"Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

On the true meaning of "reduction ad absurdum"

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#801  Postby Doubtdispelled » Nov 13, 2014 12:07 pm

Thommo wrote:
Doubtdispelled wrote:Um, did you really mean to say 'definitely not beyond dispute', Thommo?


Yes.

Ok, now I'm confused as well.
God's hand might have shaken just a bit when he was finishing off the supposed masterwork of his creative empire.. - Stephen King
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11848

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#802  Postby Sendraks » Nov 13, 2014 12:08 pm

Thommo wrote:
Doubtdispelled wrote:Um, did you really mean to say 'definitely not beyond dispute', Thommo?


Yes.


Wait, you're saying that it is open to dispute that the living prefer life?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15252
Age: 106
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#803  Postby DarthHelmet86 » Nov 13, 2014 12:12 pm

Thommo wrote:So you're saying that someone who isn't suffering (any living person who you would not say is suffering) is suffering more than someone else who is not suffering (a dead person).

I think that's a straightforward self contradiction. Clearly two people who are not suffering are suffering the same amount (not).


The dead lack the ability to suffer the living have it. A person might not right now be suffering, pleasure might out weigh all the problems in their life but they still have a chance to suffer. The dead have no calculation of pleasure over pain they just have nothing.
I. This is Not a Game
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
User avatar
DarthHelmet86
RS Donator
 
Posts: 10344
Age: 36
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#804  Postby Thommo » Nov 13, 2014 12:15 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Doubtdispelled wrote:Um, did you really mean to say 'definitely not beyond dispute', Thommo?


Yes.


Wait, you're saying that it is open to dispute that the living prefer life?


Thommo wrote:
Fallible wrote:I think this is an instance of someone being so desperate to not admit they are wrong that they begin to make clearly counter-factual 'arguments'. 'If we assume that dead people do not suffer as do the living'? One thing which would appear to be rather beyond dispute unless you believe in life after death is that the dead experience nothing at all, be that pleasure or pain. Quite clearly then, the living experience more suffering by virtue of the fact that the dead do not experience at all, and it is therefore worse for the one left alive when a loved one dies, simply because the loved one no longer 'is', and the one left behind is suffering.


Well no, most living people prefer life, so it is definitely not beyond dispute. I haven't seen anyone even define suffering and something like "net balance of pleasure and pain" would certainly not be particularly unreasonable. Particularly if one is to base a comparison of better or "worse" upon it.
:scratch:


I'm disputing the underlined part. It is not clear that the living suffer more merely by being alive - indeed Fallible said (as I would) that not all living people suffer and it is plainly illogical to compare people who are not suffering and conclude one is suffering more. It is also not clear that things are "worse" for a loved one left behind than a partner who dies. Many people left behind prefer their state to death and have it "better" by their own measure.

I'm guessing that Fallible here meant that considering only in terms of the mourning process the living have it worse and did not mean to suggest anything about their overall state of existence, however this is very unlikely to address the point that TMB was actually making, there's nothing in his posts that suggest he meant to divorce his comments from all context.

Thus without people defining what they mean by "suffering" or "better" or "worse" everyone will talk past each other ad infinitum.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27290

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#805  Postby Thommo » Nov 13, 2014 12:17 pm

DarthHelmet86 wrote:
Thommo wrote:So you're saying that someone who isn't suffering (any living person who you would not say is suffering) is suffering more than someone else who is not suffering (a dead person).

I think that's a straightforward self contradiction. Clearly two people who are not suffering are suffering the same amount (not).


The dead lack the ability to suffer the living have it. A person might not right now be suffering, pleasure might out weigh all the problems in their life but they still have a chance to suffer. The dead have no calculation of pleasure over pain they just have nothing.


Sure, but that doesn't address the issue. It takes a particular view of "suffering" (fair enough, although it's the view that Fallible expressly denied holding which prompted that quote of mine) it doesn't establish that this is what TMB meant, does it?
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27290

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#806  Postby Sendraks » Nov 13, 2014 12:21 pm

Thanks for the clarification Thommo.

As stated, as there is no empirical measure for suffering, it is pointless for anyone to claim that person X is suffering more than person Y. And just because someone died, does not mean that they necessarily have suffered more in their life, given there is no empirical measure.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15252
Age: 106
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#807  Postby Sendraks » Nov 13, 2014 12:22 pm

Thommo wrote: it doesn't establish that this is what TMB meant, does it?


One might as well try to catch a ghost as attempt to TMB down to a specific meaning.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15252
Age: 106
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#808  Postby Thommo » Nov 13, 2014 12:26 pm

Sendraks wrote:Thanks for the clarification Thommo.

As stated, as there is no empirical measure for suffering, it is pointless for anyone to claim that person X is suffering more than person Y. And just because someone died, does not mean that they necessarily have suffered more in their life, given there is no empirical measure.


There are empirical measures of suffering, they just aren't necessarily accurate or unique.

For example you can ask people to rate their life on a scale of -10 to 10.

We wouldn't actually need an empirical scale for this discussion anyway though.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27290

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#809  Postby Thommo » Nov 13, 2014 12:28 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Thommo wrote: it doesn't establish that this is what TMB meant, does it?


One might as well try to catch a ghost as attempt to TMB down to a specific meaning.


Fair enough, but there seems little point contesting a statement when we don't even know what it means. It's pretty poor debate form to assign positions to your opponent and very unconvincing. If he won't explain what he means then he's just waffling and can be dismissed as such.

That said I'll wait for him to confirm or deny the supposition that he won't define what he means by suffering in this context rather than just assume it.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27290

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#810  Postby DarthHelmet86 » Nov 13, 2014 12:29 pm

Thommo wrote:
DarthHelmet86 wrote:
Thommo wrote:So you're saying that someone who isn't suffering (any living person who you would not say is suffering) is suffering more than someone else who is not suffering (a dead person).

I think that's a straightforward self contradiction. Clearly two people who are not suffering are suffering the same amount (not).


The dead lack the ability to suffer the living have it. A person might not right now be suffering, pleasure might out weigh all the problems in their life but they still have a chance to suffer. The dead have no calculation of pleasure over pain they just have nothing.


Sure, but that doesn't address the issue. It takes a particular view of "suffering" (fair enough, although it's the view that Fallible expressly denied holding which prompted that quote of mine) it doesn't establish that this is what TMB meant, does it?


I will take him at his word,

TMB wrote:
You are also arguing that when your loved ones die, it is worse for the one left alive. THis sounds a bit like Hillary Clinton's view that women are the real victims when men get killed in war because they are left alive to suffer. If we assume that dead people do not suffer as do the living, if life was so bad for these'victims ' of war they would end their lives.


Dying sucks big balls, it is the end of life and that is always bad. But it also affects those around it and those partners left alive suffer. And no "if they were really suffering they would kill themselves because death has no suffering" changes that.

My mother is dying, see will die at some point in the next couple of years. It is brutally crap that she is losing out on all her years of life that most people her age have left. But it is also just as hard on all of us who will live on past her, her mother, her son, her sisters and her friends. We have to deal with losing someone we love and once my mother has passed on there will be no dealing with anything for her she will be dead and we wont be. There is no calculation about who has it worse, there is no way to say that her lost years of life out weigh our pain and there is no way I will accept someone saying that people who loose loved ones don't have it all that bad because they don't kill themselves. You want to play word games with TMB go for it, try and define a subjective emotional experience and try and calculate who has it worse those who die or those who live on. I will just go on experiencing it and calling bullshit when people like TMB post things like.

TMB wrote:If we assume that dead people do not suffer as do the living, if life was so bad for these'victims ' of war they would end their lives.
I. This is Not a Game
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
User avatar
DarthHelmet86
RS Donator
 
Posts: 10344
Age: 36
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#811  Postby Fallible » Nov 13, 2014 12:31 pm

Thommo wrote:So you're saying that someone who isn't suffering (any living person who you would not say is suffering) is suffering more than someone else who is not suffering (a dead person).

I think that's a straightforward self contradiction. Clearly two people who are not suffering are suffering the same amount (not).


No, again, what I am saying is that living people experience while dead people do not, whereas what you seem to have understood me as saying is that if someone is not suffering at all at one point in time, they are still suffering more than a dead person. To restore some context to the picture - in the passage you replied to, I specifically referred to the case where a loved one dies and the one who goes on living suffers -

Quite clearly then, the living experience more suffering by virtue of the fact that the dead do not experience at all, and it is therefore worse for the one left alive when a loved one dies, simply because the loved one no longer 'is', and the one left behind is suffering.


Unless there is a way that a non-existent, non-experiencing person can experience something so that it is 'worse' for that non-existent, non-experiencing person than it is for the extant, experiencing person that I don't know about, obviously.

So again, my point is that dead people don't suffer, and that TMB is acting like this is somehow in dispute when he says 'if we assume that dead people do not suffer as do the living'. It is not in dispute - we can fairly safely say that dead people do not suffer 'as do the living', unless we decide to entertain unevidenced and unfalsifiable assertions about life after death, because dead people lack the capacity to experience full stop, while living people - although not being constantly in a state of suffering - have the capacity to experience various sensations and emotions, including suffering.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 49
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#812  Postby Fallible » Nov 13, 2014 12:33 pm

DarthHelmet86 wrote:
Thommo wrote:So you're saying that someone who isn't suffering (any living person who you would not say is suffering) is suffering more than someone else who is not suffering (a dead person).

I think that's a straightforward self contradiction. Clearly two people who are not suffering are suffering the same amount (not).


The dead lack the ability to suffer the living have it. A person might not right now be suffering, pleasure might out weigh all the problems in their life but they still have a chance to suffer. The dead have no calculation of pleasure over pain they just have nothing.


Yes, this basically.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 49
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#813  Postby Fallible » Nov 13, 2014 12:36 pm

Thommo wrote:
DarthHelmet86 wrote:
Thommo wrote:So you're saying that someone who isn't suffering (any living person who you would not say is suffering) is suffering more than someone else who is not suffering (a dead person).

I think that's a straightforward self contradiction. Clearly two people who are not suffering are suffering the same amount (not).


The dead lack the ability to suffer the living have it. A person might not right now be suffering, pleasure might out weigh all the problems in their life but they still have a chance to suffer. The dead have no calculation of pleasure over pain they just have nothing.


Sure, but that doesn't address the issue. It takes a particular view of "suffering" (fair enough, although it's the view that Fallible expressly denied holding which prompted that quote of mine) it doesn't establish that this is what TMB meant, does it?


:scratch: If I expressly denied holding this view it was a mistake, because that's exactly the point I was attempting to make. Dead people have nothing.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 49
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#814  Postby Sendraks » Nov 13, 2014 12:43 pm

DarthHelmet86 wrote:
Thommo wrote:
DarthHelmet86 wrote:
Thommo wrote:So you're saying that someone who isn't suffering (any living person who you would not say is suffering) is suffering more than someone else who is not suffering (a dead person).

I think that's a straightforward self contradiction. Clearly two people who are not suffering are suffering the same amount (not).


The dead lack the ability to suffer the living have it. A person might not right now be suffering, pleasure might out weigh all the problems in their life but they still have a chance to suffer. The dead have no calculation of pleasure over pain they just have nothing.


Sure, but that doesn't address the issue. It takes a particular view of "suffering" (fair enough, although it's the view that Fallible expressly denied holding which prompted that quote of mine) it doesn't establish that this is what TMB meant, does it?


I will take him at his word,

TMB wrote:
You are also arguing that when your loved ones die, it is worse for the one left alive. THis sounds a bit like Hillary Clinton's view that women are the real victims when men get killed in war because they are left alive to suffer. If we assume that dead people do not suffer as do the living, if life was so bad for these'victims ' of war they would end their lives.


Dying sucks big balls, it is the end of life and that is always bad. But it also affects those around it and those partners left alive suffer. And no "if they were really suffering they would kill themselves because death has no suffering" changes that.

My mother is dying, see will die at some point in the next couple of years. It is brutally crap that she is losing out on all her years of life that most people her age have left. But it is also just as hard on all of us who will live on past her, her mother, her son, her sisters and her friends. We have to deal with losing someone we love and once my mother has passed on there will be no dealing with anything for her she will be dead and we wont be. There is no calculation about who has it worse, there is no way to say that her lost years of life out weigh our pain and there is no way I will accept someone saying that people who loose loved ones don't have it all that bad because they don't kill themselves. You want to play word games with TMB go for it, try and define a subjective emotional experience and try and calculate who has it worse those who die or those who live on. I will just go on experiencing it and calling bullshit when people like TMB post things like.

TMB wrote:If we assume that dead people do not suffer as do the living, if life was so bad for these'victims ' of war they would end their lives.


Well said. Very well said indeed. :clap:
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15252
Age: 106
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#815  Postby Thommo » Nov 13, 2014 12:56 pm

DarthHelmet86 wrote:
Thommo wrote:Sure, but that doesn't address the issue. It takes a particular view of "suffering" (fair enough, although it's the view that Fallible expressly denied holding which prompted that quote of mine) it doesn't establish that this is what TMB meant, does it?


I will take him at his word,

TMB wrote:
You are also arguing that when your loved ones die, it is worse for the one left alive. THis sounds a bit like Hillary Clinton's view that women are the real victims when men get killed in war because they are left alive to suffer. If we assume that dead people do not suffer as do the living, if life was so bad for these'victims ' of war they would end their lives.


Dying sucks big balls, it is the end of life and that is always bad. But it also affects those around it and those partners left alive suffer. And no "if they were really suffering they would kill themselves because death has no suffering" changes that.

My mother is dying, see will die at some point in the next couple of years. It is brutally crap that she is losing out on all her years of life that most people her age have left. But it is also just as hard on all of us who will live on past her, her mother, her son, her sisters and her friends. We have to deal with losing someone we love and once my mother has passed on there will be no dealing with anything for her she will be dead and we wont be. There is no calculation about who has it worse, there is no way to say that her lost years of life out weigh our pain and there is no way I will accept someone saying that people who loose loved ones don't have it all that bad because they don't kill themselves. You want to play word games with TMB go for it, try and define a subjective emotional experience and try and calculate who has it worse those who die or those who live on. I will just go on experiencing it and calling bullshit when people like TMB post things like.

TMB wrote:If we assume that dead people do not suffer as do the living, if life was so bad for these'victims ' of war they would end their lives.


But you aren't taking him at his word and you are playing word games with him just as much as I am.

He's certainly being insensitive there, and you can marshal a lot of sympathy by introducing personal factors which make you understandably upset, I feel bad for you and your mother, I am saddened to hear the situation. But that doesn't actually make him wrong. Insensitive? Sure. A jerk? Maybe. But wrong? Not necessarily.

There are absolutely loads of philosophers and philosophies that attempt to quantify human suffering on a scale. Some label positive net life experience as "thriving" for example, but these attempts to form "welfarist axiologies" definitely exist and many people regard the continued desire to live that most people experience most of the time to the state of life being "preferable" or "better" than the state of death, it is wrong to suggest that claiming the living have it worse is incontrovertible.

However, since this is clearly personal and upsetting for you I think it would be best if we not pursue this further.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27290

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#816  Postby DarthHelmet86 » Nov 13, 2014 1:01 pm

When I say something is too personal or upsetting then it is okay when you say it about me that is condescending as fuck.

TMB wrote:
You are also arguing that when your loved ones die, it is worse for the one left alive. THis sounds a bit like Hillary Clinton's view that women are the real victims when men get killed in war because they are left alive to suffer. If we assume that dead people do not suffer as do the living, if life was so bad for these'victims ' of war they would end their lives.


If we assume dead people do not suffer as do the living, well yes I assume that I assume that dead people do not suffer because they lack all feelings. The living do suffer because they are able to feel suffering so the dead do not to me suffer the same as the living. So with that assumption in mind if life was so bad for the "victims" (read that word to mean those who lost their loved one) they should just kill themselves. That is sick, twisted bullshit. And Thommo I thought a lot more of you than to support someone arguing that because people don't kill themselves that they aren't victims of pain when their loved ones died.
I. This is Not a Game
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
User avatar
DarthHelmet86
RS Donator
 
Posts: 10344
Age: 36
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#817  Postby Thommo » Nov 13, 2014 1:01 pm

Fallible wrote:
Thommo wrote:So you're saying that someone who isn't suffering (any living person who you would not say is suffering) is suffering more than someone else who is not suffering (a dead person).

I think that's a straightforward self contradiction. Clearly two people who are not suffering are suffering the same amount (not).


No, again, what I am saying is that living people experience while dead people do not, whereas what you seem to have understood me as saying is that if someone is not suffering at all at one point in time, they are still suffering more than a dead person. To restore some context to the picture - in the passage you replied to, I specifically referred to the case where a loved one dies and the one who goes on living suffers -

Quite clearly then, the living experience more suffering by virtue of the fact that the dead do not experience at all, and it is therefore worse for the one left alive when a loved one dies, simply because the loved one no longer 'is', and the one left behind is suffering.


Unless there is a way that a non-existent, non-experiencing person can experience something so that it is 'worse' for that non-existent, non-experiencing person than it is for the extant, experiencing person that I don't know about, obviously.

So again, my point is that dead people don't suffer, and that TMB is acting like this is somehow in dispute when he says 'if we assume that dead people do not suffer as do the living'. It is not in dispute - we can fairly safely say that dead people do not suffer 'as do the living', unless we decide to entertain unevidenced and unfalsifiable assertions about life after death, because dead people lack the capacity to experience full stop, while living people - although not being constantly in a state of suffering - have the capacity to experience various sensations and emotions, including suffering.


Sure, but that doesn't sustain the other part of your post, which most closely addressed what he said and which I underlined above as my point of contention. Taking it as a given that the dead neither suffer nor thrive (which TMB also did) does not allow us to conclude that the living have it "worse", nor that they suffer more in the most relevant sense of the word "suffer". Many living people, even the bereaved, view their ongoing life positively. In a very relevant sense their existence is preferable to that of death, by their own assessment.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27290

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#818  Postby Thommo » Nov 13, 2014 1:07 pm

Fallible wrote:
Thommo wrote:Sure, but that doesn't address the issue. It takes a particular view of "suffering" (fair enough, although it's the view that Fallible expressly denied holding which prompted that quote of mine) it doesn't establish that this is what TMB meant, does it?


:scratch: If I expressly denied holding this view it was a mistake, because that's exactly the point I was attempting to make. Dead people have nothing.


Right, I agree and so did TMB. Does this tell us that living people have it worse than dead people, or that they have it better?

Obviously not, right? Some living people suffer terribly, some thrive and enjoy life. There is a pretty meaningful sense in which we can say that some people suffer less than dead people if we view suffering as something that can be net positive or negative. As foolish and insensitive as his comparison is, I think that's the natural way to read it - that it's wrong to dismiss the shorter lives of men by making comparisons with their bereaved spouses.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27290

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#819  Postby Fallible » Nov 13, 2014 1:33 pm

Thommo wrote:
Fallible wrote:
Thommo wrote:So you're saying that someone who isn't suffering (any living person who you would not say is suffering) is suffering more than someone else who is not suffering (a dead person).

I think that's a straightforward self contradiction. Clearly two people who are not suffering are suffering the same amount (not).


No, again, what I am saying is that living people experience while dead people do not, whereas what you seem to have understood me as saying is that if someone is not suffering at all at one point in time, they are still suffering more than a dead person. To restore some context to the picture - in the passage you replied to, I specifically referred to the case where a loved one dies and the one who goes on living suffers -

Quite clearly then, the living experience more suffering by virtue of the fact that the dead do not experience at all, and it is therefore worse for the one left alive when a loved one dies, simply because the loved one no longer 'is', and the one left behind is suffering.


Unless there is a way that a non-existent, non-experiencing person can experience something so that it is 'worse' for that non-existent, non-experiencing person than it is for the extant, experiencing person that I don't know about, obviously.

So again, my point is that dead people don't suffer, and that TMB is acting like this is somehow in dispute when he says 'if we assume that dead people do not suffer as do the living'. It is not in dispute - we can fairly safely say that dead people do not suffer 'as do the living', unless we decide to entertain unevidenced and unfalsifiable assertions about life after death, because dead people lack the capacity to experience full stop, while living people - although not being constantly in a state of suffering - have the capacity to experience various sensations and emotions, including suffering.


Sure, but that doesn't sustain the other part of your post, which most closely addressed what he said and which I underlined above as my point of contention. Taking it as a given that the dead neither suffer nor thrive (which TMB also did) does not allow us to conclude that the living have it "worse", nor that they suffer more in the most relevant sense of the word "suffer".


:scratch: Given that I usually agree with you I am leaning towards to concluding that the fault here is mine, yet at the same time I cannot seem to see the sense in what you are saying. Firstly, what exactly are you referring to with your 'most relevant sense of the word suffer"'? Most relevant according to whom? Taking it as a given that the dead neither suffer nor thrive does not allow that the living suffer more? How do you reckon? If someone scratches their face a little harder than they intended and that manifests as a little pain, they have immediately suffered more than a dead person can. A dead person. Not a dying person. If you have nothing of a thing, anyone who has even the tiniest amount of said thing has more of it than you do. If you have nothing of a thing and never have, anyone who has ever had at any point the tiniest amount of said thing will have had more than you do. Someone may have suffered long and hard in life right up until the point of death. That is still the suffering of the living.

Many living people, even the bereaved, view their ongoing life positively.


Did I say otherwise? Some people even view suffering as a positive experience. That people can see their ongoing, bereaved life positively does not suggest that they are not also suffering.

In a very relevant sense their existence is preferable to that of death, by their own assessment.


As far as I can make out, this does not address anything I've said.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 49
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#820  Postby Fallible » Nov 13, 2014 1:47 pm

Thommo wrote:
Fallible wrote:
Thommo wrote:Sure, but that doesn't address the issue. It takes a particular view of "suffering" (fair enough, although it's the view that Fallible expressly denied holding which prompted that quote of mine) it doesn't establish that this is what TMB meant, does it?


:scratch: If I expressly denied holding this view it was a mistake, because that's exactly the point I was attempting to make. Dead people have nothing.


Right, I agree and so did TMB. Does this tell us that living people have it worse than dead people, or that they have it better?

Obviously not, right? Some living people suffer terribly, some thrive and enjoy life. There is a pretty meaningful sense in which we can say that some people suffer less than dead people if we view suffering as something that can be net positive or negative. As foolish and insensitive as his comparison is, I think that's the natural way to read it - that it's wrong to dismiss the shorter lives of men by making comparisons with their bereaved spouses.


There is a meaningful sense in which we can say that some people suffer less than dead people? This is where I apparently keep falling down. Would that not require allowing that dead people suffer? How can someone suffer less than a dead person? As for it being wrong to dismiss the shorter lives of men by making comparisons with their bereaved spouses, my reading is the reverse - that it was TMB who sought to dismiss the suffering of bereaved spouses by making comparisons with the shorter lives of men. His well-worn mantra after all is that men die sooner and are therefore disadvantaged, whereas those left behind are merely 'victims' - scare quotes his - because if their lives truly were that bad they would end them.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 49
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests