• Cylusthevirus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Things” were not observable by anything with the capability to designate them as such, so no they were not “fine” in any meaningful sense of the word.

    You’re literally doing the speech the villain does to make him seem reasonable.

    I am literally begging you to find a therapist.

    • BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Semantics, but if you really want to get into it, a lack of ability for things to be good or bad is still better than the existence and perpetuation of suffering.

      Also, responding to differing worldviews with “see a therapist” and comparing them to a villain is fucking disgusting

      • Cylusthevirus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        How could it be better? There’d be no one around to make that judgment call, so it’s a fundamentally illogical statement.

        And I calls em like I sees em Mr. Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain Apologist.

          • Walk_blesseD@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Surely the core arguments that an anti-natalist might bring forward apply to any sentient beings, right? Like, a cat didn’t give prior consent to existing any more than a human did. Ergo, I do think it’s reasonable to point out that there would be no observer that could witness, much less enjoy any benefit from, the anti-natalist ideal world.