(August 19, 2013 at 2:53 pm)genkaus Wrote: His life would be sickly and he'd die sooner - so I'd be better off.
Ultimately, you both would be dead. That is what the word "ultimately" is alluding to.
So no, YOU would not be better off, for YOU would not exist, because YOU would be dead.
(August 19, 2013 at 2:53 pm)genkaus Wrote: That's simply insane. It isn't anyone's personal opinion that eating poop is bad for you, its an objective fact. Don't believe me? Try it and find out.
I can be gracious to you and inform you I am not concerned about people eating poo.
In order to be charitable, I will even grant that what you say is true.
I will then ask:
So what?
Ultimately, you, and the poo eater suffer the same fate. He may die sooner than you, but he has died doing what gives him pleasure. You may have lived longer.
The problem you have here is that you assume that long life is something everyone desires like you. That simply is not the case. Some would rather go down in flames doing what they love than to flicker out like a candle.
(August 19, 2013 at 2:53 pm)genkaus Wrote: If you don't act in a manner conducive to your and others' well-being, you won't get to live very long. Finding meaning in things that go against life itself - such as harming others - is contradictory and detrimental to both your life and the meaning you find in it. That fact remains the same irrespective of god's existence. Which is why anyone who finds meaning is productivity is ultimately better off than someone who finds meaning in destruction.
Let me be charitable and grant that what you say is true.
So what?
You assume everyone wants to live a long life.
This is clearly incorrect. You might want to live a long life, others may like shooting heroin all day and having unprotected sex with anyone who will lay with them. These people care not for how long they live, but how much pleasure they derive while they live.
(August 19, 2013 at 2:53 pm)genkaus Wrote: Given that the duration and quality of life are relevant here, one would be objectively ultimately better off than a poop-eater.
It is relevant to you. It is not relevant to everyone.
(August 19, 2013 at 2:53 pm)genkaus Wrote: The rational solution here is not to find sexual arousal in eating poop so you won't have to sacrifice your health. And while we are at it, what are the "potential negative side-effects" of anal sex?
Assuming someone wants to be rational. There are many that could care less about being rational, and rather, are more concerned about having pleasure.
I have had several friends die from AIDS as a result of them having unprotected anal sex. The risks for contracting disease are increased when one engages in anal sex among other potential negative side effects.
The anus is not a reproductive organ. Any physician will tell you that. The anus and large intestine are for the removal of waste, not sexual intercourse.
