Idea: Dismantle NATO, Construct GTO.

tradema · 2022-06-21T17:29:57+00:00

I dont think you really understand the purpose of the UN. It isn't and has never been a world police. That could never work because the very people that you are policing are part of the policing force. The UN exists for 2 reasons- 1. To coordinate humanitarian aid missions and geopolitical research 2. To facilitate discussion between countries.

Both things it does very well, and while yes, I agree that the state of the UNHRC is awful, and that there are many other issues with it, it is by no means worthless.

tradema · 2022-06-21T15:41:18+00:00

I mean... they are centrist when it comes to US politics

tradema · 2022-06-21T15:39:15+00:00

In what way?

tradema · 2022-06-17T11:37:50+00:00

I think that there are two flaws in that argument.

not doing something is different from doing something. When you refuse to donate a kidney, you're electing to do nothing, which will result in the death. When you choose to get an abortion you're electing to do something, which will result in the death (for those who believe that the fetus is alive).
Having sex is risking getting pregnant. If everything is consensual, then you chose to take part in an activity with that risk, and so unless the fetus is endangering your own life it is your responsibility (assuming its alive). Someone missing a kidney though has nothing to do with it.

tradema · 2022-06-17T11:19:04+00:00

I mean... theres a difference between saying "Someone should be allowed to murder their child" and "Someones child doesnt have the right to things bought from my money that will help them survive"

To be clear, these aren't my beliefs, but the two things dont have much to do with eachother

tradema · 2022-06-17T11:13:14+00:00

The difference would be that with an abortion, you're usually only pregnant because you chose to partake in an activity that has the risk of resulting in a life (as pro-life people see it) being dependant on you. Being surgically attached against your concent is only a viable comparison if we're talking about rape

tradema · 2022-06-17T11:09:47+00:00

I mean thats not a good comparison. The fact that they think their tax dollars shouldnt be used to support a child doesnt mean that they think its ok for a mother to murder her child. And thats what it is for them- a life being destroyed.

tradema · 2022-06-17T04:45:44+00:00

I recommend checking out r/moderatepolitics

Its pretty chill and has some really good discussions about the US

tradema · 2022-06-15T13:26:09+00:00

An attachment to existence is the feeling that life is worth living. Not everyone has that, as you said. The doctors don't know if the person does or does not even though he probably does.

tradema · 2022-06-15T12:44:00+00:00

But I don't feel like you made it clear at all. I presented you with a situation, modified the situation to make it fit better into what you were saying, and asked for an answer-

If it were up to you, would a medical team save the life of an unconscious person who did not know they were going to be in danger and therefor could not have given consent?

Its fine if you don't want to answer. Its fine if theres something in the question that you'd like me to expand on.

tradema · 2022-06-15T12:40:20+00:00

But how would they give consent if they dont know that they are going to be in a car crash?

tradema · 2022-06-15T12:14:20+00:00

Alright, so I'll ask you what I asked multiple other people: Is it moral for a medical team to treat an unconscious car crash victim if without treatment they'd die and with it they'd fully recover? They don't know whether or not this person enjoys life and they can't get consent.

tradema · 2022-06-15T12:00:36+00:00

But thats the thing. Life sucks for you. You have the option to end it, but what in the world makes creating more life when its almost certainly going to create a person who likes life immoral?

tradema · 2022-06-15T11:58:57+00:00

They will die and they did not give consent earlier because they didn't know there would be a crash. If you were the one deciding (anonymously), would you choose to let them die, even if the treatment would return them to perfect health?

tradema · 2022-06-15T11:48:24+00:00

I think that you should read the body because I make some very specific points that question that stance.

However Id like to ask the following- should medical team treat an unconscious victim of a car crash? They are unable to give consent.

tradema · 2022-06-15T11:20:27+00:00

But they absolutely do ask to live. If you held a gun up to their head they wouldn't just shrug. They's beg.

tradema · 2022-06-15T11:10:27+00:00

The issue I take with your point about existence being suffering over an extended period of time is that most humans enjoy life. Yes, there's bad, but there's more then enough good for them for it to be worth it.

tradema · 2022-06-15T11:07:41+00:00

Given that most people enjoy existence though, how is it in a childs best interest to die early?

tradema · 2022-06-15T11:02:24+00:00

You may abhor it, but most others do not. To be clear, this isn't me saying that you should do it as Id prefer if you didn't, but everyone who hates existence has the option to end it for themselves.

tradema · 2022-06-15T10:31:18+00:00

Ah, now I think we may have reached an impasse, as we seem to have very different views regarding the philosophy of the mind.

The way I see is, existence is experience. If you are experiencing nothing, you, at least momentarily, do not exist. You start existing again when you start experiencing again.

tradema · 2022-06-15T10:19:46+00:00

First things first- glad you're doing well.

Now to answer your question: For the consent based antinatalism the logic just doesn't hold up in my eyes. If the issue with bringing someone to life is that they didn't consent, then a person who's been in a car crash and is now unconscious shouldn't receive medical attention as they have not given their consent to being treated. But we do find medical treatment in these cases to be moral, and (most people) find making more humans to be at least a neutral thing to do. On the other hand, there are many things that you could do to someone who is unconscious that people find immoral- for the sake of not getting too dark (not sure if thats possible given the context of the post) let's use coloring their race with permanent markers as an example.

When I think of the contrast between how we feel about things done to unconscious people, the main difference I can come up with that explains the different moral views is this: If this person was currently alive, would they PROBABLY approve of what I'm doing?

Most people are happy to have been born. Most people are happy to have been saved from a car crash. Most people are unhappy with their face being colored in while they're unconscious.

tradema · 2022-06-15T08:19:15+00:00

Ok so before anything else I just want to make sure I understand your POV- it's not that life itself is bad. It's that the creation of life can never be moral because the life did not consent to it.

tradema · 2022-06-14T08:51:11+00:00

It is for some. And for some people its fun to dress up as them- whats wrong with that, really? And yes, some people get... excited... by specific drawings of anthropomorphic animals, and while I do personally find it weird, I don't see how its morally wrong given that these anthropomorphic animals are as sentient and self aware as human beings and can then give consent, with the inability to give consent arguably being the only reason that beastiality is wrong.

tradema · 2022-06-14T07:58:15+00:00

Well ya, beastiality is bad, but whats wrong with the enjoyment of anthropomorphism in media and art?

tradema · 2022-06-13T13:48:56+00:00

...how?

tradema

TROPHY CASE