- Joined
- Mar 16, 2019
Last edited by a moderator:
Discord Friend Finder Thread
- Thread starter OneTriz
- Start date
-
🔧 At about Midnight EST I am going to completely fuck up the site trying to fix something.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2020
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2020
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2019
Si! Me picó los mosquitos! Estaba muy aburrido.
NO! NONONO! NONONONONONONONONONO!
Fünter
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2020
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2020
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2019
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2019
idk i haven't read it in years
no me recuerdo
I am politically apathetic. Only when the ANTINATALIST GOD AI rises to power I will care!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2020
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2020
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2018
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2019
Don't want to ask them cuz then they'll ask me why im asking them.
Also I reconverted back into efilism, but more specifically omnicidism (efilists don't necessarily want to press the red button; they can just be against creating humans, animals, or anything sentient)
I will remake this later but these were my arguments a few weeks back that was posted to a few image boards.
Title: Omnicidism and Similar Ideas
I believe in Omnicidism (alternatively Efilism which is against creating any life but it usually leads to Omnicidism anyway) which is a moral philosophy where the most ethical course of action is the instant and painless annihilation of all life in the universe with no chance of it coming back. Of course, this is impossible for now but I am arguing it as a thought experiment, not as a pragmatic idea.
I will introduce why I believe in this by starting off with my definition of suffering. Suffering is any negative experience experienced by a sentient being. It is bad because it is everything that is bad. Suffering is good only when it prevents future suffering. Otherwise, nobody enjoys suffering because it is not suffering if it is enjoyed.
Adding onto this point, I would like to introduce Negative Utilitarianism. In this ideology, not creating suffering is valued above creating happiness/pleasure. Hard Negative Utilitarianism is a concept where not creating suffering is the only thing that matters. This relates because omnicidism is against all procreation because all procreation creates suffering. The fact that most people report being happy is irrelevant because we only need to focus on not creating suffering. You are not unethical if you do not give resources to the homeless, but you are if you decide to take it away from them. Taking someone's life is unethical, but not creating life is not unethical. The logical conclusion of this is to prevent all life from being born, and to prevent all life from being born you must kill all life so that it does not reproduce.
On that note, you may be thinking "According to your philosophy, wouldn't murder be ethical? Shouldn't everyone kill themselves then?" to which I say no to both. Murder is unethical because it inflicts grief-related suffering on those who care about the person who was murdered. Suicide also follows, being a net negative. However, this can lead to unfortunate implications to those unloved. For example, if we kill the homeless, then people would be more stressed about becoming homeless.
Another argument is that procreation is gambling with someone's life without their consent. If you forced someone to go into a room where they would have a 90% chance of winning a large sum of money but 10% chance of getting cancer, most people would be understandably upset at you gambling with their life like that. Why would life be any different? When you give life to someone, you're risking an innocent person developing suicidal depression, being kidnapped and tortured, getting an incurable disease and much more. They may still think that their life was worth living, but why would that make it okay to let someone else suffer as much as they did?
My final argument is that life is generally a negative sum game. It may not look like it for humans, but it is very probable that most animals suffer more in their life than not. If you want a demonstration of this, compare the suffering of an animal being eaten to the pleasure an animal gets from eating it. The suffering is much greater. Not only this, but imagine being a prey animal. Mortal terror is a very common occurrence for these.
If you want to read more about omnicidism and similar ideas, I will post some links.
https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/wiki/reading this has stuff on antinatalism which is like omnicidism but only deals with stopping human procreation. I wouldn't recommend reading through the subreddit though, it's very off-putting and reads like the ramblings of a depressed teenager. If you want actual discussion about it, try r/trueantinatalists; but still keep in mind it is reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Pessimism/wiki/reading this is for philosophical pessimism which supports the idea that life sucks, and therefore fits in with omnicidism
https://www.everdeeperhonesty.com/ this is a book over 1,000 pages long that supports these ideas, however it has a 1 page tl;dr and a 40 page summary.
I am open for arguing these ideas and can be convinced against it. I hope this thread has given you some things to think about.
I believe in Omnicidism (alternatively Efilism which is against creating any life but it usually leads to Omnicidism anyway) which is a moral philosophy where the most ethical course of action is the instant and painless annihilation of all life in the universe with no chance of it coming back. Of course, this is impossible for now but I am arguing it as a thought experiment, not as a pragmatic idea.
I will introduce why I believe in this by starting off with my definition of suffering. Suffering is any negative experience experienced by a sentient being. It is bad because it is everything that is bad. Suffering is good only when it prevents future suffering. Otherwise, nobody enjoys suffering because it is not suffering if it is enjoyed.
Adding onto this point, I would like to introduce Negative Utilitarianism. In this ideology, not creating suffering is valued above creating happiness/pleasure. Hard Negative Utilitarianism is a concept where not creating suffering is the only thing that matters. This relates because omnicidism is against all procreation because all procreation creates suffering. The fact that most people report being happy is irrelevant because we only need to focus on not creating suffering. You are not unethical if you do not give resources to the homeless, but you are if you decide to take it away from them. Taking someone's life is unethical, but not creating life is not unethical. The logical conclusion of this is to prevent all life from being born, and to prevent all life from being born you must kill all life so that it does not reproduce.
On that note, you may be thinking "According to your philosophy, wouldn't murder be ethical? Shouldn't everyone kill themselves then?" to which I say no to both. Murder is unethical because it inflicts grief-related suffering on those who care about the person who was murdered. Suicide also follows, being a net negative. However, this can lead to unfortunate implications to those unloved. For example, if we kill the homeless, then people would be more stressed about becoming homeless.
Another argument is that procreation is gambling with someone's life without their consent. If you forced someone to go into a room where they would have a 90% chance of winning a large sum of money but 10% chance of getting cancer, most people would be understandably upset at you gambling with their life like that. Why would life be any different? When you give life to someone, you're risking an innocent person developing suicidal depression, being kidnapped and tortured, getting an incurable disease and much more. They may still think that their life was worth living, but why would that make it okay to let someone else suffer as much as they did?
My final argument is that life is generally a negative sum game. It may not look like it for humans, but it is very probable that most animals suffer more in their life than not. If you want a demonstration of this, compare the suffering of an animal being eaten to the pleasure an animal gets from eating it. The suffering is much greater. Not only this, but imagine being a prey animal. Mortal terror is a very common occurrence for these.
If you want to read more about omnicidism and similar ideas, I will post some links.
https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/wiki/reading this has stuff on antinatalism which is like omnicidism but only deals with stopping human procreation. I wouldn't recommend reading through the subreddit though, it's very off-putting and reads like the ramblings of a depressed teenager. If you want actual discussion about it, try r/trueantinatalists; but still keep in mind it is reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Pessimism/wiki/reading this is for philosophical pessimism which supports the idea that life sucks, and therefore fits in with omnicidism
https://www.everdeeperhonesty.com/ this is a book over 1,000 pages long that supports these ideas, however it has a 1 page tl;dr and a 40 page summary.
I am open for arguing these ideas and can be convinced against it. I hope this thread has given you some things to think about.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2020
uhhh just say you want to do some research on your heritage?
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2019
Brainlet philosophy for edgelords. If life is so bad just neck yourselves and save the rest of us the trouble.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2019
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2019
The argument against that is that it causes suffering to loved ones, thus being hypocritical to the idea (my main argument is negative utilitarianism)
- Joined
- May 3, 2019
Dude, you jack off to farts. Stop acting enlightened.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2020
some Sketchy dude
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2020
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2019
I have to go in a few mins but it's because I do not feel sexual attraction to other people. It doesn't matter if I have sex because asexuals can enjoy sex too. (I don't think I would)
Also, there is no being sure because you can't prove a negative. It's simply the most accurate label for me as of now.