LogFAQs > #956379011

Truth_Decay posted...

Don't complain that someone isn't paying attention or is misunderstanding you, when you yourself can't be bothered to pay attention and read someone's post.

...Are you being serious right now? Alright, I'm going to use this as a litmus test to see if you're capable of admitting that you're wrong.

The part of my post (#188) you quote in post #189 is referring to the first paragraph in your post #186, this:

Truth_Decay posted...

What makes you think people who suffer want their suffering to end through the means you're proposing? Very arrogant of you to assume your idea is something people need, or even want.

When I said you were talking about people who currently exist this is what I was referring to. The phrases "People who suffer" and "...something people need, or even want." very obviously shows you were talking about currently living people in this paragraph, after all people who haven't been born can't suffer nor do they have any wants or needs. You bringing up living people when they aren't the focus here is why I called you out by saying:

Reigning_King posted...

You, like so many others before you show a basic misunderstanding about what anti-natalism is. Here's a hint, it's in the name, natal as in birth. You're talking about currently living humans, I'm talking about potential humans, two different subjects. Also I've never claimed my philosophy was something anyone needed or (directly) wanted, pretty arrogant of you to put words in my mouth. I'm simply pointing out that it is the morally correct thing thing to do.

My first paragraph was a direct response to your first paragraph, that's generally how the exchanges have been going itt and just in forum discussions in general. I use that format because I like to try to cover every part of my opponent's posts instead of just focusing on a small part of it and ignoring the rest like you ha e consistently done to me.

You didn't bring up your hypothetical unborn cancer doctor until your fifth paragraph which my remark in my first obviously isn't talking about. Even ignoring the space between the statements and basic context clues I never said you were ONLY talking about humans who were alive, I was saying you're making the mistake of mixing the two groups and treating them like they were the same, which they aren't so there is literally no conflict here except in your head.

Truth_Decay posted...

Extreme ignorance on your part. I've laid out for you why in my first post, if you bother to actually read it.

...your first post? The one where you said:

Truth_Decay posted...

Can we ever achieve a life without *any* suffering? Absolutely not.

?

You're literally admitting that I'm correct to say suffering is intrinsically tied to human life, it is impossible to ever achieve a life without any suffering, yes. Please tell me how to end human suffering short of extinction if we will never find a way to be free of it in our current world? I want to END human suffering, not just REDUCE it, obviously there are many ways to do the latter but as I've said I don't think that's the right path. So where is my ignorance you quote coming from on THIS singular issue, think me a fool or madman on everything else but explain yourself here.