An open letter to whoever wants to read it

[H0teLVi0LeT]

Originally Posted by Luther Stark

I measure the value of life by the individual's quality of experience. Positive qualities I label "happiness" (for lack of a better word) and negative qualities I label suffering (which I think fits better, so i tend to favor that word).

Why is the amount of positive qualities vs the amount of negative qualities in an indivudual's experience your only measurement of life's worth? Explain in details.

Also, the notion of positive and negative experience can be entirely subjective.

Originally Posted by Luther Stark

What is an example of something worth striving for that is known not to benefit an individual's (or multiple individuals) quality of existence?

Let's see, you're always criticizing us for having arguments or conflicts. However if you end up winning a conflict, despite the fact that you may have went through suffering, the end results are worth it?

Or what about going through great hardship to achieve something great?

Originally Posted by Luther Stark

Ultimatly, my philosophy is that we should live our lives in such a way that our quality of existence is never that of suffering.

Thats why your philosophy is retarded. It fundamentally opposes all toils that human beings may need to go through to achieve greater things.

There's a famous quote: "'The primary reward for human toil is not what you get for it but what you become by it."

Originally Posted by Luther Stark

In my experience I have found that the most effective way to organize my life to avoid suffering induces more significant positive experiences. I am often left feeling inspired, not by this accomplishment or that accomplishment, but by life itself.

Elaborate. Give examples. Many of them. Simply stating so does not make it true or for that matter universal. I get the feeling that you're unambitious or easily satisfied, nothing more.

Originally Posted by Luther Stark

Why is it that the nihilist (me) finds value in all life and thus does not allow for harming others as an acceptable recourse, while you and hotel violet seem perfectly willing to trample on anyone who doesn't conform to your own value system?

Because people who hold your philosophy are a drain on society and a stagnation on the rate of human progress in general. That isn't even mentioning that your philosophy defeatism at its purest form.

Originally Posted by Luther Stark

You seem to be implicitlty asserting that life in and of itself (devoid of 'accomplishment') is worthless.

That is correct. It isn't even up for debate, its a self evident truth.

Originally Posted by Luther Stark

How is this not nihilism at its best?

How the fuck is that nihilism?

Originally Posted by Luther Stark

Whatever HV (and perhaps GA) value, it is a misplaced value.

Total rubbish.

Originally Posted by Luther Stark

There is nothing worth more than human existence,

You haven't explained why. Why is existence in and of itsself the most valuable thing around? If you do not give that existence any meaning, it becomes worthless.

Originally Posted by Luther Stark

And if they have made anything clear by their time at blizzforums, with all of their threats and insults, it is that they do not value other people.

I value other people but whether or not I do depends largely upon whether they lead meaningful lives or not. That's the only logical position to take. Otherwise theres no difference between someone I love and a cockroach.
 

[Luther Stark]

To respond to an earlier point made by chaos:

People can't lose what they are, and what they are is life.

Why am I not rubbing shoulders with Caesar and Charles the Hammer and Henry V then? How could those people not be living anymore? What they are is life, after all, and you can't lose what you are.

Saying Caesar is no longer alive is logically similar to saying a square no longer has four sides. As soon as it stops having four sides, it stops being a square. As soon as "Caesar" stops being "alive" you are no longer talking about Caesar, you are talking about something else. And whatever else that thing is, it is not caesar.

Unfortunately for your argument though human beings do build emotionally symbiotic relationships with other human beings and they do in fact possess these relationships, and lose them if they stop interacting with that person.

I disagree. When a person dies, we don't lose our relationship to them. If I died tommorow you would still have a negative opinion of me. You would still think I wasn't an intelligent person. The death of luther stark wouldn't change that. You relationship to me would not alter.

You might argue that I'm playing at semantics - but semantics are based in thought, and thought is based in attitude, and attitude defines existence.
 

[Kaizen]

Choosing to reference someone's name merely with their status as alive or dead is your own arbitrary injection. Most of us look at "names" in terms of the life they lived and the history they provided.
 

[H0teLVi0LeT]

God damnit! I'm boycotting this thread...

After reading luther's last post.. I can't fucking take this anymore... this is just so fucking low for me.
 

[GenocideAlive]

Originally Posted by Luther Stark

You relationship to me would not alter.

Given that a relationship would be defined as a flowing, mutable exchange between two or more objects, your death would definitely signal a violation of the definition.

If you are no longer able to change the relationship, it's defined as a memory, not a relationship.