Lurker > Truth_Decay

Must've left out of embarrassment after getting completely shut down in their pseudo-intellectual "arguments".

---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

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.

---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

Ignoring your points? Can't admit I'm wrong? Awful lot of projecting in your post.

I'll keep it simple for you, since you seem unable to stay focused.

Your argument falls apart because it isn't practical, and it doesn't solve anything. Getting rid of the humanity isn't a solution. It's a cop-out. If you're not smart enough to come up with real solutions, or lack the strength and resolve to face suffering in the interim, then I guess you resort to feeble-minded "solutions" like anti-natalism.

There's no quick fix to human suffering. I don't agree in genocide or catastrophic natural disasters any more than anti-natalism because none of those solves anything. They ignore the issues. There's no magic salve. You have to tackle issues on an individual basis. Homelessness, hunger, poverty, disease, war and conflict, etc etc.

Antinatalism isn't practical. It's not a solution. It's a cowardly and simple-minded answer to the complex problems we face as a species.

---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

Reigning_King posted...

The part of my post (#188) you quote in post #189 is referring to the first paragraph in your post #186, this... [and so forth with some condescending remarks about how conversations work]

Ah, but this is a complex issue, and my entire point is meant to be taken as a whole, not broken down into pieces and argued word-for-word, or paragraph to paragraph.

I've seen you dismiss other posters rebuttals as "irrelevant", and your response to my post is very telling. You're unable to see the big picture. You're so laser-focused on this one thought: eliminating *all* human suffering, that you're wholly incapable of seeing anything else.

Your deeming other responses as irrelevant because they don't align with your very narrow viewpoint is indicative of not only your ignorance, but your willful ignorance. And your condescension and derision speaks to an unflappable arrogance. I see no point in continuing a conversation with someone so pigheaded as they won't even entertain an opposing viewpoint, such as I have:

Reigning_King posted...

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.

^ this is called ceding a point. I can agree with a certain part of your argument without agreeing to the whole.

Yes, I agree there is no way, currently or in the foreseeable future, to end human suffering.

No, I do not believe antinatalism is the solution to ending human suffering, as ending humanity is not an intelligent, empathetic solution. It's a callous, psychotic solution.

Your whole argument rests on the notion that you're some champion for those who don't even exist. It's a ludicrous argument, and frankly not one worth having.

As I've already stated, though I'll repost as you have a tendency to gloss over and dismiss everything:

Truth_Decay posted...

We should strive to improve upon each generation. Can we ever achieve a life without *any* suffering? Absolutely not. But many, and I'd hedge a bet that it's a vast majority, would choose to push forward and make incremental progress, rather than give in and wait for death.

Speculation is worth as much as one can reason against it. That said, I'm fully comfortable saying that a majority of people, if given the choice, would choose a life with some suffering over no life at all, and that would mean that your "solution" of stripping away their chance at that life is no solution at all. It's not sensible, or practical. With that in mind, antinatalism cannot be "correct", regardless of how you spin it.

Would I trade my life for one with more suffering? No. Why would I? Unless I was looking to put myself into a scenario where I am attempting to help those less fortunate than myself by immersing myself in their world to offer direct assistance (example: Doctors Without Borders, Peace Corps, etc. Practical solutions to ending human suffering, mind you.) then there's very little incentive to opt for more suffering. Those who do choose that life are truly the noblest among us. Not those who would see complete destruction to make their point. Those who choose to glom onto these silly fantasy "solutions" only serve as a distraction at best, and an obstacle at worst, to a true solution to ending suffering.

---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

Reigning_King posted...

The ONLY choice for ending human suffering is human extinction, literally nothing else would work.

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

---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

Reigning_King posted...

You ignored

Seems you've ignored a critical part of my post:

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.

Truth_Decay posted...

Every year we inch closer to ending cancer. Someone who isn't born yet could be the key to solving the riddle, and once we discover that cure, think of the countless numbers of people whose suffering - at least in terms of the cancer experience - will end.

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.


---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

Mine is ending human suffering as I've made clear.

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.

Everyone suffers, this is true. But for many, suffering is a small part of the overall life experience, and suffering is manageable.

Humans are adaptable. For people born into extreme poverty and famine, suffering becomes a part of life, and they find joy and happiness in their experience still.

For many people born into seemingly impossible situations, who experience tremendous adversity, they still come away enjoying life. They don't look to throw up the white flag, they look for ways to improve their lives, and the lives of their forebears.

Aside from being incredibly arrogant of you to assume antinatalism is the best choice for ending human suffering, the idea that we should give up and end humanity is beyond ignorant. Every year we inch closer to ending cancer. Someone who isn't born yet could be the key to solving the riddle, and once we discover that cure, think of the countless numbers of people whose suffering - at least in terms of the cancer experience - will end.

And that's one facet of suffering. You're proposing throwing in the towel. Future generations could solve so many issues that we face as a species, as well as issues that that have a negative effect on societies, environment, animal welfare, etc etc.

We should strive to improve upon each generation. Can we ever achieve a life without *any* suffering? Absolutely not. But many, and I'd hedge a bet that it's a vast majority, would choose to push forward and make incremental progress, rather than give in and wait for death.

---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

Zeus posted...

TD mostly trolls with nonsense so his response is unsurprising.

I see Zeus hasn't changed since the last time I came to the gamefaqs. Can't articulate a point or form a thought on the matter so he resorts to writing off things he disagrees with as "trolling nonsense".

Which is fine. You are free to ignore what I posted. Ignorance fits you.

---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

Nichtcrawler X posted...

I have never heard of it before

Your point? Aren't you from Europe? Forgive me for not remembering what country you're from, but I'd be willing to bet that I don't know half of the holidays there, or the history behind them. Hope I'm not confusing you with another poster, if I am I apologize. I don't post here often.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

the name does nothing to suggest what it is even about.

Doesn't have to to be culturally significant.

---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

Jen0125 posted...

Awesome! Fuck the GOP!

Yes. Shameful that they would vote against this.

The name "Juneteenth" holds significance as a cultural reference, a piece of history. Saying that it's a stupid name and they should change it is feeding into the white patriarchal power structure which seeks to maintain control over minorities. Anyone saying the name should be changed is being racist.

---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

adjl posted...

you are ignorant

Allow me to offer the cliff notes.

---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind