← Home ← Back to /x/

Thread 41125470

20 posts 8 images /x/
X No.41125470 [Report] >>41125542 >>41125774 >>41125873 >>41127434 >>41127697 >>41128601 >>41128735
I’m sick of the tragedy of my life and I have nothing to lose. I’ve been wronged so sickly and horribly by people. Tell me how to do some dark black magic to hurt these people. I don’t care what happens to me
Anonymous No.41125542 [Report]
>>41125470 (OP)
fuckin' edgy dude
Anonymous No.41125671 [Report] >>41125748
Instead of hurting yourself to hurt others use the magic to improve your life
Anonymous No.41125748 [Report] >>41125761
>>41125671
There used to be resources on this board, what happened
Anonymous No.41125761 [Report]
>>41125748
I think most of the users have been gone for a while...
Anonymous No.41125774 [Report] >>41125821
>>41125470 (OP)
You really should forgive others you don't know how much free will they had when they chose to wrong you and how much of that choice to hurt you was because of factors outside their control like genetics and environment

Also you have probably done worse. If you aren't vegan you've paid for hundreds of animals to be tortured to death in factory farms
If you aren't going to forgive those who've wronged you why should the animals you've tortured and killed forgive you?
Anonymous No.41125821 [Report] >>41125842 >>41125847
>>41125774
I own I’m up to the things I’ve done wrong in my life. I’ve always been one to apologize and take accountability. You can’t even imagine the evil soem people have done to me
Anonymous No.41125842 [Report]
>>41125821
Everyone sees themselves as the hero of their own story put yourself behind the veil of ignorance

Utilitarians are often accused of being excessively fixated on animals—their sheer numbers mean that nearly all the welfare in the world is experienced by animals. But I don’t think this is some troubling feature unique to utilitarianism. It’s follows automatically once one has even a modicum of empathy for animals. Once one does not arbitrarily discount the interests of animals entirely, the moral urgency of animal welfare becomes clear.

John Rawls famously proposed a procedure to evaluate the importance of the world’s issues impartially and without bias. The proposal: imagine making decisions behind a veil of ignorance, unsure which of the affected parties you are. For instance, suppose Jeffrey Dahmer is deciding whether he should kill and eat people. Well, if he wasn’t sure whether he was the one who would be doing the eating or the one being eaten, he obviously wouldn’t support the killing and eating. No one in their right mind would take a 1/2 chance of being killed and eaten for a 1/2 chance of deriving whatever benefit Dahmer got from cannibalism.

In short, the veil of ignorance makes sure your decisions are impartial. It’s very easy to be biased to overrate problems that affect you. By imagining you don’t know who you are, you can no longer tilt the scales in favor of problems that affect you. You must include everyone behind the veil—a white person couldn’t justify anti-black racism by arbitrarily excluding black people from the pool of possible identities. You have to count everyone’s interests.
Anonymous No.41125847 [Report] >>41125853 >>41125868 >>41125868
>>41125821
Now, perhaps the veil of ignorance isn’t a perfect procedure. It requires you be impartial—but perhaps you get to be partial towards your loved ones. Perhaps you get to save a family member over two strangers, even if you’d save the two strangers from behind the veil of ignorance. (The veil of ignorance also seems to imply on its face that you shouldn’t care about bringing people into existence if they have below-average happiness, but that’s easily fixed by including possible people behind the veil.)

But even if this is right, the veil of ignorance is a decent guide to deciding which things are important. If you’d care overwhelmingly about an issue behind the veil of ignorance, then the issue is quite important, and you should take it rather seriously. The veil of ignorance tells us which things impartially matter, and any plausible ethical view takes seriously the things that matter impartially—even if bringing about impartial value doesn’t exhaust all of ethics.


But when we apply the veil of ignorance to animals, it becomes obvious that animal welfare is by far the most important issue in the world.

A first thing one notices when they imagine they’re equally likely to be any of the conscious creatures ever born is that the odds they’ll be a human are very low. It’s about 600 times more likely that you’d be born this year as a chicken in a factory farm than a human. In fact, the odds you’d be born as a chicken in a factory farm this year are about as high as the odds you’d be born as a human ever, in all of history up until this point. Approached this way, caring about chicken farming doesn’t seem like some weird obsession of utilitarians. Behind the veil of ignorance, we’d all care about it. Our concern about chicken farming alone could very well dwarf our concern about all human problems.
Anonymous No.41125853 [Report] >>41125859
>>41125847
Around 440 billion farmed shrimp are born, reared, and killed each year. Even if you think there’s only a 10% chance shrimp are conscious, the odds you’d be born a farmed shrimp tortured for its entire life https://rethinkpriorities.org/research-area/welfare-considerations-for-farmed-shrimp/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email this year alone are over 350 times the odds you’d be a human born this year. You’d be much likelier to be born a farmed insect this year than a human in all of history.

But this is all a rounding error compared to wild animals. https://reducing-suffering.org/how-many-wild-animals-are-there/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

You’d be more than 10 times likelier to be a wild bird alive now than a human. Same roughly with wild mammals. With reptiles, the numbers are more dismal—you’d be somewhere between 10 and 10,000 times likelier to be a reptile than a human. With fish, even if there’s only a 10% chance they’re conscious—an implausibly low estimate—you’d still be about 10,000 times likelier to be a fish than a human. Amphibians are roughly on the same scale as fish.

The things you’d really start to prioritize are insects (particularly relative to current practices which neglect their interests entirely). Even if you think there’s only a 1% chance that insects are conscious, you’re still about a million times likelier to be an insect alive today than a human. And that’s not even taking into account marine arthropods like shrimp.

You should have empathy for other creatures. It would be wrong to stab me because you know that if you were me, you wouldn’t want to be stabbed. But if you have empathy for other creatures, if you evaluate harms to them impartially, then it becomes overwhelmingly clear that human problems are a rounding error compared to harms to animals. Our failure to extend empathy to animals is purely a result of selfishness; it would cease immediately if we had any chance of being them.
Anonymous No.41125859 [Report] >>41125862
>>41125853
If making decisions behind the veil of ignorance, you wouldn’t treat humans as the only creatures that mattered. If you were just as likely to be any of 15,000 shrimp anesthetized per dollar https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-best-charity-isnt-what-you-think given to the shrimp welfare project as the one human giving the dollar, then even if you suspected shrimp weren’t conscious, you’d support donations to help them. If the odds you’d be a human were a rounding error compared to the odds you’d be a wild animal, you’d immediately recognize that wild animal suffering is by far the worst problem in the world and that we should do something about it.

There are all sorts of excuses for ignoring the welfare of animals. They have limited mental capacities. They’re not human. They’re not a part of an intelligent species. But ask yourself: would you take seriously any of these excuses from behind the veil of ignorance? If you were 100,000 times likelier to be a fish than a person, would you really deny that it’s a big deal when fish suffocate to death in a barrel? If you were really impartial, vastly likelier to be born an animal than a human, would you really treat these as good reasons to count their interests for near zero? Of course not. No one would.
Anonymous No.41125862 [Report]
>>41125859
Now I imagine the reply will generally be that we shouldn’t actually reason as if we were behind the veil of ignorance. We’re not behind the veil of ignorance! But this is no more convincing than an anti-semite saying he can ignore the interests of Jews because he’s not Jewish. You should have empathy for others. Their interests matter! If you’d care deeply about a problem if you were impartial, then it would be an ethical mistake to completely ignore that problem.

The veil of ignorance is a nice way of cutting through the bias and unjustified lack of empathy. It tells slave owners not to own slaves, for they would not own slaves if they might end up as slaves. It tells nations not to plunder and kill enemy nations, for they would not do that if they might be the ones plundered and killed. And it tells us to care about the animals crying out in cage, barn, and field—even the small, weird ones we normally neglect.

The only question: will we listen?
Anonymous No.41125868 [Report] >>41125889
>>41125847
>>41125847
You don’t know my trauma or the things I’ve been through. I’ve been a very forgiving understanding person, but some things are unforgivable
Anonymous No.41125873 [Report] >>41125897 >>41125897
>>41125470 (OP)
I like your picrel. That's cool. I think we all learned that he's cool. As for your request, I don't think I can help you, but I know it's real. If this person is a devout Christian though (the target) then the curses will be difficult. I know this as a Christian.
Anonymous No.41125889 [Report]
>>41125868
It's incredibly hypocritical to say you're a victim while victimizing others
Anonymous No.41125897 [Report]
>>41125873
>>41125873
A devout Christian would never do such horrible things to someone else, I can say these people were not
Sage No.41127434 [Report]
>>41125470 (OP)
No. Go outside touch some grass and get some sunlight so you can improve your mental health and get on with your life in peace. If you try hurting people out of malice you will surely regret it by cursing your own soul through corruption and evil and you will suffer the pain that you inflicted onto others ten-fold. Be better than that and move on. And go in peace.
Anonymous No.41127697 [Report]
>>41125470 (OP)
Cobes was a horrible person. Sure, he was funny to watch but he was a disgusting selfish drunkard retard.
Anonymous No.41128601 [Report]
>>41125470 (OP)
I remember an anon claiming to have caused someone's death by keeping a rotten egg for one year, sending all the hate he had for this person to that egg, then burying that egg in that person's garden, and she died soon after.

There was also a girl who claimed she took revenge on a guy using the law of assumption, considering that he had had a serious car accident, then he had a car accident indeed and died.
Anonymous No.41128735 [Report]
>>41125470 (OP)
Look at how well practicing dark magic and praising satan worked out for cobes…