I guess this? Yes, we agree that non trivial harm exists for everyone born. — khaled

Good. Then my argument is follows from there.

Ok, now, how do you determine what non trivial harm is without reference to experiences or reports? — khaled

I admitted it can even be subjective, instead of some objective list of wrongs. As long as you think non-trivial harm exists for all humans, the argument stands:

Can we agree on what an imposition is?
Do we agree what non-trivial means?
Do we agree with what unnecessary means?
Do we agree that there is an extra duty of care when it comes to doing something on another person's behalf?
Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? — schopenhauer1

The question then was:

Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? — schopenhauer1

As long as you think non-trivial harm exists for all humans, the argument stands: — schopenhauer1

What argument?

Do you mean to say that "non trivial harm exists in life" = "Procreation is wrong"?

Because that doesn't follow at all.

Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? — schopenhauer1

Yes. Also, life has such non trivial unnecessary harms. Also, that doesn't lead to it being wrong to impose. Think about it.

Do you mean to say that "non trivial harm exists in life" = "Procreation is wrong"?

Because that doesn't follow at all. — khaled

Where did you get that idea? That is something you just implied, not what I stated. I am simply asking, after we have agreed on the definitions:

Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? — schopenhauer1

Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? — schopenhauer1

I already answered yes though.

I already answered yes though. — khaled

Then I think we should be done arguing.

Interesting. Not the reasons I am advocating, but too much population is bound to be bad somewhere, even for our oh-so-clever species. — schopenhauer1

For a true blue antinatalist you seem not so concerned. My point is that there are real, extremely urgent reasons to adopt a global antinatalist policy, either partially or in full. Time is running out for us - either we declare a moratorium on birthing or we all die of starvation, quite possibly some other complication of overpopulation will do us in.

Then I think we should be done arguing. — schopenhauer1

How so?

How so? — khaled

Because that's the major claim I am advocating (as I think you know at this point). Are now just arguing for argument's sake? Are you a bot that gives stock bad fallacies and debate-club "traps" :brow: continuously, without end?

Because that's the major claim I am advocating — schopenhauer1

Which I agreed with forever ago. But that's not what I asked you in any way shape or form.

I asked:

Ok, now, how do you determine what non trivial harm is without reference to experiences or reports? — khaled

You said:

I admitted it can even be subjective, instead of some objective list of wrongs. — schopenhauer1

So then I asked:

So if a slave was fine with his conditions then we classify his enslavement as a non-trivial imposition? — khaled

And you said you'll answer my question but you need me to answer first. I have answered. Now. If a slave was fine with his conditions then we classify his enslavement as a non-trivial imposition?

Because you clearly don't think it's purely subjective.

Which I agreed with forever ago. But that's not what I asked you in any way shape or form. — khaled

Oy vey. Look, the major premise is what we agreed upon. That is my major justification (at least one of them as they have been developed through our particular dialectic). What is causing you to continue at this point? This is the main justification (at least in our dialectic context) for antinatalism. Why can't you agree to agree!

And you said you'll answer my question but you need me to answer first. I have answered. Now. If a slave was fine with his conditions then we classify his enslavement as a non-trivial imposition?

Because you clearly don't think it's purely subjective. — khaled

I think now you are indeed arguing for argument's sake. We agree antinatalism at least, can be justified on the grounds I stated. Can we agree on that first? This is tangential to that major claim, and doesn't need to be argued to support it.

This is the main justification (at least in our dialectic context) for antinatalism. — schopenhauer1

Well aside from the fact that I don't think it leads to AN, yes I agree with your general premise

I think now you are indeed arguing for argument's sake. — schopenhauer1

No I'm picking up something I asked on the other thread we didn't go into. You have some standard by which you decide that some imposition is non trivial and that standard doesn't take into account the subjective experience of the recipient. What is that standard?

This is tangential to that major claim, and doesn't need to be argued to support it. — schopenhauer1

Yes.... I am aware it is tangential. Or do you wanna go over the same grounds over and over?

Yes.... I am aware it is tangential. Or do you wanna go over the same grounds over and over? — khaled

No, I think it is important though to dileneate the major from the tangential and to have some resolve somewhere. I believe there at least has to be some goal or benchmarks of where we are at to be productive and not just one long scrawl of arguments that go infinitum..Again, unless you're that debate-class bot :lol:.

Look, if you don't want to answer just say so. This whole debate class bot bs is tiring.

No, I think it is important though to dileneate the major from the tangential and to have some resolve somewhere. — schopenhauer1

Which was done here:

This would’ve been a point in our last discussion but I got tired and deleted it. Yes, do please go back to those examples. Show me how you can derive that Willy wonka’s forced game is a non trivial imposition, without referring in any way to the victims opinions of their situation. I just don’t see how you “objectively” measure how bad an imposition is with no reference to the person being imposed upon. What’s the “set of features” that go into making an imposition non trivial? A certain duration? A certain number of work hours? — khaled

I literally explained that this was a tangent from the outset. What's got you so worked up?

There are factors that could justify the making of significant decisions on someone else's behalf that apply to the raising of children, and not to the having of children. — Tzeentch

Says who?

The first, acting on behalf of another person's well-being. Assuming the parents' primary concern is the happiness of their child, this applied to the raising of children. However, the act of having children does not involve this, since there is no child on behalf of whose well-being one can act. — Tzeentch

Says who?

If the raising of children is not done with 1. The well-being of the child as its primary concern, and 2. The wisdom required to achieve that well-being, then the raising of children is not a moral act either. — Tzeentch

I didn't say having a child is a moral act, only that it is not an immoral act. Also, says who?

I literally explained that this was a tangent from the outset. What's got you so worked up? — khaled

Nothing. I actually think now, I'm less worked up. The major premise is more important to me than this argument which I am not as invested in.. Remember, I have made a LOT of threads.. Just because I am debating the latest one, doesn't mean it's my most important one (to my case at least).

The major premise is more important to me than this argument which I am not as invested in — schopenhauer1

So, I assume you won't answer? I would think that how you determine "non trivial" is very crucial considering literally everyone on planet earth would agree to "foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong".

If you don't want to discuss it that's fine, just don't make a whole play about how I'm a high school debate bot or whatever, drama queen.

So, I assume you won't answer? I would think that how you determine "non trivial" is very crucial considering literally everyone on planet earth would agree to "foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong". — khaled

I am helping you out here by delineating the arguments...
You agreed that every human experiences non-trivial harm. That we agreed upon. So this debate is tangential to that fact, right?

I am helping you out here by delineating the arguments... — schopenhauer1

Even though I clearly already did....

You agreed that every human experiences non-trivial harm. That we agreed upon. So this debate is tangential to that fact, right? — schopenhauer1

For the 3rd time. Yes. Will you or will you not answer the question?

For the 3rd time. Yes. Will you or will you not answer the question? — khaled

Ok cool, so this debate does not affect your agreement to the main premise because we agreed all life has non-trivial harm, correct? So you cannot take the tangent to debate the main premise if it's already agreed that it exists, correct? In other words, now we are debating the epistemology of non-trivial harms, not its existence in people that are born, correct?

For Christ sake, yes. Stop wasting space spamming the same stuff.

Ok, so my position was that the enslavement of the slave was wrong, whether the slave was happy or not.

I tried to engage with you in a meaningful way about this topic. This type of response isn't exactly going to prompt me to keep trying.

Ok. So enslavement is a case of a non trivial imposition. Why? What features of enslavement make it non trivial? What features in general make an imposition non trivial? Without reference to the subjective experience or reports of the recipients.

Edit: I’m taking a break from this site, probably won’t be responding for a while. Have a good day!

I tried to engage with you in a meaningful way about this topic. This type of response isn't exactly going to prompt me to keep trying. — Tzeentch

I think my response was completely meaningful, if a bit snarky. "Says who?" can be translated as "I disagree" with the snark added to tweak you for self-righteousness.

Time is running out for us - either we declare a moratorium on birthing or we all die of starvation, quite possibly some other complication of overpopulation will do us in. — TheMadFool

That's a really really interesting view. And it deserves another thread on its own. Big one.

But I think at this one we examine the "basic theory of antinatalism" under "normal" circumstances. That is no starvation threat (for now) at least.
I think we try to compare 2 different types of thinking .2 different "theories". And as to do that fairly, we should examine them under the exact same circumstances. If we want a fair outcome out of this discussion. Imo at least.

But what you mentioned is really interesting and almost for sure a question that humanity will be forced to face in future.

That's a really really interesting view. And it deserves another thread on its own. Big one.

But I think at this one we examine the "basic theory of antinatalism" under "normal" circumstances. That is no starvation threat (for now) at least.
I think we try to compare 2 different types of thinking .2 different "theories". And as to do that fairly, we should examine them under the exact same circumstances. If we want a fair outcome out of this discussion. Imo at least.

But what you mentioned is really interesting and almost for sure a question that humanity will be forced to face in future. — dimosthenis9

You're right, fair play implies natalism and antinatalism have to be compared under the exact same conditions. Notice, however, that natalism leads to antinatalism via overpopulation and and vice versa when the tables are turned as happens with underpopulation. The world swings pendulously between these two extremes. The takeaway is that neither natalism nor antinatalism is good philosophy, they fail as a global reproductive policy.

The solution: Control/regulate reproduction, strike a balance between too many births and too few births in order to maintain a steady, flat population curve. That way both natalists and antinatalists will have nothing to complain about as there's enough for everybody - happy, content lives are possible.

I think my response was completely meaningful, if a bit snarky. "Says who?" can be translated as "I disagree" with the snark added to tweak you for self-righteousness. — T Clark

I wasn't aware that your comments needed to be translated first.

Let me have a try:

"I don't like what you're saying, but I can't find grounds to disagree."

"I don't like what you're saying, but I can't find grounds to disagree." — Tzeentch

Why do I need to provide grounds for my judgement when you provided no grounds for your original statement?

Strange logic.
— Antinatalist
What? We don't consider the present is exactly the same as the projected future states? How do we pretend cardiac base tissue is a person, by other means? — Cheshire

I´m not sure do I understand your point. Can you clarify what you mean?

That way both natalists and antinatalists will have nothing to complain about as there's enough for everybody - happy, content lives are possible. — TheMadFool

What you mention it creates a "bridge" between them indeed. Seems like that at least.