I'm more on Swan's side than not - hatred is a mere silly self-indulgence, even if it's only for adverts and such. For grown-up apes, the question is what do we want to do about things that don't seem right, and such questions are best not approached in a state of childish emotionalism. — iolo

But whether or not you do hate is an entirely different question to whether or not you should hate. And Swan is completely wrong to think that she's never felt hatred or even has the potential to. That's so unrealistic as to be incredible. You would have to be delusional to actually believe that.

Oh, I found another one, right here! — schopenhauer1

Where? I just see a question. A question you still haven't answered. A question you haven't answered, even though it is highly relevant. It has to do with how you describe your own position and how you word your key claims. It could hardly be any more relevant.

This is what needs addressing properly instead of being blinded by the language used, seeing it as an insult, and making irrelevant complaints. I mean, if in context, your position makes you look stupid, that's hardly my fault for bringing you to that embarrassing realisation. It's your position, not mine. You should be thanking me. It's never too late to abandon a faulty position.

How about another example? Would, or wouldn't, a little child understand what's misleading about saying that they can go to Disneyland, without mentioning that they would have to get there by being dragged along the ground by a horse?

If the answer is that they would, then it's fair to ask why you say that you don't understand what's misleading about saying that antinatalism is essentially about the prevention of suffering, or that your opinion leads to no suffering for a future person.

If that isn't to do with intelligence, then explain what it it's to do with. Self-deception?

Ok, this is what I perceive to be your main issue right now in this argument, no?

A person has to exist for there to be an agenda. By not having a new person, there is no person, and ergo no agenda that this person is to be following. My agenda is to prevent someone else from being forced into an agenda, and by not having a new person who actually will be forced into an agenda, my agenda has not made an agenda for someone else. — schopenhauer1

It's one of the issues I've raised with your argument. I'm not going to say that it's the main one.

And unfortunately, you still aren't resolving the problem for whatever reason. I won't speculate why that is, but it is what it is. Now, once again, the problem has to do with your original claim that I keep going back to, which you aren't going back to. So have you retracted it or what? That's what I'm waiting for from you.

Your original claim to me was that the prevention of suffering matters, and that anything else would be having an agenda for another person. Logically, included in that "anything else" would be the prevention of joy. That also matters. If prevention of joy is having an agenda for another person, then prevention of suffering is having an agenda for another person. And if prevention of suffering isn't having an agenda for another person because there is no person, then prevention of joy isn't having an agenda for another person because there is no person.

It isn't clear to me whether or not you understand this problem because you haven't been addressing it directly, which means that the problem will continue to persist unresolved.

Whether you realise it or not, you have been forced into a dilemma and must choose from limited options. Not included in those options is having your cake and eating it. Your current tactic seems to be to appear as though you're addressing what I'm saying without actually doing so.

So, ignoring that entire irrelevant personal attack, do you not agree that a little child would understand why these kinds of statement are misleading? That's the question. I'm really having to focus and break things down in a simple step-by-step fashion with you here. You are being very difficult and trying all the tricks in the book. It's a simple question. You are allowing yourself to be distracted by treating it as an insult. I am making a valid point. It's up to you whether you decide to engage it properly.

How about another example? Would, or wouldn't, a little child understand what's misleading about saying that they can go to Disneyland, without mentioning that they would have to get there by being dragged along the ground by a horse?

If the answer is that they would, then it's fair to ask why you say that you don't understand what's misleading about saying that antinatalism is essentially about the prevention of suffering, or that your opinion leads to no suffering for a future person.

If that isn't to do with intelligence, then explain what it it's to do with. Self-deception?

Tell me clearly and concisely, where are the holes in my arguments? — PhilCF

There's a big hole right at the very start, when you begin, "The meaning of life is...".

You can slander me all you like. — PhilCF

But it's true that no one here will take you seriously when you say the kind of things that you've been saying. What you're saying isn't philosophy, it's crackpottery, oh enlightened one.

Well, this isn't a forum for preaching nonsense, so it's probably not for you.

I actually disagree with your statement that it is when you are truly present that you find peace. It's the exact opposite for me. It is when I am truly absent that I find peace, like when I play some chilled out music and escape.

“All of our agents are currently busy. Please hold and we will answer your call as soon as possible.”

No one needs philosophy in order to teach them to think. People already think. Philosophy is supposed to refine thinking, although it can actually make people more dumb.

Our autonomic nervous system is morally problematic, apparently.

Playing the autism card.

Just the place for a Snark!

The meaning of life is strife. — unenlightened

No, it's 42.

No. The meaning of life is peace. — PhilCF

No, it's 42.

Life can be about a myriad of noble quests... But the meaning of life is peace. — PhilCF

No, it's 42.

@schopenhauer1, do you now understand why it is misleading to say that your opinion leads to no suffering for a future person? (Note that I'm not asking whether or not that's true or a good thing).

And are you now ready to properly address my criticism about your comment to me in response to my mention about the prevention of joy that "that's having an agenda for another person"? Are you now ready to clarify what your position is? Do you accept that, as an antinatalist according to your own description of antinatalism, you have an agenda for another person? Or are you going to be inconsistent and apply a double standard? Or are you just going to keep evading the point?

I don't think I've ever felt hatred or have the potential to. — Swan

Oh, come on. Really? I don't believe that for a second.

The meaning of life is peace — PhilCF

Here we go. No, it's 42.

It would more likely be gods, not just a single "God". But yes, at that very early stage of humanity, where we would be really dumb compared to now, we would come up with really dumb explanations compared to current explanations. Even now, lots of people still cling to really dumb explanations, even though there are much better ones. They tell themselves and others myths, like this imagined "knowledge of God" that it is said is "lost to the sands". It's all a load of baloney, but apparently it makes some people feel better. The opium of the masses.

I prefer the extra space, it gives me more room to breathe. — Metaphysician Undercover

Even more reason to remove the extra space.

The main difference between the forums is your punctuation habits would've triggered the automated illiteracy detector there, presenting you with a stark choice to reform or die at the hands of modbot. — Paul

I took the place of the automated illiteracy detector here for a while, and I was frequently triggered, but then I got fired because I was too nice and polite.

That it's not for me. — Purple Pond

Icarus.

Philosophy has taught me that philosophy brings out the idiot in a lot of people without them realising it. It's definitely a double-edged sword.

You don't care about arguments, you pick on wording and tone, even though you're guilty of doing the same thing, as you illustrate above. I can't say that something is talking dumb, but you can say that something is barking, or kissing ass, as you said elsewhere. That's a double standard if ever I saw one.

Funnily enough, you also said, and I quote: "I will not present ideas that differ from yours to you. I will not differ with your posts. I won't even read them. And I'll hold to that this time, even if you seem to have a brave period". :lol:

There's someone who is a good role model for adult behavior with a suggestion above. — Coben

Self-reliance and facing strong criticism are characteristic of adult behaviour. Feeling a need to rely on an ignore feature, blocking out strong criticism, and making excuses, is weak, childish and counterproductive. I never suggested that I'm a role model in all things adult. But I'm still right about that.

Any suggestions, anyone? — Pattern-chaser

Yes. You could grow up.

Antichorism is essentially about the prevention of having to do chores. (By burning you alive, so you'll suffer excruciating pain, and then you'll be dead, and you'll never get to experience anything ever again, and you'll never get to see your family, friends or loved ones ever again, and you'll never get to do anything you enjoy doing, and you'll never even have just a single brief moment to take a deep breath and listen to the wind blowing or the birds singing or look up at the stars in the sky at night, and so on and so forth).

But don't think about that part in the brackets. You won't have to do any chores! That's good, right? Not misleading at all.

I did answer. I said no, and no. — schopenhauer1

Okay, given that you said "no" to my question of whether you understand why that's a misleading statement, why don't you understand that the reason why it's misleading is because what you're talking about doesn't just prevent suffering? Even a little child would understand why it's misleading to say, for example, that being burnt alive tonight prevents you from doing the chores tomorrow. So why don't you understand it when a little child can? Do you mean to suggest that a little child is more intelligent than you are?

Agendas are had by actual people. No people, no agenda for that person to be had. — schopenhauer1

So you retract your comment to me about having an agenda for another person? Or you apply the above to the both of us? It's hard to tell from all of your evasion. You aren't giving a straight answer again.

It is always good to prevent suffering so no whether someone exists to know this or not. — schopenhauer1

Why didn't you answer my questions? I will ask them again.

Do you understand why that's a misleading statement? Yes or no?

Do you understand why no reasonable conclusion can follow from it? Yes or no?

No, the other person does not exist yet. No agenda is going to be had by them. — schopenhauer1

Then that's my response also, regarding the prevention of joy. And the prevention of anger, the prevention of surprise, the prevention of sympathy, the prevention of guilt, the prevention of...

You don't seem to get the logic here. If you did, you would realise that you can't have it both ways.

My opinion leads to NO suffering for a future person. — schopenhauer1

Do you understand why that's a misleading statement? Yes or no?

Do you understand why no reasonable conclusion can follow from it? Yes or no?

Ah no. Prevention of joy is not bad, if there is NO ONE alive to be deprived of it. Prevention of suffering is always, good whether someone for whom this is a benefit or not. That's the asymmetry. — schopenhauer1

That's evading the point. Please don't do that. We can't move on until you address my point properly. Prevention of suffering is having an agenda for another person. You suggested that having an agenda for another person is bad in response to me, yet you yourself have an agenda for another person.

Suffering, at this level, is the most important thing to take into consideration. — schopenhauer1

That's just your opinion.

Anything else is having an agenda for another person. — schopenhauer1

No, that criticism is invalid. It's invalid because it can't apply to what I'm saying without also applying to what you're saying. You are committing the fallacy of special pleading. You say that the prevention of suffering matters. I say that the prevention of joy matters. You say to me that that's having an agenda for another person. I can then say to you that that's having an agenda for another person.

That's logic for you.

Why is anything more important than the new person's suffering? What about the other stuff makes the threshold to procreate that much more? Because people are not killing themselves left and right? — schopenhauer1

You don't seem to be listening.

The overall value of life is what primarily matters here, over and above any one particular factor of life taken in isolation. You can't reasonably assess the overall value of life by only taking into consideration a single factor such as suffering. It's easy to come up with examples of this methodology failing in other contexts as well as this one. So your method is doomed to failure from the start. It doesn't even get off the ground.

And when people do take all of the relevant factors into reasonable consideration, funnily enough, they reach a different conclusion to you. Coincidence? I think not.

From previous discussions, the answer to that seemed to be a stance that prevention of suffering was all that mattered. — Terrapin Station

Which is ludicrous.

No buddy, it's not. What I'm trying to say, is that upfront, that at the procreational decision (ONLY), prevention of suffering is above and beyond all else, because no actual person is alive to be deprived of the all else you described. Only AFTER they are created do they then have something to lose. And certainly valuing the prevention of suffering would have to come into play here as a premise. — schopenhauer1

You aren't addressing the problem. The problem is that life consists of a lot more than suffering. And given that life consists of a lot more than suffering, you aren't warranted to talk only about the prevention of suffering. Suffering is a part of life just like all of the other emotions are a part of life. You haven't justified talking about the prevention of suffering alone. Do you understand that or not? If so, please produce a valid response in your next reply.

Given that we all know what antinatalism entails, why do antinatalists always try to hide the full picture? They say that it's about the prevention of suffering, yet they know that by implication it's about the prevention of so much more than that. They could just as well say that it's about the prevention of joy as that it's about the prevention of suffering. I would like them to answer that themselves, because I think they ought to explain themselves, although I know the answer. The answer is surely that they do so because they know that their position will otherwise come across as much less convincing. A follow up question would be: why do they care so little about intellectual honesty?

This means nothing to me. Using "reasonable" or "common sensibility" I just won't accept as an argument. Argue something. Don't just use the ambiguousness of the word "reasonable" or the like make it for you. Explain. — schopenhauer1

Fallacious reasoning can't be reasonable, because it is by definition unreasonable. And you've committed a fallacy by drawing a conclusion based on just a single factor whilst wilfully ignoring all of the other relevant factors. I just explained that to you.

Not if I admit that indeed, not causing all forms of suffering to another person, while not actually depriving that person of any of the emotions (or any other perceived good) is indeed the best decision and outcome. — schopenhauer1

Are you abandoning antinatalism as you previously described it or not? Because you previously described it as a position essentially about not having children to prevent a future person from suffering, and my criticism still applies to that description. Again, the description is misleading and it's unreasonable to reach that conclusion from insufficient factors, and suffering alone is insufficient, because obviously life is a lot more than suffering. You would have to change your premise about the prevention of suffering, or add additional premises which actually take into account all of the other factors. Otherwise the argument will never be sound, because it's invalid.

What makes the emotions you list more important than causing the conditions for suffering for another though? — schopenhauer1

Like I just said, a reasonable analysis must take into account all relevant factors. So by asking me only about suffering, you're effectively asking me to be unreasonable. This isn't controversial. It's a fallacy known as a hasty generalisation. And another fallacy you frequently commit is the fallacy of cherry picking. All emotions are obviously relevant because life consists of all emotions.

So it is good to bring about negative conditions for others because of the host of emotions you list? — schopenhauer1

Things are good because of the overall value taking into account all factors, not bad because you deliberately select just a single factor whilst wilfully ignoring all of the others.

Please, show some intellectual honesty.

Antinatalism is essentially about not having children to prevent a future person from either contingent or structural suffering. — schopenhauer1

And everything else, which you don't mention, which is misleading. It literally can't be about just that, as we all know, because life is so much more than that, and obviously not having children wouldn't just prevent suffering, it would prevent every single emotion. So really, a more accurate description of antinatalism would be that it's about not having children to prevent a future person from experiencing anger, fear, sadness, happiness, disgust, surprise, aggression, apathy, anxiety, boredom, contempt, depression, doubt, empathy, envy, embarrassment, euphoria, frustration, gratitude, grief, guilt, hatred, hope, horror, hostility, hunger, hysteria, loneliness, love, paranoia, pity, pleasure, pride, rage, regret, remorse, shame, shock, suffering, sympathy. And all of that in spite of the fact that the average person wouldn't trade all of that for having never existed.

If you want to stop describing the position in a misleading way, you can copy and paste the above.

Probably. I think you were being a little sexist toward fresco, though. — frank

Haha, funny.

Obviously that's obvious, because obviously the obvious is obvious, obviously. It's just as obvious now as it was five months ago when I last had the last word, obviously. And lastly, that's obviously last. And for the last time, obviously.

Also, Banno is an old goat, and I'm bored.

Obviously.