Well actually, we must accept the premise that ~p -> ~q in this argument. We're not saying that the premise is completely truthful but we accept it as logically valid.

We see in the next step that Bochi does indeed encounter pain. However, she does not gain. Many people would consider this to a be violation of the principle above but it isn't actually. The logical equivalent of the above statement is "If Bochi has gained, then she must have experienced pain." However, it's completely logically consistent for her to be put through an unlimited amount of pain without any gain at all.

:expert-shapiro: