You can't live in complete non existence in peace.

Thank you in advance.

Let's continue on from the context from the other topic regarding an antihuman society.

You made the following statement.

"lets humans live peacefully in non-existence"

My response was the following.

"You have to exist in order to live. Completely conflicted statement you made there. Give this some more thought before you come back."

Your response:

"Before I started existing, things were peaceful. But as soon as I came into existence, I faced many problems such as foreskin theft, being beaten, having pain from desires. Bad times."

My counterpoint:

"They weren't peaceful because peace itself for you didn't exist because you didn't exist. You have to exist before anything exists to you . Everything relates to you as you relate to everything."

Then your counterpoint:

"This is false. Peace simply means lack of war and conflict, pain and misery.

So yes, with lack of existence, there is peace."

At last my final say.

"You don't exist to have a lack of anything. To have a lack of something is a thing. It's a calculation. A lacking is a deficiency of something that is real that does exist in which you contrast deficiency in existence. You don't exist, war and peace don't exist. They both don't exist. Now if you want a separate debate on that, we can go there."

You made no counter to that and here we are.

The comment was made about definitions. Ok , looking at all my points in the context provided, let us see what's defined there .

"You have to exist in order to live."

To live means to require existence.

What would peace mean?

"peace itself for you didn't exist because you didn't exist. "

What peace means particularly for you at the bare minimum is that which can exist along with you while you live to exist. 

Ok what is existence or existing and what does it mean to you?

"You have to exist before anything exists to you . Everything relates to you as you relate to everything."

Notice everything relates to you. Every THING. A thing is something that's real, that exists. When or if it doesn't exist, there's no such thing. Existence is any such thing in connection by contact/initial manifestation in relation or connection to you your life.

Being that there is no existence of anything such as peace, how does the word peace exist for it?

You conflate the meaning of peace with non existence. Peace is actually a thing that is real, calculable, measurable, physical. Non existence is none of those things. It's no thing. We can't even fathom what non existence is because we operate within existence. So it's understandable how you or anybody can misunderstand it. You're thinking about non existence as nothing going on, rest and ultimately peace. Even "nothing going on" or "nothing" is a measurable quantitative concept manifested physically. It's called zero. 

This is why I say it gets tricky trying to contemplate what truly non existence constitutes other than summarizing it as no thing. 

Also don't get confused with "nothing" and "no thing". These have different contexts which I can explain if necessary or requested.

Back before anything existed there was nothing. No there wasn't even that. 

What does non existence look like?

We don't know. 

It looked all black.

Hold it. What is black?

Is it physical?

Was it created?

Creation is a thing.

Before there was a thing it was just empty space.

What is empty space?

It's X Y and z. Doesn't matter what the definition is. Being that it has one , it has a label, it is real or a thing.

So I'm just illustrating that the digging has to be deep to get to the core.

So did not understand this before and therefore tried to make a rebuttal in the other debate where you said "lets humans live peacefully in non-existence"?

Do you retract that statement?

I sometimes say stupid things. It happens.

Do you retract that statement though?

Do you concede the statement "lets humans live peacefully in non-existence" was an invalid point in the debate titled "Society is antihuman or at least consist of antihuman activity."?

Yeah. In that debate, I meant to say that people should simply not exist in peace, since thats better for them.

I just want to make sure you're making sense.

"I meant to say that people should simply not exist in peace, since thats better for them."

People should not live with peace but not live at all minus peace and of course everything else.

You're saying it's better to not exist at all versus living in peace which would be no suffering, no pain, no hurt, no worry, no turmoil.

There are those that believe you can live in perfect peace and they themselves are examples of it. No doubt, no worry, no void, just perfect peace.

You're saying non existing is better than all of that. 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Exactly. Not existing is better since its lack of pain and lack of any problem.

By existing, you have conditions to experience pain. Maybe you wont have pain in your life, but nobody can really guarantee you a painless life.

The main thing is you conceded to the statement you made was false. Although it's believed you knew this from that debate you made the statement in.

All this other stuff you're saying it may be just how you're looking at it. But if somebody had a perfect peaceful life, if they say it's better for them to live a perfect peaceful life than not, who are you or anybody to argue?

I leave it there, peace be .

Sure, perfect life, but not everyone has a perfect life tho.