Philosophical Vegan Forum

Hello everybody.
I'm Derek, I'm 28 years old (at the time of writing).
I was born in Poland and moved to England, UK when I was 20 years old.
I grew up in a Christian (Roman Catholic) family, I stopped believing in God when I was about 15 years old.
I became a vegetarian when I was 16, I became a vegan when I was 21.
I'm interested in morality, I want to know if morality is fixed, I want to know how to become more compassionate and less selfish.
I think and contemplate about it a lot.
Over the past 3 weeks my beliefs have changed dramatically...
I don't know where to turn to talk about my views on life and the World.
I feel that no one understands me.

I want to reduce or completely eliminate suffering if I have power/ability to do that, or at least die trying - by educating others.
I'm writing a book about my observations, I think I've already written over 300 pages.
I've never been a Buddhist, but I think now I share some (I can't tell exactly how much) of Buddhist beliefs.
4 days ago I went to a Buddhist centre and talked with a monk there...
Apparentely they believe in reincarnation, I don't believe in reincarnation, but can we be sure about this?
I hope there is no reincarnation, I mean I prefer it not to be true, but I'm interested in knowing the truth, even if it hurts and makes me sad.
I always said I didn't ask to be born in this World full of suffering and selfishness.
Buddhists believe that suffering is eternal, even if I die, it will not end for me. That I will become some other human or other being.
2 people conceived me without my consent. I like to think I didn't ask to be born. But what if sometime in the past I asked to be born and I asked to be born more than once? Was I concious before I was born as the person who is writing this?
This whole thing scares me.
I've conducted street epistemology on myself about most things I believe(d), used to believe and I cannot just stop analyzing things.
I think I'm becoming insomniac now.
I just can't stop thinking and applying "logic" on everything, I debate with myself...
I've never been as confused as I am now.
I'm obsessed with the idea of morality...
I just read philosophical literature, watch documentaries, TED talks and I write about my observations...
I don't know where to turn to. I feel like there is/was only one person could (somewhat) understand me, but that person is dead. He was a philosopher, his name was Emil Cioran.
I agree with pretty much everything this man wrote. Never before in my life had I read anything that would so closely resonate with my beliefs, views on life, the world.
Am I delusional?
I came up with an idea yesterday to contact Anthony Magnabosco (street epistemologist known for his YouTube channel) or Peter Boghossian (the author of "A Manual for Creating Atheists" book) or The Vegan Atheist (the founder of this forum) or somebody else who would care to at least try to understand or explain or comment on how I'm thinking at the moment.

I'm depressed and tragically dissapointed with what I've concluded/discovered about the world, people and myself...
I hope or I wish I am/was wrong and mistaken,
I hope I'm delusional or I wish I was delusional about my views now.

I want to be a better person, more compassionate.
I don't want to be selfish anymore...
I don't know if I'm being selfish now by writing this post, I feel like I have knowledge that could make us all depressed if we all knew what I know, if we all could see life and the World as I see it...
I think we are all born ignorant and selfish and our ignorance makes us happy (careless/indifferent to suffering of others), but I feel like it's my responsibility to tell others what I've discovered so that there is less suffering, so that there is more compassion...

The conclusion I have come to is: I think it's morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering, to harm others, or expose others to harm/suffering.
By "necessary suffering" I mean suffering/harm/force that should be applied to stop greater suffering/harm. For example if one person is brutally violent against somebody, It's morally right to apply as little force necessary to stop the harm being done to the person not wanting to be harmed in the first place...

I believe it's morally wrong and selfish to own anybody against their will, harm others or expose them to suffering/harm without their consent.
Therefore I think it's morally wrong and selfish to reproduce/reproduce.
I used to believe in "progress", that one day we will achieve something better, we could become truly compassionate and morally right.
I used to believe in veganism, education and waiting for progress, hoping that in distant future our future generations will achieve "progress".
Now I think it's morally wrong to sentence them to all this suffering they will experience in the process, just because we have hope, just because we have a bigger picture in mind, just because we have a greater goal that possibly will never be achieved, but even if it will be achieved, I think it's still morally wrong to "use them" in this purpose, because our life expectancy is around 70 years.
It is estimated that over 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct (on our planet).

I don't believe in so-called love as a virtue anymore. I still believe in compassion as a virtue though.
I think "love" is a selfish tool used by selfish evolution which cares about procreation and passing its genes on and on.
Love makes us selfish, makes us care about reproduction only. Places our genes over genes of others. Selfish idea.
Love prepares parents to have offspring, care about them as they are developing so that they can become parents one day and so on and on.
I think it's selfish to care about a limited group of people.
I want to care about 7 billion+ people, and all sentient beings...
I think compassion might be a side-effect of our human evolution.
Humans have probably the first brain/mind capable of examining itself.
We have taught some apes sign language, but it appears those apes can answer some questions, but it hasn't been observed they ask questions, they probably don't wonder about life and the meaning of life. They probably just take it all for granted. They are mostly driven by primitive, selfish instincts, just like us.
However we are capable of beating evolution/nature at its own game and just stop procreating, let us extinct.
I recently found a website: Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, but I still think this is not the solution, I think it's still not good enough, still selfish, I think we should use nuclear weapons to destroy our planet, because I think other sentient beings especially herbivores need our help too.

I think we can and should die with dignity, otherwise we are nothing but puppets of our instincts, biology and evolution, a bunch of animals selfishly focused on procreation with cognitive dissonance about suffering and misery around us...
Necessary force to stop unnecessary suffering: if I had a weapon of mass destruction, capable of destroying our planet, I would press the red button now. Some people say they want to live. I think we are all delusional. I think happiness is delusion and more importantly, I think happiness is immoral. As long as there is suffering somewhere, If we care about morality, about compassion we must (do everything what is possible to) end it.
If we don't care about morality and suffering, why do we have laws and prisons?
People fall in love and think they are happy, I think we are all born addicted to procreation, addicted to sex, to food to water,
We might as well all take heroin and sleep in a puddle of our own body fluids and excrements on a pile of HIV infected needles, fooled that we are happy...
I think we are all fooled by our chemistry, What I discovered about human procreation, how chemicals like: oxytocin, testosterone affect our actions or even racism (thanks to Paul Zak and Yuri Leonidovich Nesterenko) seems to have put a nail to a coffin of my comfort and calm.
It seems like we have virtually no consent about most things we do. We are an unfortunate mix of our primitive instincts, social structures, environment that shapes us, with very little consciousness above our human animal nature. I think we are all ignorant and we make immoral things only because of our unfortunate fallible human nature. I stopped hating people or being angry at them for doing things morally wrong.
I stopped having sex. And even looking at women as anything that I could be attracted to. I'm disgusted and disappointed with/by sexual attraction.

I even think now, that delusions, might be a "safety tool" used by evolution just to procreate more and more, just to keep the status quo.

“At four and a half months old a human fetus has a reptile's tail. A remnant of our evolution. (...) You can fight a lot of enemies and survive. But if you fight your biology, you will always lose.” - Yuri Orlov, Lord Of War

Richard Dawkins wrote a book titled "The God Delusion".
I could write books titled "The Love Delusion" and "The "Life is Beautiful" Delusion" or "The "Life Must Continue" Delusion"

"Power is like being a lady... if you have to tell people you are, you aren't." - Margaret Thatcher

I think it it aplies to life too. I keep hearing people say: "life is beautiful".

“Life is worth losing.” - George Carlin

“Life is simple: Your happiness will be based completely on luck and genetics. Everything comes down to luck and genetics. And when you think about it, even your genetics is luck.” - George Carlin

Very few people say that life is not beautiful, unecessary or bad. There are some people who don't like life, yet, they keep on living...
Some of them procreate, enslaved by instincts, biology, evolution. Those instincts seem to override our reason.

“Man starts over again everyday, in spite of all he knows, against all he knows.” - Emil Cioran

“If I were to be totally sincere, I would say that I do not know why I live and why I do not stop living. The answer probably lies in the irrational character of life which maintains itself without reason.” - Emil Cioran

Reading Emil Cioran, particularly "The Trouble with being Born" seems like there is no hope whatsoever and everything is really miserable.

I think we can stop suffering now.

I've done my research, which has depressed me tragically (I can share links to resources behind my discoveries).
However it also helped me to become more compassionate.
I used to hate people, now I'm just disappointed with people, in fact, I'm disappointed with nature... I don't even listen to music anymore...

I will (try to) answer any questions you ask me here.

Hi smc,

You are probably suffering from depression, and you are projecting that bleak outlook upon life in general. In my experience, there's a pretty strong correlation between the OOS crowd and depression/mental illness.
I encourage you to seek therapy, and start on antidepressants, or possibly anti-psychotics if you need them. Don't worry if they're 'vegan' or not; it's medicine, and this is important for your mental health. You have a chemical imbalance, and this is something that can be fixed.

There are both terrible and beautiful things in life, and there's no reason to believe that the former necessarily outweighs the latter, or that the latter has no value in light of the former.
This is a problem with Buddhism (one of many), and really most other religions too. And of course reincarnation is nonsense; don't even worry about that stuff.

Negative attitudes like this can also be subject to confirmation bias. You see suffering, and it confirms your belief in the horror of life, and then you brush off the importance of joy, happiness, fulfillment, art, love, etc.

I encourage you to read this short article:

http://paleovegan.blogspot.com/2012/03/ ... iving.html

Challenge your own view that life is full of suffering and nothing else to outweigh it. Witness also the good and the beauty, and research the change that has already occurred, see the ongoing march of progressive social ethics and science.

I just responded here to somebody who was romanticizing the past, and primitive tribalism: https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... f=4&t=1149

We have come a very long way. We have much further yet to go. It will take time, sweat, tears, and maybe even a little blood (as the middle-east and much of Africa are suffering through now) to get there.

Thinking we should give up and just hit the reset switch has no utility.
The reset switch doesn't fix the problem. You can not annihilate life on Earth, or throughout the universe. Life finds a way, it will just come back, and this whole thing starts over again. Reincarnation of a single life is bullshit, but life will always incarnate until the heat death or collapse of the universe. All you'd be doing is setting back progress a few hundred million years.

You probably won't see any kind of utopia in your lifetime, and yet you can still work for it and see some very real and very meaningful improvements.
Wallowing won't do anybody any good. Refusing to experience joy or listen to music will just make you increasingly listless and negative -- and impotent to affect real change in the world, which must be inspired not just by negativity, but by sharing the will to live and beauty of empathy and love of others (love is not lust).

Carrying around and representing 'morality' with such a negative attitude is, frankly, not moral at all. What is moral is that which will inspire people to be better and make improvements, not a meme that will extinguish itself through mass suicide.

If you're interested in morality/ethics someone studying it had suggested to me "ethics by Julia driver" which is a good read.

If you want to be more compassionate you could read up on Peter singers works on effective altruism/charity.

I agree with the problems of overpopulation and living unsustainably. And for most people having kids is a want rather than a need.
Though I don't agree on the overtly dystopian outlook as we have been incrementally edging towards a better world and have made substantial strides in many social issues like slavery, womans rights and in recent years lgbt rights, with animal rights now also on the horizon. And populations gropwth rates have also been in decline in a lot of the developed nations with the rest catching up slowly.

I don't see any issues with happiness as long as its not coming at the expense of someone else or makes us ignore pertinent issues. Considering we're the only Intelligent life that we know to exist I'd say it'd be a big disappointment if we were. To go extinct or the earth to be destroyed. I like the quote "We are the cosmos made conscious and life is the means by which the universe understands itself.” ~ Brian Cox; so it'd be disappointing if we'd go extinct.

As for helping herbivores/other animals so that they dont have to suffer, there's some suggestions of us taking over evolution by using scientific advancements in biotechnology and eliminating/reprogramming predators so that suffering is really eliminated /minimized to a great extent though that remains a hypothetical objective for the future. I'd reckon that'd be a better way to help herbivores than nuking the planet
https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... ors#p10879

I am depressed, granted. But I don't have a mental illness (I haven't been diagnosed with any).
If a person considers depression a mental illness, isn't this just proving my point? That biology/evolution is selfish and favours those who procreate on and on? An infertilie person is considered unhealthy, from the biological point of view. I don't think you should have assumed I have chemical imbalance. Besides, we all have chemical imbalances, I recommend to all readers watch Paul Zak's Ted Talks about Oxytocin. He called it "The Moral Molecule". This knowledge is really disappointing. After reading this, it seems like Oxytocin is more like a social molecule, still selfish if genes of one group of humans are to compete with other group of humans:
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com ... -molecule/

Yes,
I am in psychotherapy, I started therapy when I had hope, I had hope because I didn't have the knowledge about us that I have now.
I refuse to take anti-depressants, I'm afraid they might make me indifferent. I don't want to be one of those people who watch TV News and ignore what is going on. Like people in Psychiatric Hospitals who are pretty much careless and indifferent. I might as well take heroin.
What If I see the World clearer? I cannot guarantee I do, but what if I do? what if I'm not mistaken?
What if my depression comes from my awareness and perrhaps that lowered my serotonin, rather than I was born with not enough serotonin and I just look for bad things in life?
What if happy chemicals fog human minds, just so you can last a few more days and reproduce more?
I don't think I have a confirmation bias when it comes to bad things I've witnessed. I might as well say that desperately looking for good things in life can be considered a confirmation bias.
I enjoyed some things in this life. I was a big fan of music. When I was at concerts, in other places people and animals suffered. Suffering didn't stop.

"Bach's music is the only argument proving the creation of the Universe cannot be regarded as a complete failure" - Emil Cioran

I don't agree it's only Bach's music or it's only music, but nonetheless, the good things are greatly outwheighted and outnumbered by the bad things and I think it's immoral to reproduce as it is exposing innocent creatures to suffering. I consider newborns to be innocent, until some time later when develop selfish instincts and start doing morally wrong things. The problem is, it appears we're programmed to do that. For example: babies start masturbating before they even know what sex is. They tend to be selfish when it comes to sharing food. We give birth to reproduction addicts = sex addicts, food addicts, water addicts. Besides, what is the first thing newborns do? They cry, they suffer shortly after leaving the womb. No one asked them if they wanted that. Some apologist might argue that spermatozoons want to be born because they are not still in the semen, they are moving in semen. I don't think they realise what is awaiting them. Besides, to all "pro-life, sanctity of life" people (if there are any reading this) shouldn't you breed all the time? If it's that good?

Let's focus on human females here as it's easier to calculate.
A female human animal (that's you ladies) on average has a life expectancy of 73 years.

On average the menupause occurs at the age of 51.
If menopause occurs in a woman younger than 40 years, it is considered to be premature.
The average year of female human having their first period is 12 years.
51 - 12 = 39, that's how many years a female human can get pregnant.

39 years x 12 months in each year is 468 months.
So that's how many months a female human can get pregnant.
Pregancy lasts 9 months, or should last.
We don't wish kids to be prematurely born so, let's stick with 9 months.
So 468 / 9 gives us 52 pregnancies and average woman could possibly have...
But male human's testicles produce more spermatoozons than 52...
A healthy adult male can release between 40 million and 1.2 billion sperm cells in a single ejaculation.
Shouldn't we try to not waste those spermatoozons by just trying to breed more of us, especially females capable of being pregnant?
There is around 3.5 billion female humans on Earth, but guess what? Humans can probably impregnate chimpanzees too! I wouldn't be surprised if some mad scientists have tried that already... According to one of Richard Dawkins documentaries I've watched, Human DNA and chimpanzee DNA is more similar than that of Horse DNA and Donkey DNA. Horses and donkeys can reproduce and give birth to a mule. Mules are hybrids and are infertile though. In order not to waste human spermatoozons, shouldn't we breed with chimpanzees so that more of us can enjoy small things in life?
Maybe they could be fertile? Maybe not, but still - they could enjoy small things in life, right?

I wasn't expecting this kind of knowledge, believe me...

There is a problem with veganism there too. Farmed animals and animals in slaughterhouses might enjoy small things in life too. If we eat less meat, there will be less of them. If there are less of them, less of them will enjoy those however small happy moments. I don't blame animals on farms for procreation, They probably don't even realise mating leads to pregnancy and then birth. Some animals have only short-memory, they probably don't link mating to giving birth. If some of them do, they still probably don't have our conciousness and awareness. They probably wonder "why", don't ask questions.

If we had mixed sex prisons, men and women inmates, all of them with life sentences, there is no death penalty. No one can leave except prison guards, prison staff. Lots of rape, lots of violence. Ocassional cigarretes, ocassional joys, like ball games, a walk from time to time, maybe even films on TV. Some women want to have kids because their biology, their insctincts which fool them are stronger than reason. Would it not be be morally wrong to procreate there? Sentencing the babies to a life sentence? Only staff can leave. And even if somebody dies or by any chance escapes, takes anti-depressant drugs or street drugs to forget, to ignore - the misery in the prison continues. Is it not a methaphore of life? Big prison without walls?
Steven Pinker claims violence is decreasing, that during dark ages statistically if 5 people left their accomodations, only 4 came back. There was a lot of violence there. I bet some women wanted to have kids. Wasn't morally wrong? Even if they thought there was hope in the future?

Those people who claim they want to live in this World - you have right to choose to live (until you die of "natural causes"). But why do some people who want to have kids force life in the World full of suffering for them? Where is consent? Where is their right to choose? To own others who might later become owners themselves? All fooled by our instincts, our biology, enslaved by the process of evolution.
Besides, there would have to be no sexes, no sexual attraction. Or a way to manipulate our brains so that we don't suffer from rejection or not satisfying our sexual needs. No even sexual fantasies. We would have to manipulate those brains to be "perfect".
But it can't happen today, tomorrow babies will be born and conceived, In the name of what progress?
The Sun will burn out one day, a meteor might hit our planet someday and we would fight over food (not just land and oil).

I've been thinking about it a lot, I mean a lot. I promise it didn't happen overnight...

"We all show up on this planet in the same state of confusion (...), it's like if we all disappeared from this World right now and re-appeared on another planet, having no memory of ever being here or even a thing. You just show up and you're naked and you're like [imitates a baby's cry]: “Aargh”. “I don't know what is going on! I have some instincts, I want to throw things down my mouth, I'm hungry, I'm cold." And there are other people on this planet who showed up in the same way, I mean they have no idea still [why], they have just been here longer, so they can give you some tips. "You know, if it stinks, don't step in it. Eat Kale!" They have no idea why they showed up here. And then some of you awful sadists take this debt to the next level, when you say: “Hey, let's pull the same prank on somebody else who doesn't exist, and have sex with me and then we'll watch it drop out in pain and scream in terror." - Doug Stanhope (censored and edited to comply with the forum rules).

“To have committed every crime but that of being a father.” - Emil Cioran

Hello, welcome to the forum.

What's wrong with pleasure and being happy, as long as it doesn't harm others?
Who is harmed when you listen to music for example? It can even motivate you to do good.

I agree that life is going to keep coming back, and that nuking the planet would just delay progress and cause even more suffering. We've already made a lot of progress as a species as time has gone on, so it's reasonable to believe that the world will continue on this path. Nuking the planet doesn't seem reasonable (it's counterproductive and I don't see how you'd get what you need to do it), and support for it will hurt the movement because most people think it's a horrible idea. It just promotes the idea that veganism is extreme, and people will use it as a justification to harm animals.

Have any social justice movements have gained the support of the people through violence?

smc wrote: If a person considers depression a mental illness, isn't this just proving my point?

No. It is an illness because it is harmful to you.

smc wrote: Yes,
I am in psychotherapy, I started therapy when I had hope, I had hope because I didn't have the knowledge about us that I have now.

That's not knowledge, it's assumptions and faith in the rottenness of everything; no less unreasonable than the blind faith of those who think everything is hunky-dory. Knowledge requires evidence; it's having information that we have reasonable justification to believe is true.

smc wrote:I refuse to take anti-depressants, I'm afraid they might make me indifferent. I don't want to be one of those people who watch TV News and ignore what is going on. Like people in Psychiatric Hospitals who are pretty much careless and indifferent. I might as well take heroin.

That's not what antidepressants do. Talk to your therapist.

smc wrote:What If I see the World clearer? I cannot guarantee I do, but what if I do? what if I'm not mistaken?
What if my depression comes from my awareness and perrhaps that lowered my serotonin, rather than I was born with not enough serotonin and I just look for bad things in life?

If that's true, then antidepressants won't change it. So it can't hurt to try.

But it's not true. Everybody, from fundamentalist Christians to extremist Muslims, wants to assume their world views are the correct ones.
Sorry, that's not how it works.
You arrive at a legitimate worldview through valid logic and objective scientific evidence. Not assumptions like you're making.

smc wrote:What if happy chemicals fog human minds, just so you can last a few more days and reproduce more?

That's not how antidepressants work. They don't make you happy, they bring a little clarity. You still have to fix your life.

smc wrote:When I was at concerts, in other places people and animals suffered. Suffering didn't stop.

Then why don't you help by doing good, and serving as a good example to inspire others?
This "I want to destroy the world" racket is not helpful.
All you'll do is prove that vegans are insane to other people, and harm the movement thus causing more animal suffering.

You will NOT be successful in destroying the world. The only thing you'll do with your extremism is hold back social progress and result in more suffering.

smc wrote:but nonetheless, the good things are greatly outwheighted and outnumbered by the bad things

No, no they are not.
This is your personal dogma.

Care to show me some empirical evidence of this? No?

The empirical facts are as such:

1. You will not succeed at destroying the world. Full stop. Forget it, that's not an option even if it were a good idea (which it isn't, but that's irrelevant).

2. If you keep ranting about wanting to destroy the world, you will appear to be a lunatic, and you will make veganism look insane. Fewer people will go vegan because of YOUR actions.
As such, if you carry on like this, I would say you are not a vegan. If anything, you're more likely to be some psychopath who wants to make veganism look bad by pretending to be some insane extremist, because he enjoys the suffering of animals and wants to prevent more people from becoming vegan.

3. If you really do give a shit, then you should focus on effective advocacy. There is a small, but growing body of empirical evidence behind the methods of moral advocacy that work, and those that don't work.

What you are doing now is the least useful, and the most destructive thing you could possibly do. I'd congratulate competitive bacon eaters on doing more for animals than you are right now.
Pull your head out of this wallowing, and do something good instead.

smc wrote:and I think it's immoral to reproduce as it is exposing innocent creatures to suffering.

Then don't have kids if you don't want to. Adopt.
And take them to concerts and show them the beauty in life too, as you teach them about being good human beings and not harming others.

I could argue against this claim, but it doesn't really matter that much. The important thing is that you stop raving about destroying the planet. It's completely unreasonable, and you make us all look like lunatics.

smc wrote:In order not to waste human spermatoozons, shouldn't we breed with chimpanzees so that more of us can enjoy small things in life?
Maybe they could be fertile? Maybe not, but still - they could enjoy small things in life, right?

I wasn't expecting this kind of knowledge, believe me...

That isn't knowledge, that's just terrible logic.

There are diminishing returns to reproduction, and a certain optimal population for a planet, with the most lives maximally worth living. Just breeding ceaselessly isn't a good means to that end.

smc wrote:There is a problem with veganism there too. Farmed animals and animals in slaughterhouses might enjoy small things in life too. If we eat less meat, there will be less of them.

You seem to have a big problem with scale.
You really don't see any difference in the magnitude of suffering of farmed animals and wild animals, or humans?
These animals are self-mutilating because they're so miserable.
There are humans that miserable, and that's unfortunate -- it would be better had those people never been born -- but those are a small minority of the population of the world. And they're a minority we can try to help (and should).

smc wrote:Would it not be be morally wrong to procreate there?

In that convoluted thought experiment in a magical prison where there was no social freedom and no progressive improvement of life and society, and social conscience, through science and philosophy? Maybe it would be.

So?

smc wrote:Is it not a methaphore of life? Big prison without walls?

No.

smc wrote:I bet some women wanted to have kids. Wasn't morally wrong? Even if they thought there was hope in the future?

Evidently not, since it got us here, and may get us somewhere much better in the future.

smc wrote:But why do some people who want to have kids force life in the World full of suffering for them?

Because they have good memories, and don't think life is just suffering.

“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?”
-Richard Dawkins

The most terrible thing in life is having to leave it. If you don't think so, then the door is always open.

It's like somebody gave you a cookie, and you yell at them "I didn't give consent for you to give me this cookie! I hate cookies!"
Well, if you don't want the cookie, don't keep it.
It's your choice.

But before you decide that, you should at least taste the cookie, or try to like the cookie. You might be surprised.
You can do a lot of good in this life, if you're willing. But you need to trust your therapist and take antidepressants.
If you care about morality, then try to be the person this world needs from you.

smc wrote:The Sun will burn out one day, a meteor might hit our planet someday and we would fight over food (not just land and oil).

All stories end. That's not an excuse not to put pen to paper in the first place.

smc wrote:I've been thinking about it a lot, I mean a lot. I promise it didn't happen overnight...

I know. But it's also the bias of your depression talking. Nothing you're saying is founded on reason, but a stack of assumptions and pessimistic bias.

There probably is nothing wrong with enjoying things that are really necessary.
I think there is nothing wrong with enjoying water when you drink it.
However, I have a problem with collecting expensive champagne and wine and I perceive it as not being compassionate to those who are suffering now. Some people like to travel. They visit many places around the world. I think it's morally wrong to do unnecessary things/activities as long as we can help others. I might listen to music before I sleep one day, because I need sleep to have energy to help others.
But I will never go to a concert again. (I used to go to concerts very often). That's why I'm getting rid of my musical instruments, sports equipment, fancy stuff.

I have created/made up simple scenarions, I call them tests of morality.
One of them goes like this (it's not perfect, but there you have it before I come up with something more elegant)
:
There are two rooms in the middle of some jungle, very remote place.
With cameras and monitors everywhere.
Person A is in the room A.
Person B is in the room B.
Both person A and B are naked.

In the room A, there is a timebomb set to 24 hours, attached to the ceiling. This timebomb represents death (especially death of natural causes). The bomb is too high to reach. There are no tools that the person A could use to reach it.
No chance. What is more, it's behind plastic glass. You can throw things at it, but it will not save you.
There is a CD player and a collection of CDs, DVD player and TV with a collection of DVD. This represents pleasure.
There is alcohol, there are sleeping pills, person A can even overdose and kill herself with those sleeping pills.
There is food and water and even a knife - which can be used to do suicide.
On the other side of the room, there is a box (container).
Above the box there is a sign/caption:
"In this box there is a note written on paper with a 16 digit long code and a microphone which you can use to tell this code to the Person B in the room B. This code will help them and they will be able to leave the room B and go back to her life. You have nothing to gain If person B leaves room B, your room is locked. Person B has no tools to open your door. your rooms are like hi-tech prison cells. When person B leaves, there is no chane for them to find help within 24 hours because you're in the middle of a jungle, the nearest civilization is 7 days walk away. Person B will be able to find plenty of food and water on their way to be saved. If she walks long enough, she will survive and find civilized people with police, telephone and internet, go back to "normal" life."

There is broken glass in the middle of the room. The glass is glued to the floor. Cannot be picked up or moved. This represents sacrificing discomfort or pleasure for others. The only way to get across the room is to walk over the broken glass, which is painful, but still manageable to walk on. It will not kill you. Even if you bleed a little bit, you will rather die from the timebomb explosion.

The person B is strapped to a wall in the room B.
Cannot move any limb apart from the right palm.
under the right palm is a device with numeric keypad.
There is a sign/caption:
"Enter 16-digit code to save your life. The door is not locked, just use the handle and walk for 7 days in any direction to be saved. You will find fruit on your way. As you already feel your left arm is being mutilated now in one of the most horrible torture devices.
Speakers are only in your room, so person A cannot hear your scream. They see you scream on the monitors though.
You don't have to know how it works, you will pretty much bleed out by small cuts in a few days. This represents unnecessary suffering. There is a first aid kit near the door which will help you stop the bleeding on condition the person A decides to help you.
Only the person A can save you, they have nothing to gain from saving you, they will die no later then in 24 hours."

Person A has some options:
- immediately help person B - walk or even run through the glass, suffer a little (not much) but save person B.
- ignore person B's suffering, focus on pleasure, listen to music, watch films, pretending not to watch the monitors or even deliberately turn eyes away from the monitors or close eyes.
- do suicide being overwhelmed by the whole idea of suffering.
- passively wait until death (timebomb kills person A, person B will bleed out sometime later anyway)
- meditate and focus on thinking and just wishing that all suffering could end. (Buddhist approach number 1)
- walk across the glass, use microphone to teach the person B how to meditate encourage her to wish the suffering to end (Buddhist approach number 2)
- walk across the glass and use microphone only to tell the person B their situation is not that bad, that they might have a chemical imbalance in their head and it could be cured with anti-depressants and/or that they should be grateful they have won the lottery of life.
- variations of the above, including waiting 23 hours and then help person B. Person's B arm might require amputation/serious medical treatment after such a long wait.

I have come to the conclusion that even suicide is selfish, cause we all know we can still help others.

I have created at least 5 different scenarions - more rooms and there are multiple people in rooms and some situations require applying force in order to help more people.

I don't know how to use quotes here.
To brimstoneSalad, I'm not against you, I don't argue with people anymore. I no longer do that. It seems to me there are fallacies in your responses. It seems to me I'm not mistaken. I wish I am mistaken. I've read that Richard Dawkins quote about winning the lottery of life, of having been born. However Richard Dawkins admitted his cognitive dissonance about eating meat and sincerely said that he wouldn't have protested much against slavery in the USA If he had lived back then. He might have as well said he had won the lottery of being white. I personally don't want to be selfish anymore.

I am looking forward to read some other people's take on this topic, particularly the founder of the forum, I hope street epistemologists read this and response with their take on it. I swear I would like to wake up tomorrow to some other (better) reality, I hope I'm delusional or something. I hope I misconstrue reality.

smc wrote:I have come to the conclusion that even suicide is selfish, cause we all know we can still help others.

If you understand that, you have some basic grasp of logic, so you have no excuse for what you did here:

smc wrote:To brimstoneSalad, I'm not against you, I don't argue with people anymore. I no longer do that. It seems to me there are fallacies in your responses. It seems to me I'm not mistaken.

Bullshit.
Any Christian fundamentalist can come here and claim the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of god, and then when we explain why he or she is wrong just say "I don't argue with people, there are fallacies in your responses, I'm not mistaken!"

This is a discussion forum. It's all about debate. That kind of vain cop-out of, "You have fallacies but I won't say what I'm right and you're wrong nyaa!" is not allowed here.

If you have a problem with what I said, if you think you have identified any fallacies in my argument, then respond in kind. I took the time to address your arguments, so address mine.

smc wrote:I wish I am mistaken.

Not if you won't even bother discussing it, because your "feels".
If you can't identify any errors in my response, then you ARE mistaken. You don't need to wish it, it's already true.

But clearly you wish to be correct, because you won't bother challenging your views with competing arguments. Or do you think you're so much smarter than everybody else here that we can't possibly come up with any arguments you haven't already thoroughly debunked arguing with yourself?

That's what it sounds like. If so, you can fuck off. This is a discussion forum.

If not, and if you want to engage with us and treat us as fellow intelligent human beings who have potentially compelling arguments to make, and have real discussions, then welcome to the forum.

It's up to you, but if you aren't willing to show us even a modicum of respect by addressing our arguments in kind with reasoned responses, you won't get much out of this exchange.

smc wrote:I've read that Richard Dawkins quote about winning the lottery of life, of having been born. However Richard Dawkins admitted his cognitive dissonance about eating meat and sincerely said that he wouldn't have protested much against slavery in the USA If he had lived back then. He might have as well said he had won the lottery of being white. I personally don't want to be selfish anymore.

Then don't be selfish.
But you should realize you're being selfish right now by disregarding others' arguments, and choosing to believe in a bleak and hopeless world that you want to destroy, which is an ideology that HARMS others.

You're so caught up in being right (which is selfish), that you're unwilling to engage with reason, and see the truth of reality.

smc wrote:I swear I would like to wake up tomorrow to some other (better) reality, I hope I'm delusional or something. I hope I misconstrue reality.

I don't believe you.
I believe you're too caught up in your own ego and being this great savant who, above all others, sees the world clearly for the suffering it is. You think you're the only one who took the red pill and sees reality. You're so special! And that strokes your ego so hard you can't let go of that feeling no matter how much it harms others.
Rather than actually discuss something and risk changing your mind, you're just going to keep asking for more responses until somebody agrees with you, thus confirming your existing biases because you really just want to believe in this nightmarish world of doom and misery and not consider that the world has some value.

Or, the alternative:
You really do want to change your mind, but you think we're all such fucking idiots that it's not worth even responding to us because we could not possibly have any argument to make that you in your infinite intelligence haven't already thought of.
Maybe that's why you're calling for TheVeganAtheist to come and respond to you. Is he the only one here worthy of your greatness?


Which is it, bub?

Whatever it is, you need to get over yourself. Come down to Earth with us mortals, and engage in the discussion.

You are very welcome here even if your views are very different, as long as you show an iota of basic respect.


Also to others: I really think we should update the forum rules. I'll PM TVA about it. People need to know this is a discussion forum and it's not OK to come here to lecture and then refuse to engage in discussion.

smc wrote:I don't know how to use quotes here.

Do you see where it says 'post reply' at the bottom left?

One way is to click that, and then use the quote feature (see attachment).

Anyway, how can you ever change your mind about anything (be open-minded) without engaging in debate? And if you state your beliefs, and respond to critics by saying that they are wrong while not explaining why, how can they address your issues with their responses?

Maybe you can explain why you disagree?