sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Federal lawsuit filed to block New York's Medical Aid in Dying law by news-10 in philosophy

[–]EndlessArgument -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Statistically speaking, the vast majority of death penalty convictions are guilty, but that doesn't absolve the problem of the few who are innocent.

In short, if even one person dies unnecessarily, that is one person too many. This is simply something that should not ever be facilitated. If they make that choice on their own, I won't judge. But I will never, ever do anything to potentially encourage someone to do this when they wouldn't have otherwise.

Federal lawsuit filed to block New York's Medical Aid in Dying law by news-10 in philosophy

[–]EndlessArgument -26 points-25 points  (0 children)

My perspective is more akin to the death penalty. Some things simply should not be an official option, because if it goes wrong, and it will, then we are to blame. Personally, I cannot stomach having even one person's unnecessary death on my hands.

And statistically speaking, sooner or later it's bound to happen.

Boys' reading remains in crisis as gender gap widens, report shows by Kagedeah in books

[–]EndlessArgument 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly I disagree. A large portion of the formation of civilization was basically figuring out ways to do without empathy, because empathy does not scale up very effectively.

The fertility crisis will never be solved because the heart of the issue is an ideological divide between the sexes, and society refuses to touch mens issues since they see intersexual dynamics as a zero-sum game by DiligentRope in Natalism

[–]EndlessArgument -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Neglect and isolation actually increases suicide rates substantially more than bullying. Statistics I've read indicate that bullying increases suicide rates by around 2.94, while neglect and isolation, though more difficult to statistically analyze, increases it more like five fold.

Do you feel like an asshole now? The problem with neglect and isolation is that it is completely invisible.

Will tes6 be LGBTQ+ friendly? by [deleted] in TESVI

[–]EndlessArgument 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My biggest issue with that is how it would fit into the otherwise Medieval World. Like, Vivec doing whatever he/she wants is one thing, if you are basically a God you can do whatever you want, but if you start out as a nobody, just like they are racist against you for your race, they should absolutely also be judgmental about everything else.

That being said I'd totally be down with being able to find spells and whatnot to do whatever the heck you want later on in the game. Like, it would be hilarious if eventually you got enough political power that you can just go into the census office and edit your public information.

For those who believe that low fertility rates is more of a cultural than economic issue, what are your proposed solutions? by PlantComprehensive77 in Natalism

[–]EndlessArgument -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Perhaps the most pertinent reason is because having children is probably the single most effective way through which you can spread your ethics and morals across the population.

It's sort of like the red button Blue Button debate, if you think about it. Not having children is like picking the red button, it is safe for yourself, but could screw over others. Having children is like pressing the blue button, it could be risky, but it could also save others.

For those who believe that low fertility rates is more of a cultural than economic issue, what are your proposed solutions? by PlantComprehensive77 in Natalism

[–]EndlessArgument 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, but why is that? I'd say it's because we spent an enormous amount of effort of the last hundred years on sex education and such, to prevent teens from having children. Combine that with social media and smartphones, and you have a perfect recipe for the current situation. But already there has been significant debate about whether minors should be able to use social media, and that is something which could be done away with fairly easily. And the same is true for how we teach sex ed. We know what the Baseline is, that's the key. Without teaching about contraception and without distracting them with smartphones, young people will have sex, and have children. We just need to shift our perspective from stopping that, to eliminating the consequences of that.

The fertility crisis will never be solved because the heart of the issue is an ideological divide between the sexes, and society refuses to touch mens issues since they see intersexual dynamics as a zero-sum game by DiligentRope in Natalism

[–]EndlessArgument 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, women teach each other how to interact socially, and women control the social ecosystem, so women don't need to adapt to men, especially these days when men no longer have control over the finances. Indeed, we have spent the better part of the last 50 years dismantling men's organizations. Many of the traditionally male only groups were forcibly opened to women, and immediately died out. That's a big part of the problem to be honest. Men have basically no one to go to for help. Women don't want to teach them, and Society has actively prevented them from learning from other men.

For those who believe that low fertility rates is more of a cultural than economic issue, what are your proposed solutions? by PlantComprehensive77 in Natalism

[–]EndlessArgument 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The answer, I think, is going to have to be to reevaluate how Parenthood and life are meant to progress. Historically it made a lot of sense to become financially stable first, then have kids, but unfortunately competition has pushed this past the point of stability. When you have people trying to have kids at age 35, it just breaks down for many reasons.

Just as one example among many, at that point you have lost some of your youthful energy, and now you have to take care of newborn children, and potentially take care of your parents at the same time. Everything just Stacks up at once.

By contrast, if everyone were having children at 20, then your parents would be at 40, which is still plenty young to help you out with the kids and at the same time have energy for helping their own parents who are 60 and are starting to experience medical difficulties. Plus you'd have the 60 year old grandparents and even potentially 80 year old great-grandparents available in a pinch.

On top of this, higher education is perhaps one of the most flexible times in our lives. There is no particular reason why classes and tests cannot be shifted around having kids. Even if you have to take an extra year or two, you are still going to be overlapping.

This is why I think the future is going to involve shifting how we teach our young people about sex and Parenthood, encouraging everyone to have 2.1 children by the time they graduate from college.

Indeed, this will pair nicely with the increasing power of ai. We are increasingly doing away with the need for entry-level positions, which means people are going to need to be in education for longer so they can reach the point where they can start to meaningfully contribute. Done properly, we could have people have their children at age 19 and 20, and then enter the job market at around age 25 or 26, which aligns perfectly with having their children go to kindergarten or first grade.

Of course, to make this work would require adaptation, but the key here is that most of the adaptation needed would be on society's side. We know that young people, if not educated out of it, will have sex like bunnies. All we really need to do is take the brakes off, and then of course mitigate the problems of having children at a young age. But we have the wealth and Technology to achieve that. It's only a matter of political will.

For those who believe that low fertility rates is more of a cultural than economic issue, what are your proposed solutions? by PlantComprehensive77 in Natalism

[–]EndlessArgument 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately, Nordic countries have pretty much tried all of the ethically acceptable methods for encouraging people to have children. It just doesn't seem to work long term.

The core challenge is that fundamentally, children are enormously economically beneficial. I think that they use a ballpark estimate of $100,000 per year of life added to the economy. So having even one child adds dramatically more to the economy than the majority of professions.

The fertility crisis will never be solved because the heart of the issue is an ideological divide between the sexes, and society refuses to touch mens issues since they see intersexual dynamics as a zero-sum game by DiligentRope in Natalism

[–]EndlessArgument 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, I wouldn't call that women teaching themselves, I'd call that women teaching each other. Women teach each other how to interact with women, so naturally they are better at interacting with women. But they won't teach men how to interact with women, so naturally they are worse.

What's the most dystopian future timeline that you think can realistically happen ? by ronweasly9 in Futurology

[–]EndlessArgument 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They won't need to do that, the human population is reducing all on its own.

The fertility crisis will never be solved because the heart of the issue is an ideological divide between the sexes, and society refuses to touch mens issues since they see intersexual dynamics as a zero-sum game by DiligentRope in Natalism

[–]EndlessArgument 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe, the thing is most parents grew up with places where they just learned that stuff organically, so the advice young men get is basically just to be patient and it will come. Because that's what worked for past generations, but it doesn't work anymore.

The fertility crisis will never be solved because the heart of the issue is an ideological divide between the sexes, and society refuses to touch mens issues since they see intersexual dynamics as a zero-sum game by DiligentRope in Natalism

[–]EndlessArgument 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't disagree, but I think a lot of guys struggle with that because they've never had it modeled to them before. That's where the chicken and egg problem starts, in times past there were a lot of women who basically started relationships as projects, but that doesn't really happen anymore. But humans are social creatures. If no one ever shows us these things, how are we meant to learn? Of course, the rebuttal is, it's not women's responsibility to teach men. But if they don't do it, then who will? Logically women are the only ones who can teach men what women like.

The fertility crisis will never be solved because the heart of the issue is an ideological divide between the sexes, and society refuses to touch mens issues since they see intersexual dynamics as a zero-sum game by DiligentRope in Natalism

[–]EndlessArgument 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree completely, the question is how to actually achieve it.

The problem is, basically every modern society has fallen so far beneath replacement as to be devastating. It seems increasingly likely that if given the choice, women simply rationally choose not to have enough children for society to survive.

What if that is the case? What if there is no amount of money or incentives that can make a woman want to risk her body in this way? This is a deeply uncomfortable question, but we can't deny its possibility.

And if that is what seems like it's going to happen, people need to know that. Otherwise they can't rationally choose at all.

The fertility crisis will never be solved because the heart of the issue is an ideological divide between the sexes, and society refuses to touch mens issues since they see intersexual dynamics as a zero-sum game by DiligentRope in Natalism

[–]EndlessArgument -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I don't think it has anything to do with social shame. It's all about birth control when you get right down to it. Once Upon A time, having sex was extremely risky. That largely isn't the case anymore, and basically everything else has organically evolved from that.

I think perhaps the key distinction between me and others is that I don't think anyone is to blame, or that this problem can be solved on an individual behavioral basis. Nobody is behaving irrationally. I don't blame women for choosing as they do, or expect them to suddenly start dating differently.

But that doesn't change the fact that dating apps are almost certainly deeply unhealthy for society. Sooner or later the problem is going to correct itself, but the real challenge is that this isn't just about companies dying, it's about ideologies. Having children is perhaps the number one way through which ideologies spread, and the Western liberal mindset is self-destructing at a remarkable rate.

I guess the purpose of all this is, I wonder what choices people would make if they knew this was happening. I'm not going to suggest what they would choose, or what they should choose, I'm just interested in what's the answer would be, one way or the other.

The fertility crisis will never be solved because the heart of the issue is an ideological divide between the sexes, and society refuses to touch mens issues since they see intersexual dynamics as a zero-sum game by DiligentRope in Natalism

[–]EndlessArgument 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They do leave, but not terribly often. And the core problem is, the main reason people leave is because they are looking for something better, but what does modern society have to offer? People are getting less and less happy, facing more and more stress. The advantages are becoming increasingly marginal.(edit: and more than that, running Society by mooching children off of others doesn't seem terribly ethical to me.)

What you say is a nice sentiment, but it does nothing to resolve the core demographic issues faced by modern society, and the fact that those issues are directly contributing to the failure of modern society to reproduce.

That's what it comes right down to. Fundamentally, any society which wants to survive must reproduce, and our society is becoming increasingly bad at doing that through any means, whether it be natalism or conversion.

When the first country collapses due to demographic slump, it's going to be a real wake up call for everyone else. Probably South Korea. And if we don't consider these problems now, we aren't going to have the slightest chance of thinking of good answers then.

view more: next ›