This may actually be the problem. I don't know enough about Autism to know for sure though. A lot of my arguments were based on inherent contradictions that would make someone with my mindset realize how hypocritical they are. If you read all of it as being true then it wouldn't make any sense at all.
How do they assign something that doesn't exist?
Like here. The point is that meaning is a delusion. There is no meaning, so people make one up. Like a stop light. The red light and the green light do not have the inherent power to make people move down the street. People choose to assign meaning that doesn't exist to it, because it's convenient.
That's a poor example as you imply that its wrong, but also holds truth. Additionally The weak will always feel misery as that is the condition of weakness
And here. I made an argument based on the doubt that what was said might be true, with the expectation that it would be obvious that it wasn't after reading the next line. It held no truth at all, and was absolutely wrong. It was mostly an expansion on the idea that 'Suffering does not create strength, the strong just endure suffering better.'
As for misery being tied to weakness, the problem is that it's entirely possible for someone to be physically weak but emotionally strong, or vice versa. The emotionally strong person won't experience misery even if their body can't hold up to their lifestyle. But the physically strong person may feel miserable despite having every advantage.
I didn't want to delve into the more morbid side of it
This is a weakness on its own, you know? Turning away from reality because it's unpleasant. But if you're using a strong word like suffering to describe being annoyed at an alarm clock, then of course other people would misunderstand.
The strong can gain from suffering, and the weak are removed by it. Before you start using moralist arguments about how wrong that is. I implore you to think of how wrong it is to make future people weak and prone to misery. In my eyes such arguments are hypocritical and made by people who have let themselves be subsumed by emphatic impulses
The problem here is that strength and weakness aren't inherent things. Again, reality is meaningless, and so people assign their own meanings. What seems like a strength to you is a weakness to someone else. 'All life is sacred' is not a moralistic argument. It's a carefully considered delusion that benefits humanity as a whole.
Slightly out of the blue, another comparison. In Africa, there's a rather common sex-linked gene that causes a disease called sickle cell anemia. It's a recessive gene pattern, meaning that in order to develop symptoms, both of your parents must pass the gene onto you. The disease causes weakness and suffering, so it would be natural for anyone who has the gene to die without reproducing. In the US, it's an extremely rare disease. So why is it so common in certain parts of Africa? It's because of another disease common in Africa, Malaria. Malaria is a disease that propagates inside blood, the same blood that Sickle Cell Anemia affects. Malaria cannot propagate in Sickled Cells. People who have Sickle Cell Anemia are far more likely to survive Malaria, and thus reproduce. Meaning something that is absolutely a weakness becomes a strength in the circumstance they live in.
This same situation can be applied to ANY weakness. Because the world is vast. There will hypothetically always be a place where some weakness can become a strength. It may be fleeting, or wasteful. But it means that, at the extremes of logic, there's never a weakness that deserves to be crushed outright. Though it's not like you
have to let a weakness linger around. If you can find a cure or treatment, then isn't it fine to get rid of all that unnecessary suffering? Instead of just saying 'It's for the greater good', why don't you just help the weak instead of letting them suffer? Because the majority of the time, misery doesn't come directly from pain or deformity. It comes from being abandoned, degraded, and persecuted.
Helping people is never hypocritical.
And that's it for my edge lord autistic rant.
And no I'm not arguing for genocide. I just don't want Idiocracy to happen at the bare minimum.
Well, of course not. After all, Autistic people are right at the top of that short list of people that Eugenics target, along with the crippled, queer, or ethnically diverse. Suffering is fine as long as it's someone
else that's suffering. (That's hypocritical humor, if you missed it. Don't ban me.)
