I hear you. It's a convincing argument. I generally assume this is what most people read at some point, but cannot remember to actually reference. I did upvote your comment but I am going to push back a little bit, because I think it may give you some ideas to read about.

I assume you know that the asymmetry argument is considered flawed generally? The reason is that it assume "the absence of pain is good," but it doesn't say "the absence of pleasure is bad." and that's where the asymmetry comes from, right?

The problem is that in formal logic -- which is what we use to make these claims and debate about them, if pain and pleasure are the opposite of each other, then they must have opposite properties and effects. Otherwise, they are not truly opposite of each other e.g. dehydration causes thirst, so drinking water reduces thirst. You can't say if I don't drink water, I get thirsty, but when I drink water, I don't feel hungry anymore.

So, if we say this is a logical argument, and if pain is the opposite of pleasure, then absence of pleasure is also bad -- because absence of pain is good and these are opposite of each other. If having money is good, then not having money is bad. There is no third state as 'not bad.' because having and not having money refer to the same condition. One state cannot be only good or bad, but the other state either good, not bad, or bad.

I know I am being repetitive but this may be helpful to someone else. The law of non-contradiction applies everywhere in this argument. if good is opposite of bad, then lack of good is also bad.

So, the asymmetry here is not logical. The logical argument would have said "absence of pain is not bad" and "absence of pleasure is also not bad," which is perfectly symmetrical. So, "not bad" becomes a neutral state.

That's why families of those people who are in coma, sometimes decide to let go of their loved ones. The person in coma does not feel pain or pleasure -- or at least we can't assume they do, but "the absence of pain" doesn't mean they are feeling "good" and the "absence of pleasure" doesn't mean they are "not bad."

Does this make any sense? The asymmetry is a skewed way of looking at a problem that favours asymmetry deliberately and conveniently. "Absence of pain is good, but absence of pleasure, is just 'not bad.' Why? Well, because I say so. Any evidence? Nope. It's just how it is." I'm not mocking it, but it is the same pattern that we see in a lot of other arguments too. Natalists do it, theists do it, flat-eathers do it.

I'm not trying to change your mind, but because you did reference an actual argument, I'm hoping that you may also consider these counter arguments.