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 01:50:22 -0400, halfawake    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.goo   
   legroups.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   
   >   
   >= = = = = =   
      
   leave the compliment locked in its mystery my pet. :)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)