Progressive and compassionate humans (which are most humans) will ever strive to, and continue to succeed in, improving the human experience of 'the world,' by removing/diluting that which the majority of humans have judged to be 'horrendous/nasty experiences.'
Any manipulations of the problem of human suffering that have the goal of championing the anti-life cause are bogus and is based on nothing more than the proponent's inability to live life as anything other than a curse.
The OP has been fully debunked despite the continuing protestations of its author, that it has not even been addressed. Let the fool on the hill continue to shout. At least some on TPF, find it entertaining, in the sense of laughing at the freak show. Time to move on to other threads. Perhaps the moderators can merge these antinatalist threads once more into a single anti-life thread.

@Mikie
:clap: :clap: :up:

There have been times on the forum when there were three threads on free will or consciousness going at the same time. Last week there were two threads discussing whether quantum mechanics undermines the idea of reality. The moderators have shown no particular interest in cutting out the clutter by consolidating threads.

Except with discussions they have classified as "Life Sucks" threads. @Mikie jammed five of @schopenhauer1's "Series in Pessimism" discussions in to the "Life Sucks" one. I think I'm pretty much the most happy happy joy joy poster on the forum, so I often don't have much patience with anti-natalism and other themes I consider nihilistic, but that's beside the point. Schopenhauer1 generally has well thought out OPs and well argued points. He won't listen to me when I tell him we live in the best of all possible worlds, but, hey, nobody else listens to me either.

There is as much nuance and depth in pessimistic philosophy as there is in free will or consciousness, at least as they manifest here on the forum. So, moderators - @Jamal, @Baden, be fair. Maybe it was reasonable to consolidate all Schopenhauer1's threads into a single Series in Pessimism, I don't know, but chucking it into the Life Sucks dumpster just kills the whole thing.

Perhaps the moderators can merge these antinatalist threads once more into a single anti-life thread. — universeness

Hell no, that would cause way to much of a stink. All that shit in one place.

Thank you for sticking up for my threads, T Clark! I appreciate your defense and kind words regarding my posts. I don't think that was a great way to moderate my threads either. Hopefully @Jamal and @Baden will reconsider or reorganize them. Pessimism, even if disliked by many, has a place for discussion and should have a seat at the table as much as threads on consciousness and science.

I think it's a false dilemma that we ought to only fix the situation for those that exist already or be parents to new beings as they have the potential to help aid the problems in society rather than contribute to them. It is up to parents how to raise them with that in mind. Some parents raise outstanding citizens whilst others not so much. For whatever reasons they may be. — Benj96

I am not saying that it's either or with parents or helping those who already exist. Rather, in a world that is brutal to the Bobs.. that may be structured to be so brutal because Larrys are valued.. Perhaps it is not a world start for others because of this structural negative element. As you say, people fall through the cracks. But why is it good to start the treadmill for yet another person? Because one likes playing the role of parent seems not comparable for starting a game that someone else has to play and may be quite unpleasant for them. Not everyone kills themselves, but just because not everyone kills themselves, doesn't mean structural negatives aren't a thing. And suicide does exist for some. And surely, you don't even need suicide to know life itself will just deal deadly blows, and if not deadly blows, quite fiercely negative ones.

There is always an overcoming to this game.. Overcoming ones shortcomings, other people's games to dodge, and life's survival itself. Yet, none of this has to be started for anyone.

But he is not the "number one". :lol: — Sir2u

Am too.

Nice work, the mod who merg'd all the bumf.

Nice work, the mod who merg'd all the bumf. — Banno

Axe to grind much? Whispering in his ear like wormtongue over here? Maybe not, being magnanimous to your interlocutor isn't your thing. Rather, being what? supercilious you call it? is your way.

Again, I whole-heartedly encourage you to continue on in this vein.

Again, I whole-heartedly encourage you to continue on in this vein. — Banno

And I am doing so, as I have your whole-hearted support :wink:.

How the blood hell is this anything to do with 'life sucks'? Clearly Mickie (a.k.a Xtrix) - who moved this here - thinks that any argument for antinatalism, or that has antinatalist implications, is therefore a 'life sucks' view. That is so ignorant and stupid it beggars belief.

It's as dumb as thinking that as some utilitarians argue for vegetarianism, any argument for vegetarianism is therefore a defence of utilitarianism (so, merge any argument for vegetarianism with utilitarianism, despite the fact there are all manner of non-utilitarian arguments for it).

It's as dumb as thinking that as some Nazis were vegatarians, any argument for vegetarianism is therefore an argument for Nazism.

Or as thick as thinking that as some moral realists are divine command theorists, any argument for moral realism is an argument for God.

And so on.

Life sucks and antinatalism are not equivalent and only a bloody idiot thinks otherwise (so, you know, virtually everyone here). It's called the fallacy of affirming the consequent. If life sucks, that implies antinatalism. But it doesn't follow that an argument that implies antinatalism implies life sucks. That's called being stupid.

No premise in the argument i made - which wasn't even an argument for antinatalism, but for a disjunctive conclusion: either antinatalism is true or there is no problem of evil - expressed the view that life sucks.

Most arguments for antinatalism - including what is currently the most famou (Benatar's axiological asymmetry) - are NOT life sucks views. Benatar's axiological asymmetry argument is not a life sucks view. It has no 'life sucks' premise. Other asymmetry arguments aren't life sucks views. The consent argument is not a life sucks view. The Rawlsian argument is not a life sucks view. And so on and so on.

There is no philosophical justification for merging my thread with this one. The motivation is clearly just a brute dislike of philosophical discussion of antinatalism or any argument that might have antinatalist implications.

Yep, you make sense here.

There is no philosophical justification for merging my thread with this one. The motivation is clearly just a brute dislike of philosophical discussion of antinatalism or any argument that might have antinatalist implications. — Bartricks

Seems to be the case. Not a balanced moderation. They think simply even "tolerating" AN threads is too much. One would think openness to differing views would be of most importance in a philosophy forum.

How the blood hell is this anything to do with 'life sucks'? — Bartricks

Agree. I sent a request to Mickie that (if possible) this action be reversed.

Mikie had our full support.

Mikie had our full support. — Jamal

I was certain of that. My message was to you and @Baden, not to him. It's rotten and unfair and it's bad philosophy. Prejudice and censorship against positions you don't care for.

@schopenhauer1

First, it's not just antinatalism: we do try to merge discussions on the same topics if they're happening simultaneously, or if they're asking the same questions or making the same points.

Second, the site guidelines specify that evangelists are not welcome on TPF. There is some leeway there, because some members of an evangelistic bent have been around a long time and are polite and thoughtful despite having only one interest.

Hell no, that would cause way to much of a stink. All that shit in one place. — Sir2u

But at least, it's all in one place, and you can avoid the smell altogether, if you don't want to help combat it. But if it's allowed to be spread all over the place, then that smell is going to be wherever you go!

Whispering in his ear like wormtongue over here — schopenhauer1

Wasn't Banno, was me. I sent a PM asking about the TPF policy to keep all anti-life threads within one thread. Seems they agreed that was their policy. You should be happy they are being level handed.
You can post all your pessimistic musings here, what's wrong with that?

There is no philosophical justification for merging my thread with this one. The motivation is clearly just a brute dislike of philosophical discussion of antinatalism or any argument that might have antinatalist implications. — Bartricks

Yes, there was. The philosophical justification is that your philosophy is that life sucks and you have various ways to camouflage that base viewpoint. You think you can fool everyone else that you are living a perfectly happy, joyous life, but despite this optimistic life you lead, YOU have personally analysed the data regarding human suffering in a purely pragmatic way and YOU have declared the irrefutable conclusion that it would be better if all lifeforms that can experience any form of suffering, should make itself extinct. You have dressed this up in conflated propositional logic clothing but your attempt to convince others that you are on sound logical grounds and all of philosophy would, should and MUST support you or else they just don't know any valid philosophy, is proving to be quite unsuccessful.
But as far as I can interpret TPF guidelines, the moderators decided to put all antinatalism discussions under this single thread 'Life Sucks'. I simply requested that they follow through on this policy.

Wasn't Banno, was me. I sent a PM asking about the TPF policy to keep all anti-life threads within one thread. Seems they agreed that was their policy. You should be — universeness

I never thought it would be you the architect of lump the threads together :eyes:

You can post all your pessimistic musings here, what's wrong with that? — universeness

I see what you mean but it could be negative because some users would not have motivation if their OP end up in a generic thread. For example: imagine you start an interesting thread about the UK elections and it ends up at "Brexit thread" or "Currently PM thread" etc...

I never thought it would be you the architect of lump the threads together :eyes: — javi2541997

You words relay a sense that you are disappointed in me Javi. This bites a little, considering your recent compliment towards me in another thread. I hope your disappointment does not run too deep.

I see what you mean but it could be negative because some users would not have motivation if their OP end up in a generic thread. For example: imagine you start an interesting thread about the UK elections and it ends up at "Brexit thread" or "Currently PM thread" etc... — javi2541997

Not at all, I would be absolutely fine with that. Almost every discussion site on the internet uses generic titles/categories, including TPF. When you post a new thread, you are asked to choose one of the catergories from the drop down list TPF provides. This list is, of-course, finite so it seems perfectly reasonable to me that the moderators would do some 'defragging,' on the site and merge common threads under one title. Antinatalism is one topic and should be discussed under one title despite the attempts of some members to spread it all over the site by stealth, in an attempt to make it seem like a more dominant issue.

I first suggested merging the recent series in pessimism into the Life Sucks thread to the other mods, but Mikie got to it first.

I wanted to point that out because I don't want my delay on doing the merge myself to be the reason I'm saved from your criticism.

You words relay a sense that you are disappointed in me Javi. This bites a little, considering your recent compliment towards me in another thread. I hope your disappointment does not run too deep. — universeness

Nah, I am not disappointed at all. I am surprised because I consider you a normal/eclectic member in this site. I mean, I see you as a peaceful person not someone who wants to complain with the mods through PM.

I understand the cause of lump anti-natalism together because there are a lot of them. But this could be a negative act towards the originality of some users. There are some members who like to debate about pessimism and it is ok. As much as I love to debate about Mishima or Japanese culture (for example) and it would be disappointing if my threads end up here because it would probably lost the nature or purpose of my debate.

Nah, I am not disappointed at all. I am surprised because I consider you a normal/eclectic member in this site. I mean, I see you as a peaceful person not someone who wants to complain with the mods through PM. — javi2541997

I try to judge each situation wisely as each arises. If a thug in a pub, winds up me or they threaten someone in the company I am in. I have two choices. I can verbally or physically intervene myself with the thug or I can protest/report the situation to those who run the pub or phone the police.
Which option I choose will be down to my own thoughts about the situation in accordance with my own viewpoints/emotions/priorities/notions of the role of law and authority.
I am peaceful but not pacifist, when threat is in my face. I am not non-violent or non-confrontational.
I am eclectic in many ways, but I also have my 'main drivers.'

There are some members who like to debate about pessimism and it is ok. — javi2541997

I agree, if the discussion is about pessimism and its phenomena as a human mind-set but not if it's just being used to camouflage antinatalism and it was already stated as TPF policy that all antinatalism threads would be placed under the 'life sucks' thread. That's where the antinatalism podium exists, no matter how some members try to camouflage it. I for one support that policy.

I understand your concern, but to put this in context, @schopenhauer1 has started close to 200 discussions, all or almost all on the same broad topic, five of which were simultaneously running on the front page even after we specifically indicated the Life Sucks thread was the place for such. The forum is not supposed to be used as a platform for spreading any poster's particular ideology. That's what personal blogs are for and that's why we have the evangelism guideline. As @Jamal alluded, if it were not for @schopenhauer1's generally thoughtful and engaging manner, he would already have been banned.

I am peaceful but not pacifist, when threat is in my face. I am not non-violent or non-confrontational.I am eclectic in many ways, but I also have my 'main drivers.' — universeness

I see your point and I respect it and even agree with it. I don't recall having a serious discussion with you at all (furthermore, when we debated about the role of Spanish/British Empire in the world but that's fluffy political stuff... not personal disagreements)
That's what I was surprised because I don't remember you to get involved in discussions with other members. But now I see your point: it is good and practical to avoid conflict situations when the threat is approaching.

I agree, if the discussion is about pessimism and its phenomena as a human mind-set but not if it's just being used to camouflage antinatalism and it was already stated as TPF policy that all antinatalism threads would be placed under the 'life sucks' thread. That's where the antinatalism podium exists, no matter how some members try to camouflage it. I for one support that policy. — universeness

Wow this completely lost my mind! I promise these members created the threads on pessimism to specifically speak only about it. But it turned out to be a simple camouflage to still debating on antinatalism!
We are surrounded by ninjas :eyes:

All feedback on this move here, please.

Am too. — Banno

Do you really want to claim that you are a better bullshitter than Bartrix? :wink:

There is no philosophical justification for merging my thread with this one. The motivation is clearly just a brute dislike of philosophical discussion of antinatalism or any argument that might have antinatalist implications. — Bartricks

The motivation for all this wasn't philosophical or personal, it was moderation, i.e. to prevent @schopenhauer1 proliferating these discussions as part of what we saw as probable evangelism. Almost 200 threads by one poster on one issue was more than enough for us. The choice was to ban him or take some other measure. It's not antinatalism that's the central problem here, it's one posters use of it and his attempts to circumvent the limitations we're trying to put on him.

First, it's not just antinatalism: we do try to merge discussions on the same topics if they're happening simultaneously, or if they're asking the same questions or making the same points. — Jamal

Perhaps that is the policy, but it certainly isn't the practice. As I noted in my first post on this subject, it is uncommon for moderators to consolidate threads, even in situations where it is getting silly.

Anyway, thanks for the response.