Advantages of autism – autism and high sensitivity.

One autistic trait often touted as negative by non-autistics that I see as advantageous is high sensitivity, as in, an inability to compartmentalize negative emotions and develop coping mechanisms, but you could also simply phrase it as positive, as in, the ability to not delude yourself, which is largely what I think it is.

Non-autistics kind of automatically blend out sensory stimuli – noise, touch, sight, etc. For example, an autistic individual might be overwhelmed by all the noise in a supermarket, not able to focus therefore on finding the items they want, or in a larger group setting with more than 2-3 people, they might not be able to focus on having a conversation with one because they can loudly hear everyone and do not filter what they are hearing automatically like non-autistics.

My theorization here is that this doesn’t only apply to overtly physical symptoms that people notice in autistics, but also psychology.

Autistics are for instance less likely to be religiously delusional than non-autistics.

BOSTON—Why do we often attribute events in our lives to a higher power or supernatural force? Some psychologists believe this kind of thinking, called teleological thinking, is a by-product of social cognition. As our ancestors evolved, we developed the ability to understand one anothers’ ideas and intentions. As a result of this “theory of mind,” some experts figure, we also tend to see intention or purpose—a conscious mind—behind random or naturally occurring events.
As compared with 34 neurotypical people, those with Asperger’s syndrome were significantly less likely to invoke a teleological response—for example, saying the event was meant to unfold in a particular way or explaining that God had a hand in it. They were more likely to invoke a natural cause (such as blaming an illness on a virus they thought they were exposed to) or to give a descriptive response, explaining the event again in a different way.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/people-with-aspergers-less-likely-to-see-purpose-behind-the-events-in-their-lives/

Autistics are for instance less likely to have optimism bias than non-autistics.

Previous research has demonstrated irrational asymmetry in belief updating: people tend to take into account good news and neglect bad news. Contradicting formal learning principles, belief updates were on average larger after better-than-expected information than after worse-than-expected information. In the present study, typically developing subjects demonstrated this optimism bias in self-referential judgments. In contrast, adults with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder (ASD) were significantly less biased when updating self-referential beliefs (each group n = 21, matched for age, gender and IQ). These findings indicate a weaker influence of self-enhancing motives on prospective judgments in ASD. Reduced susceptibility to emotional and motivational biases in reasoning in ASD could elucidate impairments of social cognition, but may also confer important cognitive benefits.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27757736/

Autistics are for instance less likely to have good frustration tolerance than non-autistics and can experience rumination a lot (again, inability to blend out).

Rumination has a large direct effect on psychopathology but has received relatively little attention in autism spectrum disorder despite the propensity to perseverate in this population. This study provided initial evidence that adolescents with autism spectrum disorder self-report more anger-focused rumination than typically developing controls, though there was substantial within-group variability. Anger rumination was positively correlated with autism symptom severity with both groups combined.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6070295/

All this points to this particular difference in processing – non-autistics automatically blend out and distort reality.

Religion is frequently a coping mechanism made to make people feel good, so is optimism bias and only assuming the best will happen, which many autistics find offensive/stupid because it’s not fact based (”Everything’s going to be fine! Positive karma!” – well, how do you know? What’s your evidence?), constant rumination, possibly angry rumination implies you don’t really filter and compartmentalize unpleasant emotions.

So the high sensitivity to reality and inability to cope and compartmentalize that autistics sometimes experience can be a great benefit in my view, because it partially (to perhaps completely in rarer cases) safeguards you against delusions, I don’t see how it’s beneficial to constantly automatically delude yourself into believing what is comfortable even to the extreme detriment of others, it is in fact what fills the world with suffering.

These are just some examples highlighting said psychology, there are many:

Example 1: Just world fallacy – walking past a homeless person.

Autistic person walks past a homeless person, they come to the conclusion that this person is homeless in fact.

Non-autistic person walks past a homeless person, they come to the conclusion that this person is a total asshole. Otherwise this would mean that we live in a world where good people do not get what they deserve. Believing that you live in a world where good people do not get what they deserve is painful, so instead you believe that this homeless guy is an asshole who beat his wife and kids, he had it coming, homeless piece of shit.

But this also applies to other phenomena than just homelessness obviously, I frequently see it when it comes to loneliness as well. Those who are lonely are conveniently labelled as evil and defective, because otherwise the delusional would have to deal with the fact that they live in a world where there is no fairness and you get punished even if you’re good.

Example 2: Labelling the suicidal as irrational and confused.

Admitting that there are circumstances in life that are so horrible that they would make you want to kill yourself is uncomfortable, you do not want to admit that.

So in order to avoid that thought, you start advocating against the right to assisted suicide and label all suicidal people as irrational morons that only think they are better off dead because they are unreasonable.

Life isn’t so bad, if it could be, then that would make you feel bad to know that you could end up in a spot like that, so instead you go for pretending that life can’t be so bad and everyone who kills themselves is a delusional moron who doesn’t know how great life with PTSD from war and fibromyalgia is.

I believe autistics tend to be less delusional than non-autistics, not necessarily more intelligent.

You can have a 150 IQ but spend your entire life only with coming up with more intelligent rationalizations as to why you believe santa clause exists, there are more than enough religious people like that.

They are not clinically stupid, i.e ”a retard” by medical standards, they are simply delusional, because they automatically blend out anything that makes them feel uncomfortable. Coping machines, whatever it takes to not admit santa clause isn’t real.

On the other hand, you could imagine a below average intelligence, severely autistic who is very literal minded though being told ”GOD IS IN YOUR HEART AND THE HEAVENS!” (or some variation of non-sense that is supposed to be understood irrationally/non-literally) and all they would think would be:

”I don’t see god anywhere in the sky, it’s a little bit cloudy today but that’s it, and how can this god thing, if it is the same person be simultaneously located in my heart and the sky?”

People often see the inability to blend out negative emotions and compartmentalize events as a downside, i.e the lack of what they call ”frustration tolerance”, but even this can have an upside in my view.

So take the typical example of your boss being unfair and only noticing your mistakes, calling you out for them, like being late for work or working too slowly, but not your coworker because she has big tits.

Now a non-autistic person will probably engage in coping again, self-deluding – making it more bearable in their mind, escaping to fantasy land. ”But my boss is just jealous, everyone who hates me is jealous”, ”but my boss probably has a smaller dick than me”, ”my boss favors her for having big tits because he’s more sex starved than me, I get much more pussy”, etc. They get home and get drunk, forget about it, out of sight, out of mind.

The autistic person might on the other hand be prone to point out this is unfair, and when it is not acknowledged, they might have a meltdown and start screaming and punching in front of everyone at work, get fired.

People consider this a downside of autism, but the only way that this can actually be a downside in that context is because your boss is lacking that trait. If your boss weren’t a delusional asshole duped by halo effect who thinks you are a better person if you have bigger tits, he wouldn’t make the unfair judgement he’s making in the first place.

What I’m saying is that non-autistics deluding themselves is leading to harm, and then autistics are labelled as defective for not being able to suppress the feelings of anger and depression over the harm caused by their delusions – that is essentially what is happening.

The autistic is depressed because they cannot ignore that the nazis are gassing the jews, the non-autistics don’t understand this and think it’s a pity that the autistic can’t automatically blend out and compartmentalize negative events just like they do and feel happy, but the very reason why the negative event of jew gassing is taking place in the first place IS because of their ability to blend out their empathy and compartmentalize the atrocity.

You may argue that deluding oneself and automatically blending out reality can be an evolutionary benefit, indeed, that seems obvious, if you are able to always portray it as such in your mind that you are justified in harming others because you’re simply good at pretending they are mindless objects, then you are advantaged when it comes to parasitizing and exploiting others.

But I would point out that what is evolutionarily beneficial is not at all necessarily what is beneficial for civilization. Sure, rape and racism can also be beneficial evolutionarily, doesn’t mean it is ideal for a civilized society.

The sadistic breeder.

Why do humans reproduce? In general I think they are just naive/delusional and not seeing how reproduction is a harmful activity.

When you don’t exist, you don’t need constant relief from suffering, there is no addiction. Creating sentient life means you make it so that relief must constantly be obtained, because otherwise they’ll suffer, now we have an addiction problem.

You must eat or you get hungry.

You must drink or you get thirsty.

You must breathe or you suffocate.

You must fulfill your needs/wants/desires or you are unfulfilled, face suffering. You fulfill a need/want/desire, and then either a new one pops up, like appetite after hunger, or the old one, hunger, simply comes back in time – this way you’re stuck your entire life.

It is fair to say that before procreating, the procreator has no guarantee that relief can be obtained, it is possible in life to face needs/wants/desires that cannot be met, you can have the need to move yourself by engaging in sports, but suddenly you get hit by a bus and become a cripple, no longer able to find relief, now you are tormented.

So breeding in anything short of a utopia, creating need (that may not be fulfilled) where there was no need beforehand (because they didn’t exist) I see as an irresponsible act.

In general, I would say that most people don’t think about it to that degree, they are simply deluded optimists and think everything will turn out alright, but I would argue that there is a subtype of breeder who does act out of enjoyment of the child’s suffering.

The sadistic/narcissistic breeder.

What I mean by this is that a child presents a perfect opportunity for someone with the urge to dominate and degrade others to live out their fantasy under the guise of doing good in a socially acceptable manner.

Young children due to their lack of intelligence and maturity may sometimes want to do things that are harmful to them, like eating crayon or refusing to get vaccinated.

The sadistic breeders use this as a great pretense to make the child feel like shit.

”Ha, see, here I videotaped that little faggot when I told him he can’t eat any more crayon! He had a nervous mental breakdown! Haha, what an idiot!”

Eating crayon might give the child a stomach ache, so of course, they feel completely justified in how they acted, they must protect the child, even if it causes the child extreme distress…but if they were honest with themselves, they’d admit that the main reason why they do it is simply because they get enjoyment out of causing someone pain.

And that suffering is bad, I can acknowledge that regardless of whether or not it was necessary in that moment to stop the child from doing something or forcing them to do something.

The child may need you to protect them from certain dangers, and in protecting them from these dangers, you may cause them extreme emotional distress because they don’t understand why that danger is a danger, but the child wouldn’t have needed any of this if you simply never brought them into existence in the first place, so you deliberately created someone who you know won’t understand why you’re acting this way towards them, because you get enjoyment from causing them distress and you can mask it as just doing the right thing.

It would be somewhat like I give you a pill that makes you retarded, and then no longer understand why you need to stop eating crayon or why you need to get vaccinated, and I do this so that I can get enjoyment out of playing the mature adult hero who stops you from eating crayon and forcing you to get vaccinated, causing you great distress.

Look what a hero I am, but in reality I of course only give you that pill to fuel my sadism and domination fantasies, so I can have someone to control and exert power over.

Your state of retardation that you need rescuing from would not have existed if I didn’t give you the pill, and the state of the child’s retardation that they need rescuing from would have not existed either if the breeder didn’t create them in the first place.

While definitely not all breeders act based on this urge, I’m sure some do because the child simply presents the perfect opportunity to live out that need to dominate and subjugate others in the name of doing good ”I’m just toughening them up for later in life!” (but why do they need to be toughened up for later in life – they only need that because you forced them to be alive in the first place).

This type of breeder likely also enjoys guilt-tripping the child, the typical ”I took care of you so you have to be grateful and do whatever I want!” – which is idiotic of course, because they are at fault for having created every need/want/desire that the child has.

You gave the child food and shelter – after creating the child’s need for food and shelter by creating the child instead of simply aborting it, and now you expect the child to be obligated to you for having caused them harm and having tried to fix it (most likely incompletely at best).

This is like I pay back my debt and then expect the bank to pay me back because I paid off the debt I created, or expecting a girl to have sex with me because I rescued her from her burning house that I deliberately set on fire so I can come to the rescue and play the hero.

Not all breeders are this malicious, but some use the child as a tool to live out their fantasies of control and domination with the pretense of it being necessary and for the child’s benefit.

How I think bigots convince themselves that all underage/intergenerational sex is harmful.

This is a pattern you’ll see when arguing with them once in a while: all sex under whatever they believe to be the holy age is non-consensual because there is a power imbalance in the relationship, non-consensual sex is rape, rape is very harmful, so all such sex is harmful.

They think that coerced/involuntary sex is harmful, rape by its original definition is harmful, which is indeed true, and then they convince themselves that all sex under their particular magical holy age is coerced/involuntary, so they start to believe that all such sex is harmful.

The idiotic argumentation they use to convince themselves of this is that all sex under the holy age is non-consensual/involuntary because there is a power imbalance between an adult and a minor, and as such the minor is fundamentally incapable of consenting to the sex.

Obviously, this has two consequences logically:

1 – Children/minors cannot consent to anything else either that is not sex.

2 – Adults also can’t consent to sex or anything else either that is not sex, as long as there is a power imbalance involved.

The 8 year old girl cannot consent to ride on the pedophile’s leg for pleasure just like she does to her pillow, because of power imbalance, it is fundamentally a non-consensual/involuntary interaction.

This would mean that the 8 year old girl also cannot consent to be hugged by her big brother or father, because power imbalance. This would also mean that adult females cannot consent to sex with adult males, because they’re weaker, so there’s a power imbalance.

It also means you can’t consent to have sex with me or eat raisin bread with me if I’m a gun owner and you’re not a gun owner, I have a power you don’t have, so you can’t consent to sex or raisin bread, we must pretend that I forced you at gunpoint – even if we have zero evidence I did and you voluntarily put the slice of raisin bread in your mouth.

Giving a minor the opportunity to work in your garden for some extra pocket money, and them facing no punishment for not working in your garden whatsoever would have to be labelled slavery, because the employer is an adult and thus has more power than the minor, therefore the work is by default non-consensual/involuntary, and non-consensual/involuntary work is slavery, just like they reason the sex between them to be rape based on power imbalance supposedly negating any agreement the minor gave to the sex, so we must arrest them for slavery!

In fact, all work is pretty much slavery unless you’re your own employer, because bosses have authority over employees, so employees cannot consent to work for employers.

Obviously a halfway sane person would just acknowledge that whether or not the sex was consensual/voluntary doesn’t just depend on how small the power imbalance is, but whether or not the weaker party actually felt intimidated by the stronger party. It doesn’t matter if I’m carrying a machine gun around, if you trust me not to use my machine gun on you and you simply enjoy eating raising bread in my company, then the ingestion of raisin bread was perfectly consensual/voluntary.

So once they have convinced themselves of this utterly idiotic worldview, it is easy to see why they think sex with children/minors is supposedly always harmful.

Scientists would agree after all that involuntary sex, rape, is indeed harmful. Yes, I’m sure you can find studies that say being held down at knifepoint and raped in the ass is very harmful in many cases.

And since all sex under the magical holy age is non-consensual/involuntary in their delusional minds because power imbalance, all sex under that age is rape, and rape is harmful and traumatizing, so all sex under the magical holy age is harmful and traumatizing.

It would be like I make a study that says ”children who are non-consensually/forcibly hugged often feel harmed/traumatized by it” and then some imbecile comes to the conclusion that children who voluntarily get hugged must also be harmed/traumatized by it, because voluntary hugging is of course involuntary hugging in reality, because between a child and an adult, there is always a power imbalance, so a consensual/voluntary hug between a child and an adult is not even physically possible.

So it is totally fair for me to point to that study that says ”forced-hugging is harmful” to justify why hugging that isn’t forced is also harmful, because hugging that isn’t forced is actually forced in my delusional mind, because power imbalance makes true consent impossible!

Necrophilic sex/sex with corpses.

I don’t think you can really argue that necrophilic sex is inherently wrong/bad.

First off, obviously I don’t believe that it is possible for a corpse to get raped, the concept of raping an inanimate object is idiotic, which is what a corpse is.

Corpses are inanimate objects, they cannot want or not want to have sex, so while it is true that it is sex without consent, it is sex without consent in the same way that sex with a sex doll or banana peel is sex without consent – how do you violate something that is not sentient?

You can say that when there was a person, they wouldn’t have liked it, so this would violate their preferences/interests…if they still existed, but they don’t exist anymore, so they are not being violated, their preferences/interests no longer exist, this is complicated and too abstract for many people to grasp I believe.

If someone wishes right now that I throw their ashes in the sea, am I violating them by throwing it in the trash? I would say technically no – the violation would technically lie in showing that I’m disrespectful of their wishes whilst they are still alive, making them believe that it might not be respected, thus causing them distress, but the person itself once they are reduced to ashes is not literally being violated by having the ashes dumped in the trash can, because that person no longer exists.

So sure, I believe you can argue that there’s a practical reason why we give people the right to choose what may happen to their corpse – because if we took that right away from them, it’d make them feel bad while they’re still here, but the idea of harm to the corpse itself is idiotic, the corpse itself cannot be hurt any more than a table or a chair.

Am I committing sexual harassment against my chair by putting my ass on it? No.

The conditions under which I would think necrophilic sex would be justified is if 1. you either obtained consent prior to death or 2. you do it so secretly so no one’s negatively impacted by it either way anyway.

If the person consents before they die, I see it no different from allowing them to make any other choice over their dead body. You can choose to be cremated or buried, you can choose to donate organs, I think you should also allow someone with an interest in eyeballs to collect your eyeballs or donate your corpse to a taxidermist, or to a necrophile who wants to use it for sex…why not?

In that case, the counterargument might be it’s offensive, fine, but many things offend people and we also see it as the lesser of two evils to urge them to not judge and castigate others based on those feelings – of course a homophobe can just as easily argue that they are horrified and devastated by imagining their son having gay sex…or that you’re offended by a nudist area where they have sex in public, so I don’t think this is a good point in and of itself to allow their feelings of offense to dictate what you can and cannot do.

Some might then say but being a necrophile would be a mental illness. This is of course often circular – you’re mentally ill for wanting to do x, and you want to do x because you’re mentally ill, which is also the same reasoning a homophobe would use to explain why being gay is an illness. You’re ill because you want to suck cock, and you want to suck cock because you’re ill.

But let’s go with assuming that rather than just being attracted to corpses for whatever reason (maybe they just find corpses pretty, who knows?), there is some kind of distress involved, the people attracted to corpses are all attracted for some kind of power-related reason, like wanting to control something and have a mindless partner, so we might say supporting that behavior is unhealthy…well, would it not be more unhealthy to let an egomaniac like that practice on sentient beings that can actually be hurt?

Would it be wrong to let someone buy a sex doll, because if they buy a sex doll, their wish to have a mindless partner they can control is not eliminated either? They still have that same unhealthy fetish if they are fucking a sex doll then, so does the government need to step in and force those that buy sex dolls for such a reason (like wanting to control and dominate something) to undergo therapy?

You might say it’s just unhealthy in general. Fine, I’m sure there are some ways to protect against that, I’m not an expert on corpsefucking, but also, alcohol and cigarettes are unhealthy too, so by that standard all the unhealthy things we have the right to do should be illegal.

Another way to do it would just be to do it secretly, so then that problem wouldn’t exist either way.

You can argue it is tasteless in a sense, sure, you could say if someone really cares about the American flag, I’m an asshole to jizz on their flag…or if someone really cares about their sex doll and pretends to be in a relationship with it, you’d be an asshole to jizz on it.

I’m just saying I still wouldn’t see it as that big of an offense if it’s done secretly and no one ever found out about it. If I never find out someone jizzed on my flag or fucked my sex doll because I wasn’t around and they cleaned it perfectly – can we really say I’m harmed/hurt? It’s a bit of a stretch, it’s a property violation that was never noticed.

So in conclusion, although a corpse itself cannot be hurt, I think you can argue there’s some utility to letting people choose what to do with their corpses, but if selling it to a necrophile is ultimately their choice, then so be it…and if it happens secretly it’s not really that big of a deal either because it’s not like you’re secretly harming someone else and no one finds out – it’s more like only them finding out would be the harm, but since the corpse itself is not harmed it stays harmless, it wouldn’t be like secretly keeping a sentient being in your basement and raping them, which would still be harmful even if no one found out about it at any point.

On circumcision/genital mutilation.

I think circumcision generally falls under what we can refer to as unnecessary harm, I don’t support it.

1 – It’s painful in the moment or afterwards.

Either while you’re being circumcised if it’s done by some primitive religious moron without anesthesia, or definitely afterwards.

Perhaps if you’re young enough while it happens, you won’t remember it later, but I fail to see how that is supposed to be a justification. Let’s say I could torture someone for hours, but then give them a hypothetical pill that will make them forget all of it.

The fact that the torture happened in the moment while they were being tortured is bad enough, it doesn’t matter if they remember or forget it.

2 – It can also cause long term suffering by decreasing your ability to obtain sexual relief/satisfaction.

Here people will of course argue back and forth about if circumcision has any effect on your sexual pleasure or not. Some will claim yes it decreased their ability to feel pleasure (I am in that category), some might even say it increased their ability to feel pleasure to get cut because they had some kind of problem with their tight foreskin beforehand and just didn’t use all options to try to retract them, whatever it may be.

But just looking at the most obvious facts, it seems non-sensical to me to claim it has no decreasing effect. Yes, you are cutting skin that contains sensitive nerves off of your dick (it’d be weird if that in itself didn’t take any feelings away), and once that is done, your glans will no longer be constantly protected by anything wrapped around it, so it’s free to rub against your pants all the time, prone to the process of keratinization.

Forcing an internal organ to be an external organ, so to speak. Would it not be reasonable to say that if instead of walking on your feet, you learned to walk on your hands, your hands would become kind of desensitized over time? I play guitar, so the fingers that I put on the strings become less sensitive over time, they’re constantly exposed to pressure.

If you constantly expose something and it is not protected, it generally tends to become less sensitive to fine touch, yes. Does that take some kind of Einstein genius to come up with that theory?

3 – Benefits seem little to non-existent to make up for the harm/loss.

Hygiene? Do you live in a third world shithole with no access to soap? I doubt it anyway though, I know just from my personal experience in the past that when I sweat and jizzed, and I have no protective skin around my glans to stop lints and dirt from getting stuck in and glued to my glans, it does in fact get stuck in and glue to my glans. How exactly is that more hygienic?

But whatever, yes, wash yourself.

Less likely to get certain STDs? Contraception, again, not impossible, no need to resort to such drastic measures when it can be solved more comfortably.

Penile cancer? Almost no one gets penile cancer, you can also take other measures not to get cancer like living a healthy lifestyle/not smoking, and wouldn’t that also justify cutting all girls breasts off because then they can never get cancer in them? Breast cancer is certainly more likely than cancer in your genitals, penile cancer is extremely rare.

How about you just ask them what they want if it’s not absolutely necessary? Same for your tonsils even, I don’t think it would have as negative of an effect on someone as being circumcised or having breasts cut off, but still, why do it if it’s completely unnecessary in that moment?

Yes, if you cut x part of your body off, that part cannot become infected or riddled with cancer anymore…so therefore cut it all off?

Phimosis? This is the only one that is kind of more controversial, but it’s not really unsolvable either, there are specific creams and stretching exercises to retract your foreskin without having to cut it, and you can also only get partially circumcised and not tightly if nothing else helps.

Overall I think this is a barbaric and backward ritual, I don’t think it’s unfair or inconsiderate or anything to criticize the ones doing it, the reasons people give for it are frequently pathetically shallow.

Often it’s supported by religious morons who think children should be property, ”parents have a right to choose for children” – maybe if it’s harmless and/or necessary, but not when you’re inflicting unnecessary harm/pain/suffering on them like strapping them to a table and cutting their skin off, or beating them with a hammer, or sticking needles in them, etc based on thinking that invisible creatures exist and command you to do so.

Religion should never be an argument here, that’s just saying you live in a fantasy world and believe in invisible creatures for which you have no evidence, so that’s why you inflicting potentially intense harm/pain/suffering on others is justified, the easter bunny said I have to shove my fist in an infant’s vagina, so it’s fine basically.

Same goes for a parent’s petty aesthetic preferences, who cares what you think looks pretty? Should you also be allowed to cut up your daughter’s vagina or breasts to make them look more pleasant to your liking?

Then we have the feminist morons that are completely apathetic to any plight men face and just state that female genital mutilation is worse than male genital mutilation. It depends on how you do it is simply the answer here, so this is just wrong to categorically state FGM is worse than MGM, by default, always.

You can cut off the skin around the clitoris, this is more similar to cutting foreskin off. Some primitive cultures cut the entire vagina open, yes, but some primitive cultures also cut the entire dick open and stick their dicks in the cut open dick, it’s a matter of how you’re mutilating them.

It doesn’t matter though, I could also say ”look, feminists, anal rape is worse than sexual harassment, therefore sexual harassment isn’t a big deal, so shut the fuck up”. This is fallacy of relative privation, A and B are both bad, but B is worse than A, so therefore we’re going to pretend A is now good. Having two arms amputated is worse than only one arm, so therefore having one arm amputated somehow isn’t a big deal? That’s just non-sense.

And I’m sure you can find more obscure reasons why people do it, but these tend to be the common sayings/standards. In conclusion, I see no point in the ritual/practice.

Learning by association – one can have false intuitions about pleasure and harm.

The experience machine is a thought experiment meant to demonstrate that somehow, sentient organisms care about other things except escaping pain/maximizing pleasure, I believe this is fundamentally impossible.

As in, there’s a machine you can get into, and it will create greater pleasure than you get from living your current life with your family, friends, maybe partner, etc, and they would also be well taken care of without you, so it’s no big deal, just get in there and feel even better.

If we chase pleasure, why wouldn’t everyone get into that machine?

I think the answer is simple – because they’re delusional and therefore don’t actually believe the experience machine will give them more pleasure, so I don’t see how this experiment threatens the value theory of hedonism.

Humans learn by association, unless you are very systematic perhaps like some autistic people are, you likely don’t analyze the details of every situation as to what causes more or less suffering, you make rough associations between things, and I believe this explains fixation on deontology and virtue ethics over utilitarianism.

John saw his mom get raped by a guy with a red hat and leather jacket as a child, now he gets a panic attack whenever he sees a guy with a red hat and leather jacket in public because in his mind red hat and leather jacket=rape.

You see lying generally results in harm, so therefore you conclude that lying must always result in harm and tell the nazis the jews are in your basement. See, you did a good job there in your mind, you prevented lying so you prevented harm.

You see that ending human life generally results in harm, so therefore you conclude that ending human life must always result in harm and become a pro-lifer who cares about the non-existent welfare of non-conscious fertilized eggs and support anti-euthanasia laws to make sure that everyone suffers as much as possible from being forced to live and can’t escape.

One can have false intuitions/delusions about what will efficiently reduce suffering/maximize pleasure, the deluded religious terrorist thinks he must bomb the gay pride parade to stop these evil faggots from infesting society with AIDS. See, I’m saving all of you from going to hell by stopping these evil pro-AIDS propagandists from forcing you to have unprotected anal sex, this means we’ll all go to heaven later on, so it is the lesser of two evils.

The answer for the experience machine is no different – we make illogical associations.

You simply don’t associate the experience machine with pleasure, you associate the things you already have in your life with pleasure, like your girlfriend’s pussy or whatever it may be.

And then I come along and say see, I have a fancy experience machine here in my basement, you just have to get into it, and then you’re going to feel even more pleasure jizzing all over yourself all day than when you jizz in your girlfriend’s pussy – watching two hairy fat old men buttfucking all day, your life is going to be perfect.

Do you believe me?

Do you trust me?

Just get in there.

It sounds unrealistic, many simply would not believe me, and that’s the problem.

This doesn’t prove they’re not after more pleasure, this just proves that they don’t believe they will actually get more pleasure from getting into the experience machine.

I think the same reasoning can also explain why people are scared of death, reject negative utilitarian and antinatalist ideas of stopping procreation to stop suffering and don’t accept the epicurean view, i.e death isn’t a big deal because if you’re dead, you don’t notice that you’re dead, so it won’t be a big deal for you.

If someone doesn’t actually conceptualize non-existence as non-existence, but simply as a second existence without all the pleasures one could have in it, then what they are actually picturing is not non-existence but a maximal state of suffering, i.e zero pleasure.

In life, not having pleasures means to suffer.

You don’t eat, you hunger.

You don’t drink, you thirst.

You don’t shit, you constipate.

You don’t breathe, you suffocate.

You don’t jerk off, you get tense and frustrated.

You don’t socialize, you get lonely.

You don’t maximize your pleasure, you start to suffer. But this is only when you exist, not when you don’t exist.

And I find it questionable if people actually even comprehend that, we have a hard time picturing not existing, so what we might end up imagining is not nothingness but simply an existence where you are deprived of all goods, floating around as a disgruntled ghost missing out on all the earthly pleasures you could have had, had you stayed alive.

Pro-lifers and pro-natalists somewhat reveal this thought process all the time when they ridicule the antinatalist’s risk-aversion, they say along the lines of:

”Ah, so we shouldn’t breed children so we don’t risk their suffering, but that’s idiotic, because we gotta take risks in life all the time, life without risk would just be boring! You get in the car, you might get into an accident. You sit in the sun, you might get skin cancer.”

Yes, in life. If you’re actually going to live life and not take any risks in it, what results is a life of boredom, which is suffering, which repels you, so you don’t accept such a life and take some amount of risk, if you avoided driving altogether, you’d suffer from not being able to move effectively through society anymore.

You might be imagining the downsides of not taking any risks in life, which is crushing boredom, and then project this onto non-existence, but non-existence is a different ”scenario” altogether in which absolutely no one is experiencing any level of boredom from not having any risks taken on their behalf, so then in that case, there is no problem, the problem is you delusionally picturing non-existence as a second existence filled with the suffering of boredom.

So just like not getting into the experience machine doesn’t prove you’re not after more pleasure, someone objecting to non-existence doesn’t prove they’re not trying to avoid pain, one can simply have misguided intuitions about still continuing to live in a suffering state after one died like ”But what if death isn’t the end and what comes after is even worse??? How do I know that if I smash my computer (brain) with a sledgehammer, the data (consciousness) isn’t still somehow invisibly floating around in the air?”.

Dying and death are also close to each other, though different, and the dying process is often painful and scary for us, so of course, if we associate death with that, we become irrationally scared of death, which is just a harmless ”state” of non-existence though, and we may then make the connection that what happened before our birth was also non-existence, so we become just as scared of that as of the non-existence after we died, non-existence is scary.

As in, you equate painful dying with death itself, and you equate death (non-existence) with not being born (non-existence), so you end up delusionally imagining that you need to be born in order to avoid the horrible pains of dying, which is just that – delusional, if anything not being born is the only thing rescuing from the process of decaying and dying.

I don’t think it’s possible for any other value theory to be true, everything is about sensation.

If you care about doing anything, it is because you believe it will reduce suffering/maximize pleasure in others or in yourself.

Even if a deontologist still wouldn’t lie in a case where the nazis are ringing on their door and ask them if the jews are in their basement, all that proves is that lying is making this deontologist suffer so intensely that they abstain from it in order to avoid suffering. So in that sense, I don’t even think there is a real deontologist.

You’re authoritarian, because you believe an authoritarian approach reduces suffering in the world, or even if you’re shown evidence it doesn’t, you just personally get off on domination and power play stuff.

You’re libertarian, because you believe a libertarian approach reduces suffering in the world, or even if you’re shown evidence it doesn’t, you just personally get off on being as free as possible.

You’re religious because you’re deluded and really believe heaven and hell exist, or you at least think that having this view integrated into society will give people a morality to follow and thus reduce suffering, or even if you’re shown evidence it doesn’t lead to that, you just personally get off on living this fairytale.

So on and so forth. If you know that following a given morality does not efficiently reduce suffering in the world, what reason could there possibly be for you still following it except that it reduces suffering in you to follow it? I don’t think there is any, everything’s about sensation.

Misguided labellings of things as good and bad/intrinsic vs. instrumental good and bad.

A short list of (I believe) misguided reasons why humans label certain things good and bad.

”Pain and suffering can be good, vaccination is painful but it’s good, working out can be stressful but it’s good, what about masochists? They like pain.”

So then suffering is only good because it helps you to avoid even more of it, which shows that it is not good, because you’re only tolerating to avoid even more of it.

Dying of a painful disease the vaccination protects you against=suffering.

Being weak and unhealthy which the workout protects you against=suffering.

Feeling sexual frustration if you don’t insert a nail into your urethra=suffering.

Suffering can only be a means to avoid to more of it, never the end goal, even the masochist is just inflicting the suffering onto themselves in an effort to avoid another.

Only pleasure but no suffering would get boring? Well, then it’s not pleasure anymore, boredom is obviously suffering.

”Little bit of childhood bullying can be good, makes you tougher, so then you’re able to deal with bullies later on in life.”

So then bullying and harassment is not good, the only reason why you’re saying it’s good is because later on there will also be bullying that you will have to learn to protect yourself against by being bullied earlier on. If bullying did no longer exist, then this would not be a necessity, so you failed to prove that bullying is good for the reason you stated.

”Selfishness can be good, cause otherwise, who’s going to look after you and take care of you if not you yourself?

The reason why no one would take care of you if you were not selfish is exactly because they are selfish, so then selfishness isn’t good, you’re only arguing that selfishness is good because it protects you against the selfishness of others.

It would be better if they derived pleasure from helping others, which of course is deep down also a selfish motivation, you could argue every action is ultimately selfish (you soothe your guilty conscience even when jumping on a grenade), but that’s a different topic, I’m using the definition of selfishness where it simply implies that you don’t derive your satisfaction from helping others.

”Empathy can be bad because it makes you vulnerable to being taken advantage of.”

Taken advantage of by whom? Right, the UN-empathetic, so if they had more empathy, would it not be good as it would prevent them from taking advantage of you?

”You gotta teach kids how to obey authority instead of questioning everything, cause otherwise they’re not gonna have a good time later on if they’re gonna be defiant all the time and question their boss or the police officer.”

And could it maybe be the case that the reason why their boss or the police officer later on will be a totalitarian piece of shit who expects people to bow to their authority without questioning is because they themselves have been raised in a culture that praises blind obedience to authority without questioning?

Could that not be part of the problem? Maybe if the police officer hadn’t been raised by some ”because I said so!” asshole, he wouldn’t be such a ”because I said so!” asshole either.

”Thinking and ruminating about negative/painful happenings in the world is bad cause it makes you depressed and you won’t be able to do anything about it.”

But often the very fact that people have the ability to turn their brains off and ignore reality is what led to the negative/painful event in the first place.

Let’s say I live in Nazi Germany and feel distressed about all the jews being gassed, I cannot blend the horror of what is happening out from my conscious perception into my subconscious perception.

Imagine everyone felt like this about it – then they wouldn’t be able to support the holocaust in the first place, but it is exactly the fact that the nazis are capable of rationalizing and pretending that jews are inanimate objects which makes it possible for them to do what they do.

If they were all incapable of doing this in the first place, the painful event would not be taking place. So why would the capacity for distraction aiding you to blend out that the holocaust is happening be a good thing?

Downsides of not being autistic enough/why I believe autism is the better cognition.

An explanation of what I think are the greatest weaknesses of non-autistic humans.

1: The ability to blend out and ignore objective reality, thus higher likelihood of becoming religiously delusional.

There is some research (e.g. this one and this one) suggesting autistics are less likely to be religious, I think this can be easily explained by what the one of the core differences between autistics and non-autistics is.

Non-autistics automatically blend out reality, autistics cannot do this as easily. Non-autistics filter unpleasant stimuli more, which is why they generally don’t have sensory overload like autistics from lights, noise, texture as easily.

But not only these overt triggers such as light, noise, texture can be perceived as unpleasant, one can also perceive facts and criticism as unpleasant – and what we know is that non-autistics are better at automatically filtering and ignoring unpleasant stimuli, whereas autistics tend to hyperfocus on it and can’t let go of it until they collapse.

I think this perfectly explains the higher likelihood of non-autistics being religiously delusional. You believe in god, although there is no evidence for god, but you would make fun of someone believing in the easter rabbit, because there’s no evidence for it.

Is this stupid, as in, clinically low IQ? Not necessarily, there are highly intelligent individuals who behave like this, so often times when the word ”stupid” is used to describe such hypocrisy, a better explanation would be lack of autism.

The main function of a non-autistic brain seems to be to blend out what seems uncomfortable, they have an automatic filter, autistics do not, they are forced to perceive intensely and in detail, as soon as someone told them ”but you don’t believe in the easter rabbit either because there’s no evidence for it you fucking retard” – this would likely sit with them and affect them deeply, the non-autistic on the other hand is more likely to just delude themselves again and think ”this person used a bad word, so therefore, they must be wrong, angry people are always wrong : ) If you say the earth isn’t flat with an angry voice then you must be wrong : ) : )”.

It’s often said autistics have a higher sense of justice, this could likely be explained by the same mechanism. Sometimes committing harm against others can enhance your position in life, so as that is evolutionarily beneficial, it is the norm that humans are capable of coming up with inane rationalizations for harming others, autism, the inability to blend out reality is a deviation from that rather harmful and destructive norm.

Example 1: You see a homeless person in the streets, believing that you live in a world where bad things happen to good people would be uncomfortable, therefore you immediately make a negative judgement about said person and tell yourself they’re probably an asshole, because if they aren’t an asshole, that would mean you live in a world where bad things happen to good people, and that would make you uncomfortable.

Example 2: Admitting that there are some circumstances in life that would make you want to kill yourself makes you uncomfortable, therefore you pretend that there must be no such problem in life and everything can be fixed with a slight attitude change, to sustain this delusion, you label anyone who wants to commit suicide as irrational and speak out against euthanasia.

Feel bad about owning a slave? Just pretend the slave is a rock, problem solved, rocks don’t have feelings. Feel bad about hearing the jew being gassed? Just automatically picture a pretty meadow and pretend it’s not happening. Problem solved.

Autistics cannot as easily blend out the discomfort, so the only thing that helps is to eliminate the source of the discomfort, which means that if everyone were autistic, lots of problem in the world causing a lot of suffering would be more likely to be solved, as the population would not be able to tolerate it by severe denial as easily like non-autistics are doing it.

Non-autistics might in this psychotic state of mind even think that this is somehow a bad thing, if no one could blend out reality and pretend it’s not there, then we’d just be depressed about all the harm that exists on earth! Failing to comprehend that what enables the existence of that harm in the first place is the fact that no one is fixing it, and they are not fixing it because they are denying its existence – they don’t get that admitting the problem is often the first step to solving it.

So while non-autistics might not have sensory overload, I also think that they therefore also have a dangerous ability to deny reality and rationalize cruelty towards others much more efficiently than autistics, religious feel-good lies like heaven, karma, law of attraction are pretty much just a manifestation of this ability to blend out unpleasant stimuli, harmful coping mechanisms.

2: Extreme susceptibility to peer pressure, the inability to separate truth from majority consensus, an innate desire to conform.

On each of five trials, each child was asked to watch carefully as a demonstrator showed how to retrieve a toy from a box or build a simple object. Importantly, each demonstration included two necessary actions (e.g. unclipping and removing the box lid) and one unnecessary action (e.g. tapping the top of the box twice).
The box was then reset behind a screen and handed to the child, who was instructed to “get or make the toy as fast as you can.” They were not specifically told to copy the behavior they’d just seen.
Investigators discovered almost all of the children successfully reached the goal of getting or making the toy, but typically developing children were much more likely to include the unnecessary step as they did so, a behavior known as overimitation.
Those children copied 43 to 57 percent of the unnecessary actions, compared to 22 percent in the children with autism. That’s despite the fact that the children correctly identified the tapping action as “silly,” not “sensible.”
Researchers now plan to investigate precisely what kind of actions children copy, and how that tendency to copy everything might contribute to human cultural transmission of knowledge.
Hamilton said parents and teachers should be aware of the social value in going beyond the successful completion of such tasks.
https://psychcentral.com/news/2013/04/09/autistic-kids-tend-to-imitate-efficiently-not-socially#1

Whereas non-autistics would throw the accusation at autistics that they are often incapable of not only focusing on themselves and taking others into consideration, I would make the exact opposite accusation against them – they are incapable of thinking independently and not immediately giving in to whatever the majority consensus is.

Normal humans more or less automatically copy the behavior they see in others, this can accelerate learning processes, but can it also result in you learning falsehoods and harmful behaviors, whereas autistics process it more consciously and slowly, evaluate each thing regardless of whether or not they would be looked at as ridiculous for questioning things by their culture.

We’re not just talking about peer pressure in certain situations, I think normal humans have a profound problem separating what is true from what is believed by most, their first instinct is simply always to think that if something is believed by many, there must be some truth to it, as though the number of people believing it is determining the reality.

If we all believe the earth is round, then the earth becomes round. If we all believe the earth is flat, then the earth becomes flat somehow.

They have a whole intricate list of silly social concerns of what they think makes a statement true or false, with logic and evidence being the last things they care about, they care about all sorts of things that have nothing to do with it before that:

How does the person making the statement look like?
How popular is this person making that statement?
What is the person making this statement wearing, do they have a tomato ketchup stain on their shirt?
Could I make this statement in front of my family and friends without being judged?
Would I be more likely to get into trouble with authorities for believing this?
Would belief in this statement make me happier?
Would belief in this statement help me find more friends?

So on and so forth, and then the question that comes last is ”is that statement actually true or false?”, anything but that is registered as more important first.

If they grow up in the western world, they might believe the christian god is real despite there being no evidence for the christian god and laugh at people believing in allah because there’s no evidence for allah. If they grow up in Saudi Arabia, they might believe in allah is real despite there being no evidence for allah and laugh at people believing in the christian god because there’s no evidence for the christian god. Just depends on where they grow up, there’s no real logical understanding of anything behind it, it’s delusional behavior.

So while non-autistics may learn faster sometimes, they also learn tons of falsehoods and harmful behaviors, what is put in front of them is copied, e.g. religious bigotry (how could this religion be wrong if everyone here believes in it?), nazi behavior, slavery, witch hunts, etc.

Hitler and his comrades were well aware of the non-autistic condition and had a few quotes directly related to this phenomenon of mindless repetition/mimicking: ”A lie told once remains a lie but a lie repeated a thousand times becomes a truth.”

3: Inability to appreciate details and nuances, making associations between things that are not intrinsically associated with each other because they share certain similiraties.

One of the core symptoms of autism is being detail-oriented (again, reality is not blended out as much automatically, autistics don’t have an automatic filter).

Non-autistics generally are not as detail-oriented, they have a tendency to gloss over vital details that could lead to a completely different conclusion, this is one standard problem motivating almost all forms of bigotry.

One black person stole my bike, therefore, black=bad.

One ugly guy grabbed my ass, therefore, ugly=rapist.

One angry person made a wrong statement, therefore, angry=wrong.

One jew lied to me, therefore, jew=liar.

They automatically make associations because spending time on thinking through everything costs more energy, it’s no wonder autistics feel more exhausted and overwhelmed, but this also carries the downside of connecting things to each other that are not connected to each other, leading to misplaced/false judgements about reality, whereas an autistic might take 5 hours before of looking at thousands of excruciating details before making a decision.

Sloppy, un-detailed thinking is the cause of a lot of bigotry. The non-autistic in the 40s and 50s already felt revolted by homosexuals, the media outlets and other individuals (like prison owners and scam artist psychologists) interested in making money off of putting homosexuals in jail make sure to always mention homosexuals in a negative context – ”sick homosexual commits rape in parking lot due to his homosexual disorder!”

This is enough for them to start hating homosexuals – they can’t help but to make automatic associations between things that way. More controversial every day examples of this phenomenon that many non-autistics in my day and age would be too delusional to see would be pedophiles (original intended definition: someone attracted to children) and incels (original intended definition: involuntary celibate, someone who has a hard time getting laid and is upset about it).

Some pedophiles are violent kidnappers and rapists, media mentions they’re a pedophile, now non-autistics start to hate all pedophiles. Some incels are misogynistic and have committed mass shootings, the media mentions they’re incel, so now non-autistics start to hate all incels.

But I think that this character trait can also in general make it easier to rationalize inflicting harm/cruelty on others outside of any specific witch hunts/moral panics, i.e their sloppy evaluation skills lead them false conclusions in their favor, glossing over the details and nuances makes the process of rationalization easier.

Example 1: You accept animal testing/vivisection in cases where it is necessary for medication that will reduce a lot of harm, animal testing for cosmetics is also animal testing, therefore, you now automatically equate the two with each other, how convenient, now you can make money off of testing on animals for cosmetic products because animal testing for medication is necessary.

Example 2: The existence of law results in the arrest of people that cause a lot of harm, like serial killers and rapists. Laws against people that smoke marijuana are also laws, therefore, you are justified in making money off of arresting harmless drug users because it’s the law and law is good period, you’re preventing serial killings and rape by harassing someone that snorts cocaine in the privacy of their home, law=good. Law is right, obey law mindlessly no matter what.

Example 3: Sometimes, you have to bear pain/suffering in order to avoid even more pain/suffering in the future, i.e a painful vaccination to avoid a more painful illness, or a stressful workout to avoid becoming weak and unhealthy. Now the un-detailed idiot ends up thinking that because of this it means that pain/suffering itself is good, even when it doesn’t lead to a reduction of more pain/suffering. Starving kids in Africa? Some suffering is necessary, pull yourself up by the bootstraps you pussies! War? Suffering builds character! Childhood cancer? What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger bro! It was never supposed to be easy!

These I believe to be the overall greatest weaknesses of non-autistics and why I would think an autistic society is more civilized than a non-autistic society.

Taking a risk in existence vs. taking a risk by making a new existence.

One point natalists/pro-lifers sometimes bring up against antinatalism is this idea that 100% risk aversion is stupid, it is ridiculous to never take risks.

So when you say you shouldn’t create life because you risk creating extreme suffering, they might say something along the lines of:

”But so what, everything in life involves risks. You get in the car, you might get into an accident. You sit in the sun, you might get skin cancer.”

In life – that’s the important distinction here in my view that they are not taking into account.

There’s a difference between the scenario of 1. no one exists, so no downside can be endured by them and 2. someone exists and a downside can be endured by them.

We think of 100% risk aversion as absurd in most cases because it results in exactly what you are trying to prevent – pain/harm/suffering.

You don’t cross the street to get to the supermarket and doctor’s office to avoid the harm of being hit by a car? Then you experience the harm of not having the groceries you need for your meal this evening and your medical problem goes unfixed – that’s a problem.

So you avoided taking a risk, but you still ended up suffering as a result of it, so we take some risks in life in order to avoid that fate.

But the thing is, people that don’t exist don’t have any needs, they don’t need to go to the supermarket, they don’t need a doctor’s appointment.

If you don’t take the risk that your child will die of cancer by bringing them into existence, the child will not be trapped in some other place, like some kind of unborn purgatory where they miss their life and are frustrated by the fact that you didn’t take a risk for them.

So there is a difference between taking a risk once in existence and presumably detrermined to keep living vs. taking a risk by making a new existence from scratch.

So in that case, absolutist risk aversion makes perfect sense. Why not? There would be no harm/downside to not taking the risk for the non-exister, non-existers don’t exist, they don’t need to risk anything to gain anything that would then alleviate their suffering.

It’s hard to find an example for this, but let’s say you would actually not be disadvantaged at all by no longer using a car/vehicle of any kind.

There would be absolutely zero reduction in your pleasure, you would not suffer any more than you are now as a result of never driving a car again.

Yes, at that point I would say it’s just unnecessary risk taking. You risk hitting someone with that car, and we know that you wouldn’t suffer any more without the car. Why don’t you do something else then that doesn’t endanger everyone?

Organisms that don’t exist yet have no needs to be alleviated, so they don’t need to take risks in order to avoid suffering. You might need to take the risk of getting hit by a car to get to the doctor’s appointment to avoid a medical problem on the other hand, if you are actually going to live your life, but the unborn certainly don’t need that, so no need to take any risks for them.

You’re not entitled to get whatever you want, but you’re entitled not to want it.

A hypothetical thought experiment I often like to use to argue for antinatalism is that of desire serum.

Let’s say I had a liquid that contained any random desire you could possibly imagine, some just trivial, like the desire to eat a certain meal, some might be hard/unrealistic to fulfill, like the desire to time-travel or become someone you are not, some might require severely harm others in order to fulfill, like the desire to brutally rape them.

I inject that stuff into someone in their sleep, and the next day they wake up and might find themselves craving whatever it may be, who knows.

Maybe they’ll have an intense craving to live in a different country which causes them distress because they already established a life with other things that they also crave where they currently live, or maybe they won’t be able to get an orgasm anymore unless they torture kittens. Who knows.

I would argue that this is unethical, I should not be allowed to do that, injecting everyone with desire serum, not a good idea. And this is also why I think we should reject procreation, a conscious organism is ultimately nothing but a desire machine, a pleasure addict.

You must obtain pleasure/relief or you suffer, that’s how (conscious) life works. Eat or hunger, drink or thirst, shit or constipate, breathe or suffocate, socialize or become lonely, etc. Pleasure or else suffering. More pleasure of satiation, less suffering of hunger, more suffering of hunger, less pleasure of satiation.

You’re creating a desire machine with no knowledge of how tormenting the desires will be, how long lasting the fulfillment will be, if the desires are even realistic to fulfill, if the desires can only be fulfilled by harming someone else in the process. If that isn’t irresponsible, what is?

And even if one of the victims magically managed to always fulfill all desires just in time before it gets too painful without harming anyone else in the process, they still wouldn’t miss life if you didn’t create them in the first place, so I still don’t think that they justify the existence of the losers that don’t get to fulfill their desires.

Child A is happy getting christmas gifts, child B dies of cancer on christmas. If neither had been created, child A would not sit in some kind of pre-birth torture chamber missing their christmas gifts crying their non-existent eyes out, so I don’t think the existence of child B is justified.

We could also imagine that if I injected someone with the serum and they ended suffering through a desire that necessitates harming someone (like desire to torture people to get an orgasm perhaps), we would not allow them to fulfill that desire, but we would still blame me for injecting them with it in the first place.

And this is kind of the point I’m leading up to here – not all our desires ought to be fulfilled, because sometimes, that causes too much suffering, but it still sucks that that desire exists in the first place, and for that I blame reckless procreators, but that’s what people don’t get, they don’t blame the creator of the desire mechanism.

A good example of this is the debate surrounding incels/involuntary celibacy and feminists.

Whenever someone voices the sentiment that they are dissatisfied with not getting laid or the type of affection they want, they are accused of acting entitled and spoiled, which right away seems a little absurd to me, I wouldn’t do this if someone voiced their dissatisfaction with anything else like not having a parent or a friend either:

”Ah so you’re ”sad” that your siblings died? Huh? See, you’re a piece of shit, you think you have a right to hold a gun to everyone’s head and force them to pretend to be your siblings so you don’t feel lonely anymore, you’re an entitled piece of shit!”.

That seems to be the immediate gut reaction when it’s sex:

”So you think you are allowed to rape everyone because you can’t get laid???”

I’m not saying some incels don’t have an attitude of entitlement, but the point that I’m going to make regardless is that yes, while the fact that someone fails to fulfill their desires doesn’t necessarily mean that we should force everyone to fulfill their desires, it is still bad that their desires were created in the first place, and that some reckless procreator risked that they would end up in a situation where they will find themselves unable to get their pleasure fix, creating pleasure addicts is not a responsible behavior.

You aren’t entitled to sex per se, but I think one is entitled not to crave sex (or anything for that matter), and the only way to avoid insatiable cravings that can’t be quenched is to stop having children.

But are any of these feminists and/or gynocentrists actively pro-abortion?

No, usually they are pro-choice, so they basically think injecting desire serum is just a personal choice.

You made someone addicted to pleasure, they can’t get it, so they suffer – but whatever, just a personal choice they say. Why? If I inject someone with heroin or hypothetical desire serum, that also affects them, not just me. If they don’t get their fix, they’ll suffer, and that is my making.

So we’re not always entitled to fulfill our desires at everyone else’s expense, but we should all be entitled not to have desires in the first place.

Think of it this way: you might not be entitled to people funding your addiction to heroin, but you are entitled to not have someone forcibly inject you with heroin and make you addicted to it.

And the point is that if you reproduce, if you wait until a fetus acquires consciousness instead of doing the responsible thing and killing it, you just caused a lifelong addiction to pleasure, because that is all conscious beings are – crazed pleasure junkies that suffer if they don’t get pleasured.

So of course you can say that no one is entitled to not have for instance all of their sexual desires fulfilled, but if you think that procreation is justified, then you are no different than the asshole forcing people to become addicted to heroin, procreators create cravings.

I inject you with the desire liquid and now you want 10 arms instead of only 2, does that mean you have a right to cut everyone’s arms off and attach them to yourself? No, but I’m still an asshole for injecting you with the desire liquid.

So even if we were talking about a serial rapist and killer, I’d still call them a victim…of procreation, of their desire. Of course, it’s bad to serial rape and kill, but what is also bad is that you feel empty and depressed if you aren’t serial raping and killing, and the only way to be sure to avoid such cravigns is to not create conscious organisms.

Use whatever example you want, another good example of this ignorance towards suffering would be some rich pro-lifer conservatives that don’t want to give the poor any of their wealth.

They think creating desire is perfectly ethical, nothing problematic about it, you are allowed to create someone in poverty who will crave to have a greater quality of life and might feel greatly negatively impacted by their circumstances, and then tell them ”you’re not entitled to get what you desire (a life with luxuries), you are only entitled to desire!”, but you can’t just not create desire by killing the fertilized egg before it’s even conscious, no, that is brutal murder they would say, actual suffering is irrelevant, we only care about life itself that doesn’t even care about itself.

So again, I have the right to inject you with a serum that will make you crave, even if it makes you suffer horrifically because you won’t get what you crave.

You don’t want to help fulfill everyone’s desires, fine, but then I’m going to say you’re still a reckless asshole for injecting someone with desire serum in the first place, you shouldn’t inject someone with a liquid that might make them want something they can’t get and then make fun of how they can’t get it.

So while I agree that not every desire ought to be fulfilled because that might cause too much harm in the process, the desire shouldn’t exist in the first place, you’re an asshole for injecting it into someone, and I think that’s what almost everyone is missing, they don’t see the connection between unresolved needs/wants/desires and reckless producers of conscious lifeforms which are essentially just need/want/desire machines.

You’re not entitled to get whatever you want, great, but then don’t make them want it, abstain from creating the desperate wanter.