You're viewing part of a thread.
"Things" were not observable by anything with the capability to designate them as such, so no they were not "fine" in any meaningful sense of the word.
You're literally doing the speech the villain does to make him seem reasonable.
I am literally begging you to find a therapist.
Semantics, but if you really want to get into it, a lack of ability for things to be good or bad is still better than the existence and perpetuation of suffering.
Also, responding to differing worldviews with “see a therapist” and comparing them to a villain is fucking disgusting
How could it be better? There'd be no one around to make that judgment call, so it's a fundamentally illogical statement.
And I calls em like I sees em Mr. Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain Apologist.
Believe whatever fantasy you want, bud
Your human reasoning assumes all existence is human, I feel like we may be seeing a slight bias here.
Surely the core arguments that an anti-natalist might bring forward apply to any sentient beings, right? Like, a cat didn't give prior consent to existing any more than a human did. Ergo, I do think it's reasonable to point out that there would be no observer that could witness, much less enjoy any benefit from, the anti-natalist ideal world.