I’m not even sure exactly what you’re asking here, but emotional states like suffering are subjective expressions of feeling, not opinions.
Trying to argue about some else’s experiences with regards to suffering is like trying to argue that someone isn’t happy, sad, cold, warm, hungry, thirsty, tired, scared, etc.
As always the ultimate authority on how a person thinks and feels is the person themselves.
In other words, you can argue opinions (hopefully based on a foundation of unarguable, objective facts), but it makes no sense to try to argue against another person’s feelings.
You could argue, if you do desired, the opinion that people are too emotionally sensitive, but even that seems like a waste of time to me, because it’s very unlikely emotional sensitivity is a choice. (If it was, you could also simply choose to be more empathetic and understanding of others, just in the same way that you want other people to become less sensitive to their own feelings.)
Personally I have better things to do with my time than argue about other people’s feelings.
You could also argue that people lie. Again, it’s quite hard to prove, as you say, but it’s entirely possible. Especially when someone gains sympathy or recompense for that perceived suffering.
Often people of privilege, who lose some of the benefits of their privilege, claim suffering and demand to be treated in a way they prefer. One can’t say they don’t suffer in some way, especially from their perspective, but one can’t say they do either.
Of course people lie, and they could easily lie about how they’re feeling. But what possible basis do you have to argue against what someone else says they’re feeling?
If I tell you that I’m feeling hungry, for example, how could you possibly make an argument that I’m not?
You could see that I just ate a sandwich, but that doesn’t mean I don’t still feel hungry. In fact, you could see that I just ate 10 sandwiches, but it’s entirely possible for someone to still feel hungry, based on how the brain and human psyche work.
The best case arguement is the opinion that a person’s actions are seemingly inconsistent with a certain stated feeling: for example a widow who says that she’s crippled with sorrow, only to be caught going on dates with other men. But again, you’re not arguing feelings there, you’re arguing an opinion about the consistency of behavior.
The feelings of others are fundamentally unknowable to us. Expression (words, facial expressions, body language, behavior, etc) is our only window into the feelings of others.
You see how this creates a privileged class of information, right? Any information based upon a claim of suffering becomes inscrutable. That’s a good argument for disallowing it. It kind of breaks the system.
You see how this creates a privileged class of information, right?
No. It simply reflects the reality that human feelings are only knowable to others by means of expression.
If I tell you that I’m feeling hungry right now, what basis could you possibly have to tell me that I’m not?
You have none. How I feel inside is unknowable to others. It is a fundamental truth of subjectivity.
Any information based upon a claim of suffering becomes inscrutable.
Objective truth and facts cannot be argued, only uncovered.
Likewise feelings, while subjective, cannot be argued, only expressed. (Again, because the feelings of others are unknowable.)
If you want to argue something, then I recommend arguing subjective opinions, and hopefully you do so based on a bedrock of facts.
That’s a good argument for disallowing it. It kind of breaks the system.
Disallowing what? Feelings? And what system?
No. It simply reflects the reality that human feelings are only knowable…
Clearly not. There are a thousand ways to read a person. And they work pretty well. But that is beside my point. I didn’t address why the information is valid or not. I stated that it is a privileged class of information. One that is excluded from scrutiny because we declare scrutiny, in this case, untrustworthy.
Objective truth and facts cannot be argued…
Have you met humans? We play games all the time. Truth, clarity. It’s the last thing on the mind of 99% of us. That’s a reality that must be acknowledged.
Disallowing what…
Disallowing privileged classes of information. Because our system of talking, comparing notes, synthesizing models, depends upon scrutinizability. Privileged classes of information mangle that.
Clearly not. There are a thousand ways to read a person. And they work pretty well.
Unless you can read minds, which you can’t (even with your tinfoil hat off), then you literally cannot know things which are not somehow expressed (through words, facial expressions, body language, actions, etc.). Words are the most direct way that the vast majority of human beings express themselves, as things like body language and action require third-party interpretation, which obviously adds a second layer of subjectivity, and considerable flaws in terms of misinterpretation, bias, etc.
I stated that it is a privileged class of information. One that is excluded from scrutiny because we declare scrutiny, in this case, untrustworthy.
Simply restarting your opinion may make you feel correct (which you’re entitled to feel), but it doesn’t actually change the objective truth:
Feelings are “excluded from scrutiny” not because “we [who?] declare scrutiny untrustworthy”, but because of the simple objective truth (that almost every human being has intuitively understood since the dawn of time) that the internal thoughts and feelings of others are fundamentally unknowable, and that we rely on expression to have a window into the minds of others.
If you believe that’s not true, then answer this:
If I tell you that I’m feeling hungry right now, what basis could you possibly have to tell me that I’m not?
If you can’t answer that question, then you straight up have no argument in the first place, and that alone answers your original question.
So now I’ve lead you to water, and it’s up to you whether you drink or not. I’m not going to waste any more of my time on this.
Ok, who told Elon Musk about Lemmy?
It’s tempting to point out that no one’s treading on you, sweetie.
I smell an argument but it’s hidden under the rhetoric.
Speak plainly for us. We are simple folk.
be beloved problematic cishet white comedian man
I don’t get to decide whether or not I hurt somebody
sad trombone noisesMost of you would rather get mad at me for not taking this as a self evident truth, instead of just explaining it to me. That’s interesting.
Who are you?
Ah, the eternal question.
The eternal answer : “I don’t know”.
So here’s my perspective, as somebody who took many years of struggle and therapy to come to grips with the idea that I was abused and raped by a romantic partner:
For the person from the position of power, or a third party, you don’t get to decide the reality of the person experiencing the suffering. For the person it’s happening to - whatever their suffering is, it’s valid and real. That doesn’t belittle someone who has experienced worse. Everyone has their personal struggles. We’d all do better to consider other people’s experiences as valid and come at disagreements from a desire to learn and care.
Arguing for the sake of arguing is furiously jacking off your privilege boner for no real progress or useful outcome, other than feeling superior to someone lesser than you.
I have no earthly idea the context of why you’re asking though.
Oh the hatred. It’s like gravy on my fries.
You moderns really know how to persecute the unbelievers.
Surely we can explore this subject. Surely.
Hey, are you doing okay?
That. That is a rare and delicious reply. Thank you very much.
Looks as if someone were training a trolling bot with this account.
Do you feel trolled?
?
What are you talking about?
