Can you refute antinatalism?

you know philosophy has failed somewhere along the way when it advocates the discontinuation of the freaking human species.

Except natalism is a natural drive.
Therefore we need antinatalists to fight that drive globally.
Personality traits are often hereditary so the easiest person one can convince is you own children.
Therefore antinatalists should get dozens of kids to guarantee a large amount of them will carry on the antinatalism creed.
We must, as antinatalists, forsake our own souls (by having a shit ton of antinatalist kids) to save everyone else from their Natalist-instincts.
Because if all antinatalists die out, so will antinatalism.
Just like this age of abundance has lead to a clownworld, pro-abortionists, sjws, madmen, these have fewer kids than 'conservatives"; and will be out-bred. The gene-pool will be reset. We will ever die.

Attached: m1rcg3dx93x21.png (644x804, 691K)

On one hand, the arguments made by the opposition (why dont u kil urself LOLZ) are irrelevant and awful at that, on the other hand, I think antinatalist conclusions are good but the arguments used to reach them are likewise irrelevant and bad.

PEANUT BRAIN: UTILITARIAN ANTINATALISM

SMALL BRAIN: SENTIMENTAL ANTINATALISM

MEDIUM BRAIN: KANTIAN ANTINATALISM

LARGE BRAIN: PLATONIC ANTINATALISM

EXPLODING BRAIN: PAULINE/DOCTRINAL ANTINATALISM

GALAXY BRAIN: CHRISTOLOGICAL/SCRIPTURAL ANTINATALISM

the last two are the same thing
and
>Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless SHE WILL BE SAVED IN CHILDBEARING if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

It's a disgusting half-measure. At least fully commit and go full genocide. It's cowardly.

>We must, as antinatalists, forsake our own souls (by having a shit ton of antinatalist kids) to save everyone else from their Natalist-instincts.
Beautifull. An Ouroboros of retardation.
You convinced me, I shall be an antinatalist and make sure to have a sisen kids who All shall be antinatalist.
>the arguments made by the opposition
Nobody told anybody to kill themselves in This thread, rather We're having a civil and philosophical discussion on how antinatalism contraddicts itself.
But I see that you are that guy that believes that Christianity is antinatalist Because of a line from Paul out of context; so I shaln't discuss This with You any further.

See? This is what I mean. Against birth does not mean against life. Life precedes birth by all Ontologies. If anything, antinatalism COULD be very life-affirming.

Attached: fren hug.png (746x512, 105K)

>If anything, antinatalism COULD be very life-affirming.
The central dogma is that being born is not worth it. Please affirm life starting from here.
Pic related fren

Attached: IMG_2525.jpg (500x461, 34K)

>anti-nat: thou shall not procreate!!!!
>Chad: Why? Say's who?? Based on what?
>anti-nat: I don't know, nothing, morality is a spook, good and bad are just social constructs, nothing matters ultimately, damn I'm depressed !!!! :((((
>Chad: I want to know why you said such a stupid thing. Why should I listen to you?
>anti-nat: I can't remember the argument, it's about pain or pleasure and how life isn't worth living....*walks away in shame, but too weak to kill himself*
>Chad: what a strange fellow.
>Chad: *unzips dick*
>*Chad proceeds to breed multiple times*

Attached: 1567567347721.jpg (819x1024, 184K)

Appiel to nature fallacy

Nice stawman, cumbrain idiot

You're conflating birth with life, not only causally, but absolutely too. Not only that the lack of this birth or that birth would necessarily preclude this life or that life, but that the lack of any birth would necessarily preclude all life, most of all yours. It is supremely ironic that you've merely introjected this from the very life you deem unworthy of you.

>You're conflating birth with life, not only causally, but absolutely too.
Since life requires birth for humans What is the alternative?

What makes you think it does?

>Don't let your kids eat cake! It's gross and painful! It's unfair! It's toxic!
>*proceeds to eat all the cake everyday* "mwhahahah"
kek anti-nats just want the world to themselves, selfish fat fuckers

Attached: 763063-larsa_800.jpg (800x600, 118K)

...
Biology?

based Chad

Chads are joke

no

Lame. If people killed a man for every man they gave birth to then simply dying of old age would be unheard of and murder would be seen just as necessary, and just as tenuously so, for death as birth is for life. This is irrespective of God, mind you.

...

But it is, incel

No, it isn't moron

... W-What has This to do with anything We're talking about?

It’s against the most basic biological drivers to live for all life. Trying not to have kids is literally the most unnatural thing you can do

>Using dead meme for personal attack
litterally IQ

this is some good bait

No one cares.
If you stop procreating, your pathetic ideas will die with you.

see

antinatalism pre-supposes a certain metaphysical framework of suffering, implying as if things were better had you not been born.
And by saying that giving birth is immoral it implies there is a pre-conception agency over one's self, when in reality you do not get to decide if life is worth living or not unless you are already born, (e.g it's the same as asking someone if they wish they were aborted as a counter-argument to abortion, it's an after the fact statement)

I'm not a loser

THAT'S RIGHT
I'M NOT A LOSER

It's litteraly a formally correct syllogism. You can't be farther from "bait" than this.

"Fallacy" fallacy.

Thanks, user. Great bait - I shall add this rhetorical kryptonite to my ever expanding arsenal of valid (though possibly unsound) syllogisms and wield it wherever I can, just for the lulz. It is like reading 5th century BC Greek sophistry, which is a truly delightful endeavour. Merci

I enjoy life, prove most people don't

>sophistry
I see a lot of people try to imply that It's invalid, or bait. I Have yet to see anyone trying to disprove it as a valid syllogism.
: )

Like this

Attached: AE418481-3EB2-4EA9-8A11-AEBC0726BB03.jpg (594x395, 76K)

Are you suggesting that God is not alive?

God is also not a Man except when He decided to Be one, and when He did that He was born.

Poor Stirner. He never found the femdom mistress who would have straighted him out with cock and balls torture. He never found the one thing he really craved: love.

>the truth might exist, but if no one is aware of it, it doesn't exist.
You could use this for literally anything in the world

Except It's not the argument.
This is the argument.
Try again.

Benatar's main point is that reproduction is not based on a rejection of "correct reproductive ethics" (i.e., the idea that not bringing sentient life into the world is bad in itself). Indeed, ther anti-natalist claims, it cannot be. Nobody reproduces for the sake of those who are reproduced; reproduction is either realized through ignorance of the correct reproductive ethics, for themselves or for the sake of God. The reproduced entity is the elephant in the room that is excluded from consideration in the reproductive process. If the entity were to be incorporated in the consideration, and people agree that all suffering is bad, then *if* the only certainty in life is suffering, it follows that reproducing is bad (this syllogism is valid, though possibly unsound). I think this is the correct representation of the anti-natalist argument. If the argument is valid and sound, it refutes the second premise of your argument; for knowing the CRE implies being aware of the CRE, which is precisely what anti-natalists claim most people aren't.

"Suffering is not a bad thing, but infact, an integral part of life that needs to be embraced."
/thread

Most kids aren't really going to suffer that much, especially in a developed nation.

The problem is, of course, that the anti-natalist attempt to make those who are unaware of the CRE aware of the CRE. Hence for that awareness to develop, anti-natalists must first be born. The latter point is what anti-natalists argue against; in fact, the deem it morally wrong for any sentient life to come into the world. But in order to establish awareness of the CRE, which the anti-natalist claims is absent, anti-natalists must first be born. I think that should save your second premise.

if no "creators of antinatalism" are born, that is because there is no need for anti-natalism first and foremost (life is enjoyable and worth being born into), and no one is deprived of any good

>If the argument is valid and sound, it refutes the second premise of your argument; for knowing the CRE implies being aware of the CRE, which is precisely what anti-natalists claim most people aren't.
Not so, since This thread exists. If antinatalism is right We are no longer ignorant of CRE, and that can only be because they were born and realized the truth of CRE.
Weren't they born We would lack information, but they were so we dont.
>Nobody reproduces for the sake of those who are reproduced; reproduction is either realized through ignorance of the correct reproductive ethics, for themselves or for the sake of God.
A bit presumptuous to presume other people's motivations like that.
>The reproduced entity is the elephant in the room that is excluded from consideration in the reproductive process
And yet the basis of family planning is the question "can We afford another kid?"
>If the entity were to be incorporated in the consideration, and people agree that all suffering is bad, then *if* the only certainty in life is suffering, it follows that reproducing is bad
Those are all things antinatalism assumes tho, and in my argument I assume antinatalism as correct.

No, We don't know that. It is conceivable an universe worse than ours i no which no antinatalist is ever born so the existance of pain is no cause sufficient to make the birth for antinatalism necessary.

They will just outbreed the antinatalists.

Then your argument would work (but wouldn't exist) in that universe. It makes the game of "ifs" a moot point, a mere language game, we have to accept the reality in which we exist.

You cannot refute your own nature, idiot

No Because It's still wrong to say that the "creators of antinatalism" (from now on the CoA) wouldn't be born If they weren't "necessary". Life is enjoyable and worth being born into for most humans, This didn't make it so that antinatalism never developed.

>muh nature

>No Because It's still wrong to say that the "creators of antinatalism" (from now on the CoA) wouldn't be born If they weren't "necessary".
yes, you are correct, one can imagine a few possible universes, such as:
>CoA aren't born because no one regards pain as a negative (everyone is strong enough to bear their cross and consider it worth being born to bear it)
>CoA don't exist because it's not necessary
>CoA don't exist because of mere chance (a universe in which by unbelievable odds, no one came to point out that perhaps life isn't all it's cracked up to be)
The first two simply have nothing to do with our reality, the last one isn't a good point because as I said, the truth can exist even if no one points it out.
>Life is enjoyable and worth being born into for most humans
Most but not all.

>>CoA don't exist because it's not necessary
So only necessary things exist?
>>CoA don't exist because of mere chance
Why is This unlikely exactly? Would you be ready to assert that given an universe similar enought (as much as you'd like as long as It's not Identical of course) to ours, the CoAs are inevitable?

Schopenhauer impregnated like 3 women lol

How is that a ad honminem? Am I simply retarded or are using the word wrong?

Yes he's using the words wrong Because he can't tell a syllogism from a zen koan.

People will never accept antinatalism as a philosophy. They will always strive for a better or easier or more satisfying life, but never no life at all.