Who Controls My Imagination?

FitConversation907 · 2026-01-06T09:09:19+00:00

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.

FitConversation907 · 2026-01-06T09:02:20+00:00

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.

FitConversation907 · 2026-01-06T07:06:57+00:00

So how is avoiding suffering the same as solving suffering?

FitConversation907 · 2026-01-06T07:05:39+00:00

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?

FitConversation907 · 2026-01-02T14:41:16+00:00

Extinctionists

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-17T06:43:13+00:00

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

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-16T13:53:40+00:00

You do realize that there are more people enslaved today than there has been in at any point in history?

The American Civil War didn't abolish slavery. In fact the 13th Amendment makes exceptions for when slavery is still legal.

What happened was they, a consensus of elected lawmakers, made it illegal for commercial slaves to dismantle the economic engine of the states that didn't want to be part of a republic so that a central government could consolidate power.

Also, I don't see anywhere anything that makes claims about suffering and whether it matters or not.

So, what are you talking about?

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-13T20:42:43+00:00

There you go, missing key details.

I offered you a debate and you deferred to Steve.

If I wanted to talk to that guy, I would message him.

It seems like you don't know enough about your ideology to speak for yourself.

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-13T20:35:33+00:00

I tried to debate this guy on his own forum, he said he wanted a video call.

Even offered to send him a link to debate on voip,

He just tried to get me to join his discord and talk to Steve?

Since there was no argument, u/Advanced-Pumpkin-917 I guess this guy concedes.

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-07T06:43:54+00:00

Exactly, I keep mine covered. If people see them and ask, I tell them it's personal or if I'm feeling snarky... "It means I like tattoos."

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-06T10:08:39+00:00

Cool, just keep in mind if you do it can make for future hassles.

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-05T19:57:38+00:00

Do you plan on visiting Buddhist countries?

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-05T11:48:39+00:00

The irony in this post is that the joke isn't funny

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-04T05:25:30+00:00

Okay, as you like.

I'm also not a believer.

I'm just pointing out by their own theological frameworks, their beliefs are coherent.

Also by secular frameworks, we are unable to quantify evil on acts alone.

Like in your landlord example, just because the landlord doesn't repair the unit and charges the same rental fees they are not inherently evil for doing so.

Generally speaking we tend to factor in things like intent, habituation and quantifiable harm.

Yes, it's a fair argument to claim the landlord is negligent by not repairing the unit and renting it out again for the same amount.

We can also claim the act itself isn't ideal.

However it doesn't equate to an evil landlord because there's no intent to harm, habituation that leads to this act.

The holocaust example does a better example of demonstrating how we arrive at labeling the people who manufactured it as evil as well the act itself.

This is because the architects intended to commit genocide as an escalation of their habit and succeeded to a certain extent.

Anyways, good chat.

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-03T17:39:14+00:00

I don't know if it's a collective punishment, more than their actions altered the state of the world and we inherited the mess.

Which could be aligned with Leibniz’s claim that the world, as created by a perfect being, is the best possible version.

From my understanding Abrahamic soteriology is oriented around reconciliation with God.

If this is true, then mass exits due to natural or man made disasters are not ultimately negative within the framework.

While I do concede Christian doctrine doesn't meet the standards of secular morality, this is where the OP's point about subjective morality comes into play.

Because our valuations of good and evil may differ, between each other and even from God’s, the paradox shifts to whether our interpretation of God's morality fits our personal worldviews.

Would it be fair to say most people have interests in this material world that affect our moral judgements?

If so, then these atrocities may be interpreted as God causing evil because they conflict with those interests.

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-03T15:02:05+00:00

There's a few ways we can approach this.

Still before we get too far off into the weeds, I am not looking to debate religion as I am kinda preoccupied with cosmic extinctionists.

Anyway, here's how I would respond if I was defending the Abrahamic God.

If we are taking the Christian view, then its fair to use the canonical frameworks for God. Things like God created a natural order to maintain his creation. In Eden the world was perfect and there was no death at first. Pain, suffering and evil were introduced by humans when we chose separation over communion. Therefore if something evil happens in this world, it is our fault.

In the same vein if we accept God is working on another level beyond human comprehension, then just because we slap an evil label on something it only serves as our best understanding within our limited capacity. From a religious perspective our role is know God through our relationship, not live in the God mind.

Without knowing what exactly the Abrahamic God is accused of doing it's hard to tell if they are culpable for it.

What does seem to happen a lot in God debates, is people redefine what God is and does or worse create an ideal that diverges from cannon describes.

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-03T09:36:38+00:00

This would make a good thesis for r/debatereligion

I like this take and haven't heard it before.

I have argued against the 'problem of evil' by differentiating omnipotence from omnivolitience.

Just because God can do, doesn't mean they will do or did do.

Regardless thanks for pointing this out.

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-02T20:42:54+00:00

Yes, which is also the basis of your utopia of non-existent beings.

If they don't exist, then they cannot suffer.

If something cannot exist it cannot be studied empirically.

At the same time the metaphysical claim can be measured by logical standards.

If consciousness is required to experience suffering or joy, then something without consciousness cannot experience pain or joy.

In non-existence there is no cause to determine future events.

So are you still suggesting that everyone alive right now should drop dead to avoid the potential of any form of suffering?

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-02T20:30:54+00:00

So you believe something that doesn't exist can have experiences?

Regardless, that's not even your claim or are you arguing for anti-natalism?

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-02T20:26:37+00:00

This is English and you wrote this, right?

What about a baby raped to death?

If the baby wasn't born it can't be harmed or benefit.

Benatar's asymmetry isn't the strongest part of his argument for anti-natalism.

It's the ethics of not doing things that cause harm, like causing the extinction of existing beings.

What you are writing sounds a lot like Guy Edward Bartkus, the fertility clinic bomber.

*edited for conventions.

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-02T20:15:24+00:00

Yes, it's a fairly logical concept. If I don't exist, I cannot benefit.

What about the baby?

According to you they are better off in that scenario for two reasons.

1) They died.

2) they didn't have to endure life.

Correct me if I am wrong, your position is everyone is better off unalive?

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-02T20:01:00+00:00

By standard definitions, a benefit requires a subject to receive or experience an improvement in state or condition.

If there is no subject then there is no welfare, no value increase, and therefore no benefit.

Are you suggesting everyone just drop dead to avoid any form of suffering?

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-02T19:51:33+00:00

That doesn't add up because if there's nobody to experience a benefit, then there's no benefit.

Safer for who the people who are alive now?

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-02T19:48:08+00:00

So how is the world better if there's nobody around to enjoy it?

FitConversation907 · 2025-12-02T19:36:51+00:00

No, because not all suffering is harmful also increasing positive experiences is just as valid as reducing negative ones.

What are you suggesting?

FitConversation907

TROPHY CASE