XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
XPost: alt.philosophy.zen
From: epsteinrob@yahoo.com
Dr Who Duh wrote:
> 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.
thanks for the compliment. now please explain what you said.
:)
robert
= = = = = =
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
