User talk:OnlyDeathMayDie

Hello, please fell free to challenge my ideas in so I can increase their quality.

File:Postniv.png Niveous Laccolith - Fun fact: if you don't want death, become an antinatalist! Anyways, you're pretty spooked. Have a good(ish) day.

1) Antinatalism is bullshit extinctionism.
2) I've never seen a single good counter argument to what I believe so I can only assume you're calling me "spooked" just to pretend to be smart.
3) You have a good day too :D

File:HelloThere314Icon.pngHelloThere314 - Add me?

Added (:

Add me my ideology is South Floridan socialism - Tony

Added

Template:LordCompost86 - 1. Add please - ill add you later.

Added.

2. I wish to critique your philosophy section because it makes no sense. "quoted sections are yours word for word".


“To have experience there must be you to experience it, such as the experience of reading this. Experience can't exist without an experiencer such as you, if it could it wouldn't be experience. You exist.”

Several issues here, 1) you need to define experience, and experiencer, i.e. Is it subject to object or subject to “nothing” (i.e. seeing a Chair, vs. imagining a chair), or maybe it is subject to itself, such as the universe is one being that mediates between itself, which in that case death wouldn’t exist at all, what you perceive as death is just a process of universal shift, that you yourself are a part of. Let alone there is a fundamentally disunity between experience and the source of consciousness, a brick experiences things, but it is not conscious of it, there is an experiencer in the brick, but it doesn’t know.

For subject to object or subject to “nothing", both. And the rest is everything I'm saying the universe isn't, there is not an experiencer in the brick, "fundamentally disunity between experience and the source of consciousness" I'm not sure what you mean by that, all that matters is that there is a consciousness to experience things.

“You can conceptualize a contrast between suffering and non-suffering, to have the contrast you would need to experience what it is like to not suffer, making non-suffering an experience.”

Conceptualization is not the same as experience, this is like asking the difference between backwards in time and forward in time, you haven’t ever experienced the former, so how can you conceptualise it? Or maybe I could ask how you conceptualise inside and outside your own mind? Is there a reality out there, or is it all “experienced” in your own mind.

"Conceptualization is not the same as experience" I didn't say it was. I have no idea what you're talking about with the rest so I can't reply to it.

“You don't see black in death, there's no you to see black. Non-suffering is itself an experience and the concept of experience can't exist in death. The burden of proof is on every other understanding of death.”

Again, if you haven’t experienced death, how can you conceptualise the difference between being alive and then dead? Second, an understanding of death that belongs only the body would have a lot of say about their being “no you”.

One can't experience death, that would be an oxymoron. I can conceptualize the difference between being alive and then dead because I exist and in death I wouldn't. Well it's a good thing the body has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

“Someone not being allowed to have experiences without them having a say in the matter is what all death does, not just "early death".”

See above. Also you seemingly place a value judgement on not having experiences, without the turn around of the alternative. Besides you need to experience suffering in no experiences for it to be bad, but as you claimed suffering can only exist in an experience so no experience can have no value judgement.

I can place a value judgment on not having experiences, I place its value in the negatives because it's minus every possible future good experience. I didn't say you need to experience suffering in experiences for it to be bad, I was saying its absence is experience because suffering and non-suffering are exclusively relative to life.

“Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good.”

Your attack on naturalistic fallacies is interesting, because you use your own fallacy to assume that things die, or that there is such a thing as death in the first place. IF the universe was only spiritual, which you have not disproven, then you would have a soul, or maybe you are the only thing (i.e. solipsism) and thus death has never happened because they didn’t actually exist. You have not proved either case.

"You have not proved either case" the burden of proof is not on me. It's on you.

“What makes humanity human is consciousness, not death.”

No such thing as humanity, and if you really wanted to be pedantic it would be neither of those options.

When the word humanity is used it generally refers to ether self awareness or whatever has driven humans to strive as much as they have. And both come from consciousness.

“People who think death creates meaning actually find meaning in what they think death is important for, but not death itself.”

Most people think death strips things of meaning. i.e. it is pointless to try if I will die no matter what.

Yes. I wasn't talking about most.

“Children feel a reason to live without any understanding of death, one that can still exist in fully developed minds. And people can and do have the reaction of feeling that there is no reason to live with death.”

Naturalistic Fallacy on the will to live, or biological instincts.

I have no idea how you read that to see that meaning. I was talking about how the idea expressed by some that "death gives life meaning" is wrong.

“We live to find good experience in life, that real reason is self contained in each of ourselves but so is the concept of reason to live.”

Again, a Naturalistic Fallacy. Second, an appeal to reason. And third, meaning of life nonsense.

"Naturalistic Fallacy" how? "appeal to reason" isn't a fallacy. "meaning of life nonsense" meaning here is being used to describe any reason one may have to continue to live.

“The only part of existence that can decide what is important in existence is life, and the only life that can exist to decide what is important is life that can survive, making survival a universal importance.”

Third one in a row. Also you are saying that “A is important because A is important”.

Life is literally the only thing that decides importance. Do you think a rock will decide truth or anything else is important? No. Life invented the concept so life can decide whatever the concept means, and if dead it can't.

“Understanding of the gravity of actions and experiences is more important if immortal when one realizes that they really are permanent. Before humanity invented, they would not think the technological progress and control of the world humanity has in the 21st century is possible. We are nothing compared to what we can be.”

Teleological argument, here you have stated that progress is the good, when before it was life that exists. Which in either case becomes that overall life is important so let us maximise specific life, but will you include not dying to every living thing? And even without your anti-death sentiment, if we take your naturalism of life, it continued without your ideas.

Progress in this context is defined as the power of and quality of life increasing, and so its existence becoming more pronounced. "will you include not dying to every living thing" Yes so long as it's actually alive and conscious. And once again I don't know what you mean by the rest so I can't respond.

“To suffer is to live as if dead, if you suffer you're not enacting your will as a life. Eternal suffering is functionally the same as death even with the obvious differences, ether way one can never choose to live again.”

So you said in death there is no you to experience, so how now is suffering which is an experience that same as death which is “no experience”, replace your statement about seeing black with experiencing suffering and you have contradicted yourself. Once again placing a value judgement which can only exist within an experiencer, i.e. a living conscious person (according to you), which means in the first place death is a nothing, it isn’t suffering or not suffering.

I said how it's the same in the sense of not being able to do the same things in both. I didn't say they were the same in any other sense. The statement about seeing black is about a positive of things being lost in death, where this is about absence in both. Once again death takes away every possible future good experience.

“To call death a "choice" is the same as calling becoming a slave a "choice", "you can sell yourself or keep your family in poverty" is as awful as "you can die or you can continue to suffer"”

Funnily enough your last statement is the option you are giving people, that is the choice, because 1. Life = possible experiences 2. Possible experience can be suffering, 3. Death = no experiences, therefore death = no suffering, while life has suffering in it. So you are offering the choice to people of death or endless suffering with other experiences thrown in.

Again, death takes away every possible future good experience. This is about absence in both death and suffering.

“ether way one is coerced and can't choose to go back to being free/alive.”

Naturalistic fallacy that death is a final event. Fails to account for other theories of death or that they are the only consciousness, or that death is a non-event in the first place.

"Fails to account for other theories of death" Again, the burden of proof is on those bullshit theories. There is no scientific discovery that has ever supported life after death. And there never will be.

“If someone wants to die they must be ill and/or misled, and both of those scenarios don't really count as a choice. "freedom to die" is not freedom.”

According to you. You have shoehorned in your theories about reality (which I must admit are highly untrue) and then told that to people, which is misleading. So you have mislead people into accepting your ideas which means anything they do/say from your ideas is not really a choice. It’s like if I told you heaven is real and that you need to be holy, and not sin, now you would say it isn’t real. But if in the example I said death is X while you say Death is Y, or that death is a path to heaven, vs. death is suffering (even if you said you can’t experience when dead so can’t experience suffering but whatever) both of those positions are misleading and thus choices made through that information is not really freedom to you.

If I were to go back to when I felt so bad I felt that I needed to destroy what makes me happy, that would be equally as irrational as wanting to die. Because wanting to die is destroying what makes me happy but even worse and I'd want someone to stop me from doing ether it is logical to conclude that destroying what makes me happy wouldn't be a true choice and death is the same.

A big thing I noticed with this is that you see getting rid of pain as more important then gaining new good experiences. And from trying again despite failure to having a revolution to overthrow tyranny it's always better to seek new good then hide from new or old bad.