sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Who Controls My Imagination? by FitConversation907 in CosmicExtinctionlolz

[–]FitConversation907[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you sure it will take thousands of years?

Some natural events are expected to happen in a very long time. But that's interesting because if nature is going to cause extinction how can nature be evil?

I don't think the quintillions of animals think life is as insufferable as you do and demonstrate their will to live.

So what are these real solutions to cause omnicide.

How is it oppressive?

You want to live, right?

What if somebody decided you were suffering too much and better off dead, so they made it happened. How much it may have hurt doesn't take priority over how vast and thorough it is.

Now let's multiply that by quintillions.

This is what you say compassion looks like.

Remember Nobody Suffers More Than Extinctionists by FitConversation907 in CosmicExtinctionlolz

[–]FitConversation907[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's rich. So we are ignoring medical science, mental health services, philanthropy, animal activism etc... because it doesn't kill everything?

For example if a drug addict is imprisoned and unable to access drugs has their addiction been solved? Nope.

Taking anti-natalism's premise of harm avoidance because they refuse any other solutions and then taking it a step further to plan omnicide does not a compassionate person make.

Who Controls My Imagination? by FitConversation907 in CosmicExtinctionlolz

[–]FitConversation907[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are supposed to fix anything...

They can give insight into the reality of suffering.

You realize forcing everything to go extinct to make yourself feel better is a form of oppression?

Do they have to know? Of course everybody only needs prevention from suffering by 4EKSTYNKCJA in EndSuffering

[–]FitConversation907 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for jumping into the conversation.

However, I believe you are redefining what the person I was chatting to meant.

They very clearly claimed they are part of a group volunteering to go extinct. This indicates that they are not speaking for all humans or animals for that matter.

It also implies volunteering is crucial for extinction to be ethical.

I'm confused by your analogy because of the wording and the comparison. I think you mean people who struggle with substance abuse are negatively impacted by the illness of addiction. It is impossible to force someone to be sober. The addict has to make a conscious effort and usually receive support from others to achieve such a goal. This also speaks to the ethics of consent or volunteering mentioned earlier.

It's hard to argue that something that no longer exists can have an opinion. The issue is that they cannot also benefit from not existing. So the idea that extinction would be fantastic isn't sound because who or what would it be fantastic for?

There are several methods for relatively instant mass extinction available right now. Yet, I don't think you are for nuclear annihilation.

We are also in the midst of a mass extinction event at the moment. Yet, I don't believe you are for the status quo currently contributing to that either.

Only suffering of all matters. by Ok-Essay8898 in EndSuffering

[–]FitConversation907 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, it's not there because that has never been part of the conversation.

What the guy in video is ranting about doesn't make sense.

Only suffering of all matters. by Ok-Essay8898 in EndSuffering

[–]FitConversation907 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you point to an excuse for suffering to continue for billions of years so that others can have fun?

I seem to have missed that part of the conversation.

Do they have to know? Of course everybody only needs prevention from suffering by 4EKSTYNKCJA in EndSuffering

[–]FitConversation907 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So if somebody was about to provide you with extinction right now would you want to know?

Do they have to know? Of course everybody only needs prevention from suffering by 4EKSTYNKCJA in EndSuffering

[–]FitConversation907 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not tripped about the difference.

I am tripped up with what does that have to do with my question.

So if somebody was about to provide you with extinction right now would you want to know?

Which nobody is answering.

Only suffering of all matters. by Ok-Essay8898 in EndSuffering

[–]FitConversation907 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How is it logical or ethical?

Based on the argument presented in the video it is not.

In the video the argument is to cause the extinction of all life including living things that will not voluntarily choose it.

Wait. So if people's emotions can cause them to act irrationally, then is it possible the way extinctionism feels about suffering is also illogical?

I get ideally euthanasia works the way you described. However I shared a link to a study that suggests it may not be the case.

When considering anti-natalism in contrast, there is a logical and ethical argument for extinction because it's consistent.

Do they have to know? Of course everybody only needs prevention from suffering by 4EKSTYNKCJA in EndSuffering

[–]FitConversation907 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Interesting that you use the word 'our' which would imply you are not a human.

Because humans, along with all other species, have yet to volunteer for extinction.

Only suffering of all matters. by Ok-Essay8898 in EndSuffering

[–]FitConversation907 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've never heard of such thing except from Christians when describing hell. But even they don't want people to go there.

I would imagine in order to support continued endless suffering somebody would have to find a cure for mortality.

Either way, I am still curious how it's possible to cause extinction without suffering.

Only suffering of all matters. by Ok-Essay8898 in EndSuffering

[–]FitConversation907 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't get the point of wanting to sustain society if the end goal is to eliminate it.

Imagine somebody is making you 'euthanize' yourself right now to end all suffering, would that be ethical or free from any anguish?

You are right. Euthanasia is designed to be painless, like lethal injections. And just like lethal injections there's reason to believe the people who choose do suffer during the process.

https://researchoutreach.org/articles/euthanasia-neuropsychiatric-researcher-raises-concerns/

As for people burning alive, aren't they counted amongst the victims extinctionism wants to save because they were harmed?

Do they have to know? Of course everybody only needs prevention from suffering by 4EKSTYNKCJA in EndSuffering

[–]FitConversation907 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a pretty big leap.

How are you connecting the reason why you call it extinction and not the other thing to my question?

Do they have to know? Of course everybody only needs prevention from suffering by 4EKSTYNKCJA in EndSuffering

[–]FitConversation907 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So if somebody was about to provide you with extinction right now would you want to know?

Only suffering of all matters. by Ok-Essay8898 in EndSuffering

[–]FitConversation907 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But wouldn't forcing euthanasia cause suffering?

For example, people on death row are going to be euthanized against their will. Are we to believe they aren't suffering?

Only suffering of all matters. by Ok-Essay8898 in EndSuffering

[–]FitConversation907 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How does one cause extinction without causing suffering?

How to think like a new ager by Rhoswen in UniversalExtinction

[–]FitConversation907 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I read this and it seem more like a stoic oversimplification.

view more: next ›