There are no goalposts here. I thought we were being philosophic here. Self-harm addictions provide relief for said victims. I'd say relief is the cousin of pleasure.
As I explained, relief isn't inherent proceeding the act, which exposes that certain components of some addictions are "bad," rather than pleasure itself.
?
You cannot make a claim whether relief isn't inherent following the act or during it unless you've experienced it yourself, though. Unless you have? Care to share?
I'm kind of getting the same feeling since he said I was "arguing semantics" when I was talking different things.
Words don't have set definitions, that's not how it works. Meaning is use, and you are using it in retarded ways. Pleasure is just as inherent as pain, both are essential for human survival
No, and I have a feeling that we're both speculating. Regardless, anecdotes would be a weak point of argument.
I would see it as some food for thought, to be fair. Speaking of addictions, it's kind of funny how I never developed a nicotine addiction despite smoking from ages 13 until 18. I just quit cold turkey. But I can't even not watch porn for more than 3 weeks and porn addiction isn't considered a real addiction. JFL.
No, you simply have retarded levels of reading comprehension.
Pleasure isn't essential for survival. Neither is suffering. However, suffering is inherent, whereas
it kinda looks like it’s better, at first glance
Firstly, this condition is a statistical anomaly
, whereas an existence without pleasure is not.
Scientifically, the complete absence of observable suffering is a statistical anomaly, whereas the complete absence of observable pleasure is not, despite both claims being unfalsifiable.
Philosophically, one side of the coin always occurs (suffering) whereas the other side (pleasure) may occur in addition to the other side.
They’re both statistical anomalies. Complete absence of pleasure would only happen in the late stages of an extremely deep depression (or something similar). Meanwhile, the person being afflicted has almost certainly experienced pleasure at some point. The fact is: Finding a life that is, to the best of our perception, devoid of pleasure, is almost as likely as finding one devoid of pain.
No, many humans suffer during birth and until death with no pleasure. This is common among infant mortalities. And that's assuming they even made it out of the womb.
I agree that life isn't always rosy, but we can't ignore the fact that life also holds its share of beautiful moments. Our individual perspectives are colored by various influences. I believe that children, in particular, have a less biased view and see life in a more balanced way. In contrast to OP's theory that life is primarily pain rather than pleasure, I find this viewpoint to lack substantiation. It seems more related to how one interprets their experiences, with a focus on the pain due to constant re-thinking. The reality is that a person's mindset can separate them from both pain and pleasure, depending on their perspective.
Cmon, these are clearly edge cases. These humans arguably haven’t even developed consciousness yet.
Infant mortalities aren't edge cases, globally and historically. Also, infants are conscious.
ourworldindata.org
Maybe not numerically, but for the purposes of this argument, they surely are. We’re trying to assess the inherence of pain and pleasure and you bring up a life that was cut short at the very beginning?Infant mortalities aren't edge cases, globally and historically. Also, infants are conscious.
Mortality in the past: every second child died
The chances that a newborn survives childhood have increased from 50% to 96% globally. How do we know about the mortality of children in the past? And what can we learn from it for our future?
Strawman
That isn't inherent.
Yes, they are.
God, your debating style is frustrating at times. You’re probably gonna quote this and say “Ironic”, too.
a chad philosopher does
Firstly, you keep equating pain to suffering. Suffering includes mental distress, which may not involve physical pain.
Unborn offspring are able to perceive or feel things.
Probably not in the early stages.
It was never my intention to do this, but if you got that impression, my mistake i guess. I’m talking about mental and physical suffering, of course.
That’s not enough for sentience. Are they able to contemplate their own existence? That’s what it is. And at those stages (unborn, as a baby), they don’t have it yet.
Mirin chatGPTmaxxing.
all checked except murder
That's generally considered consciousness.
Brutal. Robbed of life.
just rope at this point or shit on niggers
Buy a new dick implant.
lol if you think we got the science for that. we are dumb hopeless monkeys
True I have played too much cyberpunk lately.
