Nope

He still has not confirmed that my analysis was correct!
Perhaps he is too busy creating even more enigmatic offerings with other strange (actually perfectly acceptable) words, my brain seems to have problems recognising, such as 'stapling' :scream:

There's a staple gun where I work that's huge and electric powered, and it makes a sound like a cannon going off when you press the lever. It makes me a little jittery, but then I remember what Kierkegaard said about the melancholy of knowing you're just another person, on another day, hearing the same cannon stapler that's been exploding over and over forever.

Then I feel better.

Bart suffers more from mere incompetence than bullshit. My primacy is the raised eyebrow: :brow: and :roll:. Super cilia.

I like that. Although my usual go to to cheer me up is "At least I'm not a potato".

The adventures of Spud Jr.

I can only wish you the best of luck in trying to understand the logic put forwards by antinatalists.
I personally find it one of the most ridiculous idea's a human has ever come up with. — universeness

I think for some people with mood issues and negative life experiences, it might make sense (in theory) never to have been born and to surmise that all lives are irrevocably marred by suffering and futility - the byproducts of living in a cruel world we didn't devise or choose to enter. There are a lot of folk out there living with chronic dissatisfaction and an inability to find joy. This corrosive anhedonia easily trumps optimism and hope and is readily attracted to philosophical justifications for pessimism. And frankly, look around, it's not hard to see how some people might regard the world through shit colored glasses.

I believe that is false. There is clearly no rational basis for merging my discussion with this one. My argument had no premise that asserted that life sucks. It didn't even have an antinatalist conclusion, but a disjunctive conclusion: either antinatalism is true, or there is no problem of evil.

So, philosophically it demonstrably makes no sense at all to merge my discussion with a 'life sucks' thread. They have nothing in common. It is as stupid as merging a thread on the problem of evil with 'life sucks'. Would you do that? Do you think someone who thinks there is a problem of evil for theism is someone who thinks 'life sucks'?

If someone on a thread starts making 'life sucks' claims, then it is also absurd to make that a basis for merging it with another thread, especially when the person whose thread it is is continuing to take part in a focussed discussion of the OP - an OP which makes no 'life sucks' claim.

Given the philosophical ineptness of thinking my thread was at home in a 'life sucks' thread it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the mods - or some of the mods here - have a bias against antinatalist threads, regardless of the particulars of the arguments, and so have a tendency to destroy any focussed discussion of them.

Thanks, appreciated. It won't do anything, of course. Clearly they have decided that any argument for antinatalism is - must be - an argument that assumes life sucks. That is as ignorant and stupid as thinking that anyone who thinks there is a problem of evil for belief in God is also someone who thinks 'life sucks'. The best explanation is that there is a prejudice in operation.

I can distinguish at least 8 distinct arguments that have antinatalist implications. Only one of those is what's known as a 'miserabilist' case that assumes life here subjects its liver to more harms than benefits. One. One out of 8 arguments that I know of. Yet clearly were I to make any of those other 7 arguments, my thread would be merged with this one. Why? So as to close the debate down.

I have never made a life sucks argument for antinatalism. The closest I have made is a death-based argument, but even then I still assume that life here benefits its liver more than it harms them (the harms come after). Every single argument I have made for antinatalism has NOT been a life sucks one. Note a single one.

I think for some people with mood issues and negative life experiences, it might make sense (in theory) never to have been born and to surmise that all lives are irrevocably marred by suffering and futility - the byproducts of living in a cruel world we didn't devise or choose to enter. There are a lot of folk out there living with chronic dissatisfaction and an inability to find joy. This corrosive anhedonia easily trumps optimism and hope and is readily attracted to philosophical justifications for pessimism. And frankly, look around, it's not hard to see how some people might regard the world through shit colored glasses. — Tom Storm

You know that analyzing a person's motivation is not a legitimate criticism of a philosophical position.

Yes. Why did you take this as a criticism of a philosophical position?

Why did you take this as a criticism of a philosophical position? — Tom Storm

Your post was a response to this from Universeness.

I can only wish you the best of luck in trying to understand the logic put forwards by antinatalists.
I personally find it one of the most ridiculous idea's a human has ever come up with. — universeness

It's not much of an argument, but it is in response to anti-natalists position, not their psychological state.

Regarding the antinatalism claims:

If you are unable to change the world, then you ought to frustrate your desire to introduce new sentient life into it. Yes?

This was yet another antinatalist argument dressed up in different clothes from someone who posts almost nothing except antinatalist arguments. So it was merged with the life sucks thread. It doesn’t mean the argument was that life sucks — that’s simply the name of the thread.

I even extended the courtesy of messaging both of the individuals affected by the merge. The conversation can continue either way. Mostly a housekeeping move. Not a great injustice, fairly straightforward.

I don't get it. His dad said he might be chips, and then he saw a bag of chips.

Also, it's mom, not mum. Chips, not crisps.

C minus.

Yes, it's a response to -

wish you the best of luck in trying to understand the logic put forwards by antinatalists — universeness

I hold the view that people's professed beliefs often reflect personal context rather than logic.

it's not hard to see how some people might regard the world through shit colored glasses. — Tom Storm

My sunglasses are brown-coloured and the world looks pretty warm and good through them. Maybe "shit-stained glasses" through which the world would look spotty and leprous would be more apt? :joke:

That could work too. :wink:

@schopenhauer1’s threads that I’ve encountered/participated in didn’t have anything remotely close to “life sucks” as a premise. Therefore, I don’t see how the title of the merged thread can be viewed as anything other than demeaning/insulting. I mean, what other reason is there to choose not to name it something generic like “Antinatalist Arguments” or some other benign title. Should pro-natalist threads be merged into a “Life is Awesome!” thread?

That said, when the author of any thread continually starts the same discussion from slightly different perspectives, it makes one question their intent. To me, once you’ve had the discussion, and it’s run its inevitable course there’s no need to do it all over again. It’s isn’t likely to change anyone’s mind or accomplish much of anything. Also, I could see how newcomers to TPF could be led to believe that this is primarily an AN site, with half of the threads on the main page being dedicated to that topic. So something clearly had to be done. I just think titling the thread using negative language is asking for criticism and concerns of biases among the mods.

Therefore, I don’t see how the title of the merged thread can be viewed as anything other than demeaning/insulting. I mean, what other reason is there to choose not to name it something generic like “Antinatalist Arguments” or some other benign title. Should pro-natalist threads be merged into a “Life is Awesome!” thread? — Pinprick

:100: :sparkle:

TPF could face a lawsuit if a family member who perhaps is mentally ill delves a little too deep into certain philosophies. It's like this other forum I like: "No suicide threads". Is it likely? Does it make much sense to implement procedure over? Has anything schopenhaur done or posted reasonably any more likely to produce such an outcome than a simple discussion regarding if life is or is not worth living? The answer to all of these things is "No" but a certain moderator said something I like that stuck with me: "It's one of those unfortunate little things the rules don't happen to care about".

I have yet to read a reply (note I have not read this whole thread in a focused mood) that seems to change the "200 threads on the same topic" dynamic. If that is true I mean.. what? What is the argument here? :lol:

No discussion is impacted. It's just in one thread. This isn't Times Square. The traffic footprint is low. Do we really have time for drama for drama's sake? Must be nice.

I just think titling the thread using negative language is asking for criticism and concerns of biases among the mods. — Pinprick

Fair point.

OK, so we changed the name to avoid the impression we are denigrating the topic. Which was never our intention. However, we will continue to expect the conversation to be limited to that thread until further notice. And if you wish to remain a member @schopenhauer1, please do not give us further reason to suspect you are evangelising.

the byproducts of living in a cruel world we didn't devise or choose to enter. There are a lot of folk out there living with chronic dissatisfaction and an inability to find joy. This corrosive anhedonia easily trumps optimism and hope and is readily attracted to philosophical justifications for pessimism. And frankly, look around, it's not hard to see how some people might regard the world through shit colored glasses. — Tom Storm

I would say this viewpoint would have a lot of support, especially if you ask people for a quick knee jerk response to a question like 'how's life for you?' just after they have watched news at 10 on the BBC.
WE ALL must take responsibility for such knee-jerk negative life viewpoints.
Here is one suggestion Tom. What if all news programs by law had to report in a more balanced way. The bad news and the good news, 50/50. Good news is rarely reported but is going on all over the planet every day.
Why was there not a news story such as 'The British Political system enables the removal of an incompetent prime minister within one month of their election!' I am not a fan of the current UK political system but the fact that it meant a Liz Truss approach would not survive scrutiny is good news!
Most people react rather than act. They are like little newborn birds with brain rather than mouth wide open hoping for some stimuli rather than food, to be fed to them. Apathy causes many to become like this when they are offered little hope. BUT there is plenty of hope out there. We are all responsible because we won't get out our armchairs and fight to change things. We all made this bed we live in, only we can wake out of our slumber and see who really runs everything. When we all agree who the enemy truly is, then we can smash them to smithereens, permanently!
This would remove a lot of the 'chronic dissatisfaction and an inability to find joy,' you suggest is so currently prominent. Who has all the cream right now, all the advantages, control over all the Earth's resources Tom? Who? and how come?

Exactly!

I mean, what other reason is there to choose not to name it something generic like “Antinatalist Arguments” or some other benign title. — Pinprick

Good idea, change the 'Life sucks' thread into 'All antinatalism discussions here:'
Edit: I see I am playing catch up with @Baden again. Yeah, I know, read all the latest posts in a thread before responding to any of them. :blush:
Edit2: At least I can spell proper! He keeps typing evangelising when we all know its proper spellin is evanHELLising. Get a grip Irishman!

:rofl: Hey, wait a minute! 'Arguments FOR antinatalism,' is a wee bit too much of a swing towards supporting the topic rather than denigrating it. There are far more comments in that thread against than for. Much better to call it 'All antinatalism viewpoints here!' BALANCE!

Oh yeah... Changed.

I think merging threads is almost always a bad idea. It results in a disjointed and confusing read.

Deleting threads works though.

But but, how can you be a pessimist if Schopenhauer is an idealist?

I mean, his idealism is of the transcendental variety, but idealist nonetheless. How can an Idealist be a pessimist?

hmmmm

I hold the view that people's professed beliefs often reflect personal context rather than logic. — Tom Storm

Everything I know, think, feel, and believe reflects "personal context" rather than logic. No one comes to believe things because of logic. Logic does not generate knowledge or understanding. It can, and sometimes does, validate or invalidate beliefs. E.g. do you think @universeness's opposition to anti-natalism comes from logic? His baloney gestures to logic are just a cover to support his desire that ideas he doesn't agree with should be censored.