Considering alligators rip apart their prey all the time, I would assume they've been doing it for a while. Suffering is suffering, doesn't have to be human to experience pain.
More broken logic. It's becoming a trademark of yours.
Broke in what way? Getting a bit tired of you saying things aren't that way, but you lack the mental capacity to state why it is broke or wrong.
'Doesn't have the be human to experience pain' Well actually, the 'suffering' you're on about, you would actually have to be human to feel the pain, as non-humans can't comprehend 'suffering'.
Animals don't become depressed at all the suffering that you're talking about.
Depression is necessary for suffering? And there are animals that become depressed. Put that aside, pain is suffering, anything able to experience pain, can experience suffering.
If you do get eaten by an alligator exactly at what point are you going to be depressed about it? While you're in excruciating pain and panicking trying to escape? Or after you're dead?
Depression is necessary for suffering? And there are animals that become depressed. Put that aside, pain is suffering, anything able to experience pain, can experience suffering.
If you do get eaten by an alligator exactly at what point are you going to be depressed about it? While you're in excruciating pain and panicking trying to escape? Or after you're dead?
So people only suffer when they're dying? And because they suffer when they die then the world is full of suffering?
Like someone said above
"What about the things that generally just make you happy? E.G. Smelling the roses. Was I suffering because I didn't have that scent before? No. Did it make me happy when I did smell them? Yes.
Stop and smell the roses sometime."
The implication that suffering is the only emotion we feel is a logical fallacy. The entirety of this argument is based on you making wide blanket statements.
Depression is necessary for suffering? And there are animals that become depressed. Put that aside, pain is suffering, anything able to experience pain, can experience suffering.
If you do get eaten by an alligator exactly at what point are you going to be depressed about it? While you're in excruciating pain and panicking trying to escape? Or after you're dead?
Ya know, while being eaten by an alligator, most people are not going to be "Oh woe is me, I'm so sad, I'm being eaten alive. QQ" They are going to be going "HOLY S***! GETITOFF!!! AAAAAAHHHHH!!!" You'd be in a state of panic, not depression. And going back to the suicide thing, you don't suffer when you are dead, that was clearly implied in your statement. So when exactly are these people in emotional pain?
Also, I'm still waiting for a rebuttal from before...
Considering alligators rip apart their prey all the time, I would assume they've been doing it for a while. Suffering is suffering, doesn't have to be human to experience pain.
More broken logic. It's becoming a trademark of yours.
Broke in what way? Getting a bit tired of you saying things aren't that way, but you lack the mental capacity to state why it is broke or wrong.
'Doesn't have the be human to experience pain' Well actually, the 'suffering' you're on about, you would actually have to be human to feel the pain, as non-humans can't comprehend 'suffering'. Animals don't become depressed at all the suffering that you're talking about.
No idea what the argument is about.
Haven't read back yet, but animals actually do suffer depression and mental trauma almost to the extent and many of the same reasons humans do.
Depression is necessary for suffering? And there are animals that become depressed. Put that aside, pain is suffering, anything able to experience pain, can experience suffering.
If you do get eaten by an alligator exactly at what point are you going to be depressed about it? While you're in excruciating pain and panicking trying to escape? Or after you're dead?
So people only suffer when they're dying? And because they suffer when they die then the world is full of suffering?
Like someone said above
"What about the things that generally just make you happy? E.G. Smelling the roses. Was I suffering because I didn't have that scent before? No. Did it make me happy when I did smell them? Yes.
Stop and smell the roses sometime."
The implication that suffering is the only emotion we feel is a logical fallacy. The entirety of this argument is based on you making wide blanket statements.
Lord almighty you're *** HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE.
Pain is simply a form of suffering. It is not the only, but a form.
As far as smelling roses, I wouldn't consider that to be joyful, subjective mush that I would suspect has a more base biological function attached to it. Smelling a rose wouldn't amount to enough joy to make me experience a simple cold.
I never said suffering is the only emotion we feel, and state which logical fallacy one is committing to. I've seen you say that twice now, and I'm not sure what fallacy you're accusing me of using.
I'll take it that by quoting others you've now run out of any sort of your own. Albeit saying you ever had one is giving you more credit than you deserve.
Depression is necessary for suffering? And there are animals that become depressed. Put that aside, pain is suffering, anything able to experience pain, can experience suffering.
If you do get eaten by an alligator exactly at what point are you going to be depressed about it? While you're in excruciating pain and panicking trying to escape? Or after you're dead?
Ya know, while being eaten by an alligator, most people are not going to be "Oh woe is me, I'm so sad, I'm being eaten alive. QQ" They are going to be going "HOLY S***! GETITOFF!!! AAAAAAHHHHH!!!" You'd be in a state of panic, not depression. And going back to the suicide thing, you don't suffer when you are dead, that was clearly implied in your statement. So when exactly are these people in emotional pain?
Also, I'm still waiting for a rebuttal from before...
You stated my exact point. And physical pain is suffering, doesn't have to be emotional.
"The entirety of this argument is based on you making wide blanket statements."
And you still are.
Given they're wide blanket, and in your opinion so obviously incorrect, I'd assume you'd be able to point out how and why a lot easier than just simply saying, "so wrong bro, here is a picture i found on 4chan circa 2001, find it pretty pertinent to my argument".
"The entirety of this argument is based on you making wide blanket statements."
And you still are.
Given they're wide blanket, and in your opinion so obviously incorrect, I'd assume you'd be able to point out how and why a lot easier than just simply saying, "so wrong bro, here is a picture i found on 4chan circa 2001, find it pretty pertinent to my argument".
C'mon.
I already have.
many pages ago.
The entirety of your argument is based on the fact that we suffer, therefore we should never be positive.
If someone has more joy than suffering then that argument is shot. Seeing as suffering is subjective, you can not make that statement. My life has more joy in it than suffering. I rarely suffer from boredom, and other peoples suffering doesn't bother me. Therefore my life has more happiness in it. This means that My life isn't full of suffering.
As far as smelling roses, I wouldn't consider that to be joyful, subjective mush that I would suspect has a more base biological function attached to it. Smelling a rose wouldn't amount to enough joy to make me experience a simple cold.
Everything in that case can be subjective. You might hate smelling the roses, but that might bring incredible joy to someone else. The point is, were they suffering before? Again, the answer is still no. Also, being mauled by an alligator in your eyes is horrible and will cause suffering. To someone else, that might be their biggest thrill. Again, subjectivity.
No one is saying that there is no pain and suffering in the world. What we are saying is that there is just as much joy and happiness out there too. We want you to see it too.
As far as smelling roses, I wouldn't consider that to be joyful, subjective mush that I would suspect has a more base biological function attached to it. Smelling a rose wouldn't amount to enough joy to make me experience a simple cold.
Everything in that case can be subjective. You might hate smelling the roses, but that might bring incredible joy to someone else. The point is, were they suffering before? Again, the answer is still no. Also, being mauled by an alligator in your eyes is horrible and will cause suffering. To someone else, that might be their biggest thrill. Again, subjectivity.
No one is saying that there is no pain and suffering in the world. What we are saying is that there is just as much joy and happiness out there too. We want you to see it too.
Sorry nothing subjective about getting eaten by an alligator, everything avoids pain and suffering. To those that get joy from certain levels of pain, it's not suffering. Those that do enjoy pain don't enjoy it to the extent that they wouldn't suffer under that sort of pain. To people that enjoy pain, it's pleasurable only to a certain threshold.
I'm not saying there isn't joy and happiness, what I'm saying is there is no joy or happiness that are worth the worst levels of suffering. What joy is worth severe levels of suffering? I don't think you'll be able to answer that.
As far as smelling roses, I wouldn't consider that to be joyful, subjective mush that I would suspect has a more base biological function attached to it. Smelling a rose wouldn't amount to enough joy to make me experience a simple cold.
Everything in that case can be subjective. You might hate smelling the roses, but that might bring incredible joy to someone else. The point is, were they suffering before? Again, the answer is still no. Also, being mauled by an alligator in your eyes is horrible and will cause suffering. To someone else, that might be their biggest thrill. Again, subjectivity.
No one is saying that there is no pain and suffering in the world. What we are saying is that there is just as much joy and happiness out there too. We want you to see it too.
Sorry nothing subjective about getting eaten by an alligator, everything avoids pain and suffering. To those that get joy from certain levels of pain, it's not suffering. Those that do enjoy pain don't enjoy it to the extent that they wouldn't suffer under that sort of pain. To people that enjoy pain, it's pleasurable only to a certain threshold.
I'm not saying there isn't joy and happiness, what I'm saying is there is no joy or happiness that are worth the worst levels of suffering. What joy is worth severe levels of suffering? I don't think you'll be able to answer that.
There are in fact people who enjoy that level of pain. There are people who pay other people to kill them in the most painful way they can think of because they enjoy it.
As far as smelling roses, I wouldn't consider that to be joyful, subjective mush that I would suspect has a more base biological function attached to it. Smelling a rose wouldn't amount to enough joy to make me experience a simple cold.
Everything in that case can be subjective. You might hate smelling the roses, but that might bring incredible joy to someone else. The point is, were they suffering before? Again, the answer is still no. Also, being mauled by an alligator in your eyes is horrible and will cause suffering. To someone else, that might be their biggest thrill. Again, subjectivity.
No one is saying that there is no pain and suffering in the world. What we are saying is that there is just as much joy and happiness out there too. We want you to see it too.
Sorry nothing subjective about getting eaten by an alligator, everything avoids pain and suffering. To those that get joy from certain levels of pain, it's not suffering. Those that do enjoy pain don't enjoy it to the extent that they wouldn't suffer under that sort of pain. To people that enjoy pain, it's pleasurable only to a certain threshold.
I'm not saying there isn't joy and happiness, what I'm saying is there is no joy or happiness that are worth the worst levels of suffering. What joy is worth severe levels of suffering? I don't think you'll be able to answer that.
I hate to burst your bubble and you're going to say that's all mush and crap, but you know what? It's something called love. I've dealt with some of the "worst levels of suffering" as you say and you know what, I turn around and I have those who love me and care about me and it's made all my hardships worth it.
And physical pain is suffering, doesn't have to be emotional.
Should I go direct you to some S&M sites sir? Subjectivity.
Shiva.Flionheart said:
Cerberus.Ethics said:
Asura.Alymorel said:
Cerberus.Ethics said:
As far as smelling roses, I wouldn't consider that to be joyful, subjective mush that I would suspect has a more base biological function attached to it. Smelling a rose wouldn't amount to enough joy to make me experience a simple cold.
Everything in that case can be subjective. You might hate smelling the roses, but that might bring incredible joy to someone else. The point is, were they suffering before? Again, the answer is still no. Also, being mauled by an alligator in your eyes is horrible and will cause suffering. To someone else, that might be their biggest thrill. Again, subjectivity.
No one is saying that there is no pain and suffering in the world. What we are saying is that there is just as much joy and happiness out there too. We want you to see it too.
Sorry nothing subjective about getting eaten by an alligator, everything avoids pain and suffering. To those that get joy from certain levels of pain, it's not suffering. Those that do enjoy pain don't enjoy it to the extent that they wouldn't suffer under that sort of pain. To people that enjoy pain, it's pleasurable only to a certain threshold.
I'm not saying there isn't joy and happiness, what I'm saying is there is no joy or happiness that are worth the worst levels of suffering. What joy is worth severe levels of suffering? I don't think you'll be able to answer that.
There are in fact people who enjoy that level of pain. There are people who pay other people to kill them in the most painful way they can think of because they enjoy it.
Subjective.
It's not subjective, they're not suffering in that case. And if you don't mind can you point me to that story? Being out of pain sounds like their suffering, so by doing that, they're eliminating their suffering.
I hate to burst your bubble and you're going to say that's all mush and crap, but you know what? It's something called love. I've dealt with some of the "worst levels of suffering" as you say and you know what, I turn around and I have those who love me and care about me and it's made all my hardships worth it.
Love is simply a survival trick. That is quite obvious.
I hate to burst your bubble and you're going to say that's all mush and crap, but you know what? It's something called love. I've dealt with some of the "worst levels of suffering" as you say and you know what, I turn around and I have those who love me and care about me and it's made all my hardships worth it.
Love is simply a survival trick. That is quite obvious.
And physical pain is suffering, doesn't have to be emotional.
Cerberus.Ethics said:
It's not subjective, they're not suffering in that case.
You just contradicted yourself.
I still hold that pain is suffering, what you're talking about is certain levels of acceptable pain. In the case of flion's story, he can't say they didn't suffer, because they're not actually here to say one way or another. I doubt the story anyways, but certainly possible.
They're suffering without pain, might be more suffering than the pain itself. That wouldn't make the pain lack suffering, but rather less suffering than if they are not in said pain.
And physical pain is suffering, doesn't have to be emotional.
Should I go direct you to some S&M sites sir? Subjectivity.
Shiva.Flionheart said:
Cerberus.Ethics said:
Asura.Alymorel said:
Cerberus.Ethics said:
As far as smelling roses, I wouldn't consider that to be joyful, subjective mush that I would suspect has a more base biological function attached to it. Smelling a rose wouldn't amount to enough joy to make me experience a simple cold.
Everything in that case can be subjective. You might hate smelling the roses, but that might bring incredible joy to someone else. The point is, were they suffering before? Again, the answer is still no. Also, being mauled by an alligator in your eyes is horrible and will cause suffering. To someone else, that might be their biggest thrill. Again, subjectivity.
No one is saying that there is no pain and suffering in the world. What we are saying is that there is just as much joy and happiness out there too. We want you to see it too.
Sorry nothing subjective about getting eaten by an alligator, everything avoids pain and suffering. To those that get joy from certain levels of pain, it's not suffering. Those that do enjoy pain don't enjoy it to the extent that they wouldn't suffer under that sort of pain. To people that enjoy pain, it's pleasurable only to a certain threshold.
I'm not saying there isn't joy and happiness, what I'm saying is there is no joy or happiness that are worth the worst levels of suffering. What joy is worth severe levels of suffering? I don't think you'll be able to answer that.
There are in fact people who enjoy that level of pain. There are people who pay other people to kill them in the most painful way they can think of because they enjoy it.
Subjective.
It's not subjective, they're not suffering in that case. And if you don't mind can you point me to that story? I'm intrigued.
The man Armin Meiwes got payed by the man Bernd Jürgen Brandes to kill and eat him.
Exactly my point. The entirety of this debate is based on people that 'suffer' but all suffering is subjective. therefore someone may have a life where happiness is more rife than suffering. In that case, subjectively only to that person, the world is full of more happiness than suffering.
I hate to burst your bubble and you're going to say that's all mush and crap, but you know what? It's something called love. I've dealt with some of the "worst levels of suffering" as you say and you know what, I turn around and I have those who love me and care about me and it's made all my hardships worth it.
Love is simply a survival trick. That is quite obvious.
I hate to burst your bubble and you're going to say that's all mush and crap, but you know what? It's something called love. I've dealt with some of the "worst levels of suffering" as you say and you know what, I turn around and I have those who love me and care about me and it's made all my hardships worth it.
Love is simply a survival trick. That is quite obvious.
That doesn't mean he didn't suffer. Living could have been his suffering, which would make death the lesser of two evils. If he was dead, he couldn't suffer from being eaten anyways, so he couldn't have wanted to suffer that bad, otherwise he would have asked him to eat him alive.
I hate to burst your bubble and you're going to say that's all mush and crap, but you know what? It's something called love. I've dealt with some of the "worst levels of suffering" as you say and you know what, I turn around and I have those who love me and care about me and it's made all my hardships worth it.
Love is simply a survival trick. That is quite obvious.
Doesn't mean I don't get joy from feeling loved.
There is still a desire that it's fulfilling.
But would I suffer without it?
In a way yes. Having a desire to begin with is a form of suffering, especially when you cannot fulfill it.
That doesn't mean he didn't suffer. Living could have been his suffering, which would make death the lesser of two evils. If he was dead, he couldn't suffer from being eaten anyways, so he couldn't have wanted to suffer that bad, otherwise he would have asked him to eat him alive.
Key word: "Could"
That's the entire point. Your making a blanket statement based off of your own views.
That doesn't mean he didn't suffer. Living could have been his suffering, which would make death the lesser of two evils. If he was dead, he couldn't suffer from being eaten anyways, so he couldn't have wanted to suffer that bad, otherwise he would have asked him to eat him alive.
Key word: "Could"
That's the entire point. Your making a blanket statement based off of your own views.
You cannot say anymore than could as well, so you're in the same boat.
That doesn't mean he didn't suffer. Living could have been his suffering, which would make death the lesser of two evils. If he was dead, he couldn't suffer from being eaten anyways, so he couldn't have wanted to suffer that bad, otherwise he would have asked him to eat him alive.
Key word: "Could"
That's the entire point. Your making a blanket statement based off of your own views.
You cannot say anymore than could as well, so you're in the same boat.
I wasn't the one making the original statement. You claimed that the world has a higher degree of suffering than joy, I refuted it with my own personal view on the world.
I hate to burst your bubble and you're going to say that's all mush and crap, but you know what? It's something called love. I've dealt with some of the "worst levels of suffering" as you say and you know what, I turn around and I have those who love me and care about me and it's made all my hardships worth it.
Love is simply a survival trick. That is quite obvious.
Doesn't mean I don't get joy from feeling loved.
There is still a desire that it's fulfilling.
But would I suffer without it?
In a way yes. Having a desire to begin with is a form of suffering, especially when you cannot fulfill it.
And that's where you're wrong. I did not desire the love. My desire was to not be hated. When I was left alone, my desire was fulfilled. I was no longer suffering. The love didn't come along until later.
