Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
As I see your thoughts, Letum, you try to say that if nobody survives a tragedy, it is as if the tragedy has not taken place.
|
NO!
That is ridiculous!
If that is what I meant, that is what I would have said. Where have I said
anything to that effect. It is essential that you fully understand me before
you try to refute me.
I will try to explain myself one last time; as clearly and simply as I can.
In standard form, my arguments runs like this:
Quote:
1. For something to be more or less bad, there must be someone for whom it is more or less bad.
2. There is no one (dead or alive) for whom a larger massacre is more or less bad then a smaller one.
3. Therefor a larger massacre is no more or less bad then a smaller one.
|
It can be demonstrated as valid:
Quote:
1. For X to be true, there must be someone for whom X is true.
2. In the event of Y, there is no one for whom X is true.
3. Therefor, in the event of Y, X is not true.
Where X is somethings ability to be more or less bad
And Y is a massacre
|
I hold premise 1 as inherently and obviously sound.
Event A can not be worse than event B if it isn't worse for anyone.
Premise 2 is very easily refutable if you can think of someone for whom
a larger massacre is more or less bad then a smaller one.
The only person I could think of for whom this might be true is the "Farmer",
but this person is an abstraction, unless you want to bring a god into the
argument.
As the argument is valid, I do not need to justify the conclusion any
further.