I'm certain my opinion now is different then it was at the time i made this video. Stasis aka static visions of the world, cardinal notions of truth, mutable notions of truth. Different logical premises and hence conclusions. -The absence of pain is not good, if no one exists, who was prevented from having this pain, that is absent. If a child doesn't come into existence, then the child doesn't exist. If the child doesn't exists, then the child was not prevented from having pain. This is not good according to P1. Ergo, not having children is not good. --- thanx to xknowledgeisfreex If the anti natalist response to this is that prevention of pain in non-existent individuals is not possible, then the criticism of benatar's 3rd premise "The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone." is strongly the same, in that 'good' cannot be experienced nor evaluated by a non-existent entity. Personally, I presented this as a logical argument but I don't hold any REAL considerations of any attributes of ANY sensation or valuation with an non-existent variable. This is to say, instead of sorting non-existence of a person as (-1) would be to a (1) [which would be an ontological approach], I suggest an 'indeterminate or undefined' variable. This variable is most like an empty set () or (ø), but even granting a variable to a 'nothing' without being ontic is problematic. So I don't. And think that forcing a variable is 'imagination in action'. Instead I think a deontic approach is to leave variable assigned to 'nothing' as undefinable. And hence in conclusive. If one has a NEED to force an ethical proposition into our face and demand that it be used and understood in 'THIS' manner, then they have showed one way to play ball. Play a game. The irony is that the antinatalist , when removing sentience, removes, humans & hence removes logic, games, ways. It like a race track runner who loses and is upset at not only the race, but the other runners, not only the crowd, but the stadium, Yet wants to love the referee & the rules and use those rules from the vantage point of themselves 'being' the referee in order to say the rules which outlined the design of the county the stadium resides is wrong therefore the race and the winners, should be removed, there by removing the losers, the track, the crowd , the stadium. Yet they ironically want to retain the ref & rules in order to dictate the end of 'that game' that 'playing'. They will only play the end of possibility of the game, because either they: won and are not happy enough, lost and upset, felt the (other) ref was off, that someone heckled them from the crowd, that the track itself was poor, that the stadium was in the wrong location ... ergo... all ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnpsQRXhbtg

#streetepistemology #luckyme #discord A nice conversation in a Street Epistemology discord room, concerning my take on many aspects of other's philosophical problems. Basically I respond to most of the questions and make preferentially weighted claims about regularly held binary categories. I "luckyme" seem to be able to hold my own and carry the conversation forward. attempting to make clearing for each argument and argumentative criticisms. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmseSeQTuMo