Comment on Why can't I argue against claims of suffering?
eezeebee@lemmy.ca 11 months agoWhat does Rob know about Bob better than Bob knows themself? You don’t have to look outwardly hurt for it to be true. Rob should mind their own business. It’s not a “sin”, it’s just inconsiderate. If Rob weren’t a jerk they would take Bob’s word for it and say “that sucks” despite their judgement.
cameron_vale@lemm.ee 11 months ago
You cannot trust your eyes. You must trust the words.
Now that is an interesting assertion.
Jamie@jamie.moe 11 months ago
That’s not what they said, you’re presenting a false dichotomy. The truth is, in determining what another person feels, if you refuse to trust their words, then you can trust nothing. Yes, there are signals that hint at things that might lay below, but you cannot tell someone what their inner thoughts are better than they themselves.
In that vein, something often said of those who have killed themselves is “but I saw them yesterday and they looked so happy!” By your logic, if they looked happy they must have been happy, and just felt like ending it one day for no real reason.
cameron_vale@lemm.ee 11 months ago
You seem to be agreeing with my “false dichotomy”.
“if you refuse to trust their words, then you can trust nothing”, therefore you can’t trust your eyes? That makes no sense.
eezeebee@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
You don’t have to believe their words. But arguing against their claim of suffering is where the line is crossed of being a dick about it or being a friend there to listen to them.
Either way your eyes don’t see what is inside someone’s mind, so why are you placing so much trust in their judgement? Why does even it matter, and why do you feel the need to deny something you can’t prove anyway? Just want to argue?
To answer your original question, it’s because it makes you insufferable.