XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
XPost: alt.philosophy.zen
From: whoduh@murderispositiveaction.com
On Mon, 31 May 2010 00:06:55 -0400, halfawake
wrote:
>Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
>> On 5/30/2010 1:27 PM, halfawake wrote:
>>
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "halfawake" wrote in message
>>>> news:htso9c$f51$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, my comments apply to me too, but you haven't offered an argument
>>>> to support your point of view yet, there's not much chance of you
>>>> convincing me to change my mind until you do. So far you have asserted
>>>> that you think existence is better than non-existence and you think
>>>> lots of other people think it too. You have completely ignored sound
>>>> arguments which show that it is impossible to say that, rationally.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is sort of interesting. I never said that existence is better than
>>> non-existence.
>>
>>
>> You have disputed the assertion that existence is *not* better than
>> never existing - not "non existence" - without ever offering a basis for
>> your disagreement. If you're disputing the assertion that existence is
>> not better than never existing, than you're pretty damned close to
>> asserting, implicitly, that it *is* better.
>
>a/ no
>b/ "pretty damned close" - a subjective assessment on your part - is the
>same thing as "has not" as I did not actually say that. I said it was
>possible to make that comparison. I never made it myself, nor implied
>that I would. I gave no opinion about whether existence might or might
>not be preferable to non-existence, as that is not the subject at hand.
> The fact that you want to blur that difference says a lot. All you
>care about is your argument, not about what is actually asserted, nor why.
>
>>> You haven't been reading very carefully - maybe that's
>>> why you don't understand my point of view.
>>
>>
>> Your point of view is incoherent. You've never given a coherent reason
>> for your disagreement.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> I could say that I am better off than I was when I lived in Siberia,
>>>> but since I never lived in Siberia my statement doesn't mean much. The
>>>> same goes for your statement.
>>>
>>>
>>> People make judgments like that all the time, except they don't say
>>> "when I lived" which would be a fiction, but "if I lived." And they
>>> imagine what it might be like.
>>>
>>> No one can "imagine" non-existence since it would be a nullity, but they
>>> can understand that it would be the absence of all their current
>>> experiences, and they might prefer a state of nothingness over their
>>> existence.
>>
>>
>> You must exist in order to hold that preference. Once you exist, "never
>> existing" is an absurdity. You can try to imagine what life would have
>> been like for others had you never existed, but you can't imagine
>> anything about "never existing" pertaining to yourself.
>>
>>
>>> And one *can* desire that if they wish, despite your objection.
>>
>>
>> One can desire no longer to exist; one cannot rationally wish never to
>> have existed.
>>
>>
>>> When people say "I wish I'd never been born," they express a desire to
>>> have "never experienced" all that they have, including their own
>>> experience of being a living being.
>>
>>
>> Bullshit. What they're expressing is a deep unhappiness with what is
>> going on in the moment, or in the very recent past.
>
>That's your interpretation. As I have said, this discussion is
>fruitless. You just enjoy barking. Please bark at someone else.
>
>Robert
>
>= = = = = = =
gooo robert! your guard like habits are fully redeemed.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
