My comment was saying that this part was about ending suffering, not about wishing ill-will. I don’t understand what’s unclear.
> > Reality is actually bad, and it should be far more intuitive to folks. The fact that positive experience is felt "quickly" and negative experience is felt "slowly" was all the evidence I needed that I wouldn't just press the "instantly and painlessly and without warning destroy reality" (benevolent world-exploder) button, I'd smash it!
> This is coming off as incoherent rambling to me
You do like to gesture vaguely and tell me that "I don’t know what this is". Meanwhile I have pointed out at least one instance where you flat out just contradicted yourself on psychoanalysis. Or "incoherent rambling" (on psychoanalysis) if you will
I've read this whole thread twice and I'm struggling to understand what you're saying. Are you saying that if all life is suffering then ending all life is morally permissible? In that case, what do you do with the life of someone who says they're not suffering?
> I've read this whole thread twice and I'm struggling to understand what you're saying.
Join the club apparently. How nice.
> Are you saying that if all life is suffering then ending all life is morally permissible?
Yes. To demonstrate that the original, maligned comment wasn’t about ending all life because they hate life and existence. But in order to minimize suffering.
The premise is wrong from a Vedic perspective because it denies Moksha. But if you believe that Moksha doesn’t exist? Then it’s rational.
And the push-button argument will depend on what your stance on utilitarianism is. Specifically how you can make the choice for every life in existence (instead of them making it). Which addresses your question.
I’m not gonna answer that because that goes beyond the point I was making.
> In that case, what do you do with the life of someone who says they're not suffering?
