There is a difference between happiness and pleasure and happiness requires no unhappiness to result in others. The only way a sadist can earn happiness is if they are only dealing with masochists and everyone is getting precisely what they want. But masochists do not want misery, they just enjoy the pain, which is as different from misery as happiness is from pleasure, though they may coincide.
Happiness is simply being happy (or, if you want, content and enjoying yourself).
If you do that by inflicting unhappiness, or by depriving others of things, etc, it's still happiness.
There's no part of the happiness definition that says it's incompatible to with "unhappiness to result in others". That might be part of Bhudism or Christianity etc, but it's not some given of human nature.
One can't be a Scotsman if one's ancestors don't come from Scotland.
There are things that are true because they fit the proper description and there are people who use "No True Scotsman" because they don't want to learn the truth.
People are free to misunderstand anything they choose, but words have meanings and reality can be accurately described using words with specific meanings.
[Editing because I can't reply for a while]: The dictionary writers are not the definitive masters of knowledge. What I am teaching here is (obviously) not only unknown to most people but actively denied by most.
Happiness is an internal upwelling of feeling. Pleasure is a physical sensation. They are not the same. That is why a person can be unhappy but still experience pleasure and why a person with poor life circumstances can still be happy.
Happiness:
a) a state of well-being and contentment
b) a pleasurable or satisfying experience
No where does it say that it comes from making others happy(which again, this is in itself illogical). Also, you claim many times that "sadistic pleasure" isn't happiness, but that clearly contradicts the second definition of happiness. You are free to misunderstand happiness as much as you like, but happiness has a meaning and trying to force definitions from your own universe down other people's throat and denying other's doesn't seem like the right thing to do.
>People are free to misunderstand anything they choose, but words have meanings and reality can be accurately described using words with specific meanings.
Words have commonly understood and dictionary meanings.
Not some meanings you or some other person with a strong opinion gives them.
And the standard meaning of happiness doesn't include "not inflicting pain to others" as a requisite.
>Happiness is an internal upwelling of feeling. Pleasure is a physical sensation. They are not the same.
That's just pseudo-profound hocus pocus.
In fact the nuance goes even deeper: if you think you have the upper moral superiority, you could even think you do good, and are totally justified to feel happy, while inflicting untold pain on others (e.g. if you're a Nazi supporter hunting Jews, which you think betters mankinds).
So, it's not just that you can be happy inflicting pain because you're sadist and enjoy it, but also because you think you do something very good and laudable by inflicting said pain!
And, a third possibility, is that you could very happy with "an internal upwelling of feeling" because you got what you want, and your personal life and relationships go great, while still inflicting tremendous pain, if it's to people you don't even care about, and never spend a moment thinking about them (e.g. you're a rich person with a perfect family life whose riches depend on your minions exploiting lower classes which you never personally meet, and could not care less about).
Dunning & Kruger's work is far from petty; I merely gave him a dose of his own "How's that for nuance" attitude. He is wrong and his confidence is perfectely explained by D&K's groundbreaking work.
I stated you resorted to pettiness. Nothing to do with the work of anything you referenced. It seems like you’re being purposefully oblivious to this. As it was very obvious Dunning wasn’t what the pettiness was aimed at. Further showing your [lack of] candor
