XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
XPost: alt.philosophy.zen
From: epsteinrob@yahoo.com
Dutch wrote:
>
> "Rupert" wrote in message
> news:9efed576-2e25-43ab-8652-b3a8be37ed8b@y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On May 29, 3:13 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"
> wrote:
>
>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is necessarily
>> to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
>> welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject nonsense to suggest a
>> person might rationally think he is "better off" for existing rather
>> than never existing, because the flip side is that the person would be
>> "worse off" for never existing - but there wouldn't be a person to
>> experience the "worse off" condition if the person never existed.
>>
>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence, because
>> again, there would be no entity to experience the better welfare. It
>> still can make sense for the person with a miserable welfare to want to
>> die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>
>
> I fully agree with you on all these points, but the question arises
> what exactly you achieve by posting this.
>
> There will be some who already fully agree with you before you even
> made the post, and there will be some who will never be convinced no
> matter what you say.
>
> Does that not cover everyone?
> -->
>
> No, there are people who don't agree at first but see that the logic in
> your argument is sound, realize you're right, and change their minds. I
> realize this kind of critical thinking is very rare, but it is worth
> seeking out. Dare to dream.
>
>
So critical thinking consists of hearing what *you* have to say and
agreeing with you? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. You're a fucking moron.
Robert
= = = = = = = =
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
