Blasphemy! — Sapientia

There's no "common sense" defense to claims of sexual harassment in the wonderful world of the law. Those who complain that "common sense" establishes that there is no actionable claim are mere fools at best. Those subject to the law should simply act prudently given the law or accept responsibility for the consequences of not doing so. And be damned if they don't.

I think it's inappropriate to refer to the extraordinarily wealthy as deserving or admirable in any respect because they have far more than they could possibly need to live comfortably, or to claim that it's fair that this is the case, or that it would somehow be unfair if this were not the case.

I don't see how it can reasonably be maintained that someone appropriately has far more resources than he/she can possibly require where resources are limited. This would be to honor rampant self-indulgence. Are gluttons and hoarders admirable because they consume and keep far more than they need to be sated or that they will use? I would say no, even if they "earned" what they so selfishly and needlessly eat and acquire.

In part, the excessive regard we in America have for guns has fear as its basis; fear, and the attitude of belligerence thought necessary to make that fear less obvious to others. This is reflected in the late, great Warren Zevon's song, Rottweiler Blues which includes the following lyrics:

"Got a Glock in the bedside table
Machine Gun leaning by the bedroom door
Kevlar vest in the closet
Well I wear it when I go to the store

Shadows on the window
Rustling in the hedge
Faces at the peephole
Footsteps on the ledge

If you come calling
He'll be mauling with intent to maim
Don't knock on my door
If you don't know my Rottweiler's name."

Yet, not only do I hear those same people implying or directly stating that a right in the original Bill of Rights should be removed from the Constitution, I hear them saying that it is not even a human right and never was a right of any kind in the first place. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It's a legal right here in God's favorite country, nothing more, nothing less. Like other legal rights, it may be limited, modified and even repealed. Getting rid of it would mean amending the Constitution, which is particularly difficult, but may be done. We've amended it before, most foolishly to prohibit the production, sale and transport of intoxicating liquor through the 18th Amendment. We got rid of that amendment some 13 years after we were stupid enough to adopt it.

Behold the definition of "sexual harassment" according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including some explanatory comment:

"Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following:
•The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex.
•The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
•The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
•Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim.
•The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome."

This is federal law, applicable to employers with 15 or more employees. States generally have their own laws in this area.

All sorts of conduct, intended or otherwise, may fall within this definition and these examples, yes?

Is this too much, too little? It matters not. THE LAW RULES. Take heed, o ye employers and employees.

Common sense be damned.

"That strange flower, the sun,
Is just what you say.
Have it your way.

The world is ugly,
And the people are sad.

That tuft of jungle feathers,
That animal eye,
Is just what you say.

That savage of fire,
That seed,
Have it your way.

The world is ugly,
And the people are sad."

--Wallace Stevens

Speaking as someone who isn't a professional philosopher, I think "quietist" philosophers like Wittgenstein, Austin and Ryle have done good and important work in formulating a method by which certain philosophical claims can be analyzed. Quietism as practiced by them has its uses.

Shotguns, assault rifles are allowed too right? By rifle I mean a typical hunting rifle. One shot, reload, sort of thing. — Benkei

"Assault rifles" are legal, if by that is meant semi-automatics. Semi-automatic guns are self-loading (you don't have to manually load after every shot). Semi-automatics go "bang-bang"; automatic firearms go "rat-a-tat." Semi-automatics may function as automatics through the use of bump firing, i.e. using the recoil to fire shots in rapid succession, which is facilitated by the use of bump stocks as all now know. There are semi-automatic shotguns, but sporting shotguns have limited magazines, usually 3-5 shells with one in chamber. "Assault rifles" usually have magazines with 20-30 shells.

I'm not a hunter, but know of no hunters who would use an "assault rifle" in hunting. I know of no sporting events in which they're used, but perhaps there are such events. I'm not sure why anyone would want to own one; I can think of no good reason for owning one, personally, nor do I know how a "right" to own one could be defended.

The Second Amendment has obtained a peculiar status in the U.S., for some of us in any case. The gun itself has a peculiar status for some also. For them, the gun is an object of reverence. For them, the Second Amendment is sacrosanct. I'm not sure how this came about, but I think the gun has become a totem of sorts. Ownership of a gun or guns seems to be considered something which makes someone American; it's a source of pride and distinction. I don't say the gun manufacturers are responsible for this attitude, though I'm inclined to think they exploit it.

And when we're talking about the police we're talking about handguns mostly, which I imagine are the most accurate after rifles. — Benkei

Handguns are terrifyingly inaccurate. I think TV series and movies about the "Old West" have persuaded too many of us that they can be handled with considerable accuracy. Gunfights likely involved many shots.

I don't doubt that, as I conceded earlier that getting people to buy more guns certainly seems to be part of the NRA's agenda. I'm only trying to point out that that's not all they do. By the way, I appreciate the tact and civility with which you have inserted yourself into this debate. — Thorongil

Thank you. As for the NRA, understand my quarrel is with its leadership, not necessarily its members.

So neither you nor cicerone know and are just guessing. Let's make it 50-50 then, ok? — Benkei

Certainly I'm guessing. Hell, we can't even know whether we're seeing a tree or a mental construct.

I'm not exactly guessing, because he was talking about the NRA, and the NRA offers and encourages training. — Thorongil

Yes, but it also opposes state concealed carry permit laws. Thus the push for reciprocity or a single federal law. The NRA, like gun manufacturers, wants people to be able to buy guns as easily as possible. Once they've bought them, training is fine...as long as its not required.

I think a majority of them. The people who fall into the category you describe above are the people who would likely be found at gun ranges practicing, at education events, gun safety events, etc. — Thorongil

You're more optimistic than I am. But, perhaps you're right. Then we may take comfort in the fact that, e.g., only 40% of those carrying guns have no training in their use.

I hope that people are as eager to train as you think, as there are several states which have no concealed carry permit requirement, and many of those that do don't require live fire training as a condition for issuance of a permit.

Well, it was a vastly different time, as too many fail to consider. It's likely most everyone had guns then, and that many used them even to get food to eat. Also, the Founding Fathers were probably a bit leery of professional armies like that of the British, had first-hand knowledge that they could be used to suppress people, and perhaps imagined what it would be like if they didn't have the guns they had. That's no longer such a pressing concern, though.

Well, we could exchange articles on the NRA and its connections with gun manufacturers all day, no doubt. Try this one:http://fortune.com/2016/01/05/nra-gun-owners-obama/ Or, this one: http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

The real money connecting the NRA with the gun manufacturers is in advertising and donations which aren't necessarily made in a political guise. The NRA likes the money. It's back being scratched, it scratches back. Thus, "the only way to fight a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun." I say nothing of most of its members.

As for the accuracy issue, it's based mostly on personal experience as a gun owner who uses shotguns with some regularity in shooting clays and is impressed by the number of times he and others who do so also regularly miss. That can happen for a number of reason, not necessarily related to the user of the gun.

Shooting a small, moving target with a shotgun takes some skill, as its barrels are not rifled, but with a shotgun one also benefits from the fact that the shot spreads. That's not the case with a handgun, and handguns are what people who like to carry guns with them all over the place (either concealed or unconcealed) typically carry, long guns being a bit cumbersome, in case (or with the hope?) they'll have the chance or need to use them to fight the bad guys. Handguns are, in my experience (which is limited) very difficult to shoot with accuracy even when one is using them to hit a stationary target. I infer from this that they're even more difficult to shoot with any accuracy when the target is moving, shooting, and the adrenaline is flowing.

I ask myself, then--to what extent is it likely that those who scamper to get handguns and concealed-carry permits whenever there's been a shooting and the NRA and others are shouting that they're gonna take our Second Amendment rights away, spend significant time training in their use? I think it's likely that not many spend much time doing so. I have no statistics, though, alas.

Sorry Tiff, but I find the thought of a "good guy with a gun" firing away at bad guys rather frightening because, as I've said before, I doubt the majority of those good guys have spent or will spend the time necessary to learn to shoot accurately. It may be that someone would be of some use in some situations, but in the majority of cases it's likely the good citizen will shoot some poor unfortunate standing too close to the bad guy.

The NRA leadership, with its ties to the gun manufacturers, sanctions the "good guy with a gun" argument for only one reason, I think--to sell more guns.

Sometimes we're mistaken in identifying something. Sometimes we suffer from a disorder of some kind, which impedes our vision. Sometimes we need glasses. Sometimes we're color blind.

Is it reasonable to infer from this that--NOTHING IS REAL!! Or, that--WE CAN NEVER KNOW ANYTHING!!

I would say not. I don't think absolute certainty is required. So, I find reassuring the fact that we can in almost all cases find reasonable explanations for such things which don't necessitate a belief that we're part of a fantasy, or in The Matrix, or being deceived by an evil demon, and which make such possibilities highly unlikely. I also find it reassuring that we regularly navigate the world with considerable success, and even modify it in ways which indicate, to a reasonable degree of probability, that we're interacting with something which is very close to what we think it is and perceive it to be, and that, e.g. the roads we see and build and cars we drive on them are very close to what we think them to be and won't suddenly prove to be something else.

Hallucinations and dreams come into it as "objective" proof that we could be trapped inside a fantasy even though normal waking experience feels so undoubtedly real. They are the counterfactuals (the counterfactuals SX wrongly says aren't available) which fatally undermine simple realism. The question then becomes - in a rigorous philosophical sense - how do you apply the brakes before slithering all the way to the other extreme of idealism?

So some real work needs to be done here. It can't be glibly dismissed. — apokrisis

"Glibly", forsooth.

The fact that two things are dissimilar gives us good reason to think they're not the same.

If hallucinations and dreams are unlike "normal waking experience" in various respects, as I think has been and must be acknowledged, and we treat them as such, as I think also must be acknowledged, we have good reason to think they're not the same. If they're not the same, then hallucinations and dreams don't provide much in the way of evidence that "normal waking experience" may be a hallucination or a dream, or "fantasy."

It would seem to me, also, that they don't provide much cause to reasonably doubt "normal waking experience." In fact, of course, we don't doubt it.

How else do we distinguish them? Certainly there's a qualitative difference; experiences caused by external stimuli tend to be far more vivid and regular than experiences caused by internal stimuli (although I've never hallucinated, so I'm not sure what it's like to see things when on drugs or when suffering from some mental illness; my only reference is dreaming). — Michael

I'm not sure what you would consider a "difference" in this case, if you maintain that the experience is the same regardless of the differences you acknowledge.

A person sitting with a friend who is hallucinating would probably think there is a difference if that person heard the friend begin to speak to people who weren't there or called attention to a tree if there was no tree. That person would, I think, believe the friend was not seeing a tree or people who weren't there, thereby noting a significant difference between the experience of seeing and the experience of hallucinating. Likewise, if that person's friend said "I had a dream about a tree" I think the person would not think his friend saw a tree while the friend was dreaming.

agree with Michael. Even if the two experiences, the experience of seeing a tree with your own eyes and the experience of hallucinating a tree, were equally vivid they would still be different because of the context. Letters 'A' and 'A' are equal in the sense that they are both the letter 'A' but they are different in that their position in the sequence of letters that is this sentence is different. Context is extremely important. — Magnus Anderson

I think Michael is saying they are not different.

I would say that both when awake and when dreaming the immediate cause of the experience is brain activity (or maybe the experience just is brain activity). The difference is that when awake the brain activity is stimulated by some external stimulus and when dreaming the brain activity is stimulated by some internal stimulus. So the nature of the experience is the same even if the cause is different. — Michael

I find it difficult to accept that we're having the same experience when hallucinating or dreaming that we have when we're not. If that's the case, why would we even speak of hallucinations or dreams? There would be no reason to distinguish them from other experience, and we do. I don't think we distinguish them solely by their causes.

The issue for direct realism is that we do have visual (and other sensory) experiences independent of perception. This raises the spectre that perception involves a mental intermediary instead of being direct. — Marchesk

I don't want to pretend that I've kept up with the direct realism debate, but I think this would be an issue only if it's assumed that what happens when we hallucinate or dream is exactly what happens when we're not hallucinating or dreaming--if it's assumed, in other words, that when we dream of a tree we're seeing a tree just as we would when wide awake and looking out of a window at a tree. I don't think there's any basis for such an assumption.

We're human beings and, of course, perceive, experience, interact with the rest of the world as human beings would. Does that mean we have "direct awareness" of the "external world" (I think that's direct realism)? Well, I don't think there's a world external to us, as I think we're part and parcel of the world--there's just the world, and we're in it. Regardless though, we have such awareness of the rest of the world as human beings may have given our capacities. That doesn't mean that we aren't aware of the rest of the world, directly or indirectly--we're part of the world. It just means that we are what we are.

Well, for me, I think what happens in dreams isn't at all like what happens when I'm not dreaming. I feel quite capable of distinguishing being awake from dreaming. As for daydreaming, I don't think that's like dreaming. When I daydream, I don't think I'm dreaming; it isn't like dreaming at all.

"Hallucinations have certain identifiable causes. They're abnormal, which I think makes their use in formulating any theory of reality or perception suspect, and can be explained. That we can hallucinate is clear, but the fact that we may do so in certain instances for certain reasons tells us nothing about what a tree or anything else is; it just tells us we've ingested drugs, or something has happened which causes us to hallucinate, to be mistaken. Something happens to us when we hallucinate, but I don't think it is or is similar to what happens when we're not hallucinating.

But then what does a dream tree represent? — Marchesk

Consider the possibility that we don't perceive a tree, or mental construct, or anything else when we dream. We're simply dreaming. Dreaming isn't something we do in which we encounter or interact with any other part of the world. It's something that happens when we sleep. I don't know whether anyone has figured out just why we dream, but I think it's clear that when we dream we're doing something different from what we do when awake. If we wonder whether a tree we dream about is a thing of some kind, like a tree we encounter while awake and walking, we're treating it as if it's not a dream.

Animals organize their experiences differently from us, we seem to agree on that. I also think they are conscious and have some limited capacity to learn, to be able construct learned reactions based on certain stimuli.
— Cavacava

Well, I would say simply that animals differ in some ways. Living organisms aren't uniform; they have different characteristics. So, they may interact with the rest of the world differently as well, depending on what their characteristics may be. We're better equipped to interact with the rest of the world to suit our purposes, in some ways, than other creatures. That may be because we have different, or bigger, brains, are bipeds and have the kinds of hands and thumbs we do, or for other reasons. But we all exist in the same world.

Have you considered that a dog's "conceptual" system may be geared towards scent. I note that they tend to sniff and sniff around until they find just the right spot and I have read that wolves and other animals urinate to establish their territory.

Do they systematize their experiences differently than us? — Cavacava

That may well be. But, I don't think they "smell" a mental construct in that case, nor do I think the fact that we may systematize our experiences differently means we have mental constructs while they do not.

When a dog pisses on a tree, does it behold, and piss on, a mental construct?

I would say "no." I would say the dog is simply a creature that's a part of the world, doing what such creatures do while living in the word. There is no mind separate from the dog or world separate from the dog, or world separate from the mind of the dog. There are, instead, other things and creatures also parts of the world, with which the dog interacts.

Why should we be different from the dog in this respect?

Ah. Sorry, but I had in mind that which causes the impulse to commit suicide, not the means chosen. If the goal is to reduce suicides it would seem best to limit that which causes people to choose to kill themselves rather than that which they use to kill themselves. No doubt eliminating firearms, ropes or other things used for hanging, razors, sleeping pills, etc., would make suicide more difficult.

It's unfortunate, but we'll probably never know the rate of suicide among the Neanderthals or what they could have been deprived of in order to reduce that rate.

Government's ability to regulate or control suicide is limited. Some, like Nietzsche, and the Stoics, would consider such regulation unwarranted; suicide being within the reasonable discretion of a person according to the Stoics, or allowable if it isn't possible to live nobly according to Nietzsche if I recall correctly. Government's ability to insure the mental health of its citizens is likewise limited and many would also consider the imposition of its power to that purpose unwarranted, and dangerous, for good reason, I think. Gun control generally refers to regulations intended to limit the use of guns to cause harm to others, and that I think is a subject that government is better equipped to address and is more appropriately one of its functions. That, I believe, is why you have people referring to good guys and bad guys.

Regulation addressed to acquisition of firearms by the mentally ill is a proper subject for consideration in gun control efforts, again as a means to prevent harm to others by a shooter. I think a law prohibiting someone from owning a gun (or any other potentially dangerous object) solely because someone else might use it to commit suicide raises all kinds of issues regarding the proper extent of government authority, and I don't think it could realistically be considered a topic involved in the gun control debate in America. It would be what people these days would probably call "a nonstarter."

There's something both hilarious and pathetic about the language of 'good guys' and 'bad guys' in American discussions of gun regulation; as if their discourse can't rise above the level of children's bedtime stories and fairytales. Undoubtedly why the whole issue is a nightmare over there — StreetlightX

Well, yes, of course the concepts of good and bad, and therefore the notion that there may be good people and bad people who can be identified as such, are the stuff of bedtime stories and fairytales. But the less intelligent and sophisticated among us are entitled to a certain indulgence in this regard, don't you think? So, "bad guys" might, as a kindness, be accepted as intended to refer to people who use firearms in the commission of crimes, for example, which of course can't be described as "bad", not really, but generally is as a matter of common speech.

And I suppose the bad guys are about the same, except for the practice they get attacking others. — Sir2u

Hmm. I'm unsure what the point of this remark may be. Law abiding citizens need not train in the use of firearms because those who break the law don't? The more untrained users of firearms, the better? The only way to stop a bad incompetent shooter is with a good incompetent shooter?

There are those Americans who seem to regard the gun as a kind of totem (I'm not saying you're one of them). It's virtually impossible to enter into intelligent discourse with such people about guns. Those who take a less worshipful view of them should, however, consider the possibility--I would say probability--that, when push comes to shove, people who carry guns with them for purposes of protection may present more of a danger to others than anything else if they lack training in shooting them.

The bus incident you refer to didn't involve the use of a firearm, though. That, apparently, was unnecessary. But guns when carried will be used, eventually, and that's my concern. I use shotguns with some frequency, but have only fired one kind of handgun, a .357 Magnum, and I was shocked at how often I missed the target--the stationary target. Of course, with scatter guns your chances of hitting a target are much greater, but when you shoot trap or sporting clays your target is moving at a pretty good speed. The difference between a moving target and a stationary one is profound, and people have a tendency to move.

I suspect that most of the law abiding citizens carrying firearms for protection haven't spent much time being trained in their use.

That might be part of the total, but how many of the deaths are related to them carrying guns with intentions to use them? — Sir2u

Someone carrying a gun always intends to use it. Why else carry a gun? Nobody carries a gun with the intent not to use it. That includes what is called the law abiding citizen who, for reasons unclear to me, walks about in public with a firearm concealed or worn openly.

They intend to use it "when necessary." The law abiding citizen, presumably, intends to use it to protect themselves or others from someone also carrying a gun.

I'm not at all certain that a law abiding, gun-toting citizen would do a significant deal of good in a public firefight. It isn't easy to accurately use a firearm, particularly a handgun, without extensive training even in circumstances where there is no threat to life and limb setting the adrenaline flowing or people milling about. Even those trained in use of firearms, like law enforcement personnel, can end up shooting the innocent, e.g. the incident involving a gunman confronted by two officers outside the Empire State Building in 2012. The officers ending up shooting 9 innocent bystanders in addition to the gunman. One officer shot 7 times, the other officer shot 9 times. So, it seems 9 of the 16 shots fired didn't hit the intended target. For me, this doesn't inspire much confidence in the utility of gun carrying ordinary citizens trying to confront the bad guys.

Strange how a dispute about guns can so easily become one about sex. Anyone ever see the 1970s film Zardoz? "THE GUN IS GOOD. THE PENIS IS EVIL" Thus spake Zardoz. Thus speaks....America? At least when not engaged in sex, shameful as it appears to be to some of us, at least when not expressly for the purpose of reproduction in a duly sanctified marriage, which makes it seem more a duty than anything else. Or we go to the opposite extreme, of course. We seem to be either mad or sad about sex.

As I noted, I'm a gun owner. But I don't feel the reverence for them so many of those against gun control seem to feel. "Reverence" is, I think, an appropriate word. To me, my shotguns are rather like tennis racquets or golf clubs, but subject to a need for greater care in their use. I take no pride in owning guns, I don't feel as if I'm more of an American for having them, I don't go about proclaiming all Americans should have one or two or even more, I don't feel I'm exercising some quasi-sacred right, I don't think it's good to own a gun, I don't go about wearing them in restaurants or stores. I certainly don't feel I need them in order to protect myself from the armed forces or law enforcement.

Guns seem to have a kind of sanctity in American culture, or so it seems from the example of the more vocal of those who oppose gun control. Those gun owners I know personally merely use them, primarily for hunting, with little or no pomposity. The fact that guns are revered inhibits their reasonable regulation, I believe. Perhaps if it was agreed reasonable regulation is necessary, things would be less contentious, but those who oppose gun control seem mostly to contend that it doesn't work. Even if that's true, though, that would merely relate to existing regulation, not all regulation. Too often it seems to me that those opposing gun control take the less than sensible position that there are so many guns available that it's necessary that we are able to get more.

Excepting bump stocks, most of these modifications are cosmetic in nature. I think it's kind of silly, to say the least, to ban guns that "look" like scary military weapons, when in fact they're not. — Thorongil

It would be even sillier, and indeed creepy, I think, to want to own one because it looks like a scary military weapon.

Regardless, though, the one I'm thinking of in particular is the FN SCAR® 17S, touted as just like the weapon used by special forces, except for what those charming rouges who are amused by such things call the "happy switch" which would render it fully automatic.

It was believed by the founders who wrote the amendment. — Thorongil

Perhaps. But the militias, as I understand it, were at the service of government; primarily state and local but also, in some instances, the federal government. So, for example, state militia were provided by the governors of certain states to put down the "Whiskey Rebellion." It seems now that the militias envisioned by some are to be available in opposition to the government.

They literally just said they supported potential regulations on bump stocks. They have never called for people to be allowed to own any kind of weapon they want. — Thorongil

Well, it's rather hard to maintain that bump stocks are, themselves, arms. But I know the NRA leadership is fond of AR-15s and semi-automatic weapons, and American Hunter, which describes itself as an official journal of the NRA, has been excited about modified military weapons which it would be hard to characterize as being for hunting and recreation, so I am uncertain of just how far they're willing to admit of restrictions. There was a time when the NRA actively supported gun control legislation and even assisted in drafting such laws. Now it seems to actively encourage the purchase of firearms unrelated to sport and recreation.

If a woman lies to a man about using birth control; conceives, gives birth to, and raises a child and does not tell him; 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, etc. years later retroactively demands child support payments from him; and the law supports her the whole way, it should not have to be explained how anybody could find all of that morally and legally unacceptable. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I can't help but wonder why someone would shoulder the burden of supporting a child for so many years simply because they believe that 15-20 years in the future, they may recover some of the money they spent doing so. It seems a particularly foolish kind of fraud, doesn't it?

First, let me note that I'm a gun owner. I own two shotguns. I use them to blow clay discs or "pigeons" apart, an activity I find oddly satisfying.

That said, I find the debate on gun control taking place in our Great Republic to be very peculiar. There is, first, the reference to a militia in the Second Amendment, as StreetlightX noted, and a well-regulated one at that. It isn't clear to me what the drafters of the amendment intended by "militia" but apparently it's believed by some that it's intended to refer to the citizenry at large, which would seem to me to be less than well-regulated.

But even assuming the reference to "militia" means citizens generally, those who oppose gun control seem to think the Second Amendment cannot be limited or restricted. That simply can't be the case, unless the Second Amendment is different from every other constitutional amendment. The fact is that rights granted by Constitutional Amendments (e.g. those granted by the First Amendment) have always been limited or restricted in some manner. Rights of assembly and free speech are subject to time, place and manner limitations, for example.

So, I think, there can be no doubt (legally speaking) that reasonable limitations of the right to bear arms may be imposed, regardless of the question "what is meant by 'militia'?". The question simply is--what is reasonable? I suspect the leaders of the NRA are mere shills for gun manufacturers and retailers, and so want no restrictions whatsoever. Money being essential in the politics of our nation, many politicians are beholden to them.

Well, according to one argument, it's because there will be more pain and suffering. We therefore have a duty not to procreate to prevent this needless pain and suffering. The underlying premise here is that negative utilitarianism is true. — Thorongil

Which is to say, I think, that it's bad or undesirable to be a person, given the absolute nature of the anti-natalist position as I understand it. Again, one must remember that the fictional nonexistent people are no longer a consideration. And, there is no measurement or judgment involved, no consideration of circumstances, or even of life or experience beyond the fact that they may include suffering of some kind.

People suffer, some way or another. Therefore, there should be no more people. There are people, now. That is their misfortune; ideally, they shouldn't be alive, but it's wrong to kill them (and end their suffering).

Is this anti-natalism?

Seriously? Of course the father has no reason at all to be obliged to support a person he does not know and whose existence he has no responsibility over. The woman is the one deciding to 1) not abort and 2) not give the child up for adoption, so she is responsible due to having made a moral decision. How is the biological connection any basis for responsibility — BlueBanana

I was seeking clarification, but was unclear. I was wondering when, if ever, the OP felt a father has an obligation to support his child.

Presumably, in order to become liable under the law, the father is made aware of his child's existence in the course of the paternity proceedings. So, the child of which he was unaware enters his awareness. Paternity would be established, you see, before the law imposes liability.

So, is what gives offense the fact that the father is unaware of the child before he became aware of the child? Would he be responsible if he was aware, all the time?

It seems he would not be, at least as far as you're concerned. The woman, evidently, has sole responsibility because she didn't abort the child or give it up for adoption. It seems you think these are her decisions alone. Or are they her decisions alone only if the father is unaware, and because the father is unaware? Should the father have a say in decisions whether to abort or give up for adoption when he is aware of the child? But if the answer to that is "yes" why is that the case if the "biological connection" is no basis for liability?