Emotions are intrinsically good and bad

[Edwardo Piet]

You said that I had no way to judge in a scenario where positive emotions were truly intrinsically good.

No I didn't! I said that if your primary position is that positive emotions are intrisically good then that in itself does not entail your secondary position that a variety of moderately positive emotions experienced for longer periods of time is superior to one intensely positive emotion for a shorter period of time. Because the premise "Emotions are intrinsically good and bad" doesn't entail prioritizing time over intensitity.

  But I would have a way to think of a longer duration of positive emotions being better just as how a blind person could still think of colors in his mind. 

That has got to be the worst attempt at an analogy I've ever read. Do you even know analogies work?

Saying "A blind person can work something out despite being disabled so I myself being unable to figure this out can also figure it out!" doesn't work if you haven't actually figured it out.

Your position doesn't logically entail what you say it does.

The premise "Emotions are intrinsically good and bad" doesn't entail prioritizing time over intensity.

If you're going to say you can 'also work it out' then you're just admitting that your premise is inadaquate and your own common sense merely tells you to prefer time over intensity.

For starters, I completely disagree with your common sense (and unlike you, I actually have further arguments to support my position). I don't give a shit about how long an experience is experienced I care about its peaks and caverns and its peaks and caverns only. Aggregation of time or quantity makes zero sense to me.

But I'm not going to pretend that my own position that "Positive and negative experiences are intrinsically good and bad" leads to my position that intensity and quality is more important than time or variety. I make those judgements with further arguments not a failed analogy.  

I also think it doesn't matter what preferences people have; it can still only be their euphoric and dysphoric states that can be the positive and negative feelings, experiences, and emotions in thier lives and they are still the only things that can allow them to truly see the good and bad values in their lives.

I agree. Preferences don't matter. So your own preference of time over intensity is irrelevant. I actually have an argument for preferring intensity over variety. Your failed analogy of "blind people can still visualize if they have previously seen stuff before they lost their eyesight" is just that: a failed analogy.

Blind people can visualize when they have previous memories of things they have seen visually. You don't have any former experiences to fall back on to support your argument of preferring time over intensity. And even if you did you'd still have to actually present those experiences in the form of arguments before you can pretend to argue that your case prefers time over intensity. And it would require further support because, no, "emotions are intrinsically good and bad" doesn't logically entail "time is more important than intensity". That is a 100% non-sequitur. My position that "experiences are intrinsically good and bad" doesn't entail "intensity is more important than time" but I do have other arguments that do entail that.

You need to stop using analogies because you clearly don't even know how to use them. Mixing together one thing you don't understand with another thing you don't understand isn't how analogies work. That's fucking Deepak Chopra level analogy. "Hey look the quantum world is magical and we don't understand it and so is the philosophical problem of free will therefore quantum indeterminacy can give us free will!" That's the same level of patheticness as your analogy that blind people can visualize if they have previously been able to see therefore you can explain something even though your argument is unable to explain it