Lurker > Reigning_King

by YA I mean stuff like Naruto, Pokemon, Harry Potter, Avatar: The Last Airbender, etc. I don't care if you don't think those are for "young adults" that's what I mean. By 18+ I mean ultra violent and/or erotic obviously.

Wow just how thin skinned are people these days that anything like this is considered some deep hurtful attack? The only way I would assume being called a name other than my own was an insult as apposed to a mistake was if there was context suggesting it was an insult and it was an insult in common usage like a sarcastic "Einstein".

adjl posted...

opportunity to pretend you're smarter than me.

Well you're closer to the top than the bottom as far as poster on this board go but compared to me that still isn't enough so I wouldn't call it pretending. You see I'm the type of guy who only really offers his opinions and knowledge on subjects he's confident about. If I'm clueless about something, which I am on many things, I simply won't discuss it. Can you imagine how much better the world would be if everyone was like that?

kangolcone posted...

Your first sentence is a run-on. Please fix for clarity and accuracy.

Comparing grammar to deliberately spreading fake news that could have lethal consequences? Yeah ok, I've confirmed exactly what kind of poster you are.

I shouldn't have to mentally cover over your misinformation, you shouldn't have posted it in the first place. Other people skimming the topic might have been tricked by it if I hadn't called you out. The right thing for you to do would be to edit the post yourself.

Also I'll call you out on your "w-w-well if you round up a percent..." bs because that isn't true either.

kangolcone posted...

He never said anything about 100%

adjl posted...

This was completely preventable

Maybe read the relevant posts before inserting yourself into a reply chain next time.

Oh you're the guy who advocates for violence and harrassment over discussion in your sig, I shouldn't have even bothered to give you a serious reply.

adjl posted...

If you round to the nearest whole percentage point, which is a pretty reasonable thing to do to save precious syllables in lazy colloquial speech. If that bothers you, you can mentally prepend the word "almost" to "completely" and improve the precision.

So they aren't 100% effectively and don't guarantee someone won't contract or die from covid, got it. You should word your posts more carefully to avoid spreading misinformation on this very important topic, lives are on the line you know.

adjl posted...

This was completely preventable

Oh, so now the vaccines are 100% effective? Huh, I guess you know more than the CDC and the people making them since none of them make that claim.

adjl posted...

Covid making a comeback is objectively true.

When peak cases were 3x higher than what we have now and a good percentage of the population is either vaccinated or has already been infected calling to this a comeback is objectively overstating things no matter how you look at it.

Good thing covid is so mild most people never have to go to the hospital in the first place, if they even realize they have it at all.

Hmm. I guess under this logic someone with covid wouldn't need to self isolate either right? I mean if they aren't supposed to seek medical treatment why should they stay home either? Why wear a mask as well, they should be free to go out in public with the virus as they wish it follows.

Wow you guys are really being rude right now you know that? Obviously not everyone has to like everyone else here but there should be a basic level of courtesy extended at all times if only to prevent people from debasing themselves if not the target of their ire.

For shame.

It's weird, TWEWY is my favorite game of all time and basically defined my early teens, I've bought and 100%ed every version of it but I can't say I'm hyped for Neo. Maybe I'm just burnt out over how poorly SE has treated the IP all these years, (the recent anime was horrible) but I guess I'll still give it a go.

Maybe I should say other than the first real trailer I haven't seen/read anything else about it. I haven't really been trying to avoid news I just couldn't be bothered to look anything up, but maybe I would be more excited if I had.

adjl posted...

So... "it's mostly old people dying and I don't care about them." Got it.

Close, but not quite.

LinkPizza posted...

Didnt she was revenge, too?

Yeah, they both want revenge on the same guy in that Scenario. As for why she would help him in the first place I could use the same reason and have her witness him being attacked first hand like in B, plus he would have information like where the group was going next, what the name of the leader was, etc. Basically saving him to use as a tool.

InfernalFive posted...

How many people have to die from it before it becomes "a big deal"

I wrote out a long post but my phone ate it and I don't want to type it all out again but basically for me it isn't really about the number but the types of victims. Beyond that someone watching the news last year would have thought we were in the middle of a zombie apocalypse, the amount of blind panicking was disgusting and definitely excessive.

I've managed to avoid having a single message modded on this account but I'll risk that by just outright saying I tuthfully don't think this whole situation has been nearly as big of a deal as people have been making of it.

Other people itt have said they don't think covid will make a comeback because in their eyes it never left and I'm the exact opposite as I don't think it'll make a comeback because that implies it was something to really be worried about in the first place.

Zeus posted...

Then you're not really looking for a tragedy. You just want a sad or dark story, possibly a drama of some description set in a fantasy world so you don't have to bother doing any research for a real-world setting. Granted, a few of those just read out like almost unremarkable romance stories so maybe that's what you're actually going for.

Yeah it is a romance at the heart of it, but who says a romance can't have some tragedy in the mix? I mean if "Uppercase Tragedies" can include romance no reason Romance can't include "lowercase tragedy". Also I'm not trying to be rude but I never once said this hypothetical story was a Tragedy, I was using tragic in the title as a synonym for sad from the get go, people just started assuming the whole thing was a Tragedy. Actually maybe Action-Romance is more accurate since there are magiteck guns, dragons, and a dark king involved too. I'm not sure how yet cause the meat of the story needs to be pinned down first thus this topic.

Mead posted...

It isnt something that can be factually proven one way or another. There will always be suffering but for many people there are some things in life that are so good, whether its people that we love and feel privileged to get to know, or just aspects of living life that bring joy and satisfaction. Things that make life worth living despite all of the pain and bad things that can happen along the way.

In my life I have been much happier by trying not to focus on the pain and struggles when possible, but dealing with the best way I know how while focusing on the positive things that I have going for me and just trying to spread some kindness and laughter when I can.

Cool so we agree with each other. The bolded bit is all that I was concerned with particular this back and forth.

A bit off topic but something that hasn't been brought up that I thought of because of the suicide stats that were brought up is that these guys seem to be under the impression that one day technology will advance to the point where there is no suffering (I've written examples of these sci-fi utopia to show how ridiculous the idea of ever eliminating all suffering even with god level tech would be) but a fact that hasn't been brought up is that suicide and depression rates are much higher in more technologically advanced society and time periods. I wonder how that plays into their vision of better tech reducing suffering to zero. Also that any type of tech used for good can be used for evil, even if we invent a matrix like simulation device that can give infinite pleasure why couldn't the same thing be used to give someone infinite pain as well?

SunWuKung420 posted...

#242 and #243 are hilariously wrong.

You disappoint me SWK, I thought you were better than that. If it's so wrong why not explain why? I mean it can't possibly be that hard if it's so erroneous. You can see from my posts itt that I'm willing to read and respond to any even half assed arguments, I never immediately write off things like you've (and many others) have so rudely done with me. If my post made you realize how empty and worthless that quote you posted was and you couldn't come up with a way to defend it, it would have been better for you to just not post again or hell, maybe admit that and learn not to buy into stuff like that?

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.

TomNook posted...

Sure. I don't care about the body. People who only associate it as sexual are kind of hilariously primitive.

I'm not totally on board with the idea for some practical reasons but yeah this sort of mindset is ridiculous. I was watching an anime film with a friend where there's a few totally benign or even heart warming scenes where one of the main characters who is a little girl is shirtless/naked and my friend basically refused to keep watching even though he said that was his only problem with the film.

I guess that's what I mean by practical concerns, if something like this went into effect all at once there would be quite a bit of chaos caused by prudes. It would need to be a gradual thing like opening more nude beaches or doi g the naked news thing they have in the UK. When people can see that naked doesn't automatically equate to sexual in controlled situations maybe they'll start to loosen up.

Blightzkrieg posted...

I'm gonna say without a shadow of a doubt that Reigning_Klansman is probably a racist

Well it depends on what your definition of the word racist is. What a lot of the public's definition is, I might be a racist. But according to what the true definition of a racist is, I'm absolutely not.

MeteoricBurst posted...

I think people are just puzzled you going so far out of your way to rationalise something with all these long posts, that's really very straightforward. This guy said a very well known racist term, that was so bad it shocked all the people in his presence. Then was unapologetic about the whole thing. Nothing more nothing less.

You can say the N word without automatically being a racist is my main point though, context matters. Lile my hypothetical, if a black guy said the phrase "so and so called me a N*****" would anyone in their right mind consider him a racist against black people for merely uttering the word aloud? The guy is pretty dumb for doing what he did, but it doesn't automatically follow that he's a racist. Condemn him for the first thing fine, but I'm not comfortable condemning someone to the equivalent of the social death penalty if there is a shadow of a doubt in the situation which I think exists here. Anyone who thinks differently is welcome to, but they shouldn't be acting like they know what his true intention was with 100% certainty.

OhhhJa posted...

You're quickly becoming the most annoying dude on this board and that's quite a feat

Far-Queue posted...

It's another shitposter troll like deerzord or Martian. Nothing original just edgy, ignorant, boring basic shitposting

I like how neither one of you even bothered to try to refute anything I said. Go ahead and put me on ignore or whatever if my presence bothers you that much and you can't even be bothered to attempt to have a good faith argument with me. Even if I am wrong, at least I put in the time and effort to back up what I say, someone like that is far more respectable than someone who simply insults others and acts like they're infallible.

Zareth posted...

Citation needed

Once again ignoring the main point of my post, for the third time in a row (in this topic, many more if we count other ones). And you guys have the gall to call ME a shitposter when you act like this.

wwinterj25 posted...

Sounds like lies to me.

This.

I'm pretty sure the chance of any given woman with a child bringing them up in conversation approaches 100% the longer the conversation goes on.

Another thing from my experience that I remember is how disjointed the gossiping and conversations were. Like it's kinda hard to explain but it was as if each one wanted to talk about a different subject so as soon as they started talking they would attempt to alter the flow of conversation, which is usually a somewhat rude thing to do except since all of them were doing it it somehow evened out? Like a watered down example would be:

Woman A: "hey did you hear so and so's boyfriend got locked up again? Why does she date a loser like that?"
Woman B: "oh wow I hadn't heard that, but wasn't that bullshit when the manager said we need to focus more on our work this morning? All he does in the office is mess around on a computer, we're doing the real work!"
Woman C: "Well most of us are, but that new girl who started is so damn lazy it makes me sick, she was saying she isn't used to work like this but that's no excuse!"
Woman A: "Yeah I know who you're talking about, she is pretty lazy, even more than so and so, heck maybe that's why she dates a thug since if he's locked up she doesn't need to do anything for him hahaha, oh did I mention he got locked up again?"
Woman B: "Hehehe well at least she won't be able to try to get him a job here, although I heard the manager and the new guy in HR will hire pretty much anyone. God we need a woman in charge around here..."
Woman C: "As long as she's nothing like the new girl, did you two notice she took 20 minutes on her 15 minute break yesterday? If I have to work with her I'm not picking up her slack I'll say that."

It'slike none of them were actually interested in anything the others were saying but they talked for 8 hours straight everyday all the same. I'm getting mild pstd just recalling it.

PunishedOni posted...

sorry for posting about rabies in the anti-nalist forum. ill make sure it never happens again

https://youtu.be/LiYqTcaq_Zo

You better.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Stop enjoying existence.

I wasn't doing it because I wanted to. Why the hell would I spend several hours climbing a forested mountain full of bugs and sharp rocks in the heat for enjoyment?

I've always wondered the same thing. I worked at a bakery for a few years awhile back and probably 85% of the line workers were women so it wasn't uncommon for me to be the only guy there and all they ever did was gossip. We had rotating breaks so 2-3 people would go at a time and then take over for the next few when they got back and the second a given girl would leave for her break the rest would start talking shit about her and then act like best friends the rest of the day (the ones talking shit being talked shit about in turn).

It was so ridiculous when I talked to one of the leads about it he let me break company policy and wear wireless headphones to drown them out. At least I got to do that until some of the girls noticed and started complaining, as if they would do anything but talk all day even if they could wear them too.

Zeus posted...

However, as it stands, none of these seem really tragic, but part of that is you're only discussing a set-up where the tragedy would really come at the end. For example, Othello isn't a tragedy because of the set-up and the troubled relationship, Othello is a tragedy because of the outcome resulting from those suspicions and misunderstandings. And without that outcome -- you don't have a tragedy.

LinkPizza posted...

In the end, Idk All seem pretty normal or whatever. Most could end happily

I appreciate the detailed responses but I have to say that I'm not necessarily looking for the absolute most tragic tragedy, just which of these opinions is the most tragic in this groups. The reason the endings aren't really mentioned except in D and E (and somewhat vaguely at that) is because the endings might not be tragic at all. I have to disagree with Zeus that a tragedy is made by the ending though, like a miserable story that ends happily would still count in my book just like a happy story with a downer ending wouldn't, but that's whatever. I guess we could think of it like "Upper case Tragedy" and "lower case tragedy" or something.

Rotpar posted...

Correct.

Yeah if you think about it the power of despair is always stronger than the power of joy. No matter what good things might happen in life or how happy someone is it can all be stolen from them in a single moment.

inb4 the people who claim to be the good guys in this situation come in to gloat over someone getting unlucky and dying

adjl posted...

And yesterday saw 82,505 new cases, bringing the 7-day average to 49,856 (and still climbing). Are these numbers large enough to qualify as "impressive" now, @Reigning_King ?

With the mortality rate still being sub 2% and of those dying most having one foot in the grave already or less than a decade of life left in them, not to mention that number being artificial bloated to begin with and the current situation and treatment being better anyways compared to the peak?

Nah.

@ me when you can add another zero to your numbers and I might glance over.

Zareth posted...

It wasn't my attention to be rude when I called them the N word, why do you think I'm a racist

You're changing the subject. I clearly said that IF he said it as an insult then that would be a rude thing to do. You felt the need (I assume from being sore over the thrashing I gave you in that other topic) (bad show for carrying hostility between topics btw) to call me out for not condemning him... when that's exactly what I did.

The key here is IF he meant it as an insult. I know that you like to ignore facts when they don't fit your narrative but there is literally video of the moment it happened, it wasn't said with any venom and it wasn't even directly aimed at the chick. Also technically he said House N*****, not N*****, which has a different connotation especially in the southn even if it is equally offensive the context matters. Right afterwards he explains why he said what he said as well.

The guy claims he was repeating something a higher official, the Mayor said. I suppose he thought the shock of it being spoken during a meeting would have more of an impact than just telling some reporter or something, and he was right but not in a good way. So yeah, probably not the best way of going about it but if what he said is true than he obviously wouldn't be a racist for saying it.

Think about it like this. What if this council member guy was black himself and he pulled the exact same stunt for the exact same (claimed) reason? People would be treating him like a hero and calling for the resignation of the Mayor. Isn't treating people differently based on the color of their skin the essence of racism? If someone automatically distrusted black people when it came to certain subjects that person would be a racist, why is it alright to assume the worst about white people when it comes to this subject? If you say "well statistically whites are more likely to..." whatever you could say the exact same thing about black people on negative things, or any race for that matter.

I'm out hiking so I don't have time now to respond to anyone bit you guys can take your off topic nonsense elsewhere.

ReturnOfFa posted...

He said the N word in a not rude way?

Did you miss the "If he said it to be rude..." part?

ReturnOfFa posted...

Oh, besides the anti-natalism bit, we're getting a pretty clear picture of the type of person you are.

Adults don't need to be calling people names when they're in positions of responsibility. Especially the damn N word? Calling anyone something derogatory during any work/government work meeting nearly invalidates anything you ever have to say in that workplace.

Did you miss the "If he said it to be rude (which he claims he didn't, and it seems he didn't) then that's a dickish thing to do" part right at the start of the post?

EclairReturns posted...

Scenario C sounds a lot like that play with Romeo and Juliet.

Scenario B is kinda close to Othello too. Seems great minds think alike.

PunishedOni posted...

it's hard for me to tell without knowing what his sword looks like.

It's a high quality blade stolen off the corpse of a knight on the battlefield (which is where the guy got his armor from as well, but since you have to be fitted for armor he's had to take pieces from multiple different suits which gives him a patchwork sort of look). He could sell it for a large amount of money and buy a much cheaper sword just as good for fighting but he refuses to do so. That kind of thing made him unpopular in the mercenary band to begin with which is one of the reasons they didn't mind leaving him for dead after a beating and stabbing.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

Your sig.

Mead posted...

I dont want to read all of this

Then don't. Begone with you.

Far-Queue posted...

You posting topics is the biggest tragedy of all

Your mom's face.

So say you have a story about a young man who takes it upon himself to protect a young woman, as her knight of sorts because she saved his life by nursing him back to health after a mercenary band he was with raided her village and he was backstabbed for trying to stop it. From there...

Scenario A: The guy falls in love with the girl but doesn't make a move for a long time because of his supposed chivalrousness only to learn the girl actually hated him for his role in destroying her home and only helped him because she wasn't aware who he was (she was out in the forest when the raid happened and the guy was dressed more like a knight than a raider because of his fixation on them so she assumed he was just an unlucky traveler or something while she helped him) and she only stayed with him after learning the truth because she had nowhere else to go and eventually wanted to kill him herself when she got the chance.

Scenario B: The guy assumes the girl must secretly hate him since (in this version) she was there to witness the raid herself and he assumes she only helped him because of the tenets of the religion she's devoted to preaching forgiveness so he keeps his distance from her emotionally and romantically as they travel together but in reality she actually does like him because she got to see his bravery in trying to defend her home in person but his insecurity and inferiority about his status causes him to start mistreating her after her declaration of love to "prove" he's right and she must hate him to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Scenario C: Both the guy and the girl like each other but because they belong to two different cultural groups who are currently at war (which is why the guy's mercenary band didn't mind killing everyone in the village instead of stealing from them since it was technically enemy territory) and with the guy considered a deserter by his own people and the girl considered "unclean" by her people for traveling with an enemy man no matter where they go they're hunted down and persecuted and beyond that whichever side wins the war they both lose.

Scenario D: Both the guy and girl hate each other from the get go but they team up to get revenge on the mercenary band leader who nearly killed the guy and ordered the attack on the girl's village, with both of them falling deeper into darkness, the guy forgetting his dream of one day becoming a noble knight and the girl losing her religion and faith in humanity over the course of their petty and ultimately meaningless quest, both of them sowing the seeds of hatred and revenge in the hearts of others that they wrong.

Scenario E: Both the guy and girl grow to like each other with ups and downs along the way to the culmination of the guy being knighted for protecting the girl as it turns out she was a long lost princess raised in secret away from the capitol but who takes the throne after the two effectively end the war by showing the bond the two people can forge (and many in the royal family were killed so she is also the legitimate queen by succession), except at the end this is all revealed to be a wild fever dream by the guy back when the girl (who he falls in love with instantly) was trying to nurse him back to health at the start of the story only for him to die shortly afterwards.

Sounds pretty backwards to me, but probably because as has also been said women tend to be more judgmental of women than men do so I'm not really privy to how bad the situation really is for them.

I know in my personal experience when it comes not to past mistakes but current ones I've seen women given much more leeway for the same mistakes compared to men. It's actually a form of sexism really, treating women as if they have diminished capacity to understand their actions the same way a child might have and thus going easier on them. Hopefully stuff like that changes in the future.

SunWuKung420 posted...

"People suffer because they are caught in their views. As soon we release those views, we are free and we don't suffer anymore" Thich Nhat Hanh

I'll go straight to my favorite example of the unescapable underground torture and rape dungeon. How is this advice of any practical worth to someone in that position? Someone being meticulously tortured in exactly the right way based on their weaknesses. It doesn't even have to be physical suffering either. Say the person had a newborn baby and the torturer captured them and brought them down there to slowly torture to death in front of their parent. Is all of this a non issue because the person can simply free themselves from there views of reality and thus not suffer down there?

ReturnOfFa posted...

how not to argue philosophically 101

The post you're quoting had nothing to do with philosophy or the main topic of the thread. Some guy "called me out" because he said I misunderstood part of his post and I proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that he was wrong (post #192) but he refused to admit it. Kinda like your post here where you've undeniably erroneously claimed I was arguing philosophy when I wasn't.

You don't have to be like that guy though, you can admit to your mistake, or at the very least drop this subject instead of trying to feebly wiggle your way out of the situation you put yourself in.

Mead posted...

I dont think either of these statements are true at all

Reigning_King posted...

either I got very unlucky and the delusional 1% are over represented on this board or people are just disagreeing with me out of anger and spite.

But go on and tell me why you believe that. Tell me in what way you think human suffering can be separated from human existence. I have given many, many reasons backing up my position, please give me even one in return. Also for clarification (I already mentioned this before) when I say 99% of the population could agree with me I don't mean they would agree with the the conclusion that idea has lead me to. Most people can comfortably say "life isn't fair" because it isn't, bad luck and good luck are things, but virtually all of those same people would also say something like "It isn't good that life isn't fair but that's just the way things are, since nothing can be done about it it isn't worth getting too upset over or trying to change and life is full of good things that make it worth living all the same despite the unfairness." The key here is I agree with the first statement that life isn't fair, but I disagree about the defeatist attitude of the second statement.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Suffering is a matter of perspective.

Growth requires pain.

Dwelling creates suffering.

Pain strengthens existence.

Suffering diminishes existence.

Existence is a necessity.

I don't believe that is the case. Some people have higher tolerances for it but everyone has their limits and weaknesses. Every single person who has ever said that suffering is an illusion or some such and we need not feel it could be made to suffer badly enough they begged for death under the right circumstances. It would be very real for them in those moments, and ultimately that's all that matters, that any human can be put into that state.

I would actually agree with this. Even if the pain is minor or very brief all positive growth requires it. However this is only a one way street, all growth requires pain but not all pain results in growth, some of it is entirely pointless and some of it results in negative growth.

Absolutely it does, but so do many other things. Trying to avoid all suffering is a fool's errand since even the act of trying to live like that would cause suffering. The best we can do is try to avoid the major pitfalls such as dwelling on things, but like every human endeavors we can only do that imperfectly.

Like I said for growth, some types of pain do impart strength but not all, and like I said with perspective everyone has a limit to how much pain they can endure before giving them more is simply sadistic and will not benefit the person in any way.

Well I can't find any way to disagree with that one.

Sorry but I don't think so. If a tree falls in the middle of a forest and no one is around to hear it, it still makes a sound. At the very least we have ample proof the universe got on just fine before the advent of humanity so there's no reason to suspect our existence is necessary in any way shape or form.

Thank you for the interesting post, it actually was thought provoking.

PunishedOni posted...

how many buddhists have you defeated

I don't think I've had the pleasure to battle one yet, but I have a pretty simple counter. Basically it doesn't matter if suffering is technically real or not, it is effectively real, or we perceive it to be.

PunishedOni posted...

actually 99% of people agree with me that suffering is imaginary, but you wouldn't know them bc they go to a different message board

The funny part is that stance is less ridiculous (when looked at the way Buddhism and such treats suffering) than the notion that human suffering exists but isn't tied to human life or is somehow avoidable while alive. I would rather talk to people like that (although I could still pretty easily defeat them), just because such people would have a better grasp of the concepts of hypothetical people and would probably have a more morality based mindset.

Mead posted...

you really do make a bunch of bananaland statements that you insist are universal truths

I mean I say some weird stuff and have some bizarre notions too but I always understand that other people have their own life experiences which can shed more wisdom on something that I might be able to gain as opposed to only thinking about things from my perspective alone

I'll assume you mean in general and not in the post you're quoting since it's simple enough to prove that guy made two posts like I described.

As far as my claims go I'm actually very surprised that my acknowledgement of the fact that human suffering is inseparable from human existence has received the most push back. It is something 99% of the population can agree on, either I got very unlucky and the delusional 1% are over represented on this board or people are just disagreeing with me out of anger and spite. I've spent thousands of characters elaborating this simple concept but to no avail while I haven't been given a SINGLE explanation on why the idea doesn't hold true.

A much more controversial claim I've made is the one in the OP about having babies being unethical but even after 200+ posts it still hasn't been fully unpacked (props to adjl again for at giving some good counters) because of all the tangents and bickering. I feel I can prove this one if only my opponents were willing to debate properly and address the relevant points.

Hmm... the only other thing I can think of that I've claimed is a universal truth is that nonexistent people can't have preferences or feeling or the like, that they are incomparable to living humans. Unless someone believes in supernatural beings and the like I don't know how they would counter this assertion and no one has brought up anything like that. Ironically Christianity is one of the best counters imaginable to anti-natalism, if you're a Christian anyways.

That all aside can you blame me for getting short with people when I've been perpetually insulted and had my philosophy dismissively written off from the very beginning of this topic? You talk about perspectives but I lived most of my life with a pro-natal perspective, I wasn't born an anti-natalist who has never taken the time to look at the situation from the other side in my life. How many of the people replying to me are doing the same as I did for them and seriously giving my end of the argument an honest and long consideration? There was a guy at the start of the thread who shit posted here so hard he got warned for it, that's what I've had to deal with here.

Far-Queue posted...

Just leave him to stroke his own ego and perpetuate his ignorance. Not worth gifting him a 500 topic over this dumb as dogshit "philosophy"

Maybe take your own advice. This is the second time you've wasted a post # itt with a message like this. PM the guy if you need to retreat and lick each other's wounds, don't clog the topic with it.

OhhhJa posted...

He's trying to suck me in. The need for attention is so strong

You're the one who had the situation to devolve into that by refusing to post anything worthwhile or even engage with the debate but still posting at all. You can leave the topic at any point you wish and I will remain here awaiting a worthy opponent.

adjl posted...

If your answer to "are you a racist?" includes "some people would consider me to be a racist" and not just "no," that's a pretty good sign that you actually are a racist and just aren't willing to admit to it.

Some people would consider almost anyone a racist, like I said a not insignificant number of people think all white people are racist so by definition that idea of "some people think I'm a racist" is factually ingrained whenever a white person answers that question regardless of if they vocalize it or are even aware.

You could ask someone "Are you evil?" and virtually everyone on the planet would be under the same "well some people think I am" position based on at least some of their beliefs or actions. Some people think anyone who is Pro-choice is evil, so anyone pro-choice is logically evil in the eyes of some. Some people think that anyone who is pro-life is evil, and so on and so on.

Admitting that some people think poorly of you or think you are something you aren't isn't self condemnation, it's common sense.