Sociopath Community

While a modicum of consciousness may have had survivalist properties during an immemorial chapter of our evolution – so one theory goes – this faculty soon enough became a seditious agent working against us … we need to hamper our consciousness for all we are worth or it will impose upon us a too clear vision of what we do not want to see … Consciousness has forced us into the paradoxical position of striving to be unself-conscious of what we are – hunks of spoiling flesh on disintegrating bones

-Thomas Ligotti 

“I’ve seen horrors. Horrors that you have seen. But you have no right to call me a murderer, you have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that. But you have no right to judge me. It’s impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and mortal terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared.”

 -Colonel Walter E Kurtz, Apocalypse Now (1979)

The basis of societies are lain with unspoken rules. The primary one resolving tension the most is do unto others as you would have done unto you.  I.e. the golden rule I.e. the categorical imperative.

Morality is malleable but the rules of Ethics are not as they are the backbone of society itself, superimposing the function of life orientied towards coexistence.

Is the reduction of suffering more important than the maximization of pleasure? Is it justified to subject racing horses to extreme stress and torment for the pleasure of the gamblers betting on the race?

you’re all in hell i regret helping

Lil_Zero-Sum said: 

 Fascinating. 

The Fallacy of Being: Insurmountable Deprivationalism & Sacrifical Inexorableness Sub Specie Aeternitatis.

Preface:
Even atheists still dance with God's corpse, despite believing he is no longer alive.
Possible foundations that may be necessary before one is open-minded enough to consider the upcoming ideas:
B) A foundational knowledge of psychology, evolution, physics (material determinism), and axiology:
D) Rejecting other prevalent garbage data conclusions around the world, such as the Delusion of Divinity, or that "everything boils down to subjective perceptions," or that "nothing ever matters," or that "the universe, existence, and life will go on indefinitely."
- I'll probably write another post about these at a later date.
Premise:
Sentience is the source of all value
A thing's ability to feel, or the impact it has on feeling animals, makes it valued
Our brains and neurological systems are built to make value judgments about comfort maximisation and harm avoidance
Sense perception and cognition are used to filter concepts like beauty
The "beautiful mountain" could hardly be described as lovely if no one was present to witness it.
As a result, this is the perspective that reveals all of the pain, lunacy, error, and failure created by life's unwillingness to embrace certain facts.
Nociception:
Wrong purposes, false belief, false understanding, false knowledge, false ideas, false concepts, and so on are all possible.
However, "false feeling" or "false experience" does not exist
That's because, in terms of epistemology, consciousnesses that derive or posit information as "purpose, belief, understanding, ideas, concepts" are a payload and claim regarding truths and falsehoods that can all be proved true or wrong
Because the real and tangible thing happening in the universe is the event of sense and experience in and of itself
Phenomenological states cannot be lumped in with epistemological statements; not only is this a categorical error, but phenomenology also supersedes epistemology (it cannot be contradicted by it)
Because the experience and sensation are indisputable as long as they are occurring.
Consider even the most fashionable sophisticated arguments, such as the precious is/ought gap or the naturalistic fallacy
The case is subsequently closed by correctly flipping the fallacy onto procreation
"Can procreate " does not mean "should procreate," in other words
There will be no quoting of "is/oughts" that enable wiggling room for progenitors here.
This concept simply informs you that a molecule resulted in trillions of continual torture victims (evolution) was the product of error and failure, not of purpose, "goodness," actual objective, logical usage, net-utility, or justifiable existence
There's no turning back now that the light has been shone on the human psyche's blindspot.
Because evolution is really an error code, it is mutants and mutations, not even mutating on purpose, and the entire code was linked together by a random physics event
It has no idea what it's doing or even that you exist - neither evolution nor the universe has your back
The secular fact of existence has been sitting on the understanding that you are a biochemical mutation on a path to nowhere, simply following the scripts of code weaved together by pure chaotic happenstance of physics.
This also implies that this much harm is being done for no good reason
"Life has no meaning..
so you make up your own," Life's Delusion creeps back in like a virus, "Life has no purpose..
so you make up your own." That indicates inhumane torture is being carried out for fictitious reasons.
However, as it turns out despite what's commonly told, continuing the experimental biological accident is not the issue:
-The absence of progeny creates a calm, harm-free void.
-Every imaginable injury, trouble, and misery resulted from the creation of new beings.
A brainless biological molecule concocted your fate, convincing you that "calm problem-free harm-free nothingness" is in some way a problem.
Even ostensibly logical, secular philosophers can't seem to shake the idea: "The cosmos created life so that it could..." - which completely misses the point - not just of this philosophy, but of evolution's truth as well
The ultimate truth is that it never did any X in order for any other X to occur
Life is a chaotic, stupid design that happened simply because it could.
Even scientists and outstanding intellectuals fantasise of spreading indefinitely or placing McDonald's on every planet.
Even many serious thinking intellectuals never seem to ponder about (or slow down for) the expense of "living forever and enveloping the universe with yourself." Alternatively, the entire truth of "wanting to live forever and fill the cosmos with yourself" is nothing more than an impossible lie that has been burned into the hardware of sentient beings for millennia, and this ruse will die in vain.
People would have a proper respect for nature and a fear of the disasters it is capable of if they saw it as the machine/mechanism of immature design that it is.
They want this to be a cheerful flower sunset machine of beauty - inside a paradise - in a universe that isn't broken and cares
They want it so badly that they've made it happen in their heads, despite the fact that reality continues to make it impossible
Nature isn't a mother; she's a killer of the most heinous kind that has ever lived
Even most Atheists are equally as guilty of this delusion, replacing spirituality with other similarly invalid nonsense rationalizations for the carnage.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick civilization" - Jiddu Krishnamurti
There have been billions bred in infected war-torn filthy garbage dumps, where the chances of living a decent life are practically none
Despite this, the mindless march continues.
Victims are being fed into evolution, and it's being pretended that pure "hope-dope" positive thinking is enough to reclaim everything that has been lost.
The Fallacy of Being is so strong that reading it would make someone feel self-righteous and indignant, as if they weren't the real perpetrators of every possible pain and horror, as if they're somehow fooling other people (and themselves) into thinking they're the good guys, and they (in their infinite cluelessness) can guarantee the next victim of evolution will be well worth it
Life submits itself to the harshest potential damages and agonies for no reason because of the DNA fallacy

Nothing, because no matter how much blood and terror you pour into this endeavour, life always ends in the zero sum of death
And this is a crucial objective fact - one that all delusional systems derived from evolutionary brainwash are geared to concealing with fantasy stories
Wishful thinking about an afterlife, fantasies of a just and karmic cosmos, or a universe with a conductor who cares about what happens.
Why is there a need for truth?
Because the absence of necessary truth is unthinkable
If required truth were not present, it would simply re-create another necessary fact, namely, that necessary truth is not present.
We're trapped inside a "if this, then that" mirror that always reflects something being true in the end.
As a result, there must be a required truth in all potential realities, equations, and descriptions of any possible reality
Even if that necessary truth was merely that of total emptiness, void, or even terminal stasis (nothing ever happening ever again)
Only when there are faults or issues is rationality useful
If the errors/problems are removed, it is no longer relevant that rationality does not exist
Because rationality doesn't -constitute anything- but the solution of problems and errors, and it doesn't -do anything- but solve problems and errors
As a result, when all issues and errors are eliminated, rationality would inevitably disappear
When a minor blunder turns into a major blunder, it's called life
Because harmless error is innocuous, the solution is to remove catastrophic error
It's impossible to eradicate every innocuous error without a technological singularity, ultimate universal destabilisation, or entropic heat-death scenario.
2
Life, by virtue of its very existence, spawns all of its own darkest horrors.
3
Everything that matters in life is founded on A: Non-essential needs
B: Issues that don't need to be there (With no exception, there is no part of the equation for anything that could ever concern life, that cannot be reduced to this)
4
"Creating a need and satisfying it" will not get you anywhere
You won't get anywhere if you create every problem and then solve some of them (or even all of them).
5
In every way, life is a zero-sum game
However, the Fallacy of Being occasionally tries to name objective reality as "utilitarianism" and represses it
To oppose utilitarianism, you must believe that "useless utilitarianism" can be justified.
A: For everyone who can be damaged, coming into being is always a major harm and concern.
B: Not existing is never an issue or a threat to anyone at any time.
So they keep ignoring, imposing, and lying that it's a mystery, that this twisted experiment doesn't seem to be functioning in the 'best interests' of life.
Life's positive experiences cannot be used to justify its existence rationally, irrationally, objectively, subjectively, empirically, or logically.
Because of the following reasons:
B) Sacrifical Inexorableness
Even if positives were equal to or superior than negatives, going back in time to correct a victim of the life experiment who has been pointlessly tormented and irreparably destroyed is physically impossible
(Positive experience is essentially meaningless when it comes to amending.) As a result of this truth, any exchange of pleasant and terrible experiences is nothing more than an unnecessary sadistic sacrifice for an unnecessary pleasure.)
C) Insurmountable Deprivationalism
Every positive is built on the foundation of a negative
Because life begins with pure "need" or being deprived of something you don't have, everything positives after that are simply an attempt to turn "deprivation" into "pleasure." You can't be satisfied any farther than your deprivation is undone, thus you can't be satisfied any further than your deprivation is undone
This is one of the most important findings in the study of how objective reality connects to subjective negative and positive experiences
(It is axiologically impossible for positives to out-quantify or out-qualify negatives because you can only be fulfilled if you are initially deprived.)
D) Incoherence of Utilitarian Aims
Most Life rejection and Life Worship is based on a Negative/ Neutral/ Positive framework for evaluating the worth of life.
However, this overlooks a crucial reality that hangs above it.
Look a little closer at what's hanging above it to see the hook that's still dragging you along: If anyone intends to keep evolution running because they essentially just want a good score on the utility scale, then consider:
Consider what would happen if a computer generated a programme that is hooked to its own existence and expands only to satisfy what it is missing.
Imagine that if the programme doesn't succeed, the computer tortures and destroys it
Then you figure out how to speak with the programme, and it informs you that it wants to keep existing and replicating at all costs, and that it has a lot of motivation to do so since it believes it has discovered a Negative/Neutral/Positive "utilitarian" framework.
When metaphors like Negative/Neutral/Positive are removed from the context of life, they appear to be a genuine redeemer.
The context of life is that nothing happens in the life programme, other from wants that never need to exist and being erased back into nothing no matter what happens
The context of life is also that this "framework" of sentient life began with no end goal or beginning goal - one that solves nothing - and no rational conclusion to the contrary has ever been established in our world: especially not by fake seculars who are just DNA praising pantheists pretending to have ever validated natalism.)
In Closing:
1 If you aren't created, you can't miss out on a benefit.
2 If you are not created, you will not be able to sustain a disadvantage.
3 You cannot be hurt if you do not exist;
4 But only if you aren't created, and only because you aren't produced.
As a result, it's still critical to avoid the creation of sentience
The fact that no one would be formed to appreciate this is irrelevant; it doesn't disprove or change the point; it's still the case that every problem and disadvantage is successfully avoided by not producing life to conduct an unjustifiable useless biological experiment.
And therefore, a serious discussion is still to be had by the thinking world, before this predicament can reach a final conclusion.
I should have probably made it 2 separate posts
shit