is there neurological evidence to back this up?

I measured it

life is cruel. a literal statistical fact.
you need to be an emotionally dead sociopath to either not care enough or a genuine imbecile.

how you look at evolution, death, natural selection any other way than to compare to a slaughter house is beyond insanity.

sure there is no objectivity to this view, however, im not making a purely philosophically accurate argument (because thats impossible). but looking at life as a whole from the point of view of a human and somehow claiming its fine is stupid.

no, obviously no. maybe those that predisposed to certain mental configurations, so called illnesses, like depression might have a higher chance to come the conclusion on their own, but obviously mentally healthy people can also reach this too.
because its not an argument purely of just emotion, and while its not objective either, again you have to be either a moronic nihilist or a sociopath to somehow not care enough to see this view.

>Whats wrong with appealing to feelings?
It doesn't work when only mentally ill people share your feelings. See

Whats wrong with appealing to feelings?

>So what?
So it's a mentally ill opinion, not the rigorous, rational argument its mentally ill adherents imagine it to be. You're entitled to your opinions, but don't pretend mentally sound people are rationally obligated to accept them,

>depressed people aren't irrational
I didn't argue anything about their rationality or lack thereof.

>Nobody that supports antinatalism cares about rationality.
israeli High Priest Benatar does, and so do most of his followers.

Of course not. The argument is believed or not, and this bothers you. Why do people believe in antinatalism? They just do. You cant accept other persons believing in something you think its wrong and it makes you seethe.
Do you believe theres a "logical way to be wrong"? Lmao

>People that believe X dont believe X
>no you are wrong
Why do you care what mentally ill people believe?

LOL @ all the incoherent responses I'm getting. As if to prove my point.

lets put this in simple terms.
some people are predisposed to certain patterns of thinking, some aren't.
happy people, healthy people, normal people, sure most of them couldn't reach that far to conclude that life is cruel but thats them appealing to their nature correct? because thats just a natural bias nothing more. if you could educate people on the cruelty of life you would have a hard time (note impossible) justifying existence or at the very least gambling with creating lives/evolution.

they don't accept it because of their bias, yes. not because they could justify life once they understand its cruelty outside of their personal experience.

so they're biased and won't agree? fine it just makes then willfully ignorant cowards and really just bigots at the end.
plus it doesn't stop anyone from pressing the red button regardless of what "healthy" people think.

im not exactly claiming that my subjective view is objective. nor anyone's view is. obviously, moron.
but what im saying is that despite our biases, we can all come to the same conclusion. like when this moron

Yes, dipshit. It is cruel. However, that reality doesn't encompass the entire concept of life.

admitted that evolution is a cruel process. we both have a different bias but we both agree that evolution as a process is cruel. all im saying is that by the same way both me and moron anon agreed on this, we could (and eventually should) agree on antinatalism.

You have a mental illness, your inability to perceive life outside of solely misery is the leading indicator that you're mentally unwell. Your demonstration here that you're incapable of even arriving at the point I was making in my comment is indicative of your delusional state. Please seek help from a qualified professional and don't @ me, dipshit.

I don't perceive life solely as misery, and definitely don't see my personal life like that. as im not mentally ill. I never said I was depressed my bias and view is philosophical/intellectual or observational. I have the tinted rose view just like you, I just happen to also have the decency to take them off for a few seconds to consider other lives unlike you.

from baseless subjectivity to ad hominem. check mate, imbecile.

> I just happen to also have the decency to take them off for a few seconds to consider other lives unlike you.
I am sure they'll canonize you for this. You fricking hero.

>life is a slaughter house looking at it any other way is insanity.
Why would you willingly paint yourself into this box? What a fricking moron. Jesus Christ. This, this is mental illness.

>Why would you willingly paint yourself into this box?
Is this not a consideration of others?

>I never said I was depressed my bias
>observational.
>life is a slaughter house looking at it any other way is insanity.
Okay, chief. What an intellectually philosophical bias to display.

>life is a slaughter house looking at it any other way is insanity.
Why would you willingly paint yourself into this box? What a fricking moron. Jesus Christ. This, this is mental illness.

Your premises are based on moronic fundamentals. For example "life is a slaughter house looking at it any other way is insanity"

Yes, dipshit. It is cruel. However, that reality doesn't encompass the entire concept of life.

You have beef with the creator, I understand. Majority people with mental illness have a gripe with the universe.

You're quoting it, moron.
People with mental illness today could be people without mental illness tomorrow. The claim is just because some have a good life doesn't mean others have to participate when miserable. My challenge is they don't have to be miserable.

>just because some lives are good doesn't justify dragging some miserable lives along for the sake of it.
Why not?
>you wouldn't rape someone so that a 100 could exist would you?
I’d rape someone purely for fun if I was confident I’d get away with it.

>You, on the other hand, apparently cannot even handle comparably cushy modernity.
Modernity is not cushy. Modernity is making people so ill it disrupts all of their basic biological functions. Modernity is making people so ill they want to kill themselves.

>There’s more people than ever before and we’ve never been less vulnerable to disease, weather conditions, hunger, or thirst.
Those are all, ironically, subjective metrics, unlike the metric of how many people are suffering so badly they want to die even under your supposedly favorable conditions.

>my IQ is 80
Yes, I knew that the moment you spouted that worthless shart about how "cushy" are conditions that disrupt an organism to the degree that it forfeits all of its basic biological imperatives.

You will have no children and you vill eat ze bogs.

>overcame evolution’s challenges
They are dead. Idiot

The rest of you will keep making more "me's" by accident over and over. I would rather all go extinct. ending my self doesnt do a thing in the grand scheme of things.

do you not see how cruel you are? do you not see the joke and irony of any action or attempt to fight against this world? be it evolution or entropy? just constantly feeding the machine, the burning house.

>antinatalisms point is that something can't have a preference before it exists but could have a preference to not exist once it does
That's not a point. That's a trivial observation from which nothing follows directly.

Okay. What do you want me to do? Pat you on the back? Glad we agree that your perspective is a product of mental illness and a sick environment, rather than some profound philosophical revelation rooted in reason and reflection.

Okay. What do you want me to do? Pat you on the back? Glad we agree that your perspective is a product of mental illness and a sick environment, rather than some profound philosophical revelation rooted in reason and reflection.

at worst*

Are you capable of rational discussions at all, or do you want to come over and gag on my dick?

>all you're capable of is ad hominem
Not really. I've already explained to you patiently why your position doesn't afford you any higher ground: you are arguing based on nothing but your biologically dysfunctional emotions.

>What the frick are you talking about?
The fact that you're just screeching about your subjective emotions. Hate to break it to you, but other people simply don't feel the way you do.

What the frick are you trying to do? Convert people to your religion?

>seething this hard, because a philosophy and an ethical examined view on life threatens your existence and way of useless life

you're the one posting wojaks lmao

Pretty much.

Poe's law II:
>any homosexual who relies on memes for community approval is surely wholly reliant on said homosexualry

>quite simply because we know better
Nice of you to demonstrate the depths of your narcissistic, delusional mental illness so blatantly. :^)

>you really look at life, everything from the first rna/dna molecule to modern man and all the violence in between and somehow dare claim that its alright?
Yes.

>calling a philosopher a israeli cult leader?
That Mossad shill is not a philosopher. Try reading some actual philosophers and maybe my answer to your other question will make more sense to you. In the meanwhile, you can come over and ride my dick for a bit to ease your female hysteria.

Sure, you can have your childish little tantrum, but it doesn't make your position any more substantial.

> so can most people if they see through what life really is.
Most people aren't mentally ill like you, so they don't see things the way you do.

You have always been, and will always be, an unintelligent drone. Nothing more ironic than to watch an antinatalist whine something about self-reflection. If you were capable of it to any degree, you wouldn't make a faux philosophy out of your own mental illness and emotional spergouts.

Why do you keep responding to my post with this absolutely schizophrenic drivel? I realized you are either insane or a shill the first time you did it and I just don't care anymore.

Why do you constantly think I am talking about you when I'm talking to or about other people? Do you understand the concept of other posters ITT, israelite?

I just find it uncanny how there's a israelite behind nearly every aberrant and degenerate idea floating around in the normiesphere.

Would trade an hour of the most horrible pain imaginable for two of the greatest pleasure possible?

For a sample of the pain, hold a lighter to your thumb right now. I imagine the worst pain considerably worse than that.

>Would trade an hour of the most horrible pain imaginable for two of the greatest pleasure possible?
No, but you're just demonstrating your utter lack of comprehension again. Who said it's valid to weigh pleasure vs. pain in the first place? All you're doing is to provide counter-examples of the validity of your own premise.

Demonstrate that the opposite of pain is pleasure

Calm down.

I didn't deflect.

see

Sure, but the fact I'm even forced into this sort of calculus further demonstrates the cruelty of substantiating consciousness. I would sooner spare the soul from having to wish for less pain through unrealistic trade-offs.

[...]
You can call it what you want; Extreme ends of the scale of valence. Don't argue semantics.

response two

Humans have states they find agreeable and disagreeable. They have a valence scale. Just rephrase it as "would you spend x amount of time on the far negative end of your valnce scale for 2x amount at the positive."

You're hung-up on language.

Yeah you can keep saying that but its not becoming any truer.

I dropped that terminology in favor of the most bare bones terminology. Again, keep circling back around if you want to argue in bad faith.

An avoidance state is unwanted by definition.

>Prove that there is such a scale.
Prove that inherent in existence there are states we find decidedly negative and others we welcome? I would hope this was a prior.

>Now prove the validity of your imaginary scale
ok, here you are
>There exist states that we desire, and states that we avoid, and there are varying degrees to each one

That there is a negative state to exist in, that has varying degrees of negativity, is all you're being asked to acknowledge.

What is the alternative?

So what is the alternative. How do you quantify something you like and something you dislike with all gradients in-between other than to call it a scale?

>To quantify them on two separate scales
How can the least amount of pleasure not entail something that can be reasonably defined as suffering? Hedonic zero?

>and states with no pleasure can range from transcendent to neutral to abject suffering.
Almost sounds like a scale with suffering on one end and a relief state at the other.

Let's keep going in circles though.

I'm not psychotic, prodromal maybe, but I have to treat these things on a linear scale simply based on desirability.

Even if I'm some kind of sick masochist who is getting pleasure out of a nociceptive event, I have polar extremes of avoidable and desirable states.

Which face would you rather be?

>Did your position really just degenerate into "arguments" based on emoticons?
tongue-in-cheek, but also a rather elegant example of a valence scale of pain states

>I'll take less pain over more pain
And we arrive at the beginning. Thank you!

have a nice day then lol
The rest of us will keep on going

Sounds like an argument for antinatalism. Why would I force someone to make such a weighty choice? Suicide isn't falling off a log, even for your darker pessimists.

>You seriously sound too drugged with anti-psychotics to keep track of a conversation
I'm drug-free my man. I grow weed but I don't smoke it anymore.

Would you trade a momentary but severe increase of pain for a future of less pain?
You dont actually need to answer since we know people would and already have.

>Extreme ends of the scale of valence.
Prove that they are on the same scale at all. It doesn't seem to be the case based on your own examples.

>Don't argue semantics.
It's not semantics when you a cannot give simple definitions b provide any proof that they are on the same scale.
Some derive pleasure from pain (masochists) but that shouls be impossible according to your arbitrary scale

>Even a masochist has states of greater and lesser desirability.
Nothing to do with what was asked of you.

>it actually does
It doesn't. It's just another pathetic attempt to reframe your position when faced with its moronic contradictions. Now you've changed your scale to one that ranks things by their "desirability", but less desirability doesn't imply more suffering, so it has nothing to do with your moronic claims, you vile trog.

>So at what point in an extremely undesirable state can I be said to be not suffering?
That's your problem, not mine, you actual moron. Your new scale doesn't afford you to objectively establish any such point. It's really funny to watch you try to dance around the basic problem that your position lacks coherence.

>I would have assumed you had at least an example to back up "less desirability doesn't imply more suffering."
It's completely trivial. I will leave it to you to find such an example in your next post. Failure to do so will be a conslusive demonstration that you're an imbecile.

>Give me one state that you don't want to be in
LOL. The vile rat is trying to backpedal out of the dead end it worked itself into by lying. Who said anything about "states that you don't want to be in"? We're just ranking states by their desirability now, in accordance with your own proposition.

LOL. It just keeps coming back to your inability to comprehend the difference between ranking things by their level of desirability, and categorizing them as desirable and undesirable with varying degrees. You keep trying to conflate these two because you legitimately have some kind of intellectual disability.

>So we cannot rank things on scale from most to least desirable
Is that what I said? Listen, anon, it's time for you to face the fact that you are extremely unintelligent.

>that is what you said.
LOL. Show me where I said that.

>Right here
Does it say you can't rank things by their level of desirability there?

>No
But you were claiming the opposite just a minute ago. Go ahead and try to lie about it now. LOL

>I guess I don't see that distinction.
Not my problem, moron. Ranking things by their desirability doesn't establish any cutoff point where things become "undesirable". It only gives you a means to compare which of two things is preferable.

>So if I rank something very low on the desirability scale I'm not allowed to consider that thing undesirable?
No, because ranking things by their desirability doesn't establish any cutoff point where things become "undesirable". Is this point difficult for you to understand?

>So does there exist a class of states we can regard as undesirable?
Sure.

>Why can't we rank them as downstream from more desirable states?
You can, but they will receive a low rank by virtue of their undesirability, not undesirability by virtue of their low rank. In and of itself, the rank doesn't give you information about whether or not something is intrinsically "undesirable", unlike explicitly categorizing things as desirable or undesirable.

>What is an undesirable thing other than something less than desirable?
You're a moronic label thinker working himself into a corner with a sloppy and israelite-like use of language. "Less than desirable" =/= "less desirable than".

>the opposite of pain is pleasure
They're not some perfect opposites, but they're partially defined by their distance with regard to desirability.

>So does there exist a class of states we can regard as undesirable?
Sure.

>Why can't we rank them as downstream from more desirable states?
You can, but they will receive a low rank by virtue of their undesirability, not undesirability by virtue of their low rank. In and of itself, the rank doesn't give you information about whether or not something is intrinsically "undesirable", unlike explicitly categorizing things as desirable or undesirable.

>What is an undesirable thing other than something less than desirable?
You're a moronic label thinker working himself into a corner with a sloppy and israelite-like use of language. "Less than desirable" =/= "less desirable than".

Of course saying something is less than desirable is not the same as saying one thing is less desirable than the other. I'd like to know how an undesirable state does not by its nature have low desirability.

>No, I addressed it directly.
>Begins talking about desirability
yeah I dont think so pal.
Im still waiting for that demonstration where the opposite of pain is pleasure.

>i have no need to actually argue my point rationally
Then why did you shart out this complaint?

Every antinatlism thread ends up in this state where the opposition argues semantics, shits the bed, runs down the clock and calls it a win. No wonder their influence is growing.

>someday you'll have a really painful boo-boo and you'll ask for morphine
Maybe. And what of it? I will still see you for the pitiful degenerate that you are.

>Observation?
What's your observation? That people simply shit all over you when you come here and have your emotional tantrums? Call me back when you can logically justify your moronic pain-pleasure scale and provide premises for your position that aren't derived purely from your mental illness.

Call me back when you can logically justify your moronic pain-pleasure scale and provide premises for your position that aren't derived purely from your mental illness.

Emotional screeching is not a rational decision-making process.

antinatalists are usually morons but they say they don't have any illusions over their philosophy when it comes to the world.
the only solution left is a promortalist/efilist one. a natural conclusion of antinatalism.

The joke is on you, 90% of /misc/ is CIA Black folk and paid shills.

Antinatalism would drive humanity extinct those starving the israelites of the livestock.
Do not speak to me of whites being the only thing that can stop the israelites, whites worship israelites more than any other race. Who voted to recognize and fund Israel the moment it was founded?

>Evangelical gun holding flyover state subhumans in charge of resisting Israel and israelites when they love israelites more than any other group of people on this entire planet