party.

Anyone who thinks that life is either bad or awful will obviously not want kids. But you want more than that. You claim you know that life is bad or awful for everyone, despite the vast majority assuring you they don't think it is. What is your justification behind this belief. — khaled

On a separate tangent, why should the people who don't think life is a burden make such an all pervasive and controlling decision for the people who think that life is indeed a burden? Why should one have precedence? This goes back to the "Most people" argument. Most people want this, therefore those who don't want this must deal with it. That is unjust when the converse would be "No person exists to even care they don't exist". As you know, not existing people don't have "injustice" applied to them. Not existing doesn't matter to anyone. And this is a large point people overlook. Missing out only matters to those who exist to miss out.

1.) The duration and the kinds of experiences matter here. Duration means there's a lot more experiences, which means memory can cherry-pick. The intensity and magnitude of the experiences in life are also that much more extreme, meaning the kind of pains being overlooked are that much more. Similarly, an event like, "Eating an ice cream cone" is a very limited event. The report can roughly match the experience being so short, and not being of a pervasive but always changing nature that characterizes life itself versus one very limited event within life.

2.) Similar to above, a single event is more of a subgenre of a subgenre of life itself. Life itself involves pervasive routines one has to fulfill to keep alive.. work, maintenance, etc. It is not one discrete event that one can analyze. Reporting on pervasive, yet constantly changing events that occur over a lifetime are just of a different kind than a discrete event that is not pervasive like a surprise party. — schopenhauer1

Fair enough. Finally some attempt at proving that OB applies to longer events more. Anyways, as stated above, it still doesn’t lead to “life is at best an inconvenience and at worst an incredible burden”. OB makes us remember things we used to hate more fondly. However this doesn’t mean that people's reports of their quality of life are significantly altered by OB. It could just be that they have few memories where they’ve really suffered and so their report will be accurate overall, even if they forget some of said suffering.

On a separate tangent, why should the people who don't think life is a burden make such an all pervasive and controlling decision for the people who think that life is indeed a burden? — schopenhauer1

What kind of control? I haven’t seen any natalists forcing antinatalists to have kids.

Unless by the “pervasive and controlling decision” you mean having children in the first place, I’d agree with you. That is, people who have kids that they know will consider life a burden are indeed wrong in doing so. But they don’t know. And they know that they most likely will like it.

Most people want this, therefore those who don't want this must deal with it. That is unjust when the converse would be "No person exists to even care they don't exist". — schopenhauer1

Going back to type arguments? Surprise parties are done simply because most people would want them and those who don’t have to deal with it, when the converse could be “The recipient didn’t know about a party they’re missing out on to even care”

Yet you find them acceptable despite them meeting all the features. So maybe it’s not so unjust?

Going back to cover the same ground we covered long before in countless threads instead of addressing the specific point I want you to address makes the weakness in your position clear. And I will repeat for the last time, because if you don’t address it this time it’ll be obvious you’re just dodging a valid argument that you can’t respond to. I thought it could be you didn’t see it but that’s clearly not the case.

I will repeat it again: You think life is "at best an inconvenience and at most a terrible burden". How did you come to this conclusion? Please retrace your steps and tell me. — khaled

This is required for your position. Since you use an extent argument, you must show that life meets the threshold. And I’m willing to agree that something that is “at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden” is indeed too much to impose. So, how do you know life meets those features? Because if you don’t then a required premise in your argument is unjustified and is just as valid as “Life is at worst a good experience and at best heaven”, now I don’t believe that, but it has just as much evidence to support it as your view does.

Fair enough. Finally some attempt at proving that OB applies to longer events more. Anyways, as stated above, it still doesn’t lead to “life is at best an inconvenience and at worst an incredible burden”. OB makes us remember things we used to hate more fondly. However this doesn’t mean that people's reports of their quality of life are significantly altered by OB. It could just be that they have few memories where they’ve really suffered and so their report will be accurate overall, even if they forget some of said suffering. — khaled

Again, someone's day can be Negative, Negative, Negative ... Report = Good day or at least, "not bad". But it was clearly negative while living through it (versus the calm reporting thereafter). Now extend this to life itself, with its analog ups and downs and digital reporting on it. It's even that much more stark for a whole life versus a day. It's just the report that is misaligned with the occurrence itself. That is the claim. We said our positions on it. However, I think an event in a day, a day itself, a week ago, etc. can be more clearly assessed than a whole lifetime. However, I would definitely say that if the report about the one event happened 50 years after the event, I bet there would be some OB going on. So I guess, it's not only duration but time displacement as to when the report is being taken from the actual occurrence.

This is required for your position. Since you use an extent argument, you must show that life meets the threshold. And I’m willing to agree that something that is “at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden” is indeed too much to impose. So, how do you know life meets those features? Because if you don’t then a required premise in your argument is unjustified and is just as valid as “Life is at worst a good experience and at best heaven”, now I don’t believe that, but it has just as much evidence to support it as your view does. — khaled

Are there any burdens "most people" incur in their life? Are there any inconveniences that most people have to endure in life? Surely, you would admit yes. Then it comes back to how many of those inconveniences we actually experience vs. an evaluative, summative, binary report of it. That is the crux of this current argument. I think we have covered our positions well enough. One thing I ask, is how are we going to have an end to the debate? For you, does one person have to say, "You are clearly the winner here?". Because obviously that isn't going to be the case. I think a thing to learn is how to gracefully and respectfully end a debate that clearly isn't going to be one side switching their position. There is much to be gained without one person declaring some sort of victory or whatnot.

However, moving to the other debate (the tangent), I'd actually like to focus on that because I think in the previous thread about "Most people", my argument was meant to revolve around that issue and I sort of digressed into the discrepancy of the report and the occurrence rather than simply about "Most people" vs. those who feel life is a burden. If you remember, "Most people' had multiple meanings. This debate is in regards to how "Most people" can possibly be wrong about their experiences vs. their reports on them later. However, the other "Most people" was simply about the position of the majority "liking being born" vs. those who think "life is a burden" or whatnot.. So there were multiple inter-related and intertwined threads of thought going on here. I want to delineate turning to this different argument now.

Going back to type arguments? Surprise parties are done simply because most people would want them and those who don’t have to deal with it, when the converse could be “The recipient didn’t know about a party they’re missing out on to even care”

Yet you find them acceptable despite them meeting all the features. So maybe it’s not so unjust? — khaled

You didn't seem to address my point. If no one exists, who is the injustice done to as far as "missing out" on the goods of life? However, an injustice is surely done to those who do think life is a burden. No one is "losing out" to the "burdenites" because no one exists to lose out to them. However, there is potential for someone to lose out who is born. Yet those people have to "deal" with it. How is that just? In one case, actual injustice is done. In another, it would be a category error to even apply injustice as there is no "one" to apply the injustice to.

Again, someone's day can be Negative, Negative, Negative ... Report = Good day or at least, "not bad". — schopenhauer1

Key word: Can. You have yet to prove this happens to a sufficient degree so as to distrust the overall report. It’s like saying “People sometimes lie therefore everyone is lying all the time”

Then it comes back to how many of those inconveniences we actually experience vs. an evaluative, summative, binary report of it. That is the crux of this current argument. I think we have covered our positions well enough. — schopenhauer1

It's just the report that is misaligned with the occurrence itself. That is the claim — schopenhauer1

Sure. But you need to do more than simply cover your position or make claims. You need to show that it is the case. You’re the one trying to argue for AN, starting a new thread every week on it. So you need to show that “life is an inconvenience or terrible burden” is true of everyone since you seem to think that everyone shouldn’t be having kids. It’s crucial to your position, yet you can’t show it’s the case despite being asked to do so 3 times now.

So I guess, it's not only duration but time displacement as to when the report is being taken from the actual occurrence. — schopenhauer1

Sure but still. That it can occur doesn’t mean it’s occurring all the time. You can guess that a negative experience will get remembered more fondly. But you can’t go from that to: “If you remember something fondly it was probably bad” like you seem to be doing.

For you, does one person have to say, "You are clearly the winner here?". Because obviously that isn't going to be the case. I think a thing to learn is how to gracefully and respectfully end a debate that clearly isn't going to be one side switching their position. — schopenhauer1

What do you think we’re debating? Whether or not AN is right? Again, that’s not what I’m arguing. What I am arguing is that your version of AN is personal and can’t be generalized.

You didn't seem to address my point. If no one exists, who is the injustice done to as far as "missing out" on the goods of life? — schopenhauer1

I did address the argument by showing you that there are analogous actions that you find acceptable. So either you’re being a hypocrite or the argument doesn’t make sense.

If the recipient doesn’t expect the party, who is the injustice done to as far as “missing out” on the goods of the party? Same deal. Yet you find it ok here.

No one is "losing out" to the "burdenites" because no one expects them to lose out on them. However, there is potential for someone to lose out who is in the party. Same deal. Yet you find it ok here.

I don’t understand why you’re going back to the asymmetry “argument” one I disagreed with even when I was AN. We addressed this so long ago. You seem to want to “reset the conversation” now that there is an argument you can’t address, hoping it’ll go in your favor this time. It’s tiring when I write responses that largely go ignored. You seem to have no trouble relentlessly debating people for days until you can’t respond anymore. Then it’s all “let’s agree to disagree” and willfully ignoring questions asked about your position 3 times in a row.

There is much to be gained without one person declaring some sort of victory or whatnot. — schopenhauer1

Agreed. Just not in this case. And it doesn’t seem to me that you have any intention of honestly addressing my responses so I’ll just stop writing them until maybe you stop trying to “reset” the conversation.

Sure. But you need to do more than simply cover your position or make claims. You need to show that it is the case. You’re the one trying to argue for AN, starting a new thread every week on it. So you need to show that “life is an inconvenience or terrible burden” is true of everyone since you seem to think that everyone shouldn’t be having kids. It’s crucial to your position, yet you can’t show it’s the case despite being asked to do so 3 times now. — khaled

Again, does life have burdens and inconveniences for people? Is this something that someone would otherwise not want? Then it was indeed a burden, and it was indeed imposed by way of being born. You are saying that it only matters if someone minds that they are being imposed upon. I am saying, it is simply wrong to impose on another, despite if someone minds it or not post-facto. These positions are a difference to a point of not being reconciled through mere arguments. They are sort of axiomatic differences that are hard to "prove" other than explaining a perspective and seeing if that is compelling enough to the other person. You are pissed at me for having a certain viewpoint. Believe it or not, other people who are neutral or pro-procreation have a viewpoint too. I am not forcing my viewpoint, but perhaps giving people a perspective they haven't thought about. Maybe it isn't good to impose or cause harm for another person, period, without regard to the tendency for people to report that they okay being harmed. Well, that's something to consider perhaps. Can you have another viewpoint? Of course. There's always another viewpoint. The obvious "majority" viewpoint is that procreation is "fair game".. If people are harmed, so be it.. At the end of the day they say they are fine with being born, so therefore its justified. Yep, I get that this is the point that "most people" try to make when justifying the fact that another person will be harmed by being born and imposed upon.

I don’t understand why you’re going back to the asymmetry “argument” one I disagreed with even when I was AN. We addressed this so long ago. You seem to want to “reset the conversation” now that there is an argument you can’t address, hoping it’ll go in your favor this time. It’s tiring when I write responses that largely go ignored. You seem to have no trouble relentlessly debating people for days until you can’t respond anymore. Then it’s all “let’s agree to disagree” and willfully ignoring questions asked about your position 3 times in a row. — khaled

No dude, I am just getting tired arguing the same points. It has nothing to do with me not proving anything. I've addressed them throughout the conversation. You have to be charitable enough to just stop a conversation after a while. Not even other philosophers go on endless threads. They write their reposponsas and move on.. You are not respecting that this particular line of debate is for me, not interesting anymore. You then want to declare some sort of victory because I don't want to play. It's winning through attrition not winning by argument man. I'm just tired of this line of thought and want to move on.

This whole debate is pretty much back and forth on this:

My point was that imposing on others to a large extent is wrong.

Your point is that it is subjective to what extent.

My point was that often people under report the negatives.

Your point was either that people don't under report or that the report is just as accurate as the occurrence.

This just goes around and around now. We've said some interesting responses. Can't you accept that sometimes that's just the nature of arguments? There is no "winner" in these kind of arguments.

Moving to the other argument now..

I did address the argument by showing you that there are analogous actions that you find acceptable. So either you’re being a hypocrite or the argument doesn’t make sense.

If the recipient doesn’t expect the party, who is the injustice done to as far as “missing out” on the goods of the party? Same deal. Yet you find it ok here. — khaled

No person exists prior to existence, no? Another disanalogy. In this case, the party has someone who exists, who "is" indeed missing out. There is no injustice in the case of the not born. No one "is" missing out. No one has the injustice of "not living" applied to "them". This doesn't hold for the burdenites though.

I am saying, it is simply wrong to impose on another, despite if someone minds it or not post-facto. — schopenhauer1

By this logic surprise parties are definitely wrong. You’re being inconsistent.

You are saying that it only matters if someone minds that they are being imposed upon. — schopenhauer1

Yes. Because you said it first….

I am not sure I would classify it as an imposition if people like it — schopenhauer1

Can you at least keep track of your own position?

You are pissed at me for having a certain viewpoint. — schopenhauer1

No I’m pissed that you refuse to address: “You think life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden, how did you come to that conclusion” despite being asked to do so 4? 5? Times now. I’ve lost count. Instead of addressing you bring it back to things we’ve discussed forever ago.

They are sort of axiomatic differences that are hard to "prove" other than explaining a perspective and seeing if that is compelling enough to the other person. — schopenhauer1

Yes you can. I’m doing so by pointing out yours isn’t even self consistent. You don’t think imposition is always wrong no matter how the recipient views it. First off, you don’t even count it as an imposition if they like it. Secondly, it would make surprise parties wrong, which is inconsistent with what you think. Now that doesn’t make my view correct, but that was never what I was arguing

You are not respecting that this particular line of debate is for me, not interesting anymore — schopenhauer1

Then stop responding. It’s not like I have a gun pointed to your head.

And you’re not respecting that it’s annoying for me to respond to someone who spontaneously loses interest in any line that may challenge their point of view despite claiming they welcome opposing views. Anything I say as a valid counter you ignore out of “I’m just not interested man” but I still respond to everything you write. It’s annoying when you don’t return the courtesy, and doubly so when you ignore specifically the lines that are problematic for you, and triply annoying when you bring back lines we’ve exhausted before.

Your point was either that people don't under report or that the report is just as accurate as the occurrence.

This just goes around and around now — schopenhauer1

Really? The sequence didn’t seem cyclical to me in any ways. That is largely my point yes. One that validly critiques your position because it requires that everyone be under reporting. And you have no evidence of this.

Can't you accept that sometimes that's just the nature of arguments? There is no "winner" in these kind of arguments. — schopenhauer1

Sometimes there is, though that’s not what I’m after here. I’m just after you addressing what I say. And eventually we’ll reach a point where have to agree to disagree probably. But it’s annoying when you keep trying to bring this point about prematurely, instead of actually addressing critiques.

No person exists prior to existence, no? Another disanalogy. — schopenhauer1

Another insignificant one. The only role non existing does in your argument is establish that no one is missing out. Well when a surprise party is cancelled, the recipient isn’t missing out either.

who "is" indeed missing out. — schopenhauer1

False. You can’t be missing out on a party when not knowing it was going to happen. Were you missing out on the 5 bucks I was totally about to give you a year ago but changed my mind and only told you about how? Were you suffering thinking “Damn, khaled hasn’t given me 5 bucks, this is painful despite the fact they I have no reason to believe he will give me 5 bucks”. Were you missing out on 5 bucks?

No one has the injustice of "not living" applied to "them" — schopenhauer1

And no one has the injustice of “no party” applied to them.

Notice how I continue to address the awful asymmetry argument even though we’ve discussed it at length before and even though I’m tired of it.

deleted

By this logic surprise parties are definitely wrong. You’re being inconsistent. — khaled

We've been through this. The caveat was large impositions, like the ones life "itself" imposes. Didn't think I had to put that caveat by now as we have been through it before.

Can you at least keep track of your own position? — khaled

Yes, but you can't. I said that impositions are unwanted burdens- something EVERYONE deals with, or are you going to argue with that? The debate is of course how much and to what extent its taking place, but that is the debate at hand so to reiterate that point is to just say that we are debating that point as we speak, well yeah.

No I’m pissed that you refuse to address: “You think life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden, how did you come to that conclusion” despite being asked to do so 4? 5? Times now. I’ve lost count. Instead of addressing you bring it back to things we’ve discussed forever ago. — khaled

I addressed this. You think it is absolutely up to the person's report how much inconvenience there is and I think there is more than this straightforward account. The only thing I am refused to do thus far is start rattling off scientific papers. Just not interested. Other than that kind of evidence, I can only invite you to look up the phenomena and read up on OB. I also recommend Benatar's writings on it. Not too hard to search but I am not going to provide the links for you.. I know, I know, somehow your incredulity is my burden now. But see I can say the same for you.. You just bother not to look things up, etc. etc. But the difference is I am not entreating you to do this on this thread's dime. Simply put, we have two views of how this works, and then you want a justification regress that would require multiple scientific articles beyond the scope of this debate. Repeated ad nauseum now.

Yes you can. I’m doing so by pointing out yours isn’t even self consistent. You don’t think imposition is always wrong no matter how the recipient views it. First off, you don’t even count it as an imposition if they like it. Secondly, it would make surprise parties wrong, which is inconsistent with what you think. Now that doesn’t make my view correct, but that was never what I was arguing — khaled

Same same as above. It is an extent. But what if I were to bite the bullet and say surprise parties are wrong, but to a much lesser degree (like degrees of burglary and other crimes)? What does this really matter? It's the same as extent really.

Also, I'm proposing some psychological theories for how we deal with burdens and report them. There are a number of other ones too for how we cope. I guess you are a strong "NO" to anything being contrary to someone's report. But EVEN with all these contingencies, the major point is the perspective we are taking. You are taking a radical subjectivist view... EVERYTHING is ONLY up to the person, and ONLY on self-reports on evaluations of the events. I am taking a view of the event itself. As long as imposition has happened, that should be considered, despite evaluations. There is not much we can do at this point because there is not much to prove one way or the other.

Sometimes there is, though that’s not what I’m after here. I’m just after you addressing what I say. And eventually we’ll reach a point where have to agree to disagree probably. But it’s annoying when you keep trying to bring this point about prematurely, instead of actually addressing critiques. — khaled

I believe I am and have.

Another insignificant one. The only role non existing does in your argument is establish that no one is missing out. Well when a surprise party is cancelled, the recipient isn’t missing out either. — khaled

False. You can’t be missing out on a party when not knowing it was going to happen. Were you missing out on the 5 bucks I was totally about to give you a year ago but changed my mind and only told you about how? Were you suffering thinking “Damn, khaled hasn’t given me 5 bucks, this is painful despite the fact they I have no reason to believe he will give me 5 bucks”. Were you missing out on 5 bucks? — khaled

I guess then I am wondering then how this surprise analogy disproves the point, then? By not going through with the surprise party no "one" loses out (if the analogy is truly equivalent). If someone (maybe yourself) is burdened with the surprise party, it is THEY who lose out. The injustice still occurs for the burdenites, and that's the point.