I think you're reading too far into it, because basically the real question (in the spirit of things) is would you rather be happy or bitter? Naturally this is asking about a perpetual state of being for the sake of interpretive charity and in that event whatever happens to be the cause (info or little info) actually cancels out. So their response makes a lot more sense than yours does since you can't change the nature of the question. You can't start learning things based on your happiness to undo your ignorance and you can't use your exhaustive knowledge to make yourself happy or else you undermine the spirit of the question. For the record in this extreme case, I'd choose ignorance, because per the question that equals the only path to happiness. We can only assume it is actual happiness or else again the terms are undermined. Granted, remember, this scale is off the charts and virtually never applies to real living. All the in bounds sensibilities you put forth that would change the terms obviously apply otherwise and I would agree with you.

A truly diabolical choice that no one should ever be asked to make would be, "Would you willing suffer for all eternity if that meant everyone else lived in paradise forever? They wouldn't know about you and you would have no knowledge of your choice after you made it (and thus no solace)." Or the second option would be, "If you could live in paradise forever oblivious to the decision you'll make now, would you damn the entire rest of the human race to an eternity of hell?" How could you possibly accept your damnation? How could you possibly refuse paradise? If you honor the spirit of the question, you would probably do the worst possible thing imaginable to everyone and never know it.

I love would you rather. And I would prefer the worms between the toes.

Is the happiness based on a lie, though? Or a lack of knowledge? I don't think that a lack of knowledge is a lie.

Good post. Glad to have you back in all of your full-fledged Ericness.

@Agnostics_R_Us - 

The fact that this is something that virtually never applies to real living is precisely why it surprises me that people were so quick to answer - in most cases like that, people want to answer the way that actually makes some sense in their lives by applying the question to something that could happen to them. Perhaps this is only me projecting my methods onto other people, but I think most people answer these questions by imagining a situation they've been in that's similar to each of the conditions, and then comparing their responses to the two imagined situations. Once they've done that, then they start justifying their response or arguing against it using rational terms.

And I really don't think the spirit of the question is a choice between happiness and bitterness - what's the point of having the question in the game? If those are the only relevant pieces of information, and the cause cancels out, then who wouldn't choose happiness? I think the cause is the entire basis of the dilemma. When people try to answer that question, the picture things in their mind and compare them - and while I compare the thrill of learning something new to the disappointment of not knowing something or of finding out that my beliefs were wrong, I think most of my friends compare stories they've heard about smart people who are depressed and (relatively) ignorant people who are happy.

@TearsKeepAFalling - 

What's the distinction you're making between lack of knowledge and a lie? The fact that one is caused by an intelligent agent and the other isn't necessarily? Are you also distinguishing between a friend choosing not to tell you something and a lack of information?

Also, the term "Ericness" made me think of "You Me and Dupree," which I watched this weekend.

@NQbass7 - 

Well since the spirit of the question seems to indicate the perpetual state of affairs (happiness or bitterness) based on x or y, that does mean the causes cancel out. If you are telling me I'm going to be happy kicking sheep in the nose or sad picking a fight with moon cheese, and those are my only two options and these are perpetual states of being (lifestyles), then I'd have to pick the kicking the sheep in the nose. One zillion variants on this theme don't matter if you aren't allowed to change x or y. The choice is between happiness or bitterness explicitly or the choice makes no sense since you can just change the parameters and not be asked the question being asked. Your version changes the choice since you are effectively getting out of the state of ignorance or the state of bitterness. My version presents the choice as it is (perpetual happiness or bitterness), in my opinion, but still brings it to the inevitable conclusion.

I suppose either way could be argued to go against the spirit of the choice but it seems to make sense out of the choice you have to alter it one way or the other. Perhaps the question would have to be more specific. IDK.

BTW, I feel your pain on the knee thing. I've had whole summers ruined by the mere excitement of getting back into a game (like Frisbee football). It feels so good to go all out and then you exceed your limits just once and bam...there goes every game after that for a long ass time.

aw, what a bitch. Yes, remove what I said. It makes complete sense when I show your failure to make a good comparison between two different questions. Anyway, it still seems to be public domain here so I'll feel free to comment where and when I want, and you can continue to sensor it and do your usual "you're not mature" routine. Or, do what ARU did, only let your friends, those "smart" people you really want to talk to, visit your site. Then you wont have any problems and get butt hurt anymore. Just some thoughts.

@darkwolfofvoid - 

As I've said before, it's not about whether you're right or wrong. You are, to quote your words, "known as an asshole for good reason" and for that reason my desire to talk to you has gradually decreased to right around zero. I didn't block you at first because as we both know, you'll just circumvent that by posting anonymously, and if I turn off anonymous posting you'll create alternate screennames and pretend to be someone else. So I'll say again, I'm not interested in communicating with you anymore, and I'll ask again (politely) that you refrain from commenting on my site.

I think it's possible we could have had an interesting discussion on a couple of occasions, but it turns out I'm one of those rare people who doesn't enjoy being called names like "fool," "bitch," and "Carrier cocksucker." Sure, you're welcome to be as abrasive as you want and not care what anyone else says - but while free speech is technically your right, "if you exercise it to your limits everyone around you will think you're an asshole." Why you're surprised that calling people names makes them not want to talk to you, I'm not sure - it seems like that's a lesson most people learn in 3rd or 4th grade. Just some thoughts.

@NQbass7 - 

Now I might have concern about people not wanting to talk to me because I'm abrasive, but that would be to assume most people do not prefer to talk to me. I show respect where respect is earned. If you act like a fool, I will call you a fool. Just like if I act like an asshole, I can understand when someone says I'm an asshole. I only raise concern if I do not understand how I am being called X when I am in no way associated with X. Nevertheless, I have enough friends and plenty of people who enjoy talking to me. Your criticisms are quite meaningless since, as just stated, I am not associated with any of those ideas you are trying to present. You are just one of those people who have difficulty dealing with other people. Between the two of us, you're the one preferring seclusion and reduced socializing. Most people learn well before 3rd or 4th grade, that if you don't like Jimmy, it doesn't matter. Go play with Jimmy! Just some thoughts.

And just to note, the usual greeting amongst my friends is "wassup bitch!" Maybe it's a west-coast liberal thing, but most people aren't offended by mere words, especially if one doesn't see how they apply to them, i.e., only you let yourself get offended and hurt by other people; ergo, grow up.

If you want to get back on topic, yes, I'll continue to post. Your polite request is rather meaningless. If I see people making inferences poorly or objectionable, I'll say what I have to say. If you don't like it, take yourself off the public forum. I'm not going to preclude myself from responding to shoddy inferences because you don't want to talk about it. Self-centered much? oh yeah.

@darkwolfofvoid - 

a) "Not my fault, You deserve to be called names."
b) "I do too have friends!"
c) "See, I use this word to refer to people I like too, so obviously it doesn't mean something bad when I call you that."
d) "I'll do whatever I want without regard for what other people want."

Does that about sum it up?

"most people aren't offended by mere words" - I'll play one of your cards on this: got some data to back that up?

haha, how queer.

A curious thought just occurred to me.  If you could associate only with people who hate you, would that be hell?  Imagine being forced to associate with people you despise.  Yuck!

It would be just like work! lol

"One of the questions that came up was (and I don't remember the wording exactly, but hopefully I capture it well enough to maintain the meaning) "Would you rather be ignorant and happy, or know everything and be bitter?"  Almost immediately, I knew my answer was the second one.  Happiness based on a lie seems to me to be a far worse choice than knowing the truth."

Sounds like Ecclesiastes to me.  I suspect that was one of your favorite books when you were a Christian.

I guess you can't.

Honestly, there are some things I would want to know and some things I would not - pretty much limited to things that destroy relationships. I do not want to be bitter though, so it really is a question I'd have to think about for a while, not one easily answered. I don't do to well with absolutes - there are always exceptions that seem to get in the way.