Hm. I read what I wrote, then I read how you presented what I wrote and they are different. It’s right there in what YOU quoted. Can you find it?
I responded to something you wrote. If what you wrote was not relevent, fine, but that would then be your responsibility. To me if you consider that ‘great’ this might very well be relevent to issues around the value of life, is it worth liiving and so on. IOW it assumes you consider it possible for life to be worth something and not simply someone saying something irrationally when they want to continue living.
But those were not the two issues I said you were mingling. You may very welll have been unmingling two issuges, but that does not mean you were not incorrectly mingling two others.
If life is worth continuing in some cases, how can it never be worth starting?
I made no appeal to emotion.
So it does not command that people not have babies. So saying that it does not command other things is irrelevent, yet you mentioned this. This was part of the mingling I mentioned earlier. The fact that anti-natalists do not tell people to kill themselves or command them two is not relevent to their evaluation of the whether continuing to live is rational.
One, as mentioned in the previous post you have not fairly presented my assertion. But further it is nto a cheap argument. That makes no sense. YOu evaluated someone else’s position in this way, so clearly in some cases it is alright, accorrding to you, to evaluate positions in this way. It is either correct or incorrect, but is not cheap. Unless you were also being cheap. As far as the isms you bring up, these make no sense in context. Naturalism is not an ethical position on an issue - like anti-natalism is. So you are making a category error when you bring it up. Bringing up another ethical position on an issue would be relevent, but then, of course, you would find that these are also based on emotional reactions. Consqueantialism is a metaethical position, rather than an ethical position on an issue. So again this is confused. Philosophiical Pessimism is also not a position on an ethical issue. I did not say that any word ending in -ism refers to a position that is based on an emotional reaction. In fact, amazingly, I said what I said, as tautological, though seemingly necessary, as it may be to point this out.
I’m an antikitchentableist. I think that kitchen tables cause pain and suffering. I think that there would be no pain and suffering if kitchen tables were eradicated.
How is my argument different than yours other than in some hair-splitting irrelevant superficial way?
Likely, because the existence of kitchen tables is not causal to “being alive”.
You don’t know that.
I do, actually. And so do you.
So what’s your deal, anyway? Some kind of troll?
I"m talking about the structure of the argument. It’s already been pointed out a few times in this thread how based on that it can be reduced to absurdity pretty quickly. At a certain point, when people who are arguing positions that have been reduced to absurdity just keep on and on, the comments just get too easy not to make. Are you a troll?
I’m not an antinatalist because I want to save the universe.
Not as retarded as your contribution.
How is the one even comparable to the other?
Don’t look, but your hubris is showing.
Cheap tricks after cheap tricks moreno.
Here’s what I said: “Antinatalism doesn’t say that you shouldn’t want to live. If you want to live, that’s great.”
And you ask me why an Antinatalist would think that wanting to be alive is great. Are you serious ?
Clearly, when I said “that’s great” I wasn’t being literal. It simply meant “Ok, I get it, you claim to enjoy your life, but that doesn’t invalidate antinatalism in any way”. But actually, it would be great if it were true that Flannel Jesus and Humean enjoy their lives. Why ? Because I don’t mean any harm to them. If they are happy, that’s great, I’m glad that they are. I’d much prefer for them to be happy than for them to be suffering. The thing is, we are wasting time discussing this because:
Antinatalism does not say that no lives are worth continuing.
Antinatalism does not say that one cannot enjoy his life, or enjoy the things that Humean mentioned.
Antinatalism isn’t trying to steal your happiness.
Which issues might those be then ?
And there’s the main problem. You still haven’t understood that distinction. (“Still haven’t understood”, is that correct, grammatically speaking? )
Or so you claim.
I don’t want to play word games. Antinatalism clearly says that procreating is immoral. The word “command” has a legal, almost prosecutory connotation to it which is I said that Antinatalism does not “command” anything.
Moreno, you’re using the fact that knowing that others are suffering causes us suffering as a lever to claim that all antinatalism is, is an emotional reaction. That’s a nonsequitur.
My point exactly.
Your last post should have earned you a warning for trolling.
Trolling.
Hmm…seems like suicide is your only option. Check out please! Why the lingering?
Thanks for the childish comment. Now read the actual thread.
Because you want to save the Third Rock?
…despite its tendency to fester into unyielding forms of crawling and spawning nuisance?
For fuck’s sake…
I did. You hate existence and all human beings where you feel nothing but hopeless despair.
At least I have a happy ending of global anarchy coming someday to look forward to in order to get me out of my general brooding or despair. Not you, you’re a different kind of creature altogether.
So it’s fucking you want to save?
…how are you going to do that without people? 
…Ahhh… bestiality. 