Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

SJW preaching extended into infant sensitivity (need baby's consent) - diaper styles

#11
Syne Offline
(May 18, 2018 07:08 AM)elte Wrote:
(May 18, 2018 06:56 AM)Syne Wrote: Of course a child can't give consent, that's why the OP article is so ridiculous. Preemptively denying existence is preemptively denying consent, because the former is necessary for the latter.

Why don't antinatalists just kill themselves? Wouldn't that solve both problems? They would both end their own suffering and any potential for them to reproduce. Or is that they are on a mission to induce enough suffering in an attempt to validate their flawed reasoning and thereby convert others?

How does that justify bringing people into the world so later they can be asked if they wanted it?

Why don't they? The genetic programming includes a very strong survival instinct. So strong that it tends to get stronger as the struggle increases.

Suffering from uncomfortable information being given? Suffering from pointing out the default state of human existence is one of hardship or suffering?

You've defeated your own argument. By answering that genetic survival instinct will predispose people to live, you likewise predispose that their later consent will be in the affirmative...validating bringing them into existence.

I'm sorry that you feel the default state of human existence is one of hardship or suffering. But you are projecting if you assume a plurality of people share your view.
For me, the default state of human existence is the adventure afforded by challenges, and all it takes is a simple shift of perspective to go from one to the other. IOW, suffering is largely an outlook. A perception that Buddhism teaches is only the resistance to impermanence and change.
Reply
#12
elte Offline
The drive of the genes makes it very difficult for people to give an accurate assessment and answer when asked about life. Kind of like Stockholm Syndrome.

Buddhism is a religion. Religions are coping mechanisms for dealing with the fundamental bleakness of human existence. Like how birth involves an unwitting automatic imposition of a death sentence.
Reply
#13
Syne Offline
You come into existence with your genetic influence. If you're saying that somehow bars actual consent, then you are defeating your own argument about consent, since that would make all consent suspect. And since nonexistence is equivalent to death, nonexistence is just a preemptive death sentence.
Reply
#14
elte Offline
I don't care to be seen as arguing and competing.  I just say what I think and let people accept it or not, hoping they will accept though. I actually kind of agree in the way that I don't think people can learn or know enough to give proper consent.  Something could come along and change perspective in the future. But as far as a nonexistent person being given a death sentence by prevention from being made existent, I disagree.
Reply
#15
Syne Offline
If you can't make a case for your point, why do you even try? Might as well be solipsistic navel-gazing.

If no one can "give proper consent", then there's no violation of consent in bringing someone into existence.
Denial of all consent is far worse than violation of consent.
Reply
#16
elte Offline
I joined here to get away from arguing.

Or if no one is qualified to give consent then give them a break and leave them nonexistent so they don't have to struggle with accepting existing or not all through life.  If they never existed they can't care.

The nonexistent can't be denied anything
Reply
#17
Syne Offline
If you don't like it, quit responding. I love how hypocrites will argue for over half a dozen posts and then suddenly claim they don't want to argue when they can't justify their opinions. If you really don't like arguing than you wouldn't have argued my initial post in the first place. This demonstrates that you do like arguing, until it becomes too challenging to your opinions.

You already conceded that instinct predisposes people to accepting existence, so you are projecting your own struggle on others.
And once people no longer exist, they equally cannot care. Any suffering that occurred no longer matters. Seems like an irrational fear of suffering to demand that no one even be put to the hazard. Animals suffer too. Are you also an animal antinatalist, i.e. advocate all animals be sterilized? If not, why do animals deserve to suffer?
Reply
#18
elte Offline
If I liked arguing I might have responded to your posts that hadn't responded to mine first . I only respond to the thread begun by the starter. I have never responded to threads you started either. Now that the mudslinging has begun, I regret that you came to the forum here.

I like to be drawn out nonconflictively on my views by someone desiring to understand me.  That's different from arguing, from my perspective.

I didn't concede that. I was saying instinct makes people struggle. They can't care after they're gone, but they struggle or suffer before that. Hey, I never called your view irrational.

Sentient animals besides humans are better never having existed, too, but my thought either way on that wouldn't necessarily be relevant to it on humans.
Reply
#19
C C Offline
(May 18, 2018 01:24 AM)elte Wrote:
(May 17, 2018 06:02 PM)C C Wrote: [...] http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2018...xpert.html

Another notion of the culture of consent involves how since unborn aren't abe to consent, reproduction is unethical.  If the prospective child were given the information and were able to process how the outcome likely is first suffering and then complete demise, few might give the go ahead.


Next best thing might be women acquiring more birth control in impoverished countries to lessen the number of children born into that misery. As well as the surrounding cultures being receptive to their desire to not be full-time baby factories.

"And the problem is getting worse. Between 2003 and 2012, the total number of women in need of birth control because they wanted to avoid pregnancy increased from 716 million to 867 million — and most of that growth was among women in the 69 poorest countries, where birth control is already more difficult to come by. About 222 million women in developing countries want to use birth control but aren’t currently able to access a modern contraceptive method, and nearly three quarters of those women live in the world’s poorest countries." https://thinkprogress.org/in-the-worlds-...83b3c3871/


~
Reply
#20
elte Offline
Thank you C C for that information.  That situation is much worse than I knew.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Research Most countries receive failing grade in ‘human rights report card’ (political styles) C C 1 94 Dec 8, 2023 07:14 PM
Last Post: Syne
  How inner city Black hipster styles evolved from Southern white redneck culture C C 0 96 Oct 10, 2023 06:34 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Why were Slavs one of the most enslaved population groups? (heritage life styles) C C 0 90 Aug 21, 2023 09:35 PM
Last Post: C C
  Mayor Eric Adams, NYC: "We need to control the border. We need help." (blue style) C C 1 119 Aug 6, 2023 07:44 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Article Viktor Frankl on "Why the idealists are the real realists" (psychological styles) C C 1 98 Aug 1, 2023 07:47 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Article Why you wouldn't survive in Ancient Greece (Mediterranean life styles) C C 0 64 Jun 2, 2023 02:03 AM
Last Post: C C
  High infant mortality rates "counterintuitively" lead to global human population rise C C 0 55 Feb 24, 2023 11:48 PM
Last Post: C C
  Joe Rogan and Dr Phil video segments (hashing out cultural trends / styles) C C 5 383 Nov 2, 2022 03:11 PM
Last Post: C C
  Dealing with monkeypox in porn, sex work, & sex parties (life styles of the hawny) C C 0 102 Aug 22, 2022 04:50 PM
Last Post: C C
  NYC's hipster wars -- pandemic spawned Woke defiance on Manhatten side (chic styles) C C 0 80 Jun 5, 2022 04:45 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)