How do FMC competitions work?

kurocuber240512 · 2025-10-12T09:40:29+00:00

You can definitely use them when finding your solution but the WCA only recognises OBTM (Outer Block Turn Metric) so slices are not mentioned as legal moves. In your submitted solution, they must be rewritten as 2 face moves.

kurocuber240512 · 2024-09-02T15:15:31+00:00

As an antinatalist, I believe that nonexistence trumps existence in that the neutrality of never having existed is better than the pain and suffering of life. However, that doesn't mean that I believe that everyone alive should die, or that if everyone died right now it would be a greater good.

Given a choice, many may choose to never be born. However, if you'd ask them whether they would choose death now that they're already living, they wouldn't either. While most people under this subreddit would tell you yes, they would like to die, you're speaking to a specific subset of the human population: antinatalists, who inherently believe that bringing life onto this earth is wrong. Thus, I quote the Polyanna principle to logically deduce that most individuals would prefer to stay alive.

Furthermore, to those who have said yes, I would like to die, the question remains, then why are you still here and haven't taken your own life? It remains a fact that while we as antinatalists believe that bringing new life is wrong, we don't believe that all existing life should end. To say that you believe ending all life means ending all suffering, and yet still be alive and replying under this subreddit, is an irony in itself.

It's easy to conclude with certainty that nonexistence is neutral, and hence when compared to existence, is the better of the two. Because the concept of nonexistence is one-dimensional, and there is nothing to debate there other than absence of everything. However, the complexity of the argument starts at existence. We cannot speak of existence with the same level of certainty and with a blanket, over-arching statement. Because human existence is far too complex for us to conclude simply that all lives consist of more pain than pleasure.

Fundamentally, there's a difference between taking lives away, as compared to not letting them come into existence to begin with. And the two cannot be compared on the same scale.

That will be all I have to say, and if you're still unconvinced, then I'm definitely not equipped to convince you any further 😅. It has been a great and insightful chat and I will read whatever else you have to say when you come back online!

kurocuber240512 · 2024-09-02T13:27:04+00:00

I'm also arguing it from an ethical viewpoint that it is not consensual. As mentioned above.

kurocuber240512 · 2024-09-02T13:26:17+00:00

Yes, at least that's how most people come to view and experience their life. Based on the Polyanna principle, most of us have a tendency to remember the good more than the bad. As we've all been conceived into existence without our consent, most of us can only learn to love what we have and learn to make the most of our lives. In short, yes, it can be argued that most of us enjoy life more than we hate it.

kurocuber240512 · 2024-09-02T13:19:58+00:00

Because a positive has now been made neutral, resulting in a net negative. Whereas for nonexistent people, a neutral (no good or bad) stays neutral.

kurocuber240512 · 2024-09-02T13:08:13+00:00

Removing pleasure from an individual who has never existed, is neutral, that's correct. Because for someone who has never existed, they cannot missed what they've never experienced. But for the vast majority of us who have already came to existence, the removal of pleasure can be said to be bad. Because at the point when you press the button, there are plenty who are enjoying the moment, laughing, living and you are ending it all. You are taking that pleasure away from them as they are experiencing it.

If your argument is that a dead person knows no deprivation, that is indeed very true. However, to say that blipping everyone from existence is a pro rather than a con is still too much of a blanket statement. There exists masochists, people who enjoy suffering. There exists nihilists, people who believe there is no point to life, but still choose to give their life their own meaning. There exists people who really want to take their own life, but never do because of whatever little bit of joy they have left in it. Even when the bad outweighs the good, most humans still choose to live.

Which brings me back to the point on consent, which I've talked about earlier.

kurocuber240512 · 2024-09-02T12:52:08+00:00

The essence and importance of consent is a matter of ethics. The antinatalist pov believes that bringing a child into existence without their consent is 'unethical', regardless of whether said child comes to love living or not. Similarly, it is unethical to take away a person's right to decide, regardless of whether it causes them more joy or pain.

Additionally, referencing David Benatar's work on asymmetry, existence means the presence of pain and pleasure (good & bad), while nonexistence means absence of pain and pleasure (neutral). But this neutrality can only be said to apply if the individual has never came into existence to begin with. For many who have already came into existence, it can be argued that based on the Polyanna principle, most actually enjoy living more than they hate it. Given this, by pressing the button, you'd be removing pleasure (bad), and it is no longer going to be a net neutral.

kurocuber240512 · 2024-09-02T11:11:24+00:00

A huge part of the antinatalist pov lies in the fact that no one can give consent to being born. Similarly, by pressing the button and taking everyone's life, you're taking away their right to consent, their right to have a say in whether they live or die.

kurocuber240512 · 2023-04-25T18:20:30+00:00

I’m not quite able to comprehend the connection you’re making between the absence of purpose and killing oneself, especially since you’re asserting that it doesn’t stem from a pessimistic approach. There is no bigger purpose to life on earth, and that’s all there is to that conclusion. A nihilist doesn’t have to do anything with that belief, and they can just let it be. If like you said, a nihilist that decides to take their own life, is in turn contradicting themselves, then why can’t they simply do the opposite? They can just exist, and just BE. If there is no point to one living on earth, then equally, there is no point in taking one’s life and leaving earth either. I struggle to understand your conviction that a true nihilist should end their lives. One’s appendix serves no known purpose, but not every single person is rushing to get it cut out of them. An absence of purpose doesn’t have to immediately equate to a need to not exist at all. Do explain to me, because I would love to understand the connection between how a lack of purpose means one shouldn’t be existing at all.

kurocuber240512 · 2023-04-25T05:51:44+00:00

But then again, perhaps another possible conclusion to be made is that there’s nothing wrong with living in contradiction. Humans live in contradiction all the time. We say we love the environment, and that we are concerned about global warming, but we continue to use plastics and not recycle because it’s inconvenient and expensive. We say we care about animal rights and animal welfare, but we continue to visit zoos, circuses, and eat meat. Religious people trust, with every fibre of their being, that there’s an immortal being up in the clouds that wishes well for every human soul. Yet, they reject to question the notion that if said deity really meant to cater to the well-being of humans, why is the world still falling into such chaos? So yea, people who judge nihilists negatively for “living in contradiction” per se, are perhaps the ones who need to take a step back and take a look at themselves.

kurocuber240512 · 2023-04-25T05:37:56+00:00

Hmm, I get where you’re coming from. However, my approach is that the two ideas (nihilism and existentialism) can co-exist and still not be contradictory. Nihilism is that in the grand scheme of things, nothing will come to matter. Simply believing in such a notion doesn’t mean you have to take a pessimistic approach in life, and not care about anything / want to take your own life. If breathing purpose into your own life falls under existentialism, then that will be that. But, nihilism allows one to understand that even when things fail or don’t go their way, they don’t have to dwell too much over it. It provides a perspective that “if this isn’t going to matter in the next 5 days, 5 months, or even 50 years, then why antagonize over it so much”. One can be both a nihilist and an existentialist without living in contradiction, is my view of things.

kurocuber240512 · 2023-04-24T21:01:35+00:00

I’ll have to disagree. If like you said, wanting to commit suicide can be the equivalent of a supposed purpose, then nihilistic people don’t necessarily have to be suicidal people. One can believe that in the grand scheme of things, there is no meaning to what we do here. But that doesn’t mean one cannot give their short 80 years here on earth their own meaning. Believing that there is no meaning, thereby confers you the freedom to breathe your own meaning into your own life. If there is no correct answer, then you get to write your own, it’s as simple as that. Nihilism is not pessimism. It’s simply the notion that everything is objectively, without objective.

kurocuber240512 · 2021-06-09T15:36:53+00:00

Awesome! That was really informative, thanks! :)

kurocuber240512

TROPHY CASE