No one benefits from you having children except you. — khaled
What a f**ked view of the world. No one benefits from other people in any way? — Terrapin Station
Yes because having children is only delaying the inevitable. There will be a "final generation" of humans who will have to suffer from not having enough people. Having children is simply taking that burnden and putting it on somoene else. People definitely benefit from other people, but eventually there will be a time where lack of people WILL become an issue. Having children is giving that suffering for the next generation to shoulder until the last one finally collapses. There is no point in it. — khaled
Just because I'd benefit or society would benefit form having a kid doesn't justify me risking forcing one to suffer for 80 years. — khaled
There are so many problems with this. First off, let's say that something is inevitable that people do not desire. The problem with delaying that is? — Terrapin Station
Also just out of curiosity. Can you think of any example where an action that produces COMPARABLE amounts of pain and suffering is FORCED onto someone who has absolutely no demand for either and where that is considered permissable? — khaled
Because in this case you're not just delaying it you're relaying the pain to someone else. — khaled
Again, no one is forcing anything on anyone by conceiving or giving birth to them. I don't know why you can't learn this. — Terrapin Station
They force them to have the capacity for suffering which I think is just as big a crime as causing the suffering yourself. I don't know why you can't see this — khaled
So what pain are you talking about anyway? — Terrapin Station
Force is only an issue for specific actions. Not "forcing a capacity for x." — Terrapin Station
tbh idk what I was thinking when I wrote that. — khaled
Is taking away a capacity for x painlessly bad? So paralyzing someone painlessly without their consent? — khaled
Okay, but just in general. I mean, Andrew is apparently an adult still whining about having to eat broccoli and go to school or whatever. Is that the sort of thing you mean? — Terrapin Station
If we're talking about an entity normally capable of consent and we're talking about performing a specific action on them that has long-lasting physical effects that they didn't consent to, sure. The pain part is irrelevant. — Terrapin Station
No nonono. I was talking about the exruciating pain of humainty as it flies towards extinction be it due to heat death or more likely internal strife. — khaled
Is removing someone's ability to walk painlessly, bad? I think we'd both say yes because that's a long lasting physical effect. — khaled
can experience pain and suffering and I do not know why you don't think the same way. — khaled
It's a problem of risking severe harm and pleasure without being asked to do so vs leave them alone. And I cannot think of a situation where people would rather risk severe harm and pleasure onto someone else without being asked to do so or see it as moral if someone else does — khaled
But I do not see a compelling argument in anti-natalism that would convince people of this position. Surely, few (ZERO?) humans would ever be able to get past their own subjective, "well 'I' am glad that 'I' was born" or vice versa. — ZhouBoTong
And if the answer turns out to be that someone didn't want to eat broccoli but was forced to, didn't want to go to school or church but was forced to, etc., the vast majority of people would say, "Give me a break" — Terrapin Station
and see someone suggesting that as "suffering" that's still affecting them as indicative that they need counseling, because there's something wrong with them that isn't wrong with most people. — Terrapin Station
I'd only say yes because it's a specific action, done by an agent to someone normally capable (now, not in the future) of consenting — Terrapin Station
What if it was. What if someone set a bomb to exlode BEFORE a certain baby was born and set it to explode AFTER he was born.
— khaled. (This was you quoting me)
That's irrelevant. The issue is that when the person walks into the location where the bomb goes off, they're an agent normally capable of granting or withholding consent. Thus at that point, they either consent or not to being bombed. — Terrapin Station
dude you literally ignored the rest of my comment and focused on the first paragraph. F — khaled
Is it ok to plant a bomb BEFORE a baby is born and setting it to explode after? There is no person to give consent at the time the specific action of planting the bomb is taking place. — khaled
But apparently you're not even really talking about pain and suffering there, but you're talking about "the excruciating pain of humanity as it flies towards extinction"??? — Terrapin Station
I was talking about the exruciating pain of humainty as it flies towards extinction be it due to heat death or more likely internal strife. That outcome is inevitable statistically. You can have it now or your children can have it. — khaled
I disagree with your characterization of consent. If you do not rape someone then you are refraining from an action because you respect someones consent. Refraining from actions not doing actions is the main way that consent is respected.
— Andrew4Handel
None of that disagrees with anything I've said, though. — Terrapin Station
It's also a f**ked view that not only do you think that anyone is forcing anyone to "suffer" for 80 years, just the fact that you think that anyone is suffering for 80 years is f**ked. — Terrapin Station
It does because you can respect consent without an action — Andrew4Handel
"I have not had a single happy day in my life. I have always worked hard, digging in the garden. I am tired," Istambulova told the Daily Mail. When asked about her secrets for longevity, she said, "It was God's will. I did nothing to make it happen.... Long life is not at all God's gift for me—but a punishment." — Andrew4Handel
I don't believe her. I can believe that was her attitude when she was interviewed, but I know plenty of people who will say things in that vein at times and things completely inconsistent with it at other times. — Terrapin Station
Not doing something is respecting consent. — Andrew4Handel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.