LogFAQs > #956457764

Truth_Decay posted...

I've noticed you deal in extremes a lot.

- Unescapable rape room.

- Meticulous torture catered to someone's exact weaknesses.

- "Why don't you swap lives with someone experiencing great suffering/choose to live in this intense situation?"

Makes you come across as very naive and childish.

A large part of your argument rests on this notion of these non-existent people, which is exactly why your argument fails. You think it's bulletproof because these people don't exist, and if this situation were to ever occur there'd be no way to measure success vs failure.

If it's fair for you to use this hypothetical situation as a crutch for your weak argument, it's fair to say that in some parallel universe, were these non-existent people somehow granted a voice and given a choice to live with some suffering or not live at all, a vast majority would choose existence with suffering.

I'm confident saying this as I can point to current suicide statistics to back up the claim. In 2017, global averages were under 2%, with some countries seeing rates as high as 5%. Nothing to scoff at, as these figures amount to hundreds of thousands of lives lost, but a vast and overwhelming majority choose to live. Including those who live in harsh, adverse situations.

If your non-existent people were given an option, they would choose life with suffering.

So your whole philosophy is a pointless, impractical, and frankly moronic brain exercise. And if you're going to propose your pathetic theory is unassailable due to the fact that you're speaking on behalf of phantoms, what I've just shown you cancels all that out. All you're left with is... what, exactly?

Nothing! At the end of the day you're posing as a champion for ghosts! And that is as dumb as it is absurd.

This is all I'll say on the matter. You seem incapable of accepting how inane and banal your little theory is, and I'm sure you'll go on rejecting everything I post and choosing to continue patting yourself on the back while basking in the glow of sheer ignorance.

They say it is bliss, after all

Enjoy your topic.

I use extremes because they are good ways to illustrate points. People can argue about if two slightly different shades of gray should be considered the same but no one would argue that gray is the same thing as black or white. Also you pointing out the extreme nature of many of my examples or calling me names (ironically calling me childish as if that isn't the exact word to describe calling someone childish in a debate) isn't actually a refutation just so you know.

Your hypothetical situation is nonsense. As soon as you give an unborn, nonexistent people a voice then they automatically become something different because they now exist on some level. It is oxymoronic because the definition of nonexistent necessarily disqualifies anything capable of speech, choice, deliberation, etc. from being included in it.

Even if we entertain the thought despite that the data you cite that makes you so sure these nonexistent people would behave the way you claim is almost as bad. You are looking at data concerning real live human beings who exist physically and who have experienced many years of life to base their judgments on, why on earth would these impossible nonexistent (yet somehow existent and aware) people have the same types of thought processes, value systems, and biological urges (you know, like the urge to not die) that we have? This is confusing, yet again, the difference between choosing to live and choosing to be born, even if these unborn ghost people still thought exactly like normal humans the choice they would have to make to be born is vastly different from someone choosing if they want to kill themselves or not. This also doesn't factor in that babies don't have any memories before they're born and presumably these spirits aren't omniscient so the child born might suffer far worse than the spirit anticipated and they could still end up resenting life. AND EVEN THEN, if I concede everything to you and we sweep all of what I said under the rug your position is still bad because these unborn people aren't the ones choosing to be born, their parents are. Even if the desire of the parents to have a baby and the unborn's desire match up it is still a gamble in your set up since you say "the vast majority would want that". What about the minority who doesn't want to be born? How is it ethical to gamble with human lives like that? If you want to claim because "It's for the greater good." or something I demand to know what that good is. I have to say this "counter argument" of yours is one of the most ridiculous I've ever seen, it has more holes in it than a menger sponge.

On the other hand all I'm saying on behalf of the nonexistent is that they don't exist and thus cannot benefit from being born. Something that doesn't exist can't be harmed or benefited by anything, why do I need to point this out? Therefore every birth that takes place is nothing more than a selfish gamble on the part of the parents if not an accident dooming someone to suffering for their entire life.

Do you even understand my full position? You fire off a salvo of shots at the wall defending my position and claim to have seized victory before the smoke even clears seemingly not realizing that even if you broke through that defense I have several more layers behind it. I could tell you everything you said in your argument was correct and it still wouldn't invalidate anti-natalism.