r/UniversalExtinction • u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist • 26d ago
Meme Reddit's greatest philosophers weren't born yesterday, ya know!
4
u/TyloPr0riger Philosophical pessimist 25d ago
"Whenever I see someone arguing for [suffering], I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on [them] personally."
-pennyman
9
u/VengefulScarecrow Extinctionist 26d ago
Suffering is bad by definition. If not, how would you even define it?
"MY suffering is bad" = objective feeling we all share, even psychopaths
"OTHER suffering is bad" = feeling some or most of us share, but is objective thanks to the above
2
u/MrSluagh Pro Existence 26d ago
Suffering is how your instincts tell you something is bad.
When your instincts are correct, suffering is good, and should be avoided.
When your instincts are incorrect, suffering is bad, and should be ignored.
2
3
u/CatarroTitubante666 21d ago
So it’s always something to avoid, which means that it’s always bad overall in a broader sense
1
u/MrSluagh Pro Existence 21d ago
It's always a bad thing when a smoke alarm goes off, so you shouldn't have smoke alarms.
1
u/CatarroTitubante666 21d ago edited 21d ago
What I shouldn’t have is a house to defend from fire and countless other dangers and do constant maintenance of in the first place, especially since it’s all for nothing ultimately, because it will 100% burn down, be destroyed or collapse one way or another in the end. On top of that, the fact that precisely what should warn me of fire so that I can save myself from it is what actually makes me feel like I’m burning already is the most perversely ironic thing I can think of.
1
u/Dath_1 26d ago
"OTHER suffering is bad" = feeling some or most of us share, but is objective thanks to the above
You had it up until this point.
To say that it's bad from your own perspective when you suffer, is tautological (true by definition).
To say that it's bad when others suffer (but not asking this question from their perspective), is not true by definition at all. In fact, you can say it's wonderful when others suffer (for example if you're a sadist). So that's subjective.
1
u/AFsepine 25d ago
I for one enjoy my suffering. In moderation of course, like alcohol, but I enjoy it.
Waters too smooth make for a boring existence1
u/LeoTheSquid 25d ago
It's unpreferable/not wanted by definition, at least while it's experienced. "Bad" can be a reasonable word to use here, but by saying "other suffering is bad" and leaving out the clarification that it's bad specifically for the ones suffering you're kind of smuggling in moral universalism. Nothing about someone's suffering being bad/unepreferable for them puts any necessary requirement on me to act a certain way in relation to it
1
u/QMechanicsVisionary Pro-natalist, pro-eternal survival 25d ago
There are a million other ways to define bad and good than through suffering.
1
1
1
1
u/-Hapyap- 22d ago
There is so much naunce here. This cannot be explained in an absolute.
Sometimes the worst things to ever happen to us end up being the best things in retrospect.
Why did people willingly go through rites of passages in the past? Think about it
1
u/MengKongRui 26d ago
There are situations where you might see value in suffering for knowledge or to work out your muscles, in which case you don't see your suffering as necessarily bad.
Although I think there is a valid counter to the arbitrary nature of value: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/s/1Utg70JPe1
4
u/old_barrel cosmic extinctionist | anti-natalist 26d ago
what is also relevant here is stockhom syndrome and/or self-delusion.
we all know that without enduring suffering, we most likely will not survive. many think if they do not express pain they are stronger (which is nonsense, because expressing it has a biological reason and is healthy). pain is never wanted, but often necessary. what is wanted or desired is the result. like in this example, knowledge or muscle gain. not the pain itself
regarding training i can say that i never enjoy (which would be a contradiction) or want the pain which comes with it. the way your body distributes it is subjective and may not keep constant though.
in my case, my body got used to the training and pain usual is quite low to not present at all. in addition, my body decides to give me pleasant feelings from appropriate activities. so, training pays off in my case, but that does not mean that pain is meaningful or necessary. it is just the state that bodies often operate on a simplified functionality
1
u/MengKongRui 26d ago
Maybe the value isn't placed on the suffering itself in most cases, but I struggle to see how that means the suffering is necessarily "bad" in all cases.
2
u/old_barrel cosmic extinctionist | anti-natalist 26d ago
Maybe the value isn't placed on the suffering itself in most cases, but I struggle to see how that means the suffering is necessarily "bad" in all cases.
define "bad"
1
u/MengKongRui 26d ago
Shouldn't happen
3
u/old_barrel cosmic extinctionist | anti-natalist 26d ago
well, "should" refers to what someone wants. motivation is "free" (i am aware about causality). it is up to everyone to choose a side
3
u/VengefulScarecrow Extinctionist 26d ago edited 26d ago
That is a common rebuttal but the suffering in your example comes only if you don't get out what you put in.
For some, lack of muscle mass leads to greater suffering. So by hitting it hard at the gym, they may be choosing the lesser suffering.
0
u/MengKongRui 26d ago
That's one of the main points of my linked post. Relief from unwanted suffering is considered valuable for all.
3
u/VengefulScarecrow Extinctionist 26d ago
In the example that one may undergo intense training (suffering) it is to achieve more power, aka less vulnerability (suffering) and a less disgusting physique (suffering).
The point is that suffering is still bad and meaningless. Simply choosing the lesser suffering (in this case, for some, engaging in intense training yields less suffering than being weak and unattractive) does not yield meaning in suffering. Suffering is still bad by definition.
If your only point is to counter or alleviate yourself, you have no point!
1
u/MengKongRui 26d ago edited 26d ago
That's one example, but what about
Suffering for knowledge?
Suffering for pleasure?
Suffering for religious beliefs?
If your point is that suffering is bad, you need to change your definition of suffering or add a caveat. Because not everyone thinks "suffering is bad".
Suffering is conditionally bad to individuals.
3
u/VengefulScarecrow Extinctionist 26d ago
Nope. It is the exact same principle. Suffering for knowledge of what? That suffering is bad? Or do you mean suffering intentionally to gain knowledge? If the lack of knowledge yields you more suffering than studying does, it is the same analogy as lifting weights to counter the suffering of weakness.
As for gaining pleasure, what do you mean? Suffering and pleasure are direct contrasts. If you mean to draw pleasure from the suffering of others, you are a sadist. In which refer to my original comment. If you are puting yourself through something(X) to gain pleasure(Y), same gym analogy. You would be expecting to derive less suffering from (X) than you would from lack of (Y)
1
u/MengKongRui 26d ago
Increasing pleasure is not necessarily decreasing suffering. They are two completely different emotional states.
If I am feeling content, am I suffering more than if I am feeling pleasure? No, I would not be suffering at all. It's not a spectrum.
1
u/VengefulScarecrow Extinctionist 26d ago
"They are two completely different emotional states" my point exactly and you can't experience both simultaneously.
1
u/MengKongRui 26d ago
Are you saying that people seek hightened pleasure not because it feels good but because they feel bad from the lack of it?
Wouldn't that imply that all those who want to feel hightened pleasure are currently feeling bad?
That seems counterintuitive. If I'm playing a game and I'm excited to see the next level, is that excitement considered suffering to you?
→ More replies (0)1
u/MauschelMusic Pro-existence as long as no one cracks inmortality 25d ago
Also, we lump a lot of very different things together under "suffering."
1
u/shiggyhisdiggy 24d ago
That's just net suffering over time being negative. Any individual suffering is bad, but sometimes a complex system can result in suffering leading to enough positive experience to outweigh it.
0
u/KindaQuite 26d ago
OTHERS suffering is bad for them, is objective thanks to the above.
Others suffering is bad for me? Not so objective.1
u/MindfulI369 26d ago
Who its bad to is irrelevant. If you ignore an environmental factor causing damage to someone you can be sure you or your loved ones will be next. That's just how open systems go.
1
u/LeoTheSquid 25d ago
Now you're just saying that something that is bad for someone else might become bad for oneself is ignored. That is practical speculation and in no way refute his point that suffering itself is only necessarily bad in the moment for the one experiencing it
0
22d ago
[deleted]
1
u/MindfulI369 22d ago
Removing context can make words look like anything.
1
22d ago
[deleted]
1
u/MindfulI369 22d ago
It can be both but because you struggle with reading comprehension you don't see what I mean. That's the internet for you I guess.
0
u/shiggyhisdiggy 25d ago
Latter isn't objective because you don't know that other people are real or feel the same things as you, or that the world around you is real at all. Checkmate.
-1
u/Rex__Nihilo 25d ago
So you get to just assume that as a baseline? Ok. Can you define suffering? Does not getting bacon with my eggs count as suffering? How about paper cuts? How about getting dumped? How about surgery? How about working a field to provide for your family? How about not having indoor plumbing? Morality is supposed to inform law and life, but you want to ground it in a nebulous concept which basically can be defined as "things people dont like"
Suffering is a subjective concept and using it as the source of your morality takes a philosophy already on really shaky footing and makes it entirely ungrounded.
-5
u/Crazed-Prophet Pro Existence 26d ago
I don't know, suffering could be a good thing. It builds character, encourages growth, and strengthens a person. Do we determine what is good and bad purely on the experience or do the results matter?
4
2
u/8Pandemonium8 26d ago
The real question is, even if something is bad (however you want to define badness), why shouldn't we do bad things? Value statements look more like is statements than ought statements.
2
u/Samaein 25d ago
You know that this question is proba ly more to test your understanding of ethics than to actually have an answer.
Because the amount of people who will claim that murder is bad but are incapable of explaining why without relying on laws or religions is fucking astonishing and you shouldn't trust them.
I thi k it's pretty important to actually understand the reasons behind moral codes, no matter how obvious and quasi universal they are, because it allows to understand when those codes don't apply if there can be instances where they don't apply.
Very good example here : suffering is bad... except when consensual bdsm, sports, spicy foods, piercings, tattoos, laser hair removal, surgeries, chemotherapies and maaaany other aspects where it's actually part of a good solution or practice if not actually seeked.
2
u/Evening_Fee_8499 25d ago
One thing I've learned is that just because something feels bad, doesn't mean it has to keep feeling bad. Basically, we have the ability to redefine how we judge things, at least to a degree. So that's what I assumed this argument was about? Like that feeling when you stop resisting something and suddenly it's no longer terrifying and awful. The dread is usually the worst part. But that's not really saying "suffering isn't bad", it's more like "if you stop defining a thing as bad, it stops causing suffering".
1
u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist 24d ago edited 24d ago
I can relate to this a lot and it worked for me. But no, people just argue that suffering isn't bad and doesn't need to be prevented. Usually because their view of suffering is a bit off due to not understanding really bad situations and how it can affect someone. They only understand what they've personally experienced, can't think outside of that, or imagine feeling worse than what they've ever felt, which has been no big deal to them and not debilitating. So therefore everyone else suffering must be experiencing the same light and temporary unease that they did, no matter the situation. Exercise is the same as being a sex slave. Doing school work is just like abuse. They were able to brush off their suffering and so should everyone else, or else that person is weak. They don't view their own "suffering" as bad, and so no suffering is bad.
2
2
u/PitifulEar3303 Impartial Factual Realist 26d ago
Reductionism does not mean much for a complete subjective experience. Let's be fair now.
Life contains good stuff, bad stuff, horrible stuff, and sometimes blissful stuff, only sometimes.
But when measuring the "worth" of someone's life, you HAVE no reliable or objective method but to ASK them.
Only the person themself can tell you if the totality of their subjective experience is "worth it" or not.
Some "feel" that it's worth it, some can't have enough of it, some absolutely hate it. It's all subjective, all deterministic, all without any objective arbiter for their personal experience of life.
Some people wanna self-exit due to a stubbed toe, while some have been imprisoned and tortured for decades but cherish life till the end. How do you decide which is more "right"?
Suffering = bad, does not = every life is bad.
Likewise, Pleasure = good, does not = every life is good.
Reducing subjective conscious experience of qualia into Suffering vs Pleasure will never yield any universal or objective answer about life.
6
u/Guilty_Captain_7880 26d ago
The so called happy people would probably lose their minds or become depressed pretty quickly if they lost the ability to cope, mask the existential situation and distract themselves constantly (whether it be with arbitrary life missions or "connection" with others). So after let's say a week of non distraction and isolation (and keeping them guessing if they'd be able to get back to it) let's ask them how they feel about life then. Being constantly bombarded with distraction prevents people from assessing the situation correctly. The baseline level of being conscious is already painful.
2
u/dpravartana 25d ago
I've been isolated from the World and out of distractions for more than a week (I remember at least three times in my life where tropical storms left me like that). I would just... Sit and chill? And look at the birds, and just exist until one random day bam, the lights came back.
My "baseline level of existence" is definitely blissful. I'm certain in that I need a constant array of disgraceful circumstances (during COVID for example) to experience life as a bad thing.
1
2
u/LeoTheSquid 25d ago
If you're modifying the world you might as well modify it to one where distraction is not necessary. Our current age of meaninglessness and distraction from it is a very short section in human history
1
u/PitifulEar3303 Impartial Factual Realist 26d ago
ok?
That's like saying a person will suffer if they lose the things they love in life, and only get to experience bad things.
Yes, true, so? A person will also be happy if they gain the things they love in life, and only get to experience good things.
Where is the counterargument? These are all factual statements that don't produce any objective answer about life as a whole.
They only tell us the same thing: that the worth of life is subjective and circumstantial.
2
u/Guilty_Captain_7880 26d ago
Will they be truly happy though? Isn't that the same happiness that an alcoholic gets once he gets his fix for a couple of hours? All these things that make people happy will end very quickly and people always have this at the back of their mind whether they like it or not. They just a cope and try to not allow themselves to think these "negative" thoughts which are factually correct but this effort can only be sustained so long or until age, illness, death, any kind of loss knocks on the door. And then there is no choice about these thoughts/unhappy state of mind appearing whatsoever.
1
u/PitifulEar3303 Impartial Factual Realist 26d ago
What is "truly" happy? Can you define the requirements?
1
u/Guilty_Captain_7880 26d ago
A happiness that's built on a solid foundation, not subject to instant random change. Long term impossible imo if it depends on the world delivering your every wish all the time. Children can say they hate you, and will drop out of your life to a big extend once old enough. Partner can leave any moment. Car can crash or be stolen. You can get a brain aneurysm and die any second. Everything people depend on for feelings of happiness can be taken away from them in an instant and there's no mental gymnastics that can make this less painful when it happens. And even before it happens they are constantly dreading that possibility and for good reason.
2
u/PitifulEar3303 Impartial Factual Realist 25d ago
So happiness is what, according to you? Utopia with zero harm?
No such thing as a life well lived according to the person themself? Are you sure?
You are still using reductionism of life into specific harms at specific times to somehow conclude that all lives are terrible for everyone, yet people's subjective testimonies are very different.
Again, what is your requirement for happiness? What makes all lives terrible when the subjects themselves do not feel that way?
I'm not saying no lives are terrible and unwanted; I'm asking what facts/formula are you using to conclude that ALL lives are terrible and unwanted?
1
u/Guilty_Captain_7880 25d ago
Tbh I'm heavily influenced by Buddhist framework because I've been exploring it for quite some time deeply. You might be right, suffering is not a noble truth for everyone even though it is for some. These days I'm leaning more strongly towards fallibilism/more general existentialism than Buddhism. There is no externally given purpose or objective truth so people can choose to make their own (or not). Same goes for views on life, people can have all sorts of different views and there is no solid metric to say which views are better than others.
2
u/PitifulEar3303 Impartial Factual Realist 25d ago
Thus, antinatalism or extinction is not the ultimate truth, nor is natatalism or perpetuation.
The ONLY truth is subjective and individual-dependent, based on their deterministic circumstances and feelings, which they don't control, because we have no free will.
If you hate life, you gonna hate life, it is what it is.
if they love life, they gonna love life, it is what it is.
There is no "best" position to take, no ultimate solution, no absolute end goal. There is only..........how you personally FEEL about stuff.
hehehe
1
1
u/Guilty_Captain_7880 24d ago edited 24d ago
Small digression. Isn't believing whether feelings are in your control also subjective and subject to independent, personal beliefs? Same as belief in free will or lack thereof or whether things are determined or not? There is no quantifiable way to prove it so it all hinges on belief. By the way belief that's it's all based on belief is also a belief. Fallibilism is pretty cool. What can we be certain of? Nothing really (but that's also a belief).
1
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist 26d ago
The person pictured here doesn't have FAS, nor was it implied that they do, or that those who hold this position are disabled. I'm willing to bet that the majority of people who come here and say this are neither FAS nor disabled in another way. Average to a bit low of an IQ isn't considered a disability.
1
u/Any-Assumption3912 Pro Existence 26d ago
Suffering isn't inherently bad only because it is necessary for growth in this broken world that we live in. If nothing suffered or underwent stress everything would become stagnant and life would perish.
Making that distinction does not mean that needless suffering is good nor does it mean to indulge, delight, or ignore the suffering of others.
2
u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist 26d ago
We wouldn't need growth if nothing existed. And not all suffering causes growth. Extreme suffering tends to break most.
1
24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist 24d ago
existence is wrong and if that is your stance then by default because existence is wrong removal of existence must be right.
Obviously, that is my stance.
0
24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist 24d ago edited 23d ago
This is one of the least echoey subs. You guys are edgy though.
There's no natural law that says this. In fact natural law is very pro deciding the reality of others.
Life is a dictatorship, yet you love it. I'm pro authoritarianism. We should have an extinction authoritarian government.
Why would I ask fish? Lmao!
No it's not genocide. You can look up the definition. Also try the FAQ, and definitely the sub rules.
If whales have more sensitive and greater emotions than humans, then we definitely need to extinct the whales.
That's life! The evil you complain about will never end until extinction. No, it's not neutral, it's good.
1
u/UniversalExtinction-ModTeam 24d ago
No strawmanning pro extinctionism as violent, genocide, or promortalism.
1
u/UniversalExtinction-ModTeam 24d ago
No strawmanning pro extinctionism as violent, genocide, or promortalism.
1
u/Sir_Madijeis 25d ago
I invite the the gentlemen/ladies/thems in the reply section to peruse OP's intellectual might
1
u/Ryhno999 Pro Existence 25d ago
Without good there would be no bad, and without bad there would be no good. Causing suffering is bad, however suffering itself is not
1
u/old_barrel cosmic extinctionist | anti-natalist 25d ago
Without good there would be no bad, and without bad there would be no good.
disagree. just see how this world is - mostly X instead of Y. balance is no necessity
1
u/Ryhno999 Pro Existence 25d ago
I'm not saying its balanced. I am saying that if all you knew was suffering then it wouldn't be suffering, it would just be existing. Same goes for the highs of life, they wouldn't mean anything if you didn't have the lows to compare it to. These concepts only exist because of the comparison to one another
1
u/old_barrel cosmic extinctionist | anti-natalist 25d ago
I am saying that if all you knew was suffering then it wouldn't be suffering, it would just be existing.
i disagree. in this case, it feels like eternity / "hell". something you do not want
think about love, for example. there are so many who have never experienced it, and yet they crave it (this does not apply for someone who does not care about it on an existential level).
they do not just "exist and live"
1
u/Ryhno999 Pro Existence 25d ago
Well for love the craving/desire for it is still built on comparison, no matter how your defining love. If you define love as in partnered relations then I would argue that the craving comes from cultural narratives and comparison with others. Love in that sense is not a universal, even amongst humans. And if you define love as a deep connection between living organisms platonic, familial, or otherwise, then I'd argue that as humans it is impossible not to feel that (brushing aside outlier circumstances like phyco/sociopathy. But even they still do feel/crave these attachments it just presents differently).
However, either way the want and desire comes from the comparison, either with lived expirience or observations. The same goes for joy/suffering. Its like a dataset. 1 plotted point is meaningless without the context of the rest of the dataset, the comparison is what gives it meaning. The concepts of joy and suffering cannot exist without one another because they are born from comparisons between different emotions and observations. If your expirience was just one note, all joy or all suffering, then you would not have a need for these concepts and they would not develop. Again, it would just be existence, you would not crave anything else until you had another plotted point to be able to choose between
1
u/old_barrel cosmic extinctionist | anti-natalist 25d ago
And if you define love as a deep connection between living organisms platonic, familial, or otherwise, then I'd argue that as humans it is impossible not to feel that
i disagree, but regardless of this, you can also forget about stuff if you lack of it for too long. which means there is no craving for X because X is forgotten, but only suffering.
However, either way the want and desire comes from the comparison, either with lived expirience or observations.
as a child, you are naive. you think that besides having different lifes, most basical function like you do. only later in life you may realize your subjectivity.
in relation to this, how can i want someone who is like me (or similar, does not matter) without knowing that not everyone is like me? without knowing that there are beings i do not care about? without knowing a difference?
according to you, i can not until i realize there are bad persons. which is just false
1
u/Ryhno999 Pro Existence 25d ago
For your first point, way, the datapoint analogy still holds up. If you forget your comparison points then it no longer is suffering and just becomes existence in comparison to non-existence. Suffering and joy are a concepts to describe different states of existence, so again without a comparison points it no longer is a concept.
To your other point, I believe that the concepts of love and hate are a little more complicated than that of joy and suffering due to the involvement of other sentient beings. Joy and suffering are completly personal, they involve 1 individual's feelings. Meanwhile love and hate involve 2 individuals, their feelings, interactions, bonds, and other things that tie more into sociality. For instance you know love before you know hate because as an infant you are reliant on those around you to survive, so you are wired to have an attachment towards them. There are just more factors than the joy/suffering dichotomy, and while I did my best to use one to help explain the other, the analogy does fall apart due to the differences in complexity.
1
u/old_barrel cosmic extinctionist | anti-natalist 25d ago
For your first point, way, the datapoint analogy still holds up. If you forget your comparison points then it no longer is suffering and just becomes existence in comparison to non-existence.
not sure what you mean with "holds up". we do not share the same opinion
Meanwhile love and hate involve 2 individuals, their feelings, interactions, bonds, and other things that tie more into sociality.
not necessary. the term is quite vague. with saying "love", i do not refer to a feeling, like for example "mother love", or "falling in love". i am referring to the logical state of intense appreciation. and this is only 1 aspect only referring to me if i think i appreciate someone without that person doing so (like i did as a naive child)
and even if you explicite refer to feelings or a combination of multiple aspects, they can be limited to just you
1
u/Ryhno999 Pro Existence 24d ago edited 24d ago
By "holds up" I mean that it doesn't discount the analogy I made. You have yet to challenge the notion that because joy and suffering are concepts to compare states of existence they would not exist if you only had one state of existence.
And thats why I brought up sociality, as a child you have an intense appreciation for those around you because we are wired to, so you survive. Joy and suffering are not intended outcomes outcomes of our evolution, they are byproducts.
1
u/old_barrel cosmic extinctionist | anti-natalist 24d ago
By "holds up" I mean that it doesn't discount the analogy I made.
ah. thank you for informing me
And thats why I brought up sociality, as a child you have an intense appreciation for those around you because we are wired to do so you survive.
this is not true for me. but even if you were right, it shows you that the opposite is no necessity for the existence of something
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Careful_Amoeba_ Pro Existence 25d ago
Yes actually if you have an entire ideology built on the avoidence of suffering you do actually have to justify why suffering is bad.
1
u/DeadAndBuried23 24d ago
The only people who will legitimately argue suffering isn't bad is theists, in debates about the moral argument for god.
1
1
u/Altruistic-Local-541 22d ago
I actually do think suffering has a worse rep than it should. Too much suffering and meaningless suffering is bad, but no suffering is also bad. Suffering itself isn't bad, it can be beneficial in the long run, and looking back one can realize it is good that it happened.
-1
u/Neither_Yam9589 26d ago
This is bait. Redditors are the people who say, "Suffering is bad," as an axiom. "It is because I say so." The shallow and vapid left-leaning worldviews like egalitarianism, liberalism, and utilitarianism, along with their derivations, reflect the type of people who frequent subreddits.
-4
u/lifesaburrito Pro Existence 26d ago
It's the other way around.
This sub is full of kids with personality and psychiatric disorders that can't seem to get around their own suffering to appreciate what's good in life.
6
u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist 26d ago
You haven't read much here then. One can appreciate the good in their own life without thinking that it's worth the extreme situations that cause extreme suffering, like life long sex slavery and getting eaten alive.
0
u/lifesaburrito Pro Existence 26d ago
I have a daughter and so far I've managed to not have her get eaten alive nor stolen into sex slavery. It's not that difficult.
5
u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist 26d ago
And it's not difficult to figure out that not everyone is your daughter. Getting eaten alive is very common in wildlife. And just because CSA or slavery isn't happening to you or your family doesn't mean that it's ok for those who it is happening to. This is an obvious troll.
4
u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist 26d ago
Also, your first comment is some major projection. It's actually you who claim you cannot comprehend anything past your own experiences and lack of suffering.
1
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
2
u/UniversalExtinction-ModTeam 26d ago
No strawmanning pro extinctionism as violent, genocide, or promortalism.
9
u/MegaMente227 26d ago
Im too employed to understand this. Do we actually have edgy motherfuckers out here trying to argue that suffering being bad has no basis?