Is 10,000 people suffering identically equal bad as one of them?

[Edwardo Piet]

If you believe that more sufferers of identical suffering can outweigh less sufferers of identical suffering then that implies that enough sufferers of low level suffering can outweigh one sufferer with high level suffering.

No, it doesn't imply that at all.

If what you believe is true it necessarily does imply that because it implies that sufferers can outweigh other sufferers through sheer quantity alone (because each of them suffer equally). So a great enough quantity sufferers suffering little can outweigh a smaller quantity of sufferers suffering more.

I don't care about impossible additional suffering. All suffering is equal if all sufferers suffer equally because only sufferers actually suffer.

Equal sufferers means equal suffering.

EDIT: Maybe this will help explain:

John Rawls gives a critique of Utilitarianism in A Theory Of Justice that rejects the idea that the happiness of two distinct persons could be meaningfully counted together. He argues that this entails treating a group of many as if it were a single sentient entity, mistakenly ignoring the separation of consciousness.[17] Animal Rights advocate Richard Ryder calls this the 'boundary of the individual', through which neither pain nor pleasure may pass.[18] Thus the aggregation of utility becomes futile as both pain and happiness are intrinsic to and inseparable from the consciousness in which they are felt, rendering impossible the task of adding up the various pleasures of multiple individuals.[...]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarian...ng_utility)