[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

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:



It can be demonstrated as valid:




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.

That is upmost absurd what you say. The events you now even try to press into a formula, have always somebody for whom they are true: for example us while we talk about them and be aware of them having taken place. We see them, we value them, and we conclude which one if the greater tragedy when comporing numbers. we could eventually also use other standards, too, but comparing we do, and then come to a statement saying this or that is the greater tragedy. that does not need any epistemology, no X and no Y, no goats and no farmers.

Man, get real again, for your own sake! You really make me feel worried for the mental representation of the world you seem to spend your Second Life in. You try to outline twists and complexities that simply are not there.

Okay, it seems nobody of us seems to get through to you. For my own part, I leave it here.

Tip: read Marc Aurel. A good remedy against excessive thinking and a hyperactive intellect that hijacks people's minds. As I said before, I don't think you are stupid, Letum, quite the oppposite: you are too smart.