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.

that's hardly my fault for bringing you to that embarrassing realisation. — S

Oh you're so clever :roll:.

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. — S

I just see your "problem" as almost nonsensical, so unresolved would not even apply. It doesn't matter that the parent has an agenda per se, it is the fact that someone else will be LIVING OUT the parent's (society's?) agenda(s).

Oh you're so clever :roll:. — schopenhauer1

Thank you.

Wait, is that an insult?

I just see your "problem" as almost nonsensical, so unresolved would not even apply. It doesn't matter that the parent has an agenda per se, it is the fact that someone else will be LIVING OUT the parent's (society's?) agenda(s). — schopenhauer1

Another red herring.

Another red herring. — S

No it directly addresses your error. The logic you are presenting has mischaracterized the argument.

Prevention of suffering (and anything else, including joy) = No person who is alive to be deprived of joy, and no actual person who is living out another person's agenda..even if that agenda included included for them to experience "joy". But again, that only matters if the person was alive. If the person is not born, no actual person is forced into an agenda.

So then why did you make that comment to me in the first place? I'm not having an agenda for another person by making the valid point that you try to hide the full picture by never mentioning all of the other hugely important things that, by implication, you're in favour of preventing. This raises a serious question of motivation: do you want to mislead or not? Because I've raised this problem with you numerous times and yet you continue to do it. So what does that suggest?

It's just as misleading as the other examples that I've given which you're ignoring just because you find them insulting. Hey kids, do want to go to Disneyland? You like Disneyland, don't you? That's effectively what you're doing, and we both know that that's wrong. You're guilty of mis-selling a product.

I was thinking more along the lines of this:

I know you got sidetracked, but I was interested in your response to this:

"Wouldn't, say, physics fit that description--something structural, it's not reflected upon, but it runs our lives. So would you say that physics is morally problematic? "

So then why did you make that comment to me in the first place? I'm not having an agenda for another person by making the valid point that you try to hide the full picture by never mentioning all of the other hugely important things that, by implication, you're in favour of preventing? This raises a serious question of motivation: do you want to mislead or not? Because I've raised this problem with you numerous times and yet you continue to do it? What does that suggest? — S

I am not misleading anyone. Creating the conditions for suffering for another being "ok" because you have an agenda for them (that includes things like "joy") is morally problematic. That is the position. The agenda to "prevent suffering" does not deprive any actual person of anything, including joy. By being born, that person is living a lifetime's worth of another's agenda for them.

Ah a rare look at Terrapin Station in the flesh.

I know you got sidetracked, but I was interested in your response to this:

"Wouldn't, say, physics fit that description--something structural, it's not reflected upon, but it runs our lives. So would you say that physics is morally problematic? " — Terrapin Station

The problem is they aren't commensurable per se. One is about the scientific laws of the universe, one is about human nature. You never answered, why is someone going to the fridge from the couch? I know funny question.

Clever..but you forgot the one where the guy gets stoned to death (and not the drug kind).

Ah a rare look at Terrapin Station in the flesh. — schopenhauer1

I'm more like this (but not bald):

The problem is they aren't commensurable per se. One is about the universe, one is about human nature. You never answered, why is someone going to the fridge from the couch? I know funny question. — schopenhauer1

Well, one is about human nature, too, unless you think we're somehow "outside of physics."

But if you want to stick to human nature, we can use our autonomic nervous systems, as S suggested.

Re going to the fridge, I already said because they're hungry, but I pointed out that they might not have any negative phenomenal assessment of that at all, and you pointed out that you weren't talking about that anyway--you're saying something that's independent of any individual's assessment of their states.

I am not misleading anyone. — schopenhauer1

Fortunately you're not, because we're more intelligent than that. But your descriptions and claims are nevertheless misleading, and you're in denial about the fact that that's so. You're mis-selling a product.

How many examples is it going to take?

Do you agree that the Disneyland example is an example of a misleading proposition? Why is it misleading? Obviously because the part about dragging children along the ground by horse for miles and miles is deliberately not mentioned, right?

So then, why don't you agree that your antinatalism proposition is misleading because you deliberately don't mention all of the other things that it would prevent which matter so much to people?

It's a clear-cut case. You are mis-selling a product. It's wrong. And you should stop. If this were retail, you would be fined.

And you should be honest enough to admit that this is what you're doing.

Well, one is about human nature, too, unless you think we're somehow "outside of physics." — Terrapin Station

Right, so talking about string theory to get my car fixed would also be appropriate? I did say "per se" because I knew you were going to bring up that red herring.

Re going to the fridge, I already said because they're hungry, but I pointed out that they might not have any negative phenomenal assessment of that at all, and you pointed out that you weren't talking about that anyway--you're saying something that's independent of any individual's assessment of their states. — Terrapin Station

Right, hunger.. Let's start there. In the Schopenhauer view, the "negative" state is that which is not at some sort of satiation- to be deprived.

Right, hunger.. Let's start there. In the Schopenhauer view, the "negative" state is that which is not at some sort of satiation- to be deprived. — schopenhauer1

I know you're saying this. So you do not need to repeat it.

What I'm saying is that it makes no sense to me that you'd be saying that something is morally problematic even though an individual has no issues about it. They don't at all mind any of the states in question, etc.

You explained that it's because it's "Something that is so structural, it is not reflected on, but runs our lives." Well, that's true of things like physics, our autonomic nervous systems, etc., too. So why wouldn't those be morally problematic on your view? That's not a commentary about conventional linguistic frameworks. So conventional linguistic frameworks that we'd use have nothing to do with the issue.

What I'm saying is that it makes no sense to me that you'd be saying that something is morally problematic even though an individual has no issues about it. They don't at all mind any of the states in question, etc.

You explained that it's because it's "Something that is so structural, it is not reflected on, but runs our lives." Well, that's true of things like physics, our autonomic nervous systems, etc., too. So why wouldn't those be morally problematic on your view? That's not a commentary about conventional linguistic frameworks. So conventional linguistic frameworks that we'd use have nothing to do with the issue. — Terrapin Station

The fact that we are in a deprived state = suffering. It matters not what people evaluate about this or that actual experience. In this model, it is acknowledged that we are always in a sense becoming and never fully being. Becoming has a quality of not fully satisfied.

Again, why does the guy grab something from the fridge? Why isn't he satisfied without doing so? Is it something related to a deficiency in hunger, thirst, comfort, entertainment?

Even if one were to concede that something like hunger is bad, that's a long, long way off from justifying his conclusion. It's by no means bad enough in my life to be a justification for my parents to have never conceived me. If possible, would I choose to have never been born just because there is hunger in my life? No, absolutely not, that's bloody ridiculous. And there are literally millions and millions of cases just like mine. So he doesn't have a leg to stand on with this line of argument, even if concessions are made

The fact that we are in a deprived state = suffering. It matters not what people evaluate about this or that actual experience. In this model, it is acknowledged that we are always in a sense becoming and never fully being. Becoming has a quality of not fully satisfied. — schopenhauer1

Right, I understand that that's the view. What I'm asking is WHY that's the view. What would be the motivation for having that view?

Again, why does the guy grab something from the fridge? Why isn't he satisfied without doing so? Is it something related to a deficiency in hunger, thirst, comfort, entertainment? — schopenhauer1

Why do we have to keep going over this when I've said maybe six or seven times that the person is hungry. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm saying that one can be hungry without assigning any sort of "unpleasant" assessment to it at all. And according to what you're saying above, that's fine, because the view doesn't hinge on an individual assigning an "unpleasant" assessment to the experience.

So we don't have to keep going over this.

Let's just get to WHY one would have a view that something is morally problematic even though someone doesn't have a problem with it.

Even if one were to concede that something like hunger is bad, — S

This is all stemming from schopenhauer saying that the view hinges on "systematic suffering," where that doesn't need to take into account any contingent assessments of the states in question.

I agree with you otherwise, but if it turns out that he's simply wanting to argue that hunger is necessarily a negative experience to an individual, in phenomenal/assessment terms, then he's not actually arguing for anything "systematic" where the individual's assessment is irrelevant. And then it would just turn into me trying to figure out why he'd be insisting that everyone feels a way that they clearly do not on my view (and in my personal experience, including my own).

It's actually extremely immoral to dismiss what people actually think about the value of life, about how much of an impact things like hunger has on it, and so on. It is people, as a group of living creatures on this planet, that this issue would effect, after all. It's of the utmost importance that the views of people are taken into consideration over the question of whether or not there should still be people living on this planet ten years from now, fifty years from now, a hundred years from now, two hundred years from now, and so on.

One thing weird about the "systematic" view schopenhauer is endorsing is that it implies that the preferred state would be to just sit like a lump and not want to do anything--as if that's some ideal for some reason, and as if the ideal is a lack of variety for some reason.

And then it would just turn into me trying to figure out why he'd be insisting that everyone feels a way that they clearly do not on my view (and in my personal experience, including my own). — Terrapin Station

Yeah, that's pretty insane.

One thing weird about the "systematic" view schopenhauer is endorsing is that it implies that the preferred state would be to just sit like a lump and not want to do anything--as if that's some ideal for some reason. — Terrapin Station

Oh yeah, that's also pretty insane. Nietzsche was right on this point and Schopenhauer was wrong. Ironically, a life without everything that Schopenhauer would call suffering wouldn't be worth living. But in reality, life with suffering is worth living in the majority of cases.

So we don't have to keep going over this. — Terrapin Station

Oh good, thank you.

Let's just get to WHY one would have a view that something is morally problematic even though someone doesn't have a problem with it. — Terrapin Station

One thing weird about the "systematic" view schopenhauer is endorsing is that it implies that the preferred state would be to just sit like a lump and not want to do anything--as if that's some ideal for some reason. — Terrapin Station

Oh yeah, that's also pretty insane. Nietzsche was right on this point, and Schopenhauer was wrong. Ironically, a life without everything that Schopenhauer would call suffering wouldn't be worth living. But in reality, life with suffering is worth living in the majority of cases. — S

So all of this is wrong about Schopenhauer's view. Schopenhauer's ideal would probably be something like Nirvana- a complete lack of lack. I've said this before about Schop- his world would be one with absolutely nothing or absolutely everything. There would be no deprived states. All being or all nothing. There is no becoming or flux. Thus, a world "worth living" in a Nietzschean "suffering makes things worth it" isn't even in the radar of this kind of holistic metaphysics. That's intra-worldly affairs, and Schop's metaphysics is the "world" itself.

So all of this is wrong about Schopenhauer's view. Schopenhauer's ideal would probably be something like Nirvana- a complete lack of lack. I've said this before about Schop- his world would be one with absolutely nothing or absolutely everything. There would be no deprived states. All being or all nothing. There is no becoming or flux. Thus, a world "worth living" in a Nietzschean "suffering makes things worth it" isn't even in the radar of this kind of holistic metaphysics. That's intra-worldly affairs, and Schop's metaphysics is the "world" itself. — schopenhauer1

That's just as insane if not more so. That's not an ideal, that's an inconceivable nothing. A nonsense. No one in their right mind would trade their life for that, unless perhaps they were one of the few exceptions where life is really, really, really bad.

And that matches my description anyway. That would be a life without everything that Schopenhauer would call suffering, and it wouldn't be worth living. It is true that in reality, life with suffering is worth living in the majority of cases. You might not want that to be true, but it is.

Do you agree that the Disneyland example is an example of a misleading proposition? Why is it misleading? Obviously because the part about dragging children along the ground by horse for miles and miles is deliberately not mentioned, right? — S

I find it ironic that you use this example, as I think this is more something that natalists would use... "Oh life is justifiable because it has Disneyland moments".. misleading the fact that much of life isn't.. And I do believe many people misjudge this, and to do so for other people, is morally problematic. I've discussed the fallacy of simple "self-reports" on life being "good" or "wanting to live". I"ve also explained in detail how starting a life and continuing a life are two different things.

But more to my point. The logic is that preventing "goods" do not matter unless an ACTUAL person exists to be deprived. Preventing "harm" is ALWAYS good, even if there is no actual person to be benefited from this prevention. Procreating, despite this fact is putting an agenda to be lived out by another person above the prevention of suffering. Forcing someone to live out an agenda is morally problematic. Analogies were used of games you like that you think others MUST play by forcing them into playing it, etc. It doesn't matter if people eventually identify with the game or not. That is wrong to force them into the game in the first place. No one is forced into anything, nor deprived of anything in the antinatalist outcome.

For goodness sake, why can't you answer direct questions? You're actually taking the piss.

So all of this is wrong about Schopenhauer's view. Schopenhauer's ideal would probably be something like Nirvana- a complete lack of lack. I've said this before about Schop- his world would be one with absolutely nothing or absolutely everything. There would be no deprived states. All being or all nothing. There is no becoming or flux. Thus, a world "worth living" in a Nietzschean "suffering makes things worth it" isn't even in the radar of this kind of holistic metaphysics. That's intra-worldly affairs, and Schop's metaphysics is the "world" itself. — schopenhauer1

Okay, but presumably you agree with him. So WHY do you feel it's wrong? (If why you feel it's wrong is identical to why Schopenhauer feels it's wrong for some reason, you can just report that, but in that case, why does Schopenhauer feel it's wrong?)

I'm presuming that you're not just parroting Schopenhauer's views without critically thinking about them very much.

Okay, but presumably you agree with him. So WHY do you feel it's wrong? (If why you feel it's wrong is identical to why Schopenhauer feels it's wrong for some reason, you can just report that, but in that case, why does Schopenhauer feel it's wrong?)

I'm presuming that you're not just parroting Schopenhauer's views without critically thinking about them very much. — Terrapin Station

I don't necessarily think there is an all-pervading Will, though I think there are some interesting ideas that could be useful from it. I do think the ideas on deprivation ring true and do believe it to be the background of life.