Antinatalism is theoretically correct

You are also correct that losing even if expected is never a positive experience, but it also isn't always a negative one. A clear example of how someone could lose and still feel positive is by progression. Progression is a sense of accomplishment and seeing yourself lose by less and less gives you the motivation to trudge forward and eventually accomplish victory.

Losing is always a negative experience. You can draw positive or mitigating lessons from it, but the act of losing (separate from those lesson) is 100% always negative.

Again, what if you make no progression? It's just a negative state that wasn't met with any "progression".

Do you see how the negative is always coming before the positive? It's critical to understanding my argument.

It is not always the case that a person does not meet progression, it is almost always a certainty. The human mind was made to develop more, given more life experience and as time moves forward everyone develops more life experience so it is almost a certainty that progression will be made if determined and focused on one's goals.

No, it's not almost always a certainly. People don't always remain "determined and focused". I could agree that progression towards goals is frequent, but sometimes people give up, sometimes people go backwards, sometimes people just die.

Moreover, it is possible for a person to meet progression often, and even if not often, still occasionally, and even if occasionally, it means that negativity is not always a predecessor of positivity. Your claim is that negativity is always a predecessor of positivity and above you say what if a person makes no progression that is a form of negativity. I would agree it is a form of negativity to make no progression, but I would also say what if they do make progression and therefore negativity is not always a predecessor of positivity. Therefore, I can prove that negativity is not always a predecessor of positivity.

We agree that "it is a form of negativity to make no progression". Having not achieved any progress always comes before achieving progress. Achieving progress is not guaranteed, but entering a state of having yet achieved progress is. Therefore, negativity is always a predecessor of positivity.

Yes, they're typically not, but Sidewalker and IwantRooseveltagain are trolls. Best Korea doesn't understand the antinatalism argument at all. Badger is a snowflake SJW with an inability to debate properly, hence his tendency towards violence. 

Not everyone is worth responding to.

I agree, I typically only respond to coherent arguments. However, sometimes others truly don't understand what one is saying. Therfore, I often attempt in expressing myself better before assuming it is their incompetence.

When these types of people immediately resort to personal insults (not really Best Korea, but certainly the others), you know that your expression of your argument isn't the issue.

Even in this thread, you can see this. Sidewalker calls me a "white supremacist" in a thread that has nothing to do with it: Antinatalism is theoretically correct (debateart.com) 

Badger's is kinda on topic but it's still a personal attack that doesn't address the content of the OP: Antinatalism is theoretically correct (debateart.com) 

It is a tragedy when people let their emotions get the better of their logical judgment. I do wish people could separate their feelings from their logic but unfortunately it is very difficult for some people. I would say I'm quite reasonable and do an excellent job at separating my feelings from my logical judgment but keep in mind it is myself saying this so it is potentially a bias of my own personal opinion but I do try my best to avoid my personal biases so make of that what you will.

Ultimately, I enjoy searching out the people who are more logical and mentally stimulating rather than resulting to swearing and verbal assaults. I personally don't like to use swearing because the words themselves are quite valueless and vague because they are used in so many different situations and circumstances. If in the event I was to become frustrated with another person's incompetence I still would not swear I would more than likely use accurate and definitive words and statements such as impotence which is quite an accurate description of what is being demonstrated by Individuals who let their emotions get in the way of their judgment.

Being that it is not certain that one can say a child's life could be overall positive or negative, it is not definitely a right or wrong choice for any parent to have or not have a child. 

Would you be okay with someone taking your money (without your permission) and gambling with it in a casino?

It would depend if the alternative was having no money ever by never existing. If I had the chance to exist with the money or not exist at all I would say go ahead and do it.

Even now you are asking my consent to be brought into existence. Therefore, the best thing we can do is make the assumption of what the individual would want.

Okay, let's assume that you did have the chance to exist, and that this money was placed in a trust fund for you to eventually use (i.e. it's effectively yours). Once you're born and 18 years old, is there any question as to whether you'd be okay with someone taking and using this money to gamble in a casino?

Obviously, the potential human wouldn't be okay (once they exist) with you using their money to gamble in a casino (you're more than likely going to lose and you didn't get their consent). So, it's obvious that a potential human, once they're born, wouldn't be okay with you gambling with their quality of existence (if life is, overall, a net negative in terms of instances of negative affect *and* the total value of those instances. You also didn't get their consent).

This is a different example as it uses an individual who is already born, and you are gambling with the money so I'm not sure whether my example or your example correlates to the example of bringing someone's life into existence. However, if the money was given to me, I suppose I would not want the money to be gambled but I would also keep in mind that this was not rightfully my money to begin with rather it was a gift. It's wrong to take a gift back once you have given it, But I still don't see a clear relation between your example and bringing someone into existence.

Nonetheless we are still basing it upon the child's consent and by never bringing that child into existence they don't have much to say against being brought into existence. Therefore, the child can say nothing until it has existed about its will to be non-existent.

We must also consider what morals are. Morals are the collective agreement of what is permissible for a civil society. A clear example of this is if there was no society, we would need no morals. This is because no one would be affected. Therefore, morals are created to form a coherent and successful society. The moment we attempt to use morals to imply that the existence of society is wrong, we are using the concept of morality to prove its purpose as wrong. This is an illogical flaw, as morals are meant to promote societal wellbeing, and by using morals to destroy that is the opposite of their purpose. It's similar to using a tool for construction for destruction, it's not correct usage of the tool. Therefore, if you create a reason society shouldn't exist, you aren't using morals, but something else.

I don't agree with that specific definition of morals. Morals can simply be a standard of human behavior; it doesn't have to be about what is permissible for a civil society.

If we are granted the axiom that suffering/pain/discomfort/negative affect is bad for humans, and human life has more negatives than positives, then avoiding bringing more humans into existence should be the ideal standard of human behavior. 

It is fine that you do not agree with my specific definition of morals, though you don't provide any stance by which you oppose it.

Additionally, I have provided a stance in which I believe my case to be true. I will try my best to explain my idea more definitively.

imagine there is a group of many individuals and individually they could not form a society in which they could build iPhone and houses and there were no specialists but rather everyone was a general survivor and hunter gatherer. I believe most people would agree that it is better that we live within a city and society in which we can reap the benefits of many of the luxuries that consists of one. In order to have societies we must have a general code of conduct or what is permissible in order to make everyone feel safe and want to be a part of that society. If there was no moral standard for a society, it would be dangerous, and many individuals would not want to participate and therefore the society would not be highly successful the only alternative to creating a moral standard in order to run a society is tyranny and as history has provided us evidence tyranny is a temporary and most destructive means of running a society. Therefore, the most beneficial way to create a successful and thriving society is to create a moral standard in which everyone willingly participates. as I've said before there is no need for morals if you are an individual living on your own in the jungle with no one but yourself there is no need for morals there is no standard.

Therefore, morals were created to allow a society to thrive. My argument is that because morals were created for society to thrive then by using morals to destroy society would be the opposite of their intended purpose. This is why I claimed that you were using a tool for the opposition of its intended purpose. Therefore, I don't believe it's correct to use morals in such a way.

I still want to discuss with you whether life is more negative than positive and if it truly is harmful to individuals to bring them into existence but nonetheless, I wanted to point out that by using morality in this way it is an incorrect use of its purpose upon creation.

Humans have decided that it's a negative because they want to move away from those neutral or absence states. It's almost impossible to imagine a human, lying in bed with no desires and no goals, being totally okay with doing that for most of the day (obviously, the person will need to eat, drink and relieve themselves).

Your example suggests that because someone desires to move from a neutral state to a positive state then the neutral state must be negative, but this is incorrect. It rather implies that people value something positive over nothing at all, nothing at all, which is not necessarily negative. They value positive as better than neutral, not neutral as negative. Therefore, the absence of something positive is not necessarily a negative. In essence they're not leaving neutral because they dislike it in the sense that they leave something negative because they dislike it. Rather, they are moving from the neutral to the positive because they like where they're going more than where they're at.

I know what you're saying but it's just not true.

Let's exaggerate to the extreme to see the exact value of having goals: If a person had a myriad of goals in life and never achieved any of them, would that be a life lived in a neutral state? Would that person be totally indifferent to the fact that they achieved zero of their goals?

Also, states of hunger, thirst and relieving oneself are super clearly states of deprivation. Not attending to those goals very obviously creates negative affect. 

I suppose whether a person would feel indifferent would be determined on whether the person had any goals or accomplishment that they wanted to achieve, which would then fall back to the mentality of the individual and not become anything more than a subjective answer to the question of anti-natalism.

Hunger and thirst are not accurate ways of depicting a neutral state because our bodies naturally digest and dissolve what's inside, therefore, we are constantly moving towards the negative state within and therefore it is necessary to eat.

On the other hand, not having anything does not continue to make us have less and less in the sense that our stomach would, this is why it is not an accurate depiction.

I believe that there are three states of being consisting of negative, neutral, and positive; It is quite similar to the laws of electrical engineering. A person moves from the negative to the neutral because they dislike the negative circumstance, they can also move from the neutral to the positive because they like the positive.

An example would be having enough money to make a means of living in a decent house to that person's standards. A neutral state would be having the basic necessities of life which are subjective to the individual so keep that in mind.

A negative state would be having an absence of what would be considered neutral and people dislike this because it is negative. Meanwhile people are more than happy to have an abundance surpassing the basic necessities because that is a positive. They are not trying to have an abundance because they dislike having the basic necessities, they are grateful for the basic necessities. It would make no sense to consider the neutral state of having the basic necessities as a negative. Rather having an absence of the basic necessities is negative and dislikable, while having the basic necessities is acceptable and a neutral state, while having an abundance surpassing the basic necessities is a positive and more desirable than having a neutral state of the basic necessities. The point here is that having the basic necessities or a neutral state is not a negative, people are grateful to have the basic necessities which is a neutral state of being, but they are drawn towards an abundance or positive state, not out of dislike from the neutral, but out of desire for the surplus.

It really depends on the person's mentality. If a person believes they deserve something that they don't have they will feel as if they are being robbed by life of something they are owed, implying a negative emotion. If a person believes that they don't deserve something even if they value it, they will not feel as though they've earned it. Therefore, out of the necessity of work will they only genuinely believe they deserve it and therefore enjoy it.

I understand the functionality of mentality and how it can vary outcomes, but that's not at all the point of contention.

I'm arguing (in 1a) that this functionality produces more negatives than positives, and you're helping me to further make my case here.

You've shown that's it possible to have people achieves their goals, yet not experience positive affect because they feel it wasn't earned -- that increases the number of instances wherein negative affect exists.

You're also agreeing with that work is a "necessity" to achieve positive affect, hence the negative affect (found in work) proceeds the positive affect (feeling like they deserved the reward). Again, seeing that in this instance, the negative affect comes before the positive, this biological mechanism makes negative affect guaranteed but positive affect not -- zero-sum at best.

Not quite. You claim that I'm demonstrating by people achieving their goals they can still lack positive feeling. However, being given something with no effort is not an achievement, therefore I am not claiming that someone can make an achievement and not feel a positive outcome. Rather by someone robbing them of that achievement they can feel no positive outcome.

The person still reached their goal, even if the feeling of achievement was robbed of them. But again, this only strengthens my antinatalist argument (1a) as someone can reach their goal (something not guaranteed), and yet still be unsatisfied because of the way in which it was reached. You're just arguing for more instances wherein the person won't reach their goal (hence not be in a state of positive affect).

I can agree with everything you've said in your paragraph and that would strengthen my case.

I don't believe so, your argument is that there is always equal or more negative in the world. I'm pointing out that by someone taking away someone's obstacles of accomplishment that they can have no accomplishment and you're saying that they still made a positive but that's not a positive they were given it with no effort or obstacles which is not an accomplishment which is not rewardable by joy or satisfaction.

Additionally, your argument requires negativity to always precede positivity. If you agreed with my argument, you would agree that people can move from a neutral state which is not dislikable but rather neutral as negative would be dislikable and they move from that neutral to a positive state in which the positive state they are drawn towards because it is a surplus and desirable more so than the absence of positive or negativity. It is evidence that positivity can exist without the predecessor of negativity. This disproves the foundation of the argument that there is always more negative in the world. This is not much of a new question, but it is another way of expressing the belief of the negative, neutral, and positive state of beings. Only once we have established that can we begin to answer the question of whether negativity always precedes positivity.

Being that it is not certain that one can say a child's life could be overall positive or negative, it is not definitely a right or wrong choice for any parent to have or not have a child. 

Would you be okay with someone taking your money (without your permission) and gambling with it in a casino?

It would depend if the alternative was having no money ever by never existing. If I had the chance to exist with the money or not exist at all I would say go ahead and do it.

Even now you are asking my consent to be brought into existence. Therefore, the best thing we can do is make the assumption of what the individual would want.

Okay, let's assume that you did have the chance to exist, and that this money was placed in a trust fund for you to eventually use (i.e. it's effectively yours). Once you're born and 18 years old, is there any question as to whether you'd be okay with someone taking and using this money to gamble in a casino?

Obviously, the potential human wouldn't be okay (once they exist) with you using their money to gamble in a casino (you're more than likely going to lose and you didn't get their consent). So, it's obvious that a potential human, once they're born, wouldn't be okay with you gambling with their quality of existence (if life is, overall, a net negative in terms of instances of negative affect *and* the total value of those instances. You also didn't get their consent).

This is a different example as it uses an individual who is already born, and you are gambling with the money so I'm not sure whether my example or your example correlates to the example of bringing someone's life into existence. However, if the money was given to me, I suppose I would not want the money to be gambled but I would also keep in mind that this was not rightfully my money to begin with rather it was a gift. It's wrong to take a gift back once you have given it, But I still don't see a clear relation between your example and bringing someone into existence.

Nonetheless we are still basing it upon the child's consent and by never bringing that child into existence they don't have much to say against being brought into existence. Therefore, the child can say nothing until it has existed about its will to be non-existent.

It is a different example, but it's about a person yet to be born (who we can guess will be born), and that's the reason I changed it (it's more similar than my original example because it talks about someone yet to be born, rather than someone already born).

The analogy here is that, without the future person's permission, you're gambling with his/her money (analogous to his/her quality of life).

Money gifted to you is your money, otherwise it's a loan. There's no expectation for the money to be paid back. Analogously, your quality of life is your own, and in both scenarios this analogy sets up, both are gambled with without consent.

We know that the child can't currently say anything, but are we assuming that any future person would be okay with having their money gambled with like that, all without their permission? Similarly, if life is overall a negative experience, are we assuming that any future person would be okay with having their quality of life gambled with like that, all without their permission?

Therefore, morals were created to allow a society to thrive. My argument is that because morals were created for society to thrive then by using morals to destroy society would be the opposite of their intended purpose. This is why I claimed that you were using a tool for the opposition of its intended purpose. Therefore, I don't believe it's correct to use morals in such a way.

I still want to discuss with you whether life is more negative than positive and if it truly is harmful to individuals to bring them into existence but nonetheless, I wanted to point out that by using morality in this way it is an incorrect use of its purpose upon creation.

Hypothetically, if a thriving, civil society was built upon the literal torture of all of its citizens, would that be morally permissible?

Hunger and thirst are not accurate ways of depicting a neutral state because our bodies naturally digest and dissolve what's inside, therefore, we are constantly moving towards the negative state within and therefore it is necessary to eat.

I agree that hunger and thirst are not neutral states -- that's my point. The goal to eat or drink is inherently built upon negative affect, of which is bad.

On the other hand, not having anything does not continue to make us have less and less in the sense that our stomach would, this is why it is not an accurate depiction.

It does continue to make us have "less and less" because failing to have goals complete is inherently negative (brings negative affect that ranges from slight annoyance, to irritation, to frustration, to depression), even if to a far lesser degree than being hungry or thirsty. People aren't in a neutral state when they fail to attain their goal of making it into Harvard. People aren't in a neutral state when after several years, their investments on the stock market fail to rise at all (assuming their goal is to make money).

I believe that there are three states of being consisting of negative, neutral, and positive; It is quite similar to the laws of electrical engineering. A person moves from the negative to the neutral because they dislike the negative circumstance, they can also move from the neutral to the positive because they like the positive.

I think what you're saying about the moving from neutral to positive could be theoretically correct, it's just never correct in regards to goals. 

An example would be having enough money to make a means of living in a decent house to that person's standards. A neutral state would be having the basic necessities of life which are subjective to the individual so keep that in mind.

I would even question whether there is a true neutral in this because once all the basic necessities are met, boredom and self-actualization become the problems.

A negative state would be having an absence of what would be considered neutral and people dislike this because it is negative. Meanwhile people are more than happy to have an abundance surpassing the basic necessities because that is a positive. They are not trying to have an abundance because they dislike having the basic necessities, they are grateful for the basic necessities. It would make no sense to consider the neutral state of having the basic necessities as a negative. Rather having an absence of the basic necessities is negative and dislikable, while having the basic necessities is acceptable and a neutral state, while having an abundance surpassing the basic necessities is a positive and more desirable than having a neutral state of the basic necessities. The point here is that having the basic necessities or a neutral state is not a negative, people are grateful to have the basic necessities which is a neutral state of being, but they are drawn towards an abundance or positive state, not out of dislike from the neutral, but out of desire for the surplus.

If people want more than the basic necessities, then they've reentered a negative state because they've decided what they have isn't enough. They've adapted/become accustomed to their material state, no doubt experienced some degree of boredom, and then attempted to leave this negative state by acquiring more. 

If people were truly neutral about their existence in your scenario, they would be fine in living with basic necessities satisfied, and thus wouldn't seek more.

It really depends on the person's mentality. If a person believes they deserve something that they don't have they will feel as if they are being robbed by life of something they are owed, implying a negative emotion. If a person believes that they don't deserve something even if they value it, they will not feel as though they've earned it. Therefore, out of the necessity of work will they only genuinely believe they deserve it and therefore enjoy it.

I understand the functionality of mentality and how it can vary outcomes, but that's not at all the point of contention.

I'm arguing (in 1a) that this functionality produces more negatives than positives, and you're helping me to further make my case here.

You've shown that's it possible to have people achieves their goals, yet not experience positive affect because they feel it wasn't earned -- that increases the number of instances wherein negative affect exists.

You're also agreeing with that work is a "necessity" to achieve positive affect, hence the negative affect (found in work) proceeds the positive affect (feeling like they deserved the reward). Again, seeing that in this instance, the negative affect comes before the positive, this biological mechanism makes negative affect guaranteed but positive affect not -- zero-sum at best.

Not quite. You claim that I'm demonstrating by people achieving their goals they can still lack positive feeling. However, being given something with no effort is not an achievement, therefore I am not claiming that someone can make an achievement and not feel a positive outcome. Rather by someone robbing them of that achievement they can feel no positive outcome.

The person still reached their goal, even if the feeling of achievement was robbed of them. But again, this only strengthens my antinatalist argument (1a) as someone can reach their goal (something not guaranteed), and yet still be unsatisfied because of the way in which it was reached. You're just arguing for more instances wherein the person won't reach their goal (hence not be in a state of positive affect).

I can agree with everything you've said in your paragraph and that would strengthen my case.

I don't believe so, your argument is that there is always equal or more negative in the world. I'm pointing out that by someone taking away someone's obstacles of accomplishment that they can have no accomplishment and you're saying that they still made a positive but that's not a positive they were given it with no effort or obstacles which is not an accomplishment which is not rewardable by joy or satisfaction.

No, I'm not saying someone having reached their goal in a way that is unsatisfactory to them is positive.

I'm saying that people being able to reach their goals in an unsatisfactory way create *more* instances of negative affect, despite the goal being reached. This makes my 1a argument stronger because it shows that even if a person reaches their goal, they can still be a negative state.

Additionally, your argument requires negativity to always precede positivity. If you agreed with my argument, you would agree that people can move from a neutral state which is not dislikable but rather neutral as negative would be dislikable and they move from that neutral to a positive state in which the positive state they are drawn towards because it is a surplus and desirable more so than the absence of positive or negativity. It is evidence that positivity can exist without the predecessor of negativity. This disproves the foundation of the argument that there is always more negative in the world. This is not much of a new question, but it is another way of expressing the belief of the negative, neutral, and positive state of beings. Only once we have established that can we begin to answer the question of whether negativity always precedes positivity.

I'm agreeing which the specific part of your argument that argues, "that's not a positive they were given it with no effort or obstacles which is not an accomplishment which is not rewardable by joy or satisfaction". I'm not agreeing with your overall argument, especially the part that claims people can be a in a neutral state whilst having goals.

I'm trying to demonstrate that work is not negative or positive, rather it sets the stage to become a champion and without it no one could become a champion.

Even if it does set the stage to "become a champion", it's still negative in itself. That's why we have phrases like 'motivated to work': work is a negative state to be in that requires mental discipline and endurance to come out the other side of (hopefully a champion).

Also, the concept of 'champion' is often a zero-sum game that produces far more losers than it does winners. Not everyone can win gold at the Olympics. Not everyone can lift their sport's world cup. It might even be a universal: people have to lose so that winners (i.e. champions) can be made. Thus, having the concept and implementation of 'champions' should actually be avoided, due to the overall harm it causes (and often unnecessary in things like sport).

Positive does not mean to win, just as negative does not mean to lose. Positive and negative are both words that are relative to an instance in which most cases it is used to reference the point of oneself.

To be negative would be to be negative from where you were at, to be positive would be to be positive from where you were at. If I'm at 10th place and I score my best time ever and I get 9th place that is positive even if I'm not a winner. Similarly, if I was in 1st place and I made a blunder becoming 2nd place, I am not in last place and therefore not the loser, but it is still a negative. Therefore, to say that there are more losers than winners in the Olympics means that there is more negative than positive is inaccurate. If first place went to last place and everyone else went up one there would be more positive individuals the negative ones. You could argue that the sum of the impact between the individuals is still zero sum, but I would argue that more individuals went up than down.

Imagine a world where everyone was average, it would be pretty pathetic.

Not objectively, and this is yet another argument for antinatalism -- there's just no world for humans in which everyone can win. If everyone had 130 I.Q. and was strong enough to bench 500 lbs, then that would be "average" and would be deemed "pretty pathetic". People would feel better if they had 115 I.Q. and could only bench 375 lbs, if everyone else only had 100 I.Q. and bench 280 lbs, even if they're objectively worse numbers.

We all live in an age of prosperity that people 2000 years ago couldn't dream of, yet a lot of people are still unhappy with their lives. Even in the most backwards part of Africa, they're still living at a far higher standard than most people in human history. 

Objective improvements that cost real world resources don't impress the human mind for long -- it's a faulty psychology.

I agree that many people feel unsatisfied with their lives even though they have much better living conditions than 2000 years ago. This is a result of them comparing themselves to others rather than to themselves. It is not right or wrong to compare yourself to yourself or to others, they are different reference points in which you can acknowledge your place.

In our galaxy of outer space, we could measure where the Earth is moving in a reference to the sun or in a reference to the moon or in reference to a star one is not more accurate than the other, they are all just additional ways of acknowledging one point moving from another. Similarly, referencing our dance compared to others in the same time and era is a valid comparison just as comparing oneself with themselves. A person can do either and that is what makes it subjective, one person may feel positive because they have accomplished something they could never do before by referencing their past self, another individual may feel negative because they have not accomplished world dominance because they are referencing the world champion.

Ultimately, to say that the Olympics is a negative because there are not many winners is not true. It is true there are not many winners in the Olympics but it is also true that a winner is not a positive just as a loser is not a negative a person who references a stance and moves from a positive or negative direction determines whether it is positive or negative.

I value challenges and obstacles because they provide a means to a better life than just being the neutral individual. Sure it's work, but that is what makes it such an accomplishment to achieve. Without the work it wouldn't be much of an accomplishment and as I've said before without accomplishment there is no sincere value for overcoming it.

No, you don't value challenges or obstacles. You value the result of overcoming those challenges/obstacles. 

If we suddenly dumped 50 obstacles in your life right now, you wouldn't so, "finally, more obstacles," you would instead be overwhelmed.

That is subjective, one individual may feel one obstacle is overwhelming while another may take 50.

Again, this is based on the mentality of the individual whether or not they are going to take on the challenge.

My mindset is that if you can't avoid a challenge then deal with it straight on, the same can be said with your fears, this is one of the many things clinical psychologists have clients do to overcome their fears. You cannot escape your fears, they will always find you, but you can defeat them if you face them head on. This has been demonstrated in about every movie made where the protagonist has a fear at the beginning of the movie, by the end of the movie one way or another they were caught up to by their fears and had to either give up or face them. Typically, the film will portray the protagonist gaining courage and facing their fears and conquering them but not forever, they cannot defeat them from existence. This is why in many movies the hero will never kill the villain, the characters in the movie are people who embody the spirit or ideas of life. Evil and fears will always lurk, but you can still become an eternal victor of your fears.

You're correct, I value the feeling of overcoming obstacles, but I am not defeated when I fail to overcome an obstacle. By definition, it's an obstacle, if it didn't stop me, it wouldn't be much of an obstacle. Therefore, by being defeated by obstacles I do not feel mentally defeated, but rather challenged, and then by conquering the obstacle and overcoming the challenge I feel positive. This is how the mindset of the individual determines whether or not they feel negative or positive when they are faced with an obstacle, do they have the mindset of a coward or a conqueror?

Ultimately, it again proves that obstacles are not negative or positive but rather the individual subjectively determines whether or not the obstacle affects them negatively, neutrally, or positively. Therefore, the question of Anti-Natalism is a matter of subjective opinion, one individual may feel overall negative and therefore anti-natalism would be correct for that individual, while for another feels they can cope with life's challenges and therefore anti-natalism would be incorrect for that individual, there is no one size fits all.

You are correct, positive feelings of accomplishment are expensive in terms of time and effort but that's what makes them so valuable. The moment that the time and effort required to obtain the positive feeling of accomplishment ceases so does its value of accomplishment.

And I'm saying that this valuation results in more instances of negative affect than positive affect. The expenses are guaranteed and aren't always met with a paycheck. 

I do agree that the effort put into accomplishment isn't always met with success. It is also possible that an individual may feel defeated and that they are never able to achieve their goals and therefore feel negative.

Right. You're basically agreeing with my argument 1a at this point.

Again, this is not quite true. I said it is possible for an individual to feel defeated, and you are saying: Therefore, everyone's lives are more negative than positive.

I'm not saying it isn't possible for an individual to have more negative than positive in their life, but I am saying that it's subjective to the individual and that individual's mindset and how they react with the world. You cannot just say life is more negative than positive given this information.

Again, it is based on the mentality of the individual. My mentality of a being defeated by an obstacle, or a challenge is that I will always come back stronger, and I acknowledge I may never be the world champion of whatever I try to accomplish but then again positive effect is subjective as it's met by the individual's preferences and desires of what they consider success. for myself it is always being better than I was previously and that progression is what I value as positive. For another individual they may not feel positive unless they are the world champion and for them, I can't say much. Ultimately the feeling of positive or negative comes down to what makes the individual feel satisfied and that is subjective and varies. If we're going to support the concept of anti-natalism upon a subjective varying factor, our conclusion will be varying upon the individual and therefore is not a concrete or definitive answer.

The mentality of the individual is certainly a factor, but human affect isn't based on that.

It's actually based on the fact that humans universally view pain/suffering/discomfort/negative affect as something undesirable. Humans enter these universally agreed upon negative states through various ways (or vice versa), and THEN we take into account the mentality factor. So, mentality is a mitigating/amplifying factor, and certainly not what all this is based on.

For example, being told that you have cancer will produce negative affect. Someone with a weak mentality will be crippled with depression. Someone with a strong mentality will still be upset but determined to beat it. One person experiences a lot of negative affect; the other person feels minimal negative affect, but the basis is the initial negative affect felt from the event, not the mentality in response to it.

You can say things like, "I will always come back stronger" and other positive platitudes, but that positive attitude isn't guaranteed, and people might not even be capable of it (what if people aren't genetically capable of a positive mindset?). Those people are still part of the equation as to whether human life is desirable, so you can't hand wave their lives away with, "I can't say much". Unless you want to argue that everyone is capable of this "I will always come back stronger" mentality for all scenarios (or even most), there will be people who are sacrificed on the altar of human continuation.

I believe you're confusing obstacles with tragedies.

Obstacles refer to difficulties or barriers that we encounter in pursuit of our goals or desired outcomes. They are typically seen as challenges or setbacks that require effort, problem-solving, and perseverance to overcome. Obstacles can be external, such as financial constraints, time constraints, or resource limitations. They can also be internal, such as self-doubt, fear, or lack of motivation. The key characteristic of obstacles is that they present hurdles that need to be tackled or circumvented to move forward. On the other hand, tragedies are events or circumstances that bring immense pain, suffering, and often irreversible loss. Tragedies are typically associated with significant negative impact on individuals or communities, such as the loss of a loved one, natural disasters, serious accidents, or major health crises. Tragedies can be deeply distressing and can have long-lasting emotional, psychological, and sometimes physical consequences. Unlike obstacles, tragedies are often unexpected and uncontrollable, and they can profoundly alter the course of a person's life.

Meanwhile, it is also important to keep in mind the good fortune in life, along with the rewards in life in order to come to an accurate conclusion.

I must agree that certain obstacles are less of a challenge to overcome and more of a tragedy of life. Such as your example of an infant dying from heart disease right after birth. However for most individuals this is not the case and I still believe that if the child and parents were unaware that this would happen the child would have wanted to take the chance of being the majority who don't get the disease and potentially if raised properly view life through a positive lens and therefore live a happy life.

It's possible that some people would want to take the chance, but we don't know for sure because there is no consent (my OP's argument 2). So, you're just gambling with someone's life without asking them first.

There's plenty of other horrible things that can go wrong in life, particularly towards the backend of life. Various cancers are quite common and often devastating. Chronic illnesses can pop up, too. It's not just dying from heart disease in infancy that is the only serious problem. The chances of you making it through life without something terrible happening can't be too high (and you're guaranteed to die at the end, too).

Also, unless you think that 100% of people would be fine taking this gamble, you're imposing this gamble on people without their consent *and* without thinking they would accept it -- that's morally problematic.

You mention 100% of people must be willing to accept it, what if 99% of people would have been grateful and experienced a good life. Are you to say that we are to deny those 99% of people the chance or human right to experience life? It's a give and take, you argue it's wrong to bring a person into existence if there is an even a small chance they will dislike it, but you don't mention about denying the many people who would have been grateful and glad to have it. How is this justifiable without their consent for the denial of life?

I assume you would respond this is not a valid question because they are not humans, only humans have human rights and therefore the rights of an individual to life without yet being a human are invalid. Then my response would be, so are the people who have not yet been brought into existence. Therefore, you do not need their consent to be brought into existence because they are not a person. But then you would argue but they are now a person. Then I would say, well you're not bringing them into life now, you did it before they were human and had human rights. What do you think?

It is certain that looking back from an adult standpoint of the infant they would be disappointed possibly even angry with the concept of life that they got the unlucky small percentage, but this is not the child or the parent's fault but rather a tragedy of life, And I believe the child again with a positive lens of life would have been willing to take the risk.

It is the parents' fault because they chose to bring the child into existence. We're not forced to have children. Parents are the ones imposing these risks on a future human.

Should I hold you morally accountable for going to work every day because you know that there is a chance someone could jump in front of your car you are aware that it's possible? You know it's a possibility, you know it's a small percentage, you still consistently do it every single day. How is this justifiable?

What I'm trying to say is that anyone who truly believes the stance of anti-natalism wouldn't be alive to argue it. This is because in order to have a coherent mindset the thoughts that are consistent with anti-natalism relate to the many things a person does through their life that are contrary to their belief. Do you acknowledge that you being alive is actively living out against the belief of anti-natalism principles? Are you aware that your very existence, however small the possibility, might bring a negative experience to another individual that you have forcefully imposed on them by being alive?

You are also correct that losing even if expected is never a positive experience, but it also isn't always a negative one. A clear example of how someone could lose and still feel positive is by progression. Progression is a sense of accomplishment and seeing yourself lose by less and less gives you the motivation to trudge forward and eventually accomplish victory.

Losing is always a negative experience. You can draw positive or mitigating lessons from it, but the act of losing (separate from those lesson) is 100% always negative.

Again, what if you make no progression? It's just a negative state that wasn't met with any "progression".

Do you see how the negative is always coming before the positive? It's critical to understanding my argument.

It is not always the case that a person does not meet progression, it is almost always a certainty. The human mind was made to develop more, given more life experience and as time moves forward everyone develops more life experience so it is almost a certainty that progression will be made if determined and focused on one's goals.

No, it's not almost always a certainly. People don't always remain "determined and focused". I could agree that progression towards goals is frequent, but sometimes people give up, sometimes people go backwards, sometimes people just die.

In that case, it would be determined by the individual's mindset if they are focused and determined they will make progress if they stray from their goals and give up hope then they have no chance of progression. Ultimately, whether an individual makes progress or experiences positivity from the relation to where they were is determined by the individual's mindset and focus, thus making this a subjective resolve.

Ultimately, it again proves that obstacles are not negative or positive but rather the individual subjectively determines whether or not the obstacle affects them negatively, neutrally, or positively. Therefore, the question of Anti-Natalism is a matter of subjective opinion, one individual may feel overall negative and therefore anti-natalism would be correct for that individual, while for another feels they can cope with life's challenges and therefore anti-natalism would be incorrect for that individual, there is no one size fits all.

You're just not thinking about the words you're typing.

For example, anyone who is raped in life experiences massive obstacles of (often life-long) trauma that is clearly severe negative affect. Nobody who is raped thinks, 'Great. This is an opportunity to overcome this obstacle and show that I have a mind of a conqueror'. It's just sheer nonsense to think that people who were raped don't have to experience negative affect.

You seem to think that any emotional reaction to events is purely a matter of choice, as if blowing a chunk out of someone's arm with a shotgun wouldn't immediately send them into shock. Total non-reality.

You are correct, positive feelings of accomplishment are expensive in terms of time and effort but that's what makes them so valuable. The moment that the time and effort required to obtain the positive feeling of accomplishment ceases so does its value of accomplishment.

And I'm saying that this valuation results in more instances of negative affect than positive affect. The expenses are guaranteed and aren't always met with a paycheck. 

I do agree that the effort put into accomplishment isn't always met with success. It is also possible that an individual may feel defeated and that they are never able to achieve their goals and therefore feel negative.

Right. You're basically agreeing with my argument 1a at this point.

Again, this is not quite true. I said it is possible for an individual to feel defeated, and you are saying: Therefore, everyone's lives are more negative than positive.

I'm not saying it isn't possible for an individual to have more negative than positive in their life, but I am saying that it's subjective to the individual and that individual's mindset and how they react with the world. You cannot just say life is more negative than positive given this information.

My argument 1a isn't about whether the qualitative value of a human life is weighted more towards negative or positive affect (that's my argument 1b).

My argument 1a is about how many instances there are of negative and positive affect there are. When some people may be defeated (and feel negative

 affect), that literally states that not everyone wins. Since everyone starts off anything not having won (experiencing negative affect), and since only some people win (experience positive affect), mathematically, there has to be fewer instances of positive affect than negative affect.

I must agree that certain obstacles are less of a challenge to overcome and more of a tragedy of life. Such as your example of an infant dying from heart disease right after birth. However for most individuals this is not the case and I still believe that if the child and parents were unaware that this would happen the child would have wanted to take the chance of being the majority who don't get the disease and potentially if raised properly view life through a positive lens and therefore live a happy life.

It's possible that some people would want to take the chance, but we don't know for sure because there is no consent (my OP's argument 2). So, you're just gambling with someone's life without asking them first.

There's plenty of other horrible things that can go wrong in life, particularly towards the backend of life. Various cancers are quite common and often devastating. Chronic illnesses can pop up, too. It's not just dying from heart disease in infancy that is the only serious problem. The chances of you making it through life without something terrible happening can't be too high (and you're guaranteed to die at the end, too).

Also, unless you think that 100% of people would be fine taking this gamble, you're imposing this gamble on people without their consent *and* without thinking they would accept it -- that's morally problematic.

You mention 100% of people must be willing to accept it, what if 99% of people would have been grateful and experienced a good life. Are you to say that we are to deny those 99% of people the chance or human right to experience life? It's a give and take, you argue it's wrong to bring a person into existence if there is an even a small chance they will dislike it, but you don't mention about denying the many people who would have been grateful and glad to have it. How is this justifiable without their consent for the denial of life?

Do you think it's morally acceptable to torture 1% of people for the benefit of the 99%?

If yes, what about torturing 20%? Or 50%? Or 99%?

It is certain that looking back from an adult standpoint of the infant they would be disappointed possibly even angry with the concept of life that they got the unlucky small percentage, but this is not the child or the parent's fault but rather a tragedy of life, And I believe the child again with a positive lens of life would have been willing to take the risk.

It is the parents' fault because they chose to bring the child into existence. We're not forced to have children. Parents are the ones imposing these risks on a future human.

Should I hold you morally accountable for going to work every day because you know that there is a chance someone could jump in front of your car you are aware that it's possible? You know it's a possibility, you know it's a small percentage, you still consistently do it every single day. How is this justifiable?

There's a clear difference in likelihood and imposition, but you know what?

It's not.

Let's bring a graceful end to human life so scenarios like this can't happen.

What I'm trying to say is that anyone who truly believes the stance of anti-natalism wouldn't be alive to argue it. This is because in order to have a coherent mindset the thoughts that are consistent with anti-natalism relate to the many things a person does through their life that are contrary to their belief. Do you acknowledge that you being alive is actively living out against the belief of anti-natalism principles? Are you aware that your very existence, however small the possibility, might bring a negative experience to another individual that you have forcefully imposed on them by being alive?

Antinatalism isn't necessarily a pro-suicide stance. It's a very different scenario once people are born, because they have a will to live, would bring tragedy to others if they were to kill themselves, and wouldn't be able to fight for antinatalism if they are dead. There's great moral issues in killing someone who is already alive, as opposed to preventing further lives from existing.

Antinatalism is ultimately about preventing lives from coming into existence, rather than ending lives that already in existence.