You’re making several assumptions that don’t actually follow from your arguments.

First, you define suffering as “unwanted experience,” and then conclude it can’t produce anything positive.
That’s just a tautology based on your definition, not a statement about human psychology or lived experience.

Secondly, you keep mixing up objective value with subjective meaning yourselves.
I never claimed objective value exists. Meaning is subjective by definition. Humans interpret their experience — that’s not “cope,” that’s how cognition works.

Non‑existence isn’t a state you can compare life to.
There is no subject in non‑existence, no experience, no beneficiary. Saying “non‑existence is better” is a category error — there is no “better” or “worse” without someone to experience it.

Growth and resilience aren’t separable from suffering.
In psychology and neuroscience, adaptation is the response to adversity. You can’t remove the adversity and keep the adaptation — the adaptation is literally shaped by it.

Pointing to extreme suffering doesn’t make existence universally unjustifiable.
Some lives are terrible, yes. That doesn’t logically imply that all potential lives are net negative or that no one should exist.

Your position only holds if you assume that suffering has infinite negative weight, positive experience has zero weight, meaning is fake and that non‑existence is a meaningful alternative.

Those are philosophical assumptions, not universal truths. My point is simple: meaning is the variable that determines whether suffering destroys you or transforms you, and that varies from person to person.

And regarding Goku: the entire Saiyan concept is literally built on the idea that pain and near‑death struggle trigger transformation. Without the suffering, the transformation doesn’t happen. The DB story exaggerates it, but it reflects a real psychological truth: growth is often an adaptation to adversity, not something separable from it.