Tag: harm

Lack of consent and procreation.

You could argue that by procreating, you’re always harming someone, it’s impossible to procreate without breaking the do-no-harm principle/idea, you put someone into a state of need/want/desire.

Once you are here, as a conscious organism, you’ll be constantly motivated by suffering. You must eat or you get hungry. You must drink or you get thirsty. You must shit or you constipate. You must breathe or you suffocate. You must socialize or you get lonely.

Whatever example you want to use, you must chase pleasure/relief, or you will continue to suffer. If you don’t get the pleasure/relief, then you will suffer more, similar to how if it’s not brighter, then it is darker, or if it is not drier, then it is wetter. Less pleasure/relief, more suffering.

So procreating equals irresponsibly creating an addiction with no guarantee of fulfillment.

  • There is also a secondary argument against procreation, which is that you cannot get consent from an unborn child to create it.

When is it important to ask for consent?

I think the best answer is whenever you are exposing someone to some kind of risk of future harm, unless of course you are by doing so preventing a greater harm, easy example: shooting Hitler although he didn’t explicitly consent to it.

It is important for me to ask for consent, whenever I have doubts about what I’m going to do for someone else. So for example, if I want to steal your money and go to a gambling house, the only condition under which this could be made acceptable again is if I can 100% guarantee that I’m going to win the gamble or somehow I’m preventing more harm by stealing your money and taking it to the gambling house.

If I already knew you liked money, I can win the billion dollars, you’re not going to object to the end result, then I may proceed without asking you first, I already know the end result is going to be a win.

If I want to give someone surprise anal sex, the condition under which this could be made acceptable is if I can 100% guarantee they’re going to be into it later on. If I definitely knew they would appreciate it, they’re not going to object to the end result – then I may proceed without asking them first, but if there is any shadow of a doubt, I need to ask if it is being consented to first, I must not assume implicit consent without great evidence.

  • So I wouldn’t say that asking for consent is in itself always important as some kind of sacred rule, ultimately it is still the harm/suffering that matters,but here we have the problem procreation.

When procreators are about to procreate, it is fair to say that they cannot 100% guarantee a win.

  • The child could get a disease.
  • The child could be lonely.
  • The child could become addicted to drugs.
  • The child could randomly get struck by lightning or hit by a bus, be crippled for life.
  • The child could die in some unpleasant way one day.
  • The child could at all be dissatisfied, like I already pointed out at the beginning.

So to procreation, there is risk, that is undeniable, and on top of that, you also couldn’t argue that we’d be worse off if we stopped procreation, I don’t see how greater harm would befall anyone unless you could somehow argue that there’s some kind of unborn purgatory where people are suffering from not existing.

So we need to ask the unborn child for consent first. How do we do that? The answer is, we cannot do that, so what do we do when there is risk of colossal failure and no ability to get consent? We do not proceed, I cannot break into a random girl’s house while she’s asleep and stick my dick in her ass in hopes that she’ll appreciate the surprise anal sex afterwards.

Here reckless procreators frequently have a different idea all of the sudden:

  • ”I can’t ask for consent, so I don’t need to! How am I supposed to get consent from an unborn child you fucking idiot???”.

So that means they don’t get it, the point isn’t that there is an unborn antechamber where you could have contacted the child and asked for consent, the point is that explicitly stated consent becomes an important priority whenever we are exposing someone to a colossal risk of harm to prevent no greater harm, this applies in the case of procreation, so procreation cannot be justified unless you could ask for consent.

When you procreate, you:

  1. Create harm/suffering, i.e someone will now have basic needs that constantly have to be fulfilled, it makes them suffer whereas if we didn’t create someones anymore, there would be no harm/suffering.
  2. Risk that they won’t be able to fulfill their needs, thus suffer even more intensely.
  3. Don’t have a guarantee that they will be alright with the ticket they pull (consent).

Consent isn’t the only factor here, but I could argue that you not even knowing whether or not the person is going to like their circumstances is even worse, factor 3 here just makes it even worse in a sense.

Again, we can also find scenarios where it is possible to ask for consent, but I would think you wouldn’t need to, if you know you can double my life savings in a gamble, you no longer need to ask me for consent because you’re sure about the end result being a win so I’m going to be alright with it, if I know you always want a dick up your ass, I don’t need to ask anymore, I know you’ll be alright with it.

  • Similarly, we can give examples of everything that will have a negative effect on a child once it’s born, where we cannot adequately obtain consent beforehand either, because the child hasn’t been born yet.

For example, if I’m about to bring a child that’ll be severely disabled and suffer chronic pain every single day into existence, I also cannot ask the child for consent to be born before it is born, so does that make it alright to not abort that child just because I could have not gotten the consent to put it into a condition of chronic excruciating pain?

  • What if I want to give a fetus cancer?

Let’s say that’s just my fetish, I inject cancer into fetuses and that child will grow up to deal with cancer, I jerk off to that kid dying of cancer. I cannot ask the unborn child for consent to do so, so does that make it alright to proceed and give the child cancer, even though I don’t know whether or not the child will be fine with that later on?

If we go with the standard of reckless procreators in this scenario, i.e ”I don’t need consent if I’m unable to get it” – then it would be perfectly acceptable to birth a child that’ll do nothing but be severely disabled and in chronic pain every day, by this standard, it would be perfectly acceptable to fulfill my fetish of injecting cancer into fetuses, creating cancer cripple kids.

By this standard, we could justify giving a fetus any sort of disease that we want.

Chronic pain, AIDS, cancer, deformities, etc, doesn’t matter. If I could deliberately make a deformed, chronically pained child with cancer, would that be justifiable simply because I was unable to ask the fetus for consent beforehand?

I couldn’t have possibly asked them whether or not they will be fine with this later on, so I did it anyway, because I don’t need to ask for consent if I am unable to do so, that is the standard natalists are putting on the table.

  • But if they don’t like it, they can just kill themselves! So they have a choice, take it or leave it!

Often the last retort when you point out that creating a child carries a risk of the child being dissatisfied with life. And it’s true, if the child doesn’t like life, they can still kill themselves later on, just like in any other given scenario where I failed to ask for consent though.

If you really don’t like that I lost all your money in a gamble, you can still commit suicide. If you really don’t like that I broke into your home at night to give you surprise anal sex in your sleep, you can still commit suicide. Don’t like that I drunk drove over your legs? Kill yourself faggot, I’ll never stop selfishly taking risks at someone else’s expense.

When someone wants to kill themselves, it’s already too late, you already harmed them, so excusing the imposition based on the fact that the victim can still commit suicide later on isn’t an argument.

Not to mention, many procreating life supporters do not truly support the right to die for everyone including children, although it would, unlike their selfish behavior, not carry risk of future harm to the child, if you’re put to sleep you’re never going to regret it later on after all, you’re dead.

But they don’t like that, they want to force any child that doesn’t agree with life being a gift to pretend that life is a gift, otherwise they will deny the reproduced victims their freedom required to exit from life, it’s a circularly justified conclusion – the person is assumed to be mentally ill because they want to end their life, and it is assumed that they want to end their life because they are mentally ill, it’s circular logic.

So it’s not like these imposers even give their victim the freedom to exit, this is more like I break into this girl’s home and give her surprise anal sex, and if she doesn’t like it, she technically has the right to commit suicide.

Sentient life is useless.

Antifrustrationism is an axiological position proposed by German philosopher Christoph Fehige,[1] which states that “we don’t do any good by creating satisfied extra preferences. What matters about preferences is not that they have a satisfied existence, but that they don’t have a frustrated existence.”[2] According to Fehige, “maximizers of preference satisfaction should instead call themselves minimizers of preference frustration.”[2]

What makes the world better is “not its amount of preference satisfaction, but the avoided preference frustration.”[3] In the words of Fehige, “we have obligations to make preferrers satisfied, but no obligations to make satisfied preferrers.”[2]

The position stands in contrast to classical utilitarianism, among other ethical theories, which holds that creating “satisfied preferrers” is, or can be, a good in itself.

The moral philosopher Peter Singer has in the past endorsed a position similar to antifrustrationism (negative preference utilitarianism), writing:

The creation of preferences which we then satisfy gains us nothing. We can think of the creation of the unsatisfied preferences as putting a debit in the moral ledger which satisfying them merely cancels out… Preference Utilitarians have grounds for seeking to satisfy their wishes, but they cannot say that the universe would have been a worse place if we had never come into existence at all.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifrustrationism

I think that the strongest argument against the perpetuation of conscious life is that all we’re trying to do all our lives is trying to reduce suffering, but the only way to truly achieve zero suffering is by not existing, so it can never be a good idea to create it.

By which I mean that ultimately, by achieving any good, pleasure, happy moment in life, you are compensating for a mental state that would otherwise be suffering, all your life you’re trying to reduce your levels of suffering to zero, when the only way to truly reach the zero is to not come into existence in the first place.

Before we exist, we are not suffering in a pre-birth deprivation chamber, hoping to exist, feeling pain as a result of not enjoying chocolate cake, but once you exist, you’ll have to chase what we call good, pleasure, happy in order to avoid pain, suffering, misery.

  • If I don’t eat, I suffer hunger and/or appetite.
  • If I don’t drink, I suffer thirst and dehydration.
  • If I don’t defecate, I suffer constipation.
  • If I don’t ejaculate, I suffer tension, stress, pressure.
  • If I don’t sleep, I suffer fatigue.
  • If I don’t breathe, I suffer suffocation.

There is never a neutral point in between, I think most wrongly imagine pain and pleasure as pain, neutral, and then there is some kind of profit beyond that, when in reality you are just suffering, and then trying to go back to neutral, and in that process, we have what we call pleasure.

I imagine it as being trapped on a treadmill with suffering on one side and pleasure on the other, the treadmill always pulls you into suffering, you have to keep running to achieve pleasure/relief.

Once you achieved pleasure, you’ll either be pulled back into suffering or the treadmill extends and now there’s pleasure in front of you again, and the pleasure you just obtained will soon crumble and turn into suffering again. This happens your entire life, until at the end you’re usually more intensely pulled into suffering and then you die.

All our lives as sentient organisms, we’re experiencing desire, deprivation, craving, suffering (whatever you want to call it) and try to reduce it to zero again. If you somehow to fulfill all your desires and keep them permanently fulfilled, you’re just back to the same level of deficit as before you were born – a total sum of zero.

I chase satisfaction, relief, because if I fail to obtain it, I will start to feel dissatisfied. You could also imagine it as always sinking into a hole, and then you have to struggle to climb up to the surface to get a fresh breath of satisfaction, relief again, if you fail to do it, you’ll be punished, so you keep doing it.

Once every urge that could push me to eat it, be it hunger, if not, then to avoid appetite which is also a form of suffering, since some will say this is too reductive, we don’t just try to avoid suffering, we eat when we’re not starving too, but appetite is still suffering.

A prisoner can suffer from not being able to eat their favorite dessert anymore, that is the appetite left unattended for a while, when they’re unable to get partial relief from simply fantasizing about grabbing their favorite dessert from the fridge, because they know it’s unrealistic, they’re sitting in prison.

If you eat and you’re not getting rid of hunger, neither of appetite, then it might just be boredom, another form of suffering we seek constant distraction from, even if the food doesn’t even satisfy hunger or appetite anymore.

I desire, I fulfill desire – now I’m just back to as neutral as possible, the same as before, I don’t suffer anymore – for a moment until it comes back, either a new one will pop up, or the old one returns.

  • And this is what we’re doing our entire lives – a function of punishment is installed and we’re trying to avoid it as much as possible.

Upon birth of consciousness, you’re thrown into the deprivation hole. Now suffering always comes on its own, you have to work to climb up to the surface of the hole to get a fresh breath of pleasure, but you’ll inevitably fall down again because it’s a wet slimy hole. The only way to not be in the hole is to never be born or die.

You’re getting whipped (desire), and sometimes you’re getting whipped less intensely in between (fulfilled desire), but the only way to fully escape the whip is to never be born or die as soon as possible. This will rid you of the pleasure you gain from sometimes avoiding the whip, but is ultimately irrelevant, because you’re not getting whipped anymore.

You’re burdened with a vulnerable welfare that now constantly needs to be maintained in order to not crumble and degrade. The closest metaphor I could think of would be kind of like having to work to obtain money, and then it automatically starts being taken away from you again without you having spent anything on anything. You work to fulfill your desires, and then they empty again or new ones will inevitably pop up.

Even if you fulfill all your desires perfectly, you still suffered in between the moment of them being unfulfilled and fulfilled, and you would have still avoided suffering more efficiently by being aborted before you became conscious. Breathing air to avoid suffocating is less bad than suffocating, but not needing to breathe air to avoid suffocating in the first place is still less bad.

Of course, you would no longer get the pleasure/relief from the fresh breath of air either, but can you really see that as such a big tragedy if you know fully well that you wouldn’t experience suffocation as a result of that either? That is what I’m doubting.

Not existing solves every problem, including our need for any degree of pleasure. Even if you make a child that will grow up to be the scientist that cures cancer (which is unlikely), the cure for cancer is only valuable if suffering organisms that have cancer exist, but if we stopped production of sentient organisms that can get cancer, this would no longer be a problem.

  • The good doesn’t justify the bad, because the good is just the getting rid of the bad again until it comes back anyway and you have to avoid it again, which you don’t need to, if you don’t create the bad in the first place.

This is what makes the idea of the good things in life justifying the bad absurd, which is a favorite go-to argument life apologists bring up when it is pointed out to them that causing life to exist causes unnecessary torture.

Since the good is just compensating for a bad, to say that it’s good to create the bad for the good of then compensating for it would be like saying that I could do you a favor by:

  • Setting your house on fire for the good of extinguishing it again.
  • Throwing children into the sea for the good of saving them from drowning.
  • Breaking your legs for the good of giving you a painkiller.
  • Give you AIDS for the good of giving you treatment for AIDS.
  • Stabbing you in the chest for the good of putting a bandaid on it.
  • Shitting on your floor for the good of wiping it off again.
  • Throwing you in a hole for the good of you climbing out of it again.

The good is just making it the same as before. I desire to eat an apple – I’m now in a state of suffering. I temporarily neutralize and avoid that suffering by eating the apple, now it’s the same as before, which means I don’t suffer as a result of not having an apple anymore, until the urge to obtain an apple comes back.

So while it may be good to fulfill unfulfilled needs and desires that already exist, it can’t be good to create unfulfilled needs and desires just for the good of then trying to fulfill them with no guarantee of being able to, just like it can be good to save an already drowning child from drowning, but it’s not good to throw the child into sea in the first place, just for the good of then trying to save the child from drowning with no guarantee of being able to.

A non-conscious fetus is not hungry for anything, so it cannot be upgraded by having hunger, desire, suffering injected into it, it can only be degraded, made into a pleasure addict, and then hopefully get its new pleasure fix always just in time before the suffering of not having that pleasure gets out of hand, which not all of them will, there are many unfulfilled desires in the life game, which then makes it even more absurd.

To say that the fulfilled desires, pleasures of some subset of sentient organisms justify all the unfulfilled desires, suffering of other sentient organisms, would in the metaphor be like saying that it is a perfectly good idea to walk around and set people’s houses on fire for the good of extinguishing them again, even if many of those houses burn down with children inside, because that is perfectly compensated for by extinguishing other houses.

It’s good to throw children into the atlantic ocean for the good of saving them from drowning, even if 50 have to drown and die painfully here and there, because that is perfectly compensated for by the pleasure that the children you actually manage to save from drowning feel when you save them from drowning, we need to keep throwing children into the ocean because otherwise we would lose the pleasure of saving them from drowning, they’ll lose the pleasure of being saved from drowning.

Make children addicted to heroin for the good of then satisfying their addiction, their suffering for heroin, a completely inefficient and unproductive idea to begin with, and then you don’t even give of all them the heroin, some are just left in their state of deprivation to be tormented.

As in the life game, you don’t really manage to fulfill desires permanently, to make the metaphors even more accurate, we could practically say the good is more like pulling the child’s head out of the water in between, not saving it from drowning.

But even if we perfected the game and had some kind of technological endless orgasm utopia scenario, then we’d still just be perfectly fixing pre-existing damage, which is still not better than not creating it in the first place, you still cannot benefit the organism by putting it into the utopia, creating its desire to be endlessly jerked off, and then endlessly jerking it off.

Installing the threat of a negative and then perfectly avoiding it is better than failing to perfectly avoid the negative, but not having it installed into you is still the greatest win.

It would be like having the cure for AIDS. Yes, it’s good to perfectly cure AIDS, but I still cannot be benefitted by being given AIDS, and then being given the perfect pill to cure AIDS afterwards, I just got back to the state of not having AIDS, which I didn’t have before it was given to me, so I didn’t really win anything.

In conclusion, sentient organisms can do nothing except trying to solve problems created by them being sentient – need, want, desire, and then erase that deficit again, fulfill the need, want, desire.

Then they avoid that suffering for a moment, but they still didn’t avoid it more efficiently than by never being born, they just got back to a non-bothered state and felt bothered in between, which isn’t superior to never feeling bothered by anything at all.

Life is useless, at best you’re always just getting back to a more neutral before the pain becomes unbearable, that’s a so called good life, which is rare.

Life apologists believe that this then somehow justifies all the organisms that fail to avoid the pain before it becomes too bad, which is about as absurd as to justify stabbing 50 people in the chest to do them the favor of pulling the knife out of only 10 of them.

It’s good to make 50 people addicted to heroin and then deprive 40 of it, because you gave 10 of them all the heroin in the world, that they now need after you deliberately made them addicted to it.

All we try to do is prevent harm, and we can prevent all harm most efficiently and permanently by simply not making conscious organisms.

All we lose is all pleasure, which is irrelevant, because non-existent children don’t feel pain as a result of not having pleasure like actually existent sentient organisms feel pain as a result of not feeling pleasure, the rush of satisfying an addiction becomes irrelevant once you don’t have the addiction.

The universe is not a sentient entity that suffers if we don’t put sentient life in it, there is to my knowledge no ineliminable pre-birth deprivation chamber or unborn purgatory in which non-existers are writhing in agony over not being put into flesh suits on earth, so the existence of any suffering is unnecessary in the grand scheme of things.

Even if the universe were sentient of course, then its suffering would also be unnecessary, futile, better off not existing as well. But then we could at least argue that there’s a practical reason why we need to keep existing to alleviate the suffering of the universe, which we don’t have to though.

Why I reject the child/underage sex taboo.

  • NO EVIDENCE FOR INTRINSIC HARM AND TRAUMA, INTRINSIC VS. EXTRINSIC, SOCIETALLY MANUFACTURED HARM.

There has always been absolutely zero evidence that sex in childhood/youth in and of itself causes trauma, intrinsic (an important keyword here) harm, there are arguably certain cliché factors that could make it harmful that pedophobes automatically think of when they even hear the word pedophilia, such as:

  • Manipulation.
  • Blackmail.
  • Force of any kind.
  • Early penetration.
  • Early impregnation.
  • STD exchange.
  • Violent abduction, rape and murder.

But nothing says that any of these factors inherently apply to all cases of sex between minors and adults, society is simply disgusted by these relations and therefore fails to adequately distinguish between the harmful and the harmless ones.

There is in fact evidence that suggests children are harmed by these other factors when they feel traumatized after a sexual encounter rather than by sex itself, e.g. Rind et al. as an obvious example, or feel traumatized long after such encounters when they come into contact with society’s negative views on the sexual encounter they had, e.g. The Trauma Myth by Susan Clancy, it can be hard for scientists to talk about these topics in public because it puts them at risk to be publically ostracized by psychotic pedophobes.

This paper is a review of previous works and thus offers no new concepts; the apparent absence of harm in sexually expressed child/older person relationships has been attested to as far back as 1937 (Bender and Blau 1937) and 1942 (Menninger 1942).

C.A. Tripp asked “What is the mechanism {for transmuting a benign childhood sexual experience into harm}?”, noting that “victimologists have never provided one that is scientifically credible;” (as reported by Bruce Rind in personal communication 2002) and Kilpatrick (1987) also posed the question: “What has been harmed – the child or the moral code?” (p. 179).

Bailey (2011) observes what is to him “a surprising… lack of scientific evidence” (p. 3) for these claims. Clancy (2009) proposed that at least initial trauma is a “myth,” and noted that she “cannot offer a clear theoretical model as to exactly how and why sexual abuse damages victims” (p. 142).

Constantine (1981) described the effects of intervention based on this assumed/assigned harmfulness as “psychonoxious” (p. 241).

However, as Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman (1998) point out, since the late 1970s a large number of mental health professionals have claimed that all sexual interactions between children and older persons “… cause harm, {that} this harm is pervasive,… {is} likely to be intense,… {and} is an equivalent experience for boys and girls…” (p. 22). However, no path or mechanism is offered as to how these sexual interactions actually cause harm.

https://www.brongersma.info/The_missing_mechanism_of_harm_in_consensual_sexually_expressed_boyhood_relationships_with_older_males

It’s just like some spiders are venomous and therefore dangerous, and some spiders are not, but because you find spiders disgusting anyway, you put both spiders into the ”dangerous” category.

Pedophobes feel disgusted by the idea of a child having sex anyway, so they throw the 6 year old girl voluntarily humping a pedophile’s leg into the same category as the 6 year old girl getting abducted and brutally raped, disgust can scare you away from a non-dangerous spider or pedophile.

In and of itself, there is no reason why a child would be traumatized by sex if they found out about sexual pleasure on their own by humping a pillow and now want to receive it by rubbing themselves against an adult’s leg – no manipulation, blackmail, violence required, nothing later on done to the child that the child is harmed by (like anal penetration or impregnation), unless society reacts negatively to it. Why would that be harmful? There’s no explanation of that mechanism, because it does not exist.

If you want to claim that sex in childhood is intrinsically harmful, point out to me in detail why such an encounter of a 6 year old girl voluntarily humping a pedophile’s leg would be harmful if she has not been in any way manipulated, blackmailed, forced into it and the pedophile did not brutally rape her later on, point out how magically trauma will poof into existence out of the great nowhere for no tangible, scientifically explicable reason whatsoever, even if society simply didn’t react negatively to such an encounter.

It is vital to be able to show a mechanism of some sort. Example, with alcohol, we can directly show how it alters your liver, no doubt about it, alcohol can cause liver diseases, independent of which society you live in at what point in time. Now what about sex in childhood, can you show me that a child will feel harmed by voluntarily having an orgasm even in a society that is perfectly accepting of children receiving orgasms?

Pedophobes are engaging in post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning here – B happened after A, therefore, B was caused by A. A child had a harmless sexual encounter, the child is traumatized at some point long afterwards because of secondary harmful factors, which can include society’s negative reaction to the sexual encounter, therefore, harmless sexual encounters cause trauma.

  • ”The child left the house while it was raining, the child was wetted by the rain, therefore, leaving the house causes the child to be wetted.” – is this proper logical reasoning? No.

A child has a harmless sexual encounter with a pedophile, the pedophobes then inflict negative consequences onto the child and the pedophile as they fail to distinguish between harmless and harmful cases due to irrational feelings of disgust/repulsion, such as:

  • Separating the child and the pedophile.
  • Screeching hysterically at the child how they supposedly got molested.
  • Sending the child to a similarly delusional therapist.
  • Socially pressuring the child to ”accept their rape” or be labelled as delusional.
  • Telling the child they now ”lost their innocence”, implying they are guilty.
  • Tormenting/beating the pedophile in front of the child.
  • Making the child feel responsible for sending the pedophile to prison.
  • Telling the child how their partner is now going to get assraped in prison.

Then, the pedophobe confuses the harm they cause for harm caused by the harmless sexual encounter between the child and the pedophile, concluding that orgasms under 18 (or whatever holy age they were socially indoctrinated into believing is the only correct one) causes lifelong trauma and depression – a faulty conclusion.

As neurologically typical humans are predisposed to act as social copying machines who largely care about how they perceived by others, it is no wonder that children who engaged in such initially harmless encounters then frequently grow up to parrot the ”I got raped” – narrative when they grow up in order to be accepted by their primitive tribe.

  • When nothing helps, they also like to appeal to the consequences they themselves are at fault for creating.

When all this is pointed out to them, they then frequently like to commit the argumentum ad baculum fallacy and say that even if the harm/trauma is caused by the social consequences (that we inflict on children and pedophiles), it is still a consequence nonetheless, so there’s still no excuse for having sex with a child/minor, as they will be harmed either way. It doesn’t matter if the harm is just caused by society reacting negatively to the encounter, because society does react that way after all!

This is a catastrophically idiotic argument, considering that the harm is caused by them and could be easily eliminated by them no longer reacting in this fashion to such encounters between children/minors and pedophiles/adults.

It would be like saying if you sell a child ice cream, although selling ice cream to children might not be inherently harmful, if you do so, I’m going to castrate and shoot you in front of the child because I’m an anti-ice cream bigot who thinks everyone who sells ice cream to anyone under the age of 18 should be violently murdered, so therefore, you harmed this child by selling it ice cream, because in response to it, I cut your nuts off and set you on fire in front of the child, thereby traumatizing the child. See, it’s all your fault.

  • Why should a society have the right to make a harmless activity into a harmful one?

It’s blaming the victim just like any other bigoted nazi would do, no better than a rapist saying you can’t be a whore or else he’s going to rape you, or a homophobe saying don’t be a faggot or I’ll beat you, just that the pedophobe is saying don’t be a pedo or else I’m going to traumatize a child by beating you up in front of the child for giving the child an orgasm, don’t make me harm the child by harming you and by extension the child with my psychotic bigot meltdown in response to you giving a volunteering child a perfectly harmless orgasm.

  • HIGH INTELLIGENCE AND MATURITY ARE NOT PREREQUISITES FOR GIVING CONSENT.

It is untrue that children are fundamentally incapable of literal consent, agreement. Any conscious, sentient organism can be agreeable or disagreeable, children have preferences, almost everyone has seen a child spitting out food they didn’t like before or buy ice cream, I could argue even a dog can consent to go for a walk outside, the function of agreement and disagreement, attraction and repulsion exist in every conscious organism.

What is true though is that children are until a certain age indeed less intelligent and mature than adults, but there is no reason to think that this inherently disqualifies them from consenting to sex, which is what pedophobes would like to think.

A good word to use here is foresight and/or future concept, the ability to plan and think ahead, calculate future consequences and ramifications of actions. The point is that whether or not you need great foresight in order to consent to an act is entirely dependent on the future consequences of the act we are discussing.

  • If there is no innate, foreseeable harmful consequence to an act, a subject does not need great foresight, intelligence and maturity.

For example, let’s say we have a child subject that wishes to ride a bicycle, despite not understanding traffic rules yet due to their lack of intelligence and maturity. Would it be ethically responsible to allow this child consent to ride a bicycle? Can they consent? The answer is that it entirely depends on the environment and its consequences.

On the freeway? No, there is a potential negative consequence, i.e getting hit by a car that the child is unable to take into account yet, so they are disqualified from consenting.

In a completely safe, harmless, child-friendly environment? Yes, because there is about absolutely zero chance that they’ll get hit by a car anyway, so in a completely safe and harmless, child-friendly street, even a child with no ability to understand traffic rules is perfectly able to consent to ride a bicycle.

There is no age restriction for children eating broccoli, but there is an age restriction for children drinking alcohol, and the general idea there is that even if a child consents to drink a bottle of whiskey, they may not consent to the future consequences of that act but might not be able to appreciate that, whereas with broccoli, there is no such risk, so there would be no reason to prevent the child from consenting to eat broccoli.

Similarly, using the simple concept of logical consistency, we can apply the same reasoning to sexuality. If there is no innate, foreseeable harmful consequence to a sex act between a child and a pedophile that the child fails to see due to their childishness, then there is no reason to disqualify the child’s consent as ”somehow not real consent”.

So let’s use a similar example in a sexual context. We have a child subject that wants to receive sexual pleasure, but is too unintelligent and immature to grasp sexual education.

Would it be responsible to allow this child to have sex? Depends on the environment and consequences, just as with the bicycle example.

If the situation is sufficiently devoid of harm risk, i.e the child humps a pedophile’s leg, no risk of STDs or pregnancy involved, then there’s no logically detectable problem, if the child does something that exposes them to STDs despite not even properly understanding what STDs are yet, like having unprotected anal sex with strangers, that would be bad.

  • P1: Dangerous activities require foresight (ability to understand future consequences).
  • P2: Sex is not necessarily a dangerous activity.
  • C: Sex does not necessarily require foresight.

And of course again, pedophobes will sometimes appeal to the social consequences that they themselves are creating in response to such sexual encounters, i.e ”children can’t consent because there are just social risks amd consequences the child isn’t able to deal with yet!” – but obviously the answer to this is simply to abolish those social consequences, rather than to abolish a harmless sex act, again, it’d be like saying children can never consent to buy ice cream because I’m an anti-ice cream bigot who’ll burn you alive in front of a child for selling them ice cream.

”They could regret having sex later on!” might also be a concern, but that isn’t a fair risk to name, because that can literally be applied to every single interaction anyone ever has, so by that standard no social interactions should be allowed at all.

The reason why pedophobes think children need to be intelligent and mature to consent to sex is because they believe sex to be harmful (based on their irrational feelings of disgust) so in order for children to consent to it, they expect them to be rocket scientists first, even when the sex act in question is completely non-dangerous like leg humping.

It is equally ridiculous as not allowing a child to ride a bicycle in a safe and harmless environment just because the child isn’t competent to drive a car on the freeway yet, intelligence and maturity are not per se required for it to be possible for a child/minor to be agreeable.

We generally allow children to do what they want, as long as it has no secondary consequence that they may later on not want, resulting in harm to them, such as eating broccoli but not drinking alcohol. Pedophobes falsely believe that sex is one of those things that will later on always turn out to be harmful, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when they react negatively to it.

  • POWER DIFFERENCE DOES NOT EQUAL POWER ABUSE.

It is true that in certain areas, depending on what we are measuring, adults are more powerful than children, though it does not even apply to all areas of life.

It is irrelevant if adults are more powerful than children, because the existence of power in and of itself does not equal abuse. If a child voluntarily does garden work for an adult for a little extra pocket money and someone comes around the corner and accuses that adult of blackmailing a child into slave labor in his garden, they need evidence for that claim, the fact alone that this adult has authority does not mean that the child was forced to work.

When it comes to sex however, these critical evaluation skills shut down, and pedophobes see the fact that a given adult, be it a teacher or not has power over the minor as evidence that if sex happened between the adult and the minor, it must be the result of power abuse, no doubt about it.

  • Adult has authority over 15 year old, 15 year old however completely voluntarily does garden work for extra pocket money – not abusive.
  • Adult has authority over 15 year old, 15 year old however completely voluntarily sticks penis in them – somehow abusive.
  • Father has physical strength advantage over 6 year old daughter, 6 year old daughter consents to be lifted up by him – not abusive.
  • Pedophile has physical strength advantage over 6 year old girl as well, 6 year old girl consents to ride on his leg – somehow abusive.

This is a case of hypocrisy we are dealing with here, ”power imbalance simultaneously does and does not make an interaction abusive.”

The existence of power does not equate to abuse of that power, and in most other contexts, pedophobes are perfectly capable of recognizing that the possession of power is not the same thing as the abuse of power.

They only fail to recognize it in the sexual context, and this is because they most likely live in a delusional disney fantasy world where they want to believe that their 15 year old daughter is an asexual, innocent princess whose sexual impulses are all triggered by some kind of malicious pedominati propagandist fooling her into thinking that orgasms are totally not harmful, when in reality they obviously cause PTSD for life when you receive them under 18, 17, 16 or whatever may be the holy age they have been indoctrinated into thinking is the only correct one.

They already made another false assumption, which is that children are asexual, innocent (sex=guilt) angels that would never possibly want sex (that’s too icky of a truth to accept, OMG children can perform basic biological functions like producing excrement just like adults, this is unacceptable!), and they base their assumption that if sex between a minor and an authority figure happens on that first fundamentally false assumption that manipulation must be used to get a minor to have sex.

Someone can have sex with you in spite of their power, e.g. although I have a gun and have power over you, you want to suck my dick completely regardless of the fact that I own a gun.

Or, someone can also feel aroused by the power, but not abused by it, this can apply in cases where young girls might look up to an idolized musician or someone like that, but this doesn’t mean that 12 year old girls only want to suck Justin Bieber’s dick because they’re scared he’s going to kill them, so you could also suck my dick because you are aroused by guns, not intimidated by them.

Both are possible, so the power itself does not equate to abuse. If it does, then any interaction where there’s a power imbalance involved, not only sexual ones, are by default abusive.

  • In conclusion:

I don’t think there is any rational reason for upkeeping this backward taboo against sex in childhood and/or youth, or sexual relations between children/minors and pedophiles/adults, it is in the end just like all other bigotries a result of disgust and fear of the unknown, not truly rational thought.

It is barbaric pro-suffering non-sense, no better than having some kind of other non-sensical taboo, pick any other object and make it into a taboo, like candy.

Anyone who gives anyone under 18 candy will be violently harassed by society for the child that received candy to see, the child will be sent to a therapist and socially pressured to say they were forced to eat candy at knifepoint by the evil candy distributing monster.

Fetuses and future value.

In abortion discussions, pro-lifers obviously frequently make the argument that a fetus is a human, and a life, so it’s bad to kill it. So the fair question comes up, what about sperm? It contains human DNA, and it is also alive. Life starts in the testicles, sperm lives and sperm can die, it can live up to 3-5 days in a moist and warm environment.

Some then reject this argument, because the sperm could not on its own (i.e by leeching off of a female’s reproductive system for 9 months, so not really on its own) grow into a child later on, by which logic they’d only have to be against the morning after pill, because it prevents an already ejaculated sperm from fertilizing an egg on its own.

Even if the egg is not fertilized yet, which some pro-lifers will point out to make it seem like abortion is worse than taking the morning after pill, the morning after pill still prevents the sperm from fertilizing that egg by their definition of ”on its own”, without our help. Once the sperm is ejaculated into the vagina, it will fertilize the egg on its own, unless you stop it from happening.

But the implication is always kind of obvious in these arguments, they appeal to the great possibilities for the future of that fertilized egg, and think that it is a horrible loss to not transform a non-conscious organism into a conscious organism. The fertilized egg has a great future ahead of itself they’ll say, but the sperm does not, it would not grow into a conscious child on its own, some have written books about the subject, such as a future like our’s by Don Marquis.

This argument that the fetus will have a future is still pretty bad though, because obviously it doesn’t care about its future any more than a sperm, so that point still stands, here I think it’s best to bring up Benatar’s asymmetry again to make that point.

Preventing a suffering from happening is arguably always a good thing to do, I would think it’s important that you prevent a child that will suffer chronic pain everyday, even if that child has not been born yet and will not appreciate that its horrible disease has been prevented.

But I’d see it as absurd to whine about the fact that now that child will not experience any pleasure either, because there is no one in pain who needs pleasure to begin with before they come into existence, if I’m not hungry, I don’t need to eat, if I’m not aroused, I don’t need to cum.

Preventing a pleasure is only problematic conditionally, if someone feels deprived of it, you likely wouldn’t say that making new children that will eat ice cream and be happy about it one day is as important as preventing a severely disabled child that’ll be in chronic pain every single day from being born.

Sentient organisms experience needs, and they have to fulfill them to avoid suffering, non-sentient organisms don’t have needs, so they don’t have to fulfill them to avoid suffering.

Lamenting that the fetus never became sentient, experienced deprivation, so that then they can alleviate that deprivation again is about as non-sensical as lamenting that you never got cancer, so you never experienced the pleasure of treating it with chemotherapy. If the fetus doesn’t have desires because it isn’t sentient, they don’t need to be fulfilled, because they don’t exist, just like you only crave the chemotherapy if you already have cancer.

You cannot possibly deprive a purely asexual person of sex, because they are obviously not interested in having sex, so the absence of sex in their life never manifests as a problem, as a harm, lacking sex can only be an issue if you desire to engage in it. If you don’t like chocolate because you find it to taste like dog shit, I can’t hurt you by taking it away from you.

  • Fertilized eggs and sperm feel the exact same way about being killed – nothing.

A fertilized egg or non-sentient fetus obviously has absolutely zero desire to become a sentient child in the future, it doesn’t care about its future any more than the sperm did before it fertilized the egg, so the fact that it will become sentient in the future is completely irrelevant, it’s no more affected by its abortion than a tomato being turned into ketchup.

The effect here is in essence the same as never being born. If you are ejaculated into a tissue and flushed down the toilet, you never suffered a loss. If you are being aborted before you become conscious, you never suffered a loss either, it caused the exact same effect – no harm, no pain, no suffering whatsoever, except in delusional individuals who project their desire to cling to life onto the non-sentient fetus.

If you have the potential to become a professional athlete, plus a wish to do so, I can hurt you by cutting your legs off. A fertilized egg has the potential to become sentient, but no wish to do so, so you can’t hurt it by aborting it, just like the purely asexual person can’t be deprived of sex because they are not interested in it to any degree.

  • Here pro-lifers will then often times use unfair examples to try to demonstrate that the absence of pleasure can be a problem, even if no one feels deprived of it, the deprivation still somehow manifested itself.

One example would include someone wins the lottery, but you don’t tell them that they won the lottery, they don’t miss the money, but you still deprived them of it.

This isn’t a fair comparison, because the person still had a desire to do something for which the money would have been required, the person was already sentient, thus had an already existent quality of life, and this quality of life is impaired by not obtaining the money, they want to do things to which this money will be an instrument.

So yes, in that scenario, you are holding them back by not giving them the money. Already sentient person already has a desire to buy a new car, so you are hurting them by refusing to give them the money. The fetus on the other hand, again, has absolutely no desire to buy a new car, so you are not hurting it by refusing to turn it into a sentient child that will be able to buy a new car one day.

What if someone drops a gift in front of your door while you’re on vacation and I take it away? You didn’t know I took it away, but you were still deprived.

But that is again because you’re an already sentient organism whose already existent quality of life would be improved by receiving the gift, you would feel worse without the gift than if you were to receive the gift, and I’d be at fault for keeping you in this more negative state by taking away the gift, it can’t be applied to the fetus because the fetus has no quality of life at all.

Same would apply to a school education, they may say a child does not initially feel deprived of its school education, but obviously the implication they’d be making would still be that the child still needs it in order to do things in life later on for which said school education would be a prerequirement, again, the non-sentient fetus on the other hand wants no future, so you are not hurting it by refusing to instill consciousness into it.

  • Pro-lifers might bring up suicidal individuals, i.e John doesn’t want a future anymore, so why not just stab him in the throat right there on the spot?

Chances are, John still has an interest in avoiding pain just like any other sentient organism though, so obviously just brutally murdering someone can still be argued to be a bad thing, if it were indeed a consensual euthanasia, there would be absolutely no rational reason to oppose that, why torture someone by entrapping them in a circumstance they don’t wish to be in?

It’s a not well thought through point, similar to how some pro-lifers bring up people with CIP syndrome to defeat the sentience argument.

Obviously someone with CIP syndrome can still feel fear, depression, existential dread, they are just less sensitive to certain types of pain, so it’s not as if a person with a congenital insensitivity has as little of an existent welfare as a living, but non-sentient fetus that is pretty much on the same mental level of a living, but non-sentient tomato, carrot, eggplant, they just can’t help but to ascribe feelings to non-feeling things.

This is just a typical outdated, primitive understanding of pain, ultimately pain and suffering are the same thing, they are both generated by the brain, pain in your arm isn’t really only in your arm, the effect is still created by the brain, just like ”emotional pain” (which is all pain, obviously, all pain is emotional, i.e a sensation).

  • What about coma patients though?

They equally bring up this future value argument when it comes to coma patients, indicating that they think it’s wrong to kill the unconscious because they’re going to have a future, not taking into account that this could be based on the past, rather than the future.

The reason why we can realistically say that chances are, it’s worse to kill an unconscious coma patient than to kill an unconscious fetus has more to do with the past rather than the future. If we legalized just pulling the plug on someone once they fall into a coma, they would be upset about that before they were to fall into that coma, because they were already conscious.

The thing is, the fetus was never conscious beforehand, so in that case, we don’t have that problem, when the fetus was a sperm, it was never bothered by the legal status of abortion, thinking to itself:

  • ”So if I were to fertilize an egg one day, some asshole could just abort me? This hurts my feelings PROFOUNDLY, I always wanted to turn from a completely non-conscious sperm into a conscious child. So my life has no value just because I’m not sentient??? You think you can decide over life and death you monsters??? SPERM LIVES MATTER!”.

Which would be the emotional effect that it might have on people if we were to legalize just pulling the plug on them if they drop unconscious one day. Frankly, I think we can say that this often times delusional as well, there is really no rational reason to just be scared of non-existence per se, obviously it’s going to be no different from before you were born – you won’t miss out on fulfilling your needs, wants, desires because you’ll no longer have any needs, wants, desires.

If you lead a productive life and try to reduce suffering in other organisms, perhaps have some sort of obligation, like taking care of someone else, we could argue it’s good to wake you up again, but just the loss of life itself I don’t think could rationally be argued to be a tragedy if it causes no pain, because again, the non-sentient do not feel deprived of anything, if we just made your sleep permanent, you wouldn’t mind.

But that is a slight distinction and practical complication to this issue with coma patients, if anything, I don’t think you should wake up the coma patient because he has a future, more because not doing so might scare others before they fall into a coma.

A last retort you’ll sometimes hear in response to this is ”what if the person has no memory of their past?”, which I fail to see how that is meant to disprove anything, if they wouldn’t have any memory of their past after waking up again, they still experienced the past when it was the present, and in that present moment, they perhaps felt bad about it being legal for someone to pull the plug on them if they were to fall into a coma, so this would be an irrelevant question.

In conclusion, I think it ultimately all deals back to the first fundamental issue of them projecting certain emotions onto the fetus, I won’t call it anthropomorphism because the fetus obviously contains human DNA, so it is human.

They’re not pretending it’s human, they are basically pretending it is equivalent to a conscious organism who worries about their fate, and even if it never was conscious before, it will somehow experience harm as a result of not being made into a conscious being.

They imagine ”not having been born” from the perspective of ”I’m here right now, and then I would be really upset if no one brought me here, lamenting my non-existence from the depths of the unborn purgatory, for which I have absolutely no evidence that it actually exists”, often revealed by them also asking the question ”how would you feel if you were aborted?” as if you could actually feel anything about that.

Even if the thought made me feel uneasy in this moment, I can still rationally comprehend that it would have never harmed me if I were never born, so there would be no reason to be upset about it. If you don’t exist, you don’t need to exist.

Prevention of future suffering and pleasure.

A somewhat common objection to Benatar’s asymmetry in particular is the non-identity problem, basically stating that because a child is not born yet, it cannot appreciate that its future suffering has been prevented, so the prevention of future suffering for a would-be person is not good, it’s nothing, it’s just neutral, morals/ethics cannot be applied to the unborn.

How can it be good to prevent a pain from happening, if the person hasn’t been born yet to appreciate the prevention of said pain? One of the clearest examples that is often used would be the one of a severely disabled child that will be in chronic pain every single day once it’s born, the child can’t appreciate the fact that it hasn’t been forced into a life of chronic pain after being aborted, but that doesn’t mean that shitting it out would be a good idea.

Another example would be that there have been serial rapists and killers before that got off on the idea of keeping a girl in their basement, then producing a child for the sole purpose of raping that child. If some Josef Fritzl type of guy is overtly and clearly saying that that is his plan for the future, is anyone really going to argue that you shouldn’t call the police, because after all, he hasn’t done it yet, so therefore, what will happen when the child is born is also completely irrelevant?

I don’t think so. Is it a good idea to pollute the environment as much as possible, dump toxic waste into the oceans because the future generation that will experience complete environmental degradation is not here yet, so it’s not that big of a deal anyway?

Why do we euthanize dogs and cats in their sleep when they have terminal cancer and are in chronic pain, when they aren’t even around afterwards anymore to appreciate that their cancer and chronic pain have been prevented? Why not let the cat die as miserably as possible? It won’t appreciate that its more miserable death has been prevented once it is dead, so you might as well slowly torture the cat to death.

With some of these examples, of course the natalist will try to get around the idea that creating future harm is bad because in the scenario of the rapist breeding a child into existence to rape it or experience environmental degradation, the child already existed before it got raped or experienced environmental catastrophes, so they’ll say but the harm happened to someone who already existed, it’s different.

But then I can obviously just as easily say that every single harm in existence that definitely will and could potentially befall the child will befall them when they will already exist in the future, and you are at fault for that by bringing them into existence in the first place, same difference in the grand scheme of things, any harm befalling the already existent child is a byproduct of them having been brought into existence.

The idea here is that it is a good idea to prevent a state of deprivation, suffering from happening before it happens, in principle, but it’s only bad to prevent a pleasure, its relief from happening if the alternative to it is feeling pain, which the unborn do not, but you’re always doing once you are alive, chasing pleasure to avoid feeling pain.

As long as you exist, suffering is the alternative to pleasure.

  • You don’t eat, you suffer hunger.
  • You don’t drink, you suffer thirst.
  • You don’t shit, you suffer constipation.
  • You don’t cum, you suffer sexual tension.
  • You don’t socialize, you suffer loneliness.

So on and so forth, use whatever example you want. Once you’re here, you’re trapped in a system of having to chase relief or being subjected to more suffering.

So to use a metaphor for the asymmetry, you could say I need to take into account the future consequences of injecting you with heroine in your sleep before I inject you with heroine, how it might negatively affect you in the future, but it would be silly to lament that I need to take into the account the loss of pleasure of not injecting you with heroine, I deprived you of satisfying an addiction that you don’t have.

Though admittedly, even that is not a perfect example, it is hard to find a perfect example because someone who doesn’t exist can never feel deprived of anything, at least a person that already exists could miss the fun that heroin might bring them, whereas a non-existent person can miss absolutely nothing.

If the reason why we chase pleasure in the first place is to avoid the pain/discomfort/suffering of not having it, then that explains some of people’s common intuitions that Benatar often points to – preventing the severely disabled, chronically pained child from being born is good, but preventing the happy child from being born is not bad, because the reason why they’d chase pleasure anyway is to avoid being in pain, and by not existing, they already perfectly avoided all pain, you don’t need a fire extinguisher if you’re not in a burning building.

If I abort the child that’ll be in chronic pain every single day for the rest of their life, it’s good that I’ve done this, similar to how it would be good to euthanize a cat with cancer, even though the cat obviously doesn’t wake up afterwards to appreciate that now they won’t have to die of cancer.

You also prevent their pleasure, but they won’t miss it, it won’t harm them.

A ton of semen is ejaculated, never implanted into a vagina to grow into a sentient child later on, I don’t really know anyone who laments semen being flushed down the toilet just because it depletes the potential for future sentience, I would argue because we ultimately recognize deep down that the soul of the potential child in that sperm is not writhing in agony in the unborn purgatory, distressed over missing out on the pleasures of life.

Even pro-lifers don’t go that far, they think once sperm and egg is merged, there is an obligation to give it a right to life, or that it has some kind of natural right to life, but I don’t see them getting upset over wasted sperm, so the pro-life version for this ethical questions would be: ”If you knew the sperm contained an extremely unhappy person, would it be ok to use it to make a child?” and ”If you knew the sperm contained an extremely happy person, would it be ok to flush it down the toilet nonetheless?”

Eating animals because they’re less intelligent.

The argument for humans rights is the same argument for animal rights, other animals possess the characteristic that makes it important to be put into the category of organisms that have rights, which is sentience – the capacity to feel things.

It is not my white skin color that makes it important for me to avoid having a knife shoved in my throat, as I could be braindead, still contain white skin color, but it could not possibly matter to me if I had a knife shoved in my throat, so this proves that it’s not the white skin color that makes avoidance of a knife in my throat into an important priority.

It is not my penis that makes it important for me to avoid having a knife shoved in my throat, as I could be braindead, still contain a penis, but it could not possibly matter to me if I had a knife shoved in my throat, so this proves that it’s not penis that makes avoidance of knife in my throat into an important priority.

And finally, it is not my human DNA that makes it an important priority to avoid having a knife shoved in my throat either, as I could be braindead, still contain human DNA, but it could not possibly matter to me if I had a knife shoved in my throat, so this proves that it’s not human DNA that makes avoidance of knife in my throat into an important priority.

There is absolutely no reason why it would be in any way worse to pull the plug on a braindead person, any more than to pull the plug on a computer, the only reason why it could ever possibly be bad to do so is because it affects another sentient organism, like a family member or friend of their’s that has some kind of emotional attachment to the braindead body, but if that family would indeed be more upset by someone destroying their computer than the braindead human, then it would be worse to destroy the computer in fact.

Speciesists are under ingroup favoritism/bias, just like racists and sexists, i.e I am important because I can feel things, that is understood, but this other creature is not important despite being able to feel things just like me, because it doesn’t share group membership with me, you’re not in team white, team penis or team human, so we can torture you.

An other difference that exists between humans and animals, that does not as severely exist between whites and blacks, or men and women, is the different level of intelligence, it is true that pigs, cows, chicken are much less intellectually capable than humans, whereas there’s no such extreme difference between blacks and whites, or men and women.

  • However, then we run into the mental retardation problem.

There are of course severely mentally disabled humans that aren’t much more intelligent than pigs, cows, chicken, definitely not chimpanzees, so would any of these speciesists sign me a contract that states that if they were to get into a car accident tomorrow and end up on the same level of intelligence as a pig, cow or chicken, I am allowed to treat them as a pig, cow or chicken?

Let’s say you are no longer able to add 50 plus 50, and cannot read books, so now I can cut your nuts off with no anesthesia, stick my arm up your asshole and throw you into a meatgrinder once you are of no more use for me to rape and exploit? Is that perfectly fine? I couldn’t get any more milk out of that retarded bitch’s tits, so I beat her to death with a sledgehammer. Why not?

  • ”BUT THEY’RE STILL HUMANS!!!!!”

Saying that such disabled humans are still human though, even if they’re not as intelligent, so they’re still granted rights unlike the other animals is nothing but a cheap cop-out, because if the speciesist specifically states intelligence to be the reason why humans have rights unlike animals, and we already established that human DNA in and of itself is worthless (braindead vegetables contain human DNA but can’t feel shit), then obviously if there’s a human that does not possess such a level of intelligence, they don’t deserve rights, plain and simple, it’s logical consistency.

It would be analogous a sexist saying men are granted rights because they’re stronger than women, but then, when we find these sexists a man that is just as weak as the average woman, they say ”but he still has a peepee!” to justify why this man has rights, but women don’t, because the very reason they stated as to why penis havers deserve rights is because they’re stronger than women, this man is not, so he doesn’t deserve rights according to said sexist.

They basically want to attempt to say that even if this retarded person is no more intelligent than a pig that they justify eating based on said pig’s lack of intelligence, they should still be treated the same as other humans, because they share one characteristic with them, which is being human.

This is completely irrational and arbitrary, by that sort of rule (treat the minority the same as the majority based on sharing one characteristic with them), I could say most people are not rapists, Ted Bundy is a serial rapist but also a person, so therefore, we shouldn’t arrest Ted Bundy, because he shares the characteristic, which is personhood with non-rapists.

Speciesists don’t really have any coherent excuse for this, here they frequently just try to make it sound more complex than it is, by appealing to extrinsic factors that may in practice, not in principle be different about causing harm to an unintelligent creature, or use other concepts to describe intelligence and say that animals lack these capacities, like rationality, reason, the ability to reciprocate morals and social contracts, etc.

So they might say if you assault the retarded person, the family of the retarded person would be upset, if you assault the cow, no one would be upset, except the cow of course.

Great, then just rape a retarded orphan child that no one knows on an abandoned island, or in a society of psychopaths that all join in and rape the retarded orphan child too. You’d sign the contract then that says if you end up retarded, we can treat you like that? No.

The pig on the other hand was just bred for meat, the retard wasn’t! Great, then let’s just explicitly breed pig IQ humans for the purpose of turning them into mince meat then, that surely makes it a lot better, as long as you breed someone for the sole purpose of exploiting them it’s alright, slavery is only a problem if you weren’t bred for it and your IQ is over 70.

Of course, they’d mock even the idea of a cow being assaulted or raped, because the cow is supposedly not intelligent enough to understand the concept of assault and rape (i.e in our differently verbalized language, they still feel what is happening), the cow cannot spell the words assault or rape. So therefore, supposedly you can’t assault or rape them because they’re too dumb.

Although, they would of course be completely fine with calling the assaulting and raping of a human female on the IQ level of a cow assault and rape, it’s hypocritical on every level, perhaps they’d even say ”OH MY GOD THIS IS RAPE” if they walked in on some guy inserting his arm into their tied up pet dog’s anus, that is no more significantly intelligent than a cow either.

Or speciesists may dress it up in other abilities that are related to intelligence to make their bigot argument sound more complex, some examples would include:

  • ”Ability to understand morals and reciprocate the social contract.”

Same problem applies, some humans cannot adequately reciprocate ethics, here a favorite dishonest weasel tactic is of course to appeal to violent mentally handicapped humans that have been locked away for the sake of public safety to demonstrate how these individuals lost their right to freedom as well, but we’re not talking about their violence, just their retardation, and there are harmless retarded individuals that don’t need to be locked away, just like pigs, cows, chicken are harmless.

  • ”Ability to understand and speak in our language.”

Hilarious one too, that retarded mute cunt couldn’t talk back, so I just kept raping her.

  • ”Ability to write poems, philosophize and make scientific discoveries.”

Even average humans often can’t do that, so turn them into mince meat?

  • ”Ability to do math.”

So a calculator or a computer has more rights than an average human child?

  • ”Ability to think and plan ahead for the future.”

Same problem, not to mention that many animals can do this, but that’s a less important point.

And so on and so forth, ultimately it all boils down to the same concept – intelligence, and very obviously, intelligence is not why you want to avoid pain, if you legitimately believe that, you are delusional, psychotic, fundamentally disconnected from objective reality.

A butthurt attempt at downplaying the suffering of animals is then often times also that because these other animals are less intelligent, therefore can’t comprehend how to act rationally towards one another, we’re somehow allowed to be just as retarded, even when we know better.

  • ”Ha! Silly vegans, you all try to save the animals, but the fact is, these animals would eat you too if they got the chance!!! Look at nature, dog eat dog world, the lion is eating the zebra too so why shouldn’t we do the same???”

You are appealing to what retarded creatures that don’t know any better are doing, to justify you doing the same, even though you know better.

Imagine the following scenario, I work in a facility for mentally retarded humans, sometimes these disabled individuals are sexually assaulting and beating each other, because they lack the ability to think about and contemplate the ethical implications of their actions.

What would be the ethically responsible thing to do here?

  • 1 – Prevent them from sexually assaulting and beating each other.

Or:

  • 2 – Joining in and brutally raping a mentally disabled girl too because they did too.

Look, these retards don’t know any better, they would sexually assault you as well, so you might as well just join in and sexually assault them too. No problem.

Not to mention, other animals are largely completely harmless to you as well, pigs, cows, chicken generally don’t assault humans in some kind of dangerous manner, so that makes it even worse.

It’s not as though we’re talking about a lion attacking you, which we could analogize to a big, strong retarded person sexually assaulting you, we’re talking about a chicken that can’t seriously harm you, so this is pretty much like some sociopathic rapist saying you are under no obligation to not violently assrape a 3 year old with your fist because a 3 year old kicked you in the nuts once.

The 3 year old has no obligation not to punch me, so I don’t have an obligation not to punch the 3 year old either, checkmate you anti-child abuse idiots. You don’t punch 3 year olds? Well guess what, they would punch you because they don’t know any better, so I should do the same!

You get the point, ultimately supporting animal abuse because animals have a lower IQ is not a rational stance, it’s an irrational stance, and none of the dishonest tactics that speciesists use to justify this stand up to scrutiny in any way.

We all share the same motivation.

Something that inevitably comes up in most ethical discussions, especially when you point out to someone that they are supporting suffering, or that they are irrationally opposed to something that doesn’t result in suffering, is that they simply have a different ethic, so they can’t be criticized or held accountable for anything.

  • ”But I simply value something other than suffering, so I don’t have to care about anything you say, everything is relative, everyone just has a different opinion, I don’t care about suffering, and I’m entitled to my opinion, so now I’m gonna gass some jews and you can’t stop me!”.

I think this intellectually lazy type of argumentation misses a very fundamental point about the behavior of sentient organisms – we all share the same goal of avoiding harm, pain, suffering, negative sensation and the rules we make are just extensions of that first fundamental interest in avoiding negative sensations.

A deontologist is just a deluded consequentialist, who believes their particular moral rule/law to be conducive to the achievement of better consequences, i.e less suffering, if said deontologist did legitimately not believe the rule to be conducive to ultimately creating better consequences, they would not believe in their rule.

Take for example a religious terrorist, who believes he has to self-detonate in the middle of a gay pride parade, if you point out to someone like that that this is bad, because it will cause a lot of unnecessary (to prevent any greater sort of) suffering, he’ll likely say so what, suffering is not always bad or the main issue to be concerned with here, there are certain rules you just don’t break, and it’s simply against god’s rules to take a dick up your ass, full stop bro.

But that still doesn’t answer why he thinks he has to do the terrorist attack, a law/rule just doesn’t come out of nowhere, if you dig deep enough, chances are you’ll find that the terrorist is still motivated by a wrongly perceived threat of suffering.

He might think that if he doesn’t do the terrorist attack and eradicate the sinners, he’ll go to hell, which is a place of suffering, and if he does the terrorist attack, he’ll go to heaven, which is a place absent of all suffering. He might think that the sinners he’s about to attack are a threat of suffering, and if we accepted homosexuals, society would be infested with AIDS and rape.

So ultimately, he’s still acting based on (wrongly perceived) consequences, he’s not a real deontologist who believes in a moral rule for the sake of believing in said moral rule at all, he’s just a delusional consequentialist who made a false calculation about what will most efficiently eliminate suffering, because he believes in something unrealistic, a fable story with no evidence behind it and likely received wrong information about homosexuals his entire life.

Even if he would proclaim to be perfectly rational and wanting to kill the homosexuals because being gay is ”just wrong”, then he’s still motivated by suffering reduction, this feeling of ”just wrongness” is a form of suffering, and he tries to prevent it by doing what feels ”just right”.

Even if he’s just a sadistic sociopath who wants to cause suffering to others and uses his religion as an excuse for doing so, then he’s still motivated by the goal of suffering reduction, i.e he suffers from an urge to inflict suffering onto others for his pleasure, and the suffering of this urge is alleviated by inflicting suffering onto others, so then he’d still be motivated by the goal of reducing suffering, just also logically inconsistent in not thinking of suffering in the other organisms as just as worth preventing, because it’s the same thing – suffering.

It’d be like saying water from water bucket A should be used to water plants because it’s so perfectly wet and watery, but water from water bucket B should not be used to water plants, although it’s just as wet and watery. If suffering in meat suit A is worth preventing because it has the property ”it feels bad”, then so is suffering in meat suit B worth preventing, because it has the same property. If our terrorist thinks suffering is worth preventing when it happens to him because it feels bad, he should think the same way when it happens to everyone else, because it feels just as bad.

It’s bad when suffering is happening to you because suffering itself is bad, not because it’s happening to you in particular and you’re somehow more important than everyone else, if suffering were only bad when it happened to you, then so would pleasure be bad if it happened to you, because it’s in the same exact category – ”things that happen to you”.

  • If someone really believed that a rule had no utility, then they would not believe in said rule, we believe in rules because 1. they are or 2. we falsely believe them to be conducive to the reduction of our suffering in some way.

Pro-lifers, pro-choicers, authoritarians, libertarians, theists, antitheists all have the same goal, they all want to avoid suffering, it just happens to be the case that they all have different ideas about what will most efficiently achieve the goal of preventing more suffering in the grand scheme of things, authoritarians believe strict hierarchy will lead to a less chaotic society that will produce less suffering, libertarians believe in maximizing freedom because being locked in a cage causes suffering, the motivation is the same.

But once we’ve established that preventing suffering is the goal, it is possible to draw correct and incorrect conclusions about what will achieve the goal, and then we can definitively tell a pro-lifer that aborting a living, but non-sentient fetus doesn’t create any more suffering in the fetus than in living, but non-sentient vegetables when you chop them up and turn them into salad, their threat detection system is simply deficient, they just have to understand that if they were aborted, they would have never missed out on being alive from the unborn purgatory.

If I really abducted anyone of any religious or political orientation, locked them into my basement, tortured them for an extended period of time by putting their hands on the stove top until their hands are disfigured, beat them with a sledgehammer repeatedly, put nails up their asses, etc, and I made it crystal clear to them that this is for absolutely no compensation, no greater good or payment whatsoever for anyone at any point, they wouldn’t want that.

So to be clear, the game is not called ”push your hand onto the stove top until it’s disfigured for 5$ an hour to be donated to starving kids in Africa”, it’s just ”push your hand onto the stove top until it’s disfigured for no reason whatsoever”, they would universally try to escape, no doubt about it.

Unless they’re the one in a thousand extreme, Albert Fish-type masochists that get off on having nails shoved in their asses, in which case, there’d be a benefit and utility to be derived again – to reaching an orgasm, the relief of tension. So it’d still be an attempt to avoid suffering, no way around it.

So the point is, everyone acts based on suffering, we believe in rules because we believe these rules to be conducive to the reduction of our suffering, if we didn’t believe that to be the case, we wouldn’t believe in them anymore, rules are a mere result of consequences, an attempt at avoiding harms/pains/sufferings. No consequences – no need for rules.

And because thinking and calculating utility of actions requires more brain power than sticking to a simplistic, dogmatic rule, many stick to a dogmatic rule, going against the actual goal without noticing it in due time, e.g.

  • The pro-lifer may observe that generally taking human life results in suffering, so they’re against taking human life, even when it causes no suffering in a non-sentient fetus.
  • The jew-hider may observe that lying generally results in suffering, so they’re telling the nazis they’re hiding jews in their basement, even when it causes more suffering to happen than it prevents.
  • The conservative police officer may observe that breaking the law often results in suffering, so he thinks he’d doing something good by harassing someone for smoking marijuana, even when it causes more suffering to happen than it prevents.

It is delusional behavior. Imagine a hypothetical alien species that could also feel pain, and what they had to do in order to alleviate pain and achieve pleasure, relief, alleviation is wank their left tentacle, every action that they take could be boiled down to the masturbation of a left tentacle somewhere and somehow, or ultimately even, just the reduction of suffering as well of course, but let’s say jerking the left tentacle is instrumental to achieving that – without exception.

These aliens would also self-unawarely say things like:

  • ”I don’t only want to jerk off my left tentacle, you think I’m a mere pain and pleasure vessel??? You vulgar idiot, I’m but a very sophisticated alien, I also value watching plasma TV, taking a great long walk on the beach and buying a great, high quality block of swiss cheese. I have civilization, I have class. You think I’m just some dumb animal!?”.

But then when you observe this creature, all that it is doing is wanking its left tentacle in front of the plasma TV, digging a hole at the beach to stick their left tentacle in, and the swiss cheese, it also just sticks its left tentacle in its holes to shoot its alien jizz inside it.

The conclusion is obvious – these aliens are completely deluded about what the underlying motivation of their actions is, they have deluded themselves into believing that all sorts of different things have value, when the only value is in the experience itself, they’re just trying to jerk off and overcomplicating it.

And this is exactly how humans behave, they’re for some reason desperate to believe they’re not just simplistic organisms feeling pain, trying to avoid feeling pain, they are somehow much more sophisticated for valuing all sorts of different non-sense that the other primitive animals can’t understand, when in reality, they only value it because it in some way helps or they believe that it helps to achieve the goal of reducing pain.

  • What is value without suffering even supposed to mean?

What is ”I value x” even supposed to mean? When I say, ”I value eating potatoes” for example, all that that really means is that for some reason, eating potatoes reduces some sort of condition of suffering in me, maybe it is hunger, maybe it is appetite out of boredom, and eating the potato is conducive to reducing this condition of suffering, but obviously the potato itself is not valuable, the potato cannot create value as it simply doesn’t have a brain that can produce a sentient experience like I do, the good is the reduction of my suffering, not the potato itself.

I value the potato=I suffer if I don’t eat it.

I need/want/desire the potato=I suffer if I don’t eat it.

I have a personal preference for the potato=I suffer if I don’t eat it.

The objects themselves have no value, so to speak. An almong is neither good or bad, it might produce negative sensations in someone with an almond allergy, and in someone without an almond allergy but with a peanut allergy, almonds might cause pleasure, relief of suffering, whereas peanuts would cause the negative sensations, but the negative sensation is the same, it’s negative. So these objects, almonds and peanuts are neither good or bad, they only have extrinsic value to something else, i.e our experience, our experience is the only real value event happening.

  • The potato has no real value.
  • The almond has no real value.
  • The garbage truck has no real value.
  • The lamborghini has no real value.
  • The money has no real value.
  • Gold has no real value.
  • Platinum has no real value.

They only have extrinsic value to your experience, no real value. So if someone says something like ”you might value reducing animal suffering, but I value eating bacon much more!” – we can analyze and point out their mistake.

They only value eating bacon because eating bacon reduces the suffering of an urge to eat bacon inside them, the bacon itself is not a good because it doesn’t have a brain that can produce sensations with labels like good and bad, it’s the reduction of their suffering from an urge to eat it that is the real good, but if the reduction of the suffering itself is the good, and buying bacon obviously causes more suffering to pigs than it causes reduction in suffering in yourself, then obviously the better option for you would be to stop buying it to reduce even more suffering.

In conclusion, as stated before, a deontologist is just a deluded consequentialist, no one acts based on rules alone, rules are a result of the existence of consequences, if the problem of suffering did not exist, we wouldn’t have to make rules to mitigate against it and prevent it from happening.

If you have some kind of strict moral rule, like ”never fuck a corpse”, chances are you only believe in that rule because you believe the fucking of corpses to result in harm somewhere along the way, imagining someone fucking your dead mother right in front of you or something, then feeling offended by witnessing that incident, you don’t just believe it to be ”just wrong” without perceiving a threat to welfare first to motivate this feeling of ”just-wrongness”.

Things can be ethically wrong only according to a certain set of rules, and the only reason why rules are made is because there are consequences – suffering, and that is why we use the rules as a tool to try to avoid it, if the rule doesn’t serve that purpose anymore, then the rule is wrong, it fails to achieve the only pre-established purpose that it could possibly ever have.

That’s why it’s absurd when someone uses whatever right or rule they established as an excuse to not care about the harm they cause to others – ”it’s legal to rape my wife so it’s no problem”.

The reason why we crave laws in the first place is because suffering exists, so we make laws to protect ourselves and mitigate against it, if the law does not even achieve that goal though, then it’s essentially worthless, it doesn’t achieve the only goal that a sentient organism is even capable of having anymore.

Non-sentient bacteria have no laws but that is also completely irrelevant, because bacteria is not sentient, so the absence of laws and rights in a culture of bacteria not to be cannibalized by another bacteria is not a problem. The reduction of suffering is good, not the law itself.

Suffering, badness itself is the only bad thing in the universe, sentient experience is the only value creating thing in the entire universe, the objects, rights and entitlements on a piece of paper by themselves have no value, you eat the chocolate cake because it reduces your suffering, your urge to eat it, not because the chocolate cake itself is somehow a good, because it doesn’t have a brain.

If all sentient organisms went extinct tomorrow, chocolate cake would have absolutely zero (extrinsic) value, all chocolate cake can be liquidated forever, it would not matter, thinking otherwise would be completely delusional.

There is no goal for any sentient organism on this planet except to avoid harm, and if it no longer wants to avoid harm, it is no longer a sentient organism. You don’t have a different opinion at the core than any other organism, the nature of our disagreement lies in having different strategies to go on about our established goal of preventing suffering, and in this game, it is possible to judge your actions as correct or incorrect, you are bound by it, there is no way for you to escape the game.

The idea that suffering can be good.

An idea often espoused in response to hearing about antinatalism or just in general as a delusional coping mechanism with life is that suffering can be good sometimes, individuals like Jordan Peterson for instance get celebrated for speaking to people with this type of ”tough love” approach, and telling them that life is suffering but it’s all worth it, we shouldn’t just stop the production of suffering-capable organisms.

The idea behind this general idea of suffering supposedly being good sometimes and we shouldn’t just prevent it all from happening by stopping the production of sentient, suffering life (e.g. humans, other mammals, insects, not necessarily fruits, vegetables, fungi) right away is that basically when you suffer, it builds character, strength and resilience that you will need to deal with aforementioned sentient life, or it might be a warning signal of some sort.

The issue with this should be obvious though – negative sensation itself is by definition bad just like water is watery, it is literal badness, a negative sensation/experience of some sort, the fact that sometimes one suffering is required to avoid an even greater suffering doesn’t prove suffering itself to be good. Suffering, badness itself, is bad.

For example, if we have to torture one person to prevent a billion from being tortured just as intensely and there’s nothing else we can do about it, then it’s the lesser of two evils, but the torture itself still feels bad, it’d be better if we could prevent it by cutting up an apple instead. If you say negative sensations can be positive, you might as well say wet is dry or hot is cold, it automatically cannot be anything but contradictory, good suffering is an oxymoron.

Sometimes in life, you have to experience one suffering to avoid an even greater one, but that doesn’t mean that suffering itself is good, that just proves it’s less bad than the more intense form of suffering that otherwise would have happened.

An example would be the painful vaccination in order to avoid a much worse disease you’d otherwise be prone to dying of, but you’re getting it exactly because suffering is bad, because suffering from an illness would be worse than one little needle prick in your arm for a few uncomfortable seconds. If you could snap your fingers in order to obtain the immunity, you would do that instead. The pain itself is bad, the good is the immunity to the illness.

Pain is a warning signal is also something that defenders of suffering will often say, i.e you feel your hand being burned on the stove top so you pull it away.

Again, we can demonstrate again that it’s not the pain itself that is good, but the avoidance of the greater pain, if you could be informed of the danger by something else without the pain, like someone standing next to you who notices it quicker always simply reminding you you’re about to burn yourself before you accidentally leave your hand on the stove top for too long, you would go for that instead of burning yourself to any degree at all.

So we can notice a pattern here in all of these situations where suffering is supposedly good, the person only falsely identifies it as good because it later on results in the prevention of an even greater form of suffering, and if the person could prevent the greater suffering without having to inflict a lesser suffering onto themselves, like snapping their fingers instead of getting an injection, then they would take that less painful option.

Why would you need a warning signal to prevent the worse pain of completely burning your hand on the stove top from happening instead, if pain is not a problem? You wouldn’t, so suffering can have instrumental value to the avoidance of a greater suffering sometimes, that doesn’t prove negative sensation itself to be simultaneously positive.

Suffering makes you stronger they say, but why do you even need to be stronger? Right, only to avoid more suffering associated with being weaker, thus vulnerable to more suffering in the future. If suffering is only ”good” because it helps you to avoid more suffering in the future, then that if anything proves that suffering is bad, because you’re only bearing said suffering to avoid even more of it in the future.

The only reason why you even need more character, strength and resilience built out of suffering in your life to begin with is to later on deal with more potential suffering emerging in your life, to not fall into deep despair upon being faced with adversity and challenges, so it actually doesn’t prove suffering to be good, it proves suffering to be bad.

When your hamster died of cancer, it was ”good for you” because it desensitized you to you later on seeing your mother die of cancer.

  • But why is it good to be desensitized to your mother dying of cancer?

Only because otherwise you’d suffer even more intensely from witnessing that incident, which is bad, it’s the avoidance of that suffering which is the real good which the suffering of seeing your hamster die has only been instrumental to achieving, not the suffering itself, suffering itself is always bad, just like all water is watery and all shit is shitty.

Negative sensations are indeed not positive. Going with the lesser of two evils doesn’t make it no longer feel bad, just less bad than the other bad. The needle in your arm still produced a negative sensation, it’s just that getting a disease would hurt even more, if you could snap your fingers to grant yourself immunity to illness, you’d probably do that instead.

If someone holds a gun to your head and forces you eat either one bucket of horse shit or ten buckets of horse shit, that doesn’t mean that one bucket of it suddenly tastes good, it just tastes less bad than ten buckets of horse shit.

The fact that suffering sometimes happened prior to a good event doesn’t mean that it is good, if a fire burns down your house in the winter and now you’re sitting in the cold, that doesn’t prove fire to be cold. Now you might be sitting in the cold, but the fire burned your house down exactly because it was hot.

  • But what about masochists?

Even a masochist ramming a needle into his urethra or a depressed individual cutting their arm isn’t enjoying suffering – they are enjoying the relief of a suffering they are already experiencing, merely using a pain to eliminate a greater pain.

A masochist will experience intensified sexual frustration if he doesn’t inflict pain onto himself, then leading to him becoming more tense and pressurized, thus ultimately more suffering in the long run.

A depressed person will experience intensified depression or other negative states if they don’t cut their arm, so they cut their arm to blend out the worse pain with the pain in their arm, so to speak.

If I told anyone beforehand who has absolutely zero masochistic preferences that I’m a magician and could it make it so that by snapping my fingers, they won’t be able to have an orgasm anymore unless they cut their eyeballs out and rub some chili sauce in their sockets, set their pubic hair on fire and extract every tooth they have with a plier, they wouldn’t want me to do that.

Perhaps they would even use lethal violence to prevent me from doing that, they would rather be able to cum without having to inflict intense suffering onto themselves, because all suffering is bad, just like all water is watery, all shit is shitty, if the masochist could get the exact same relief without the pain involved, they would do so.

Sometimes, some extreme masochists may find themselves in a situation where they have to do these things to avoid sexual frustration, which is a form of suffering, but if you could choose beforehand to get the exact same amount of pleasure from something else, you wouldn’t want to be the one who has to extract all their teeth with a plier in order to cum.

So what is happening here is essentially that as a delusional coping mechanism, when suffering is experienced by people, they observe that it is sometimes the lesser of two evils to bear one suffering over another even worse form of suffering, like the sensation of the needle pricking your arm to avoid a worse illness like small pox.

Then, they fall victim to the delusional conclusion that this now means that even when the suffering in question is not required to avoid a greater suffering, it is still good, because somehow, bad feelings can somehow be good, wet can somehow be dry, hot can somehow be cold.

I get that it’s a delusional coping mechanism which might help some of them to get through the day, but it’s a problem that they even have to get through a day where they require such a coping mechanism to begin with, and it certainly becomes a problem when this coping mechanism is used to justify all sorts of suffering that isn’t required for the avoidance of any greater problem.

  • War? Whatever, pain is a warning signal.
  • Factory farming? Whatever, suffering creates great wisdom.
  • Children dying of starvation in Africa? Pull yourself up by the bootstraps.
  • You have terminal cancer? Whatever, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

It’s being used as an excuse for not fixing problems.

The problem with this ”suffering is good” approach in the context of reproductive ethics (natalism vs. antinatalism, to procreate or not to procreate) used by pro-natalists and pro-lifers should also be rather obvious – there is no unborn purgatory from which children need to be rescued, no one is spared from a worse fate by being reproduced.

It’s true that once you exist, you sometimes have to tolerate one suffering to avoid an even greater one, but obviously before the child actually exists, the child doesn’t actually exist, so it’s not somehow worse off, suffering in an unborn purgatory, lamenting that their parents that don’t reproduce them are somehow subjecting them to worse suffering in the unborn purgatory than by subjecting them to life on earth.

You’re just creating a pain machine to be motivated by that pain to try to avoid that pain again, there’s nothing efficient or productive about that, the suffering caused by reproduction is not instrumental to avoiding some kind of greater pain that exists in the universe.

So if we use the vaccination example again, the child might need the vaccination to avoid a much more painful illness once it exists, that is true, but obviously, before it existed, it didn’t need to become prone to that illness it now needs to be vaccinated against in the first place, it wasn’t sitting around in the unborn purgatory thinking:

  • ”I wish I became prone to small pox so that I can get a vaccination against it one day! Why do I have to suffer from an urge to obtain an urge to avoid illnesses?”

That the child is prone to illness in the first place is the fault of the parents that produced it, so it would still be perfectly rational for the child with a fear of needles to blame their parents for even creating its proneness to illness in the first place without knowing whether or not the child will be fine with that later on.

This same line of reasoning is then of course even used to justify more child abuse on top of reproduction:

  • ”The child needs to be spanked!”

Why?

  • ”To learn discipline!”

But why does the child need to learn to be disciplined?

  • ”To toughen up and compete with others, get a good job! Hardship builds great character!”

But why do they need to be resilient and successful in life? Right, because otherwise they will fail to acquire resources to fulfill certain needs, wants, desires in their life, they won’t be as fulfilled and satisfied, perhaps not achieve their goals in life due to said lack of discipline.

  • And who’s to blame for that?

You are to blame for them experiencing those needs, wants, desires they need to fulfill to avoid being tortured by them, because you imposed those needs, wants, desires onto them by reproducing them in the first place, non-existent individuals don’t need, want, desire anything.

It’s like I create a some sort of sadistic game, call it torture and the carrot, where I’m locking you in my basement and tell you that in order to obtain food for further survival, the carrot, you have to saw your left hand off. Then I can justify cutting your little finger off, because that will get you used to pain and desensitize you to later on getting your entire left hand cut off, which you have to do to obtain the carrot or starve to death. See, I’m actually doing you a favor I could say, I’m helping you get closer to the carrot!

See the problem? The problem with this is that I created that problem of you being in need of the carrot in the first place. It’s true that sometimes children have to learn to be disciplined (though highly questionable if beating them will achieve that) to not fail later on in life, but they only have to do that in the sense that if they completely fail at life, they’ll fail to fulfill needs, wants, desires that the procreator instilled into them by not aborting them before they became conscious.

The procreator creates the sick torture and carrot game, sometimes the child now has to endure hardship to get to the carrot, so the procreator justifies giving the child a spanking so it’ll be more desensitized to the more intense hardships and adversities later on in life, but all of this is only a problem if the procreator puts the child into this torture game where you have to bear torture to avoid even worse torture in the first place, which they still haven’t explained why anyone should think that’s a worthwhile endeavor.

If little billy is not created, he doesn’t need to be spanked harder to be more disciplined in order to obtain a good job requiring his emotional resilience and strength later on in life in order to avoid suffering from a low income and being a loser, non-existent little billy does not suffer from an urge to obtain an urge to obtain a job to obtain enough money to fulfill his needs in life from the unborn purgatory in this very moment.

So first you abuse the child by imposing the threat of deprivation on it – need, want, desire, i.e do x or suffer, and then you justify making the child suffer as a necessary evil by disciplining it to desensitize it to later on facing even more intense suffering which will be instrumental to avoiding only some of the suffering you have imposed on it by creating the threat of deprivation in the first place, that seems rather absurd.

Bullying is another great example of this flawed thought process of ”good suffering”.

First you were all skinny and weak, were called a faggot and beaten up in school every day, every girl denied you access to her vagina, then you started working out, taking steroids and beating the shit out of everyone and now you’re drowning in pussy because now you’re much stronger.

  • Totally proves that negative sensations must be good, right?

Wrong, because again, even if the suffering helped you toughen up which then later on resulted in you staving off the suffering of sexual frustration by finally being tough enough to be sexually selected for by some females, the suffering itself you experienced was still bad, the experience of getting bullied was not enjoyable regardless of whether or not it helped you to avoid an even more unenjoyable experience at some point.

Now you exist, so now you need to stick your peepee in a vagina to avoid even worse suffering from not doing so, but when you didn’t exist, you were not trapped in an unborn purgatory, needing to need to stick your peepee in a vagina to avoid even worse suffering, thinking to yourself ”Man, I wish I had to stick my peepee in vaginas in order to avoid suffering sexual frustration, unfortunately my parents won’t impose sexual needs onto me by reproducing me”.

You need it now, but you didn’t need to need it, your parents put you in need by reproducing you, it’s a net negative, you didn’t want to want it before you wanted it, you didn’t desire to desire it before you desired it.

So ultimately, whilst you already exist where you have to tolerate negative sensations from time to time to avoid an even higher amount of negative sensations in the future, the negative sensation itself is always bad, just like water is always watery and shit is always shitty, and before sentience evolved in this universe, the universe was not somehow worse off without us, starving for sentient organisms to be put inside of it.

  • There was no pre-existing damage to fix, we are the damage.

The faulty idea that suffering is good is largely used to justify its continued infliction, it might help one as a coping mechanism to get through the day once in a while to believe it’s all happening for some kind of greater good, but the fact that you even need to get through a day to begin and tell yourselves these lies is a negative, a problem – you are in need, you’re in desperation.

And if we don’t start being more honest about the fact that suffering is bad, procreators will keep putting organisms into situations where they have to tell themselves that suffering is good to cope with life.

The reason why you need that coping mechanism in your life to begin with is because procreators keep creating problems, in an emotional state where they themselves are falling victim to the exact same coping mechanism, thinking:

  • ”Suffering is good, might as well breed, if my children suffer horribly and die of cancer, it’s gonna be real good somehow, it’s just gonna toughen them up!”.

Once suffering exists, it can be necessary to bear one suffering to avoid an even greater one, but the existence of suffering itself to begin with is unnecessary in the grand scheme of things, the universe was never somehow worse off without sentient organisms inside it, our suffering serves absolutely no greater good.

On retributivism and punishment.

Eye for an eye notions, retributivism and punitivity are profoundly intuitive to many, the idea that we ought punish someone for the sake of punishing them, that once you’ve done x, you deserve to have x punishment done to you, the idea that we shouldn’t without restraint harm a child rapist who is no longer a threat and sitting in a prison cell all day offends them deeply.

They may say something like:

  • ”Why shouldn’t we shove a broomstick up this evil rapist’s asshole, why would that be bad to do that if he did the same thing?”

The answer is obvious – for the exact same reason why it was bad when he stuck his dick up the child’s ass – because it causes pain and suffering, which is always bad.

Sometimes you may tolerate one suffering to avoid a greater one, like getting the vaccination to avoid the greater suffering of a deadly disease, or tolerating a boring workplace to obtain money, which you also only need to obtain resources that help you prevent some condition of suffering in your life in one way or another, but suffering itself is always a bad thing.

Even a masochist hurting themselves for sexual pleasure or a bipolar individual cutting themselves for emotional relief are not enjoying negative qualia (it is impossible for negative qualia to be enjoyable) – self-harmers are already experiencing suffering, so to blend out that worse suffering, they have to inflict pain onto themselves, using pain to eliminate a greater pain, for the masochist it would be sexual frustration, for the cutter it might be depression.

So if harm (negative qualia) is always bad, then it can never be the better option to inflict it, unless it prevents an even greater, more intense harm, i.e you see the child rapist raping the child, so you push him off that child to prevent more harm.

The problem with this in the context of punishment is that when the harm causer is being punished, they are usually already detained, that’s kind of implied in the act of punishment – it is an act of violence against the harm causer after the threat the harm causer poses has already been deactivated, otherwise it would just be an act of defense. It might be perceived as punishing by the harm causer, but it’s not for the sake of retribution, punishment.

So while it is perfectly justified for you to defend against the rapist whilst he is raping the child to prevent harm, it would be illogical to insist on punishing him after he has already been stopped and is already spending his whole day in a prison cell where he can no longer assault children anyway.

It was bad when he raped the child because it caused harm, plus he didn’t need to do that in order to defend himself against some kind of greater threat posed by the child, the child was not a threat, but for that exact same reason, it’s now arguably also bad if you shove a broomstick up his ass after he has already been stopped from raping the child, it’s the exact same negative qualia experienced by different subjects, and that negative qualia is not good.

Eye for an eye notions of retributivism are frequently based in human bigotry, cognitive biases, narcissism and delusion, they essentially believe it to be bad to harm feeling things for the wrong reason on a very instinctive, primitive, emotional level, which is why they then fail to acknowledge it as just as bad when abuse is happening to criminals in prison.

So for example, when your mother gets brutally murdered, you may have some kind of gut feeling telling you that this is only bad because it happened to your mother in particular, in which case, it’s not a problem if it happens to the murderer of your mother, because he isn’t your mother, so it wouldn’t be bad to harm him like it was bad when he harmed your mother.

But in reality of course, what happened to your mother was bad because she is a sentient, suffering-capable organism and it doesn’t get any more complicated than that, if it were only bad because it happened to your mother, then it wouldn’t be bad if it happened to literally anyone else who is not your mother, which is simply untrue, it would still cause negative sensation to have a knife in your throat, even someone didn’t give birth to you.

But, that’s of course also why it’d be bad if the murderer of your mother had a knife in his throat, because he’s also a sentient, suffering-capable organism.

Or when a pretty, cute girl gets brutally raped, you may have some kind of gut feeling telling you that this is only bad because she’s pretty and cute, in which case, it’s not a problem if it happens to her rapist, because he’s most likely not that pretty and cute, so it wouldn’t be bad to harm him like it was bad when he harmed the pretty girl.

But in reality of course, what happened to the girl was bad because she is a sentient, suffering-capable organism and it doesn’t get any more complicated than that, if it were only bad because it happened to someone pretty and cute, then it wouldn’t be bad if it happened to literally anyone else who is not pretty and cute, which is simply untrue, it would still cause negative sensation to get raped even if you’re ugly.

But, that’s of course also why it’d be bad if the rapist of that girl got raped, because he’s also a sentient, suffering-capable organism.

Obviously none of these factors that people ascribe some kind of superficial value to are ultimately important to them, the point here is that the harm itself is bad, it’s not bad based on your nepotistic delusions of it only being bad when it happens to your family, women and/or children that elicit some kind of primitive instinctive reaction in you.

If I put any sentient organism in an isolated cell where it cannot possibly pose a threat and torture it, it’s going to be unambiguously bad, no matter what, it will produce negative sensations, no way around it.

It’s usually done for the fleeting emotional pleasure that the victims or angry mobs derive from punishing someone, in which case they then grant the harm causer the right to justify his deeds based on the fleeting emotional pleasure he derived from causing harm.

  • ”But what if the rapist raped your sister? You’d want him dead too!”

But what if you were the rapist? You’d want to rape too!

If you would be the person that wants to do x, you would want to do x too, therefore, doing x is now justified, that seems to be the idea here.

If you want to put Ted Bundy on the electric chair for the purpose of jerking off to it, then so can he consistently keep justifying violently killing women for the purpose of jerking off to it, it’s the same exact justification, you’re both arguing it’s ok to inflict torture so you can jerk off to it.

In many cases, retributivists then justify this sort of behavior by arguing that it is necessary:

  • ”But he could still attack a prison guard!”

In which case, that problem could be solved by just sending more than one prison guard to his cell the next time, rape and murder remain unnecessary harms, because these harms are not required to detain the threat being posed – unless it legitimately happens in a moment of defense against the criminal.

  • ”But he could escape prison!”

Unlikely, but if it’s true, that problem could be solved by just building more steadfast prison walls, rape and murder remain unnecessary harms, because these harms are not required to detain the threat being posed by the criminal.

  • ”But that costs money!”

Which is the least harmful method of defending yourself against the threat. Some individuals cause a lot of harm, so we put these individuals into a home where they cannot cause a lot of harm anymore for the purpose of public safety. I think paying a certain amount of money generally produces less harm than being forced to wait to be executed.

Some may argue that life in prison is actually worse than being executed, but the point is that once a criminal is detained, there is no reason to not consult them on this matter first, I am not against the right to die, it’s just unnecessary to take the ability to decide their fate away from them, plus, again, prisons don’t have to be torture facilities that make someone suicidal in the first place.

If they wanted the death penalty, it wouldn’t be a penalty anymore, it would just be making use of the right to die, which we can have regardless of our criminal status.

  • The only good argument for punishment would be deterrence.

So let’s say we just took the concept again of taking any sentient organism, putting it in a cell and torturing it, but it had to be done just once to prevent an even more intense harm from befalling everyone, let’s say everyone going to hell and burning alive over and over again eternally. In that case, it would still be bad, but it would obviously be less bad than not doing it.

The problem here again though is that it’s usually far from being this clear cut when it comes to crime and punishment. And the distinction between guilty/criminal and innocent/non-criminal remains insignificant, if anyone had to killed to save 1000 others from torture, and there were nothing else we could do about that, it’d be the better option to kill one regardless of their criminal status.

  • Detainment is still deterrence.

No sentient organism wants to be restrained in any way, again, unless it releases another restraint they already experienced, like a masochist being more tense and frustrated if he doesn’t inflict pain onto himself, and you have no way of knowing the exact preferences of all potential criminals. A reduction of your freedom is still a deterring factor, to some it may be a greater one than death, to some it may not be.

  • You don’t necessarily always know if you’re going to prevent a greater harm.

Unlike in the aforementioned hypothetical scenarios I just pointed to, you don’t necessarily know if you’re going to prevent more harm than you cause, perhaps you stick a broomstick up someone’s ass but all the harm you prevented from happening was 5$ being stolen, that’d be bad.

Let’s say you know for sure you could prevent a lot of people from stealing a potato by cutting their hands off and burning them alive in the streets, just the infliction of that punishment would be worse than a potato being stolen once in a while.

  • Althroughout human history and to this day, draconian punishment has been inflicted and crimes have still been committed.

We’ve inflicted torturous draconian punishments on prisoners but their optimism bias was still strong enough for them to believe that they’re never going to get caught, then got caught, tortured to death, and people still committed crimes thinking they’re never going to get caught, optimism bias and overestimation of one’s own invincibility is strong in many humans in general, criminal or non-criminal, but especially when you’re committing a crime (exception of some calculated criminals of course), you might already be in a rather impulsive mental state.

  • You don’t know what exact effect the punishment will have on each potential future criminal. Perhaps it demotivates them to commit crime, perhaps it leaves them neutral about their crimes, perhaps it motivates them to commit even more crimes.

In fact, countries like Norway where prisons look like hotel rooms seem to have the lowest crime rates, whereas a lot of countries that punish rather severely seem to have much higher crime rates.

What if you threaten a potential serial rapist and killer whose goal it is to bring all whores to justice with death, then he rapes and kills even more whores out of spite, then shoots himself, whereas if he were only to be threatened with a debate about whether or not raping whores is good or bad in a 5 star hotel, he would turn himself in to tell us all about it? You threaten the enraged school shooter with death and then he wants to shoot everyone even more for what he thinks is doing the right thing.

We stick a broomstick up the rapist’s asshole.

  • Rapist 1 one stops raping because he wouldn’t like to experience that.
  • Rapist 2 with poor impulse control just jizzes on her belly instead of her pussy next time and runs away in disorientation.
  • Rapist 3 is pissed off for first being denied the pussy he wanted and now wants to take revenge against society for threatening him with torture for intruding vaginas that he considers his private property.
  • Rapist 4 is in addition to being a sadistic rapist also a masochist who wouldn’t necessarily mind having a broomstick shoved up his ass.
  • Rapist 5 gets an adrenaline rush from the fact that we now stick broomsticks up people’s asses for raping, that makes the whole rape game and trying not to get caught even more exciting.

Retributivists often have an irrational belief that criminals are ”just evil” with no explanation for it and all you got to do is just threaten them with death, they can’t be suicidal because that would mean that these monsters have feelings, when in reality, they’re of course ”just evil” out of nowhere.

They devalue criminals, so chances are they’re not even deeply contemplating the emotions and what could possibly motivate them. In that mindset, if they feel that alienated from them, of course they’re going to think it’s as simple as carry some garlic around and the evil vampires won’t attack you.

Punishment for the sake of punishment is bad anyway because all harm itself, the state of being harmed is bad, doesn’t matter if it’s a cute little girl or some fat ugly serial rapist, so pure retributivism is a failure, it’s an irrational concept.

If it’s done to prevent a greater harm, it’d be better to have the information on whether or not said punishment is actually efficient at preventing future harm, which in practice seems almost impossible to tell beforehand.

Therefore, for all intents and purposes, in practice, it still seems more sensible for the default position to simply be not to inflict harm on someone once you’ve stopped them from causing harm, unless you can demonstrate in that specific scenario that it will prevent a greater future harm, if it’s clear cut, i.e cut one hand off to stop a thousand hands from being cut off, nothing else you can do, then you cut one hand off, but in real life it usually simply isn’t that clear cut.

Pedophobes and the argumentum ad baculum fallacy.

There is absolutely zero evidence for the hypothesis that sexual experience in childhood or youth is inherently harmful, there is at best proof that there is a correlation between sex in childhood and trauma in societies that are unaccepting of sexual relations between children/minors and pedophiles/adults, no proof whatsoever that sex in childhood or youth in and of itself causes the trauma.

Because pedophobes irrationally feel disgusted and threatened by the topic, they immediately think of certain harmful factors when they try to process it, like manipulation, blackmail, force, anal penetration, STDs, pregnancy, etc, which are all things that are not inherently connected to the act of having sex with a child/minor though.

Children have genitals and can obviously find out about the existence of sexual pleasure by exploring them on their own, without somehow needing to be fooled or violently coerced into doing so, there’s no evidence and/or reason to think it’s the result of some kind of evil scheme by some underground pedophile cabal misleading children through propaganda.

So if a little girl wants to simply experience the same pleasurable sensation from rubbing herself against a pillow by rubbing herself against a pedophile’s leg, and the pedophile isn’t some kind of violent psychopath that does something to her that she doesn’t want later on, like anal rape, there’s no evidence that such an encounter would be harmful to children unless society reacted negatively to it.

There is zero conclusive scientific evidence that children that voluntarily received sexual relief even in societies where pedosexuality was acceptable felt traumatized by sex, and there are zero reliable or coherent explanations from pedophobe professionals as to how this magical process of trauma just poofing into existence out of the great nowhere is supposed to work, even if the child initially engaged in the sex act without having been manipulated or otherwise forced into it and society simply stopped reacting negatively to it.

Pedophobes just like any other group of bigots assume that because they could prove a correlation between sex in childhood and higher depression rates in adulthood, it proves that it’s caused by the pedophilic sex act itself.

It is similar to how a homophobic bigot would assume that if they see some questionable study that says children of gay parents are more likely to suffer from depression, they assume that it’s directly caused by the fact that the parents are gay and definitely nothing else, the child is depressed because their father sucked a dick, not because the bigots are raising their children to harass children of gay couples.

It’s just a post hoc fallacy, correlation equals causation – B happened after A, therefore, A caused B. The child had sex, the child is traumatized by society’s negative reaction to it, so therefore, sex causes trauma, that’s the faulty idea here. The child left the house while it was raining, the child was wetted by the rain, therefore, so leaving your house causes you to be wetted.

When it gets to that point in the discussion, the pedophobes sometimes simply like to commit another fallacy to prove their point by then simply appealing to the extrinsic harm caused by the harsh social reaction that they themselves are creating in response to such sex acts and say something along the lines of:

  • ”Even if having sex with children is not inherently harmful, in our society, there are still consequences to this perverted behavior either way, so it’s still just as harmful to the poor child in the end, they’ll feel ashamed later on! Why does it matter by what exactly the trauma is caused? No excuses!”

It is ultimately an argumentum ad baculum fallacy – because it’s an entirely self-created consequence. Instead of proving something to be harmful, society, which you are forming part of, is causing harm to someone for engaging in an activity you don’t like, then pretend that the activity they engaged in is harmful because you harmed them in response to engaging in the harmless activity, frequently followed with standard moronic phrases like ”don’t drop the soap LOL”, i.e if you’re a pedo, you get raped in jail, so therefore, pedo=bad.

Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for “argument to the cudgel” or “appeal to the stick”) is the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.[1][2] One participates in argumentum ad baculum when one points out the negative consequences of holding the contrary position (ex. believe what I say, or I will hit you). It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum

Let’s say you like to wear red hats. I don’t like that, so in response to you wearing a red hat, I cut your head off and set you on fire. Does this prove that wearing a red hat is harmful? No, it does not, it just proves that I harmed you in response to wearing a red hat, but it does not actually prove the wearing of red hats to be intrinsically harmful.

The pedophobe at this point in the discussion is just appealing to a consequence that they themselves are creating.

They pretty much admit that child sex is not intrinsically harmful, they just appeal to the consequences bestowed by the bigoted society they form part of, such as for example:

  • The child and the pedophile being separated.
  • The child being screeched at by their hysterical parents.
  • The child being sent to a similarly delusional therapist.
  • The child receiving strong social pressure to ”accept their rape”.
  • The child hearing they now ”lost their innocence” and this is a great problem.
  • The child seeing the pedophile tormented/beaten in front of them.
  • The child feeling responsible for the pedophile going to prison.

This is no better than any other bigot althroughout human history just using force and threat to explain why the behavior they are bigoted against is somehow bad.

  • Don’t be a homo or else I’ll beat you up for it, therefore, gay sex is harmful/bad.
  • Don’t be a whore or else I’ll rape you for it, therefore, prostitution is harmful/bad.

Just that the pedophobe is essentially saying:

  • Don’t be a pedo or else I’ll beat you up for it in front of the child you gave an orgasm, thereby traumatize the child, then attribute that trauma to the orgasm rather than my uncivilized primitive conduct, therefore, child sex is harmful/bad.

It is akin to a homophobe in Saudi Arabia arguing that even if the homosexual activity itself does not cause harm, when you, as a bigot, set the homosexuals on fire for having homosexual sex, they are still harmed by it, therefore, somehow the sex (rather than the consequences you inflict on homosexuals for having sex) is still harmful, so homosexual sexual relations ought to be outlawed because otherwise you’ll burn these faggots!

It’s ironically the argument of a rapist while pedophobes pretend to be so anti-rape, like saying you can’t go outside dressing like a whore, it’s bad, because if you do that, he’s going to rape you, this proves how harmful it is for women to not wear a burqa, there is a consequence for not wearing one, a consequence which the rapist himself is creating, which is that he’ll rape them for it.

It might even become circular reasoning, i.e it’s harmful to have sex with the child, because if you have sex with the child, we’ll harm you (and by extension through this whole drama the child too) by imprisoning you for it, and why do we harm you for it? Because having sex with the child is harmful, you sick pervert! – That would be circular.

As an example to illustrate just how absurd appealing to self-created, extrinsic harm to demonstrate that an act is harmful is, let’s say society acted about harmless sexual encounters between children and pedophiles about any other pleasure-seeking activity, like eating ice cream.

They all believe that because children don’t have fully developed brains yet, a child can never possibly consent to buy ice cream you sick monster, it’s a crime even if it really seemed like the child consented to taste the ice cream, that’s not real consent because they haven’t reached the age of consent yet where society has decided the child is allowed to consent to eating ice cream.

Whenever there’s an ice cream salesman and the child agrees to buy it, some psychotic lunatic father has a meltdown in front of the child.

  • ”OMG this is my daughter you sick fuck, one step closer and I shoot! I don’t care that there’s no actual evidence whatsoever that eating ice cream in childhood in and of itself causes lifelong trauma, once I’ve beaten you pervert to a bloody pulp right in front of my little girl, she’s still traumatized, so that proves that ice cream is indeed very traumatizing, I’m doing this protect your precious wellbeing, little Suzie! You can’t consent!”

The child is then pressured by society to accept that they have been horribly wronged by having been sold exactly the ice cream flavor that they wanted, if they don’t, they’re just the poor dumb child that can’t understand how horribly violated it was by having been sold ice cream and the therapists won’t stop harassing her.

She also hears others joke how the guy that sold the ice cream is now going to prison and has Big Bubba shove his chocolate ice cream in his asshole, teehee, violent anal rape for a completely victimless crime harming absolutely no one, it doesn’t get any funnier than that!

At some point now, little Suzie is kinda sad.

Society concludes – ah see, ice cream is very harmful to children indeed! Doesn’t matter if selling ice cream isn’t ”intrinsically harmful” or any of this weird science and philosophy shit jargon, I’m a simple man, fact is, little Suzie is harmed, so no ice cream! NO ICE CREAM!

  • Has this society legitimately proven how bad the selling of ice cream is by harming the ice man in response to selling a child ice cream, have they made a great consequentialist argument as to why selling ice cream to children is always bad?

No, it hasn’t, they just demonstrated themselves to be primitive barbarians in need of psychiatric institutionalization that for some irrational narrative harm others in response to selling ice cream to children, anyone who has not been indoctrinated into their cult can fully see through their non-sensical notions of right and wrong behavior.

That they are in fact just suffering from a delusion that the selling of ice cream is harmful, and then attribute the harm that they cause in response to ice cream being sold to the selling of the ice cream rather than their uncivilized, backward, moronic behavior.

The vast majority of humans on this planet, neurotypicals, the neurologically typical are socially imitative animals that have a strong tendency to conform to many rules that are taught to them without questioning, this had certain benefits of social security at some point in our evolutionary history, but is also why humans can be indoctrinated into believing things that are completely disconnected from reality or fail to understand science like the earth being round, when their society keeps insisting that it is flat, it produces discomfort to go against their tribe.

Just like someone can be indoctrinated into believing that god is real but allah isn’t rather than to acknowledge that god is just as real as the easter bunny – someone can also be indoctrinated into believing that one particular age of consent, like 18 instead of 14 is the only correct one, and feel uneasy and repulsed whenever this delusional perception of their’s is challenged to any degree at all, although they most likely exactly see the delusion for what it is if they witnessed someone who believed in a special number that were even higher than their’s and thought that sex under 21 is never possible without resulting in harm later on.

Of course the lower we go, the more likely someone might be to be manipulated into having sex, the point is that it is being treated like a religion. Just because someone is more likely to be manipulated into sex, that doesn’t prove that when they have sex, it must be the result of manipulation, it could be, but doesn’t have to be, rape is the problem which can still be illegal regardless of the age of consent, but many pedophobes have a religious mindset in that they would pretend that all sex under the holy age is rape no matter what.

So does this problem apply to the ”victims” of ”rape” (wanting to get raped is an oxymoron, if it’s wanted it ceases to be rape) that they initially wanted to engage in when they were children, obviously, if a social animal is being put under excessive social pressure to pretend they got raped, then they will more often than not simply start to go along with the narrative to avoid being labelled as the poor, dumb rape victim that doesn’t even understand how raped it truly is.

Pedophobes would see their behavior for what it is if were to be manifested in someone else, like the hypothetical society that demonizes particularly selling ice cream to children, they would just as clearly detect that it’s not the selling of the ice cream itself that causes the harm, but the complete overreaction to it of sending someone to prison for it and pressuring the child to accept how it has been wronged.

Yet when a pedophile gives a willing child that discovered sexual pleasure and now wants to receive a pleasurable sensation in the form of an orgasm rather than ice cream (which is probably even healthier in the long run), they torment the pedophile in front of the child, then attribute the resulting trauma to the harmless pleasurable sensation of relief from sexual frustration rather than their fundamentally irrational, psychotic behavior.

Of course, you could even argue that because in response to ice cream being sold, the cult reacts in this violent manner, it might be somewhat negligent of the iceman to sell ice cream when he knows that the reaction has the chance of in some way emotionally harming the child from seeing the iceman being harmed in front of them, but the harm still lies in the reaction.

The social reaction doesn’t need to exist in the first place, so it would still be better to simply get rid of the reaction, just like in the cases of pedophiles and children exchanging sexual pleasure, obviously the real problem at hand is that you’re castrating and shooting people in front of children for selling them ice cream, not the selling of the ice cream itself.