Response to "but you can't 100% guarantee it won't EVER get better" (and similar responses)

[TAW122]

Many pro-lifers and anti-choice, anti-right to die people oftenly spew this line of reasoning towards people who don't want to be around anymore. They will oftenly say "but you can't 100% guarantee it won't EVER get better", "Even if there is a non-zero chance that things will get better, it is worth it", "There is always a solution/miracle" or similar phrases and platitudes said by these people.

While logically that might be true (assuming you don't believe in absolutes and if you throw religion in the mix and the 'miracle' stuff, it gets even more complex), there is something called "reasonable expectation" and by this, it means the standard in which something is deemed probable and a limit to how far it is worthy to continue pursuing said goal/action/activity, and once that limit has been reached, then it is no longer worthy to continue to pursue or invest in.

Examples of reasonable expectations:
1) For example, one tries to open a jar of pickles, but the seal is too tight. When someone tries the first time to open it but fails to do so, they try again, but after a certain amount of times, be it the third or fourth time, then it is time to give up opening it or find a tool to assist in opening the jar of pickles.

2) A musician does a few takes for a piece that he/she is recording. However, after the first three takes, he/she realizes he/she isn't getting the take that he/she is satisfied. A reasonable expectation would be that after a certain amount of attempts at getting the "satisfiable take", he/she decides to postpone it or stop attempting additional takes. Of course, the amount of takes and limits vary from individual to individual.

3) A prospective dating candidate tries his/her luck at dating but fails in the first few approaches (online, offline, and various venues). After a certain amount of tries, he/she realizes that the time wasted and money in approaching and investment put towards the endeavour is simply not worth it. He/she decides to quit dating until the future. It is reasonable (and logical) for the person to realize that after a certain amount of times of no luck that it is simply better to just stop and not waste his/her time and resources into pursuing something that doesn't pan out, thus saving said person emotional pain, money, time, and energy.

By ignoring this concept, they are committing a sunk cost fallacy, meaning that they believe that when you already invested x (where x is a copious amount of cost whether it be in time, money, resources, effort, etc.) amount into a goal, they cannot afford to give up. This is rather irresponsible and rather dangerous because no resource or time is infinite as we live in a finite world with finite resources as well as human tolerance and limits.

Next, there is the concept of limits and finiteness, meaning in how much time, resources, money, energy, and patience (yes patience is a resource too, some have a lot, while others don't). It varies from person to person and no two individuals are the same when it comes to how much is able to take or is wiling to take before giving up. By guilting and shaming those who decide to "give up" or stop pursuing whatever they are doing, they are ignoring this concept and are delusional to think that there is no limit in this reality (which there is as we live in a finite, natural world).

Counter-argument:
So my counter argument towards statements like that is the lottery and gambling example. Yes, there IS a chance that anyone and everyone who plays the lottery or gambles have a non-zero chance of winning the jackpot, but does it make sense to continue playing (until you go broke or go so far in debt that your financial situation is ruined) just for the "minuscule" chance of maybe winning? Most people would (rationally) say no, and this is because they have a "reasonable expectation" and common sense dictates that while there is a non-zero chance of winning, the probability is of it occuring is so low that the amount of time and money spent gambling could be used elsewhere thus it is not wise to keep playing even though there is a "chance" of winning (but will VERY likely go broke before that even happens, if even).

The amount of willful ignorance and illogical reasoning really baffles me as people would oftenly know that it would be irrational and unreasonable for one to gamble away their savings and keep playing the lottery until they win (which almost never happens) and most people wouldn't. However, when it comes to things improving and continue to fight a losing battle, let alone respecting another's decision to just "give up" their rational mind and logic eludes them.

Another thing I have a gripe about is the fallacy of relative privation (there are worse people out there! Be grateful for what you have!, etc.) and appeal to masses (but everyone is doing it the same, but that's just everyone, etc.), but those are different topics for another thread altogether.

 

[ctbUniquectb]

If I'm sitting in a movie for an hour, and the movie is lousy, should I sit through the remainder of the movie, hoping against hope that it improves?

I have the capacity to leave the theatre and spare mysel the rest of the bullshit. Sure, some of the other viewers enjoy the flick. Not my problem. Yes, watching that hour cost me effort. Yes, the ticket to enter cost money.

But sitting around unentertained is just making my life worse, after all I've already lost either way.

 

[Ham Commander]

Many pro-lifers and anti-choice, anti-right to die people oftenly spew this line of reasoning towards people who don't want to be around anymore. They will oftenly say "but you can't 100% guarantee it won't EVER get better"

I hate this too. Even if it does get all kinds of better, how good can it really get anyways?

I didn't opt in to this horror show you sadistic fucks, I'd like to see them take a trek across my mind and come back worshipping the same God

 

[TimeToBiteTheDust]

I have a permanent injury that won't get better. It's not a temporary problem as prolifers say. I can't get used to live like this. I something I don't like and I don't want in my life. When I finish my day before going to bed I tell myself "I survived". That's what I'm doing.

 

[Mizzmini45]

But it just didn't get better. if taking their advice then how come it got worse since 10 years ago. It not only didn't get better but it got worse. I have been the proof. What do they say about that? I can say this factually. Can we hear their reply now?

 

[TAW122]

@ctbUniquectb Ah yes, I remember that analogy by Doug Stanhope.



@Ham Commander Good point, many pro-lifers don't seem to quantify and evaluate the amount of pleasure in relation to the amount of suffering one goes through, it's almost as though they take it on face value.

@Mizzmini45 I don't know. I suppose pro-lifers have all sorts of mental gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty to justify their position and agenda. It's probably some banal remark like "You didn't do it right!", "You didn't try hard enough!", "You must have just had bad luck!" etc.

 

[Mizzmini45]

I hate when the say it's a permanent solution to a temporary problem. But my "temporary" problem never went away it just progressed

 

[Heart of Ice]

Technically if life is a wager, there would be no reason not to play and to keep playing once you have started.

Either you
1) Win. Basically had a good life despite struggle.
2) Lose. Have a shitty life and decide to die. Then you can a) be certain that you tried and b) you really didn't lose anything (if we take real-world issues like financial losses to one's family or passed-on suffering out or the equation). After I'm dead, no suffering or wasted resources right now would really matter to me.

Someone help me with this one. I feel like this reasoning could be used to justify both of these statements:
1) There is no reason not to play, as you can't really lose, as wins and losses become nothing after the game is over (you die).
2) There is no reason to play, as you can't really win, as wins and losses become nothing after the game is over (you die).

What do you guys think?

This reminds me of the Pascal's wager.

EDIT: Please ask me to clarify if this does not make sense from a language-perspective. English is not my native language as you can see on my profile.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Suicide: 'It's a permanent solution to a temporary problem.'
Sometimes, not always.

Antidepressants: 'are a temporary solution to a permanent problem.'
Not always, but often.

 

[bananabear]

its a permanent solution to a permanent problem for some

knowing you'll never be normal functioning is more painful than death sometimes

 

[a.n.kirillov]

The amount of willful ignorance and illogical reasoning really baffles me as people would oftenly know that it would be irrational and unreasonable for one to gamble away their savings and keep playing the lottery until they win (which almost never happens) and most people wouldn't.

This analogy doesn't work because by killing yourself you are throwing away all your savings instead of playing the lottery (assuming playing the lottery is the most promising option left).

Many pro-lifers and anti-choice, anti-right to die people oftenly spew this line of reasoning towards people who don't want to be around anymore. They will oftenly say "but you can't 100% guarantee it won't EVER get better", "Even if there is a non-zero chance that things will get better, it is worth it", "There is always a solution/miracle" or similar phrases and platitudes said by these people.

While logically that might be true (assuming you don't believe in absolutes and if you throw religion in the mix and the 'miracle' stuff, it gets even more complex), there is something called "reasonable expectation" and by this, it means the standard in which something is deemed probable and a limit to how far it is worthy to continue pursuing said goal/action/activity, and once that limit has been reached, then it is no longer worthy to continue to pursue or invest in.

Examples of reasonable expectations:
1) For example, one tries to open a jar of pickles, but the seal is too tight. When someone tries the first time to open it but fails to do so, they try again, but after a certain amount of times, be it the third or fourth time, then it is time to give up opening it or find a tool to assist in opening the jar of pickles.

2) A musician does a few takes for a piece that he/she is recording. However, after the first three takes, he/she realizes he/she isn't getting the take that he/she is satisfied. A reasonable expectation would be that after a certain amount of attempts at getting the "satisfiable take", he/she decides to postpone it or stop attempting additional takes. Of course, the amount of takes and limits vary from individual to individual.

3) A prospective dating candidate tries his/her luck at dating but fails in the first few approaches (online, offline, and various venues). After a certain amount of tries, he/she realizes that the time wasted and money in approaching and investment put towards the endeavour is simply not worth it. He/she decides to quit dating until the future. It is reasonable (and logical) for the person to realize that after a certain amount of times of no luck that it is simply better to just stop and not waste his/her time and resources into pursuing something that doesn't pan out, thus saving said person emotional pain, money, time, and energy.

By ignoring this concept, they are committing a sunk cost fallacy, meaning that they believe that when you already invested x (where x is a copious amount of cost whether it be in time, money, resources, effort, etc.) amount into a goal, they cannot afford to give up. This is rather irresponsible and rather dangerous because no resource or time is infinite as we live in a finite world with finite resources as well as human tolerance and limits.

Next, there is the concept of limits and finiteness, meaning in how much time, resources, money, energy, and patience (yes patience is a resource too, some have a lot, while others don't). It varies from person to person and no two individuals are the same when it comes to how much is able to take or is wiling to take before giving up. By guilting and shaming those who decide to "give up" or stop pursuing whatever they are doing, they are ignoring this concept and are delusional to think that there is no limit in this reality (which there is as we live in a finite, natural world).

Counter-argument:
So my counter argument towards statements like that is the lottery and gambling example. Yes, there IS a chance that anyone and everyone who plays the lottery or gambles have a non-zero chance of winning the jackpot, but does it make sense to continue playing (until you go broke or go so far in debt that your financial situation is ruined) just for the "minuscule" chance of maybe winning? Most people would (rationally) say no, and this is because they have a "reasonable expectation" and common sense dictates that while there is a non-zero chance of winning, the probability is of it occuring is so low that the amount of time and money spent gambling could be used elsewhere thus it is not wise to keep playing even though there is a "chance" of winning (but will VERY likely go broke before that even happens, if even).

The amount of willful ignorance and illogical reasoning really baffles me as people would oftenly know that it would be irrational and unreasonable for one to gamble away their savings and keep playing the lottery until they win (which almost never happens) and most people wouldn't. However, when it comes to things improving and continue to fight a losing battle, let alone respecting another's decision to just "give up" their rational mind and logic eludes them.

Another thing I have a gripe about is the fallacy of relative privation (there are worse people out there! Be grateful for what you have!, etc.) and appeal to masses (but everyone is doing it the same, but that's just everyone, etc.), but those are different topics for another thread altogether.

I have another possible counter argument and that is the amount of data available for you to make a judgement might be insufficient. If your five year old child were to decide that they want to kill themselves because you just moved and he hasn't made any friends in the new city yet, you may aknowledge that his reasoning is sound from the data that are available to him, but that he doesn't have enough experience with life and can't see far enough into the future to realize that life changes often and quite drastically (at least when we're children) and that there is a high probability he will soon make new friends when he goes from elementary school to middle school for example.

I'm not saying this is a good argument to make to adults with a reasonable amount of life experience but people often bring it against someone who's depressed or suicidal.

 

[ctbUniquectb]

@ctbUniquectb Ah yes, I remember that analogy by Doug Stanhope.

I knew I lifted it from someone, and that I'd seen that "Louie" episode, but I didn't remember having lifted it from there. Good eye.

But it just didn't get better. if taking their advice then how come it got worse since 10 years ago. It not only didn't get better but it got worse. I have been the proof. What do they say about that? I can say this factually. Can we hear their reply now?

This. I lived through my 20s and everyone said "but unique, people's lives imporve through their 20s," well fuck me running, my life got worse even though I did everything right.

 

[lydia0315]

no need to prove anything. even there's possibilities to get better, it's just too tiring to do or hope for anything anymore.

 

[TAW122]

Technically if life is a wager, there would be no reason not to play and to keep playing once you have started.

Either you
1) Win. Basically had a good life despite struggle.
2) Lose. Have a shitty life and decide to die. Then you can a) be certain that you tried and b) you really didn't lose anything (if we take real-world issues like financial losses to one's family or passed-on suffering out or the equation). After I'm dead, no suffering or wasted resources right now would really matter to me.

Someone help me with this one. I feel like this reasoning could be used to justify both of these statements:
1) There is no reason not to play, as you can't really lose, as wins and losses become nothing after the game is over (you die).
2) There is no reason to play, as you can't really win, as wins and losses become nothing after the game is over (you die).

What do you guys think?

This reminds me of the Pascal's wager.

EDIT: Please ask me to clarify if this does not make sense from a language-perspective. English is not my native language as you can see on my profile.

I actually think that makes sense, at the end, after death, nothing to the deceased is relevant as the deceased is no longer conscious or able to experience any pleasure nor suffering.

Suicide: 'It's a permanent solution to a temporary problem.'
Sometimes, not always.

Antidepressants: 'are a temporary solution to a permanent problem.'
Not always, but often.

Well said, I like the comparison between the two.

I have another possible counter argument and that is the amount of data available for you to make a judgement might be insufficient. If your five year old child were to decide that they want to kill themselves because you just moved and he hasn't made any friends in the new city yet, you may aknowledge that his reasoning is sound from the data that are available to him, but that he doesn't have enough experience with life and can't see far enough into the future to realize that life changes often and quite drastically (at least when we're children) and that there is a high probability he will soon make new friends when he goes from elementary school to middle school for example.

I'm not saying this is a good argument to make to adults with a reasonable amount of life experience but people often bring it against someone who's depressed or suicidal.

Yes, and all my arguments are directed towards and also assumes that the target audience/recipient are a mature and competent adult (someone who is able to see reason or is able to comprehend logic). Of course, in the case of a five year old, I do think that they should not be simply allowed due to their brain being really underdeveloped, lack of ability to understand the choices they are making (along with consequences from those actions), so in that sense, yes I would argue not solely just based on age, but due to lack of competent thought and/or understanding of consequences.

 

[Cherrybreeze]

Very similar to, "it'll be okay." EVERYONE says it, and I hate the phrase desperately. I've been told it for years now, and I'm still waiting.

I used to answer it with, "how do you know?" Now I'll sometimes ask that along with my go-to response: "but until it is, IT ISN'T." (and there's no rule or law that dictates it "has" to be, eventually).

 

[TAW122]

Update: I've just thought of another counter argument on the "but you can't guarantee it will (NOT EVER or) never get better!"
and also this line: "If you give up (now), then you are effectively giving up any chance of it getting better and (potentially) missing out on future pleasures!"

First off, I'll address the first statement. I could argue that: "Yes, HOWEVER! By continuing and not giving up, you are gambling on a chance that (it) could get worse!" Then for the second statement, "If one gives up at said moment, then while it's true one is missing out on future pleasures, they are also missing out all the pains and suffering needed to reach those pleasurable moments (which are oftenly fleeting and short lived)." Finally, "Death is a part of life and death itself is rather a neutral state (neither good nor bad). It is the manner of which the state of death (the state of non-existence and unconscious) is reached that bothers people." I do not see death as a negative but rather a neutral state, depending on the circumstances. If one's life is very bad (both objectively and subjectively speaking) then death would bring peace and neutrality towards that individual's being. However, if one's life is good (objectively and subjectively speaking), then death would be a negative as it deprives the individual out of the future (potential) joy and happiness that the individual may experience.

 

[zherhk]

I understand perfectly what it feels like to hear these statements and I am the first one to go crazy since I cannot conceive the reasoning behind them.
The clichés, platitudes, hyper positive mindset, are very popular these days, because they're easily believed and sometimes bring money.
The fact is that they can't be thrown at everyone.
Before opening their mouth they should think and contextualise.
At the end I think it's always a better choice to remain with your feet inside reality. You could be still positive, but in a healthy way, because if you fly too much, if you crash with reality you're fucked.
To continue what I was saying, some people are totally unconscious.
It is a lost war.
Trying to reason with them, I don't think it will changes our reality, and even at the lightest circumstances I find a platitude useless.
Getting angry because of them is like being their bitch. They don't deserve this power.
I think the majority of them has only been casually lucky with some really bad circumstances people have to deal.
Last time I ended up in a fight because of 'Everything happens for a good reason'. ' Happiness is your choice'.
I believe someone who can't even understand that objectively something could reveal as a good thing and something just won't, doesn't deserve our intelligence.

 

[TAW122]

@zherhk Yeah I don't argue with pro-lifers IRL anymore. It's not just because they can't be changed, but also because it is too risky for me to do so without raising suspicion, red flags, and even putting my liberty, freedom at risk. I mainly just speak what I have on my mind, on here of course, because people on here understand my reasoning really well and some others might find it useful to them if/when they choose to use counter-arguments themselves against pro-lifers if they ever had an debate against them.

I'm sorry to hear that things didn't go well for you IRL and yeah sometimes these people can get hostile when they feel like their beliefs (which are tied to their identity) are challenged and/or attacked.