i don’t want to have kids because i believe it’s unethical for some average joe, or in fact anyone that isn’t an expert in child psychology and child development, to subject a human being to potential lifelong trauma
Only PhDs in child psychology should reproduce? So, you want humanity to be extinct, that’s a more ethically sound position than “sometimes bad things happen to some people”?
society feeds you the lie that you need to have kids to feel fulfilled and happy,
You’ve got 4 billion years of genetic coding that insists, even demands that this is true. The last few tens of millions of years hardcodes it directly into your meat brain.
Society? If society ever did that, it ceased doing it almost a hundred years ago. Now, you can’t turn your head or hear a dozen words from some random stranger proclaiming the opposite is true and that anyone who says otherwise is a misogynist, masochist, or biblethumper.
There of course are many reasons for that. If you believe transexuals are healthy, important individuals… how could they participate in parenting if they’re mutilating their reproductive organs? So, parenting and reproduction now have to be bad or at least discouraged, to push the other message more fully. Not just them, of course, it’s not fair to single them out when there are so many other degenerate lifestyles that, if you embrace them, you also can’t embrace the idea that parenting is important without being hypocritical.
The end result will be, of course, that these lifestyles die out. The question is, will they take everything else with them.
So, you want humanity to be extinct, that’s a more ethically sound position than “sometimes bad things happen to some people”?
Yes. Suffering should be eradicated at all costs. Humanity doesn’t have an inherent right to exist, it simply does as long as it is perpetuated by both humans themselves and while external conditions allow it.
degenerate lifestyles
I see your beliefs now. Well, no wonder you also disagree with this viewpoint then.
What is suffering? I’ve lumped that word in with all the other religious claptrap like “soul” and “afterlife” and whatnot.
Are you talking about pain (the sensation)? It doesn’t seem that you mean that, but if you did it would be absurd. “Pain should be eradicated” makes no sense. It can’t even be said that pain should be avoided, since discomfort is often associated with worthwhile, and ultimately pleasant, activities.
Define suffering so we can be on the same page.
Humanity doesn’t have an inherent right to exist,
True, as far as it goes. But it’s like “turnips have no inherent right to exist”. Pretty meaningless, and in the context where people actually want to exist (and for others to exist), somewhat misleading.
I see your beliefs now.
Please, read my palm. Tell everyone what my beliefs are.
That is merely a component of suffering. That should be avoided imo, but it isn’t the only thing that should.
It can’t even be said that pain should be avoided, since discomfort is often associated with worthwhile, and ultimately pleasant, activities.
I struggle to find such activities. I’m not stating there are none, just that I can’t remember any off the top of my head.
Define suffering so we can be on the same page.
A negative experience which causes physical or psychological distress to a person or group of people, often for extended periods of time or with lasting effects after the experience itself has stopped (ie. trauma).
Pretty meaningless, and in the context where people actually want to exist (and for others to exist), somewhat misleading.
Saying this statement is meaningless is the same as saying philosophy itself is meaningless, but it can be a valuable tool to help us define our values and offer a base from which every other aspect of life can be evaluated more precisely. I don’t see how it’s misleading at all.
Please, read my palm. Tell everyone what my beliefs are.
That statement was more hostile than I intended it to, in hindsight, and I see how it might be hypocritical to complain that you are lumping all “young liberals” (as it seems) in the same strawman when I ended up doing the same to you. I was quite offended by the transphobic comment so I reacted in an emotional way. Sorry.
I believe you follow some conservative beliefs (from an american standpoint) pretty strictly and that might be the bias shown in your arguments towards traditional values and against modern, sort of more “extreme” or what you perceive as catering to emotions rather than rationality (which I think they really aren’t, but even if they were, emotions are a part of life, if you value life, surely you’d value emotions too?). My critique to that is that conservatives often fail to see that their own positions and points of view are similarly coming from an emotional, and not rational, place, as they react to change by clinging to traditional views “because that’s what has been done until now”, without any actual rational reasoning for them. Like you yourself said, just because a lot of people follow a given ideology doesn’t make it right, the majority might be wrong, it’s just the majority. The same could be applied in this situation.
For instance, you might see having children as the rational choice because that’s what humanity has done since it began existing and due to it being a necessity for the continuation of the species, but is that not your natural, biological impulses speaking for you? Is it truly rational, logical thought? Why does humanity have to keep existing? You might have arguments and answers to those questions and that would make them rationally valid, but “just because” is not a rational answer.
Only those with some qualification in child psychology should raise children.
“sometimes bad things happen to some people”
most times small things happen to most children that have a huge psychological impact on them. these things can be avoided by child psychology experts because they actually know what they’re doing.
You’ve got 4 billion years of genetic coding that insists, even demands that this is true.
There are primal instincts that push us towards wanting children, but pleasing the more complex parts of your brain is much more fulfilling, enough that you don’t need to appease those primal instincts. I’m not arguing that having children wouldn’t provide some happiness at certain points for everyone, just that there are other things that will make you much more happy and don’t risk the lifelong wellbeing of another human being. and again, for some people the more complex part of their brain will want children, because of genuine interest in the process of raising a child, not because of a temporary high that will fade as soon as they need to pay attention to their actions around the child or make tough decisions about discipline.
Society? If society ever did that, it ceased doing it almost a hundred years ago.
That’s great to hear, my observations must be anomalous then.
Only PhDs in child psychology should reproduce? So, you want humanity to be extinct, that’s a more ethically sound position than “sometimes bad things happen to some people”?
You’ve got 4 billion years of genetic coding that insists, even demands that this is true. The last few tens of millions of years hardcodes it directly into your meat brain.
Society? If society ever did that, it ceased doing it almost a hundred years ago. Now, you can’t turn your head or hear a dozen words from some random stranger proclaiming the opposite is true and that anyone who says otherwise is a misogynist, masochist, or biblethumper.
There of course are many reasons for that. If you believe transexuals are healthy, important individuals… how could they participate in parenting if they’re mutilating their reproductive organs? So, parenting and reproduction now have to be bad or at least discouraged, to push the other message more fully. Not just them, of course, it’s not fair to single them out when there are so many other degenerate lifestyles that, if you embrace them, you also can’t embrace the idea that parenting is important without being hypocritical.
The end result will be, of course, that these lifestyles die out. The question is, will they take everything else with them.
Yes. Suffering should be eradicated at all costs. Humanity doesn’t have an inherent right to exist, it simply does as long as it is perpetuated by both humans themselves and while external conditions allow it.
I see your beliefs now. Well, no wonder you also disagree with this viewpoint then.
What is suffering? I’ve lumped that word in with all the other religious claptrap like “soul” and “afterlife” and whatnot.
Are you talking about pain (the sensation)? It doesn’t seem that you mean that, but if you did it would be absurd. “Pain should be eradicated” makes no sense. It can’t even be said that pain should be avoided, since discomfort is often associated with worthwhile, and ultimately pleasant, activities.
Define suffering so we can be on the same page.
True, as far as it goes. But it’s like “turnips have no inherent right to exist”. Pretty meaningless, and in the context where people actually want to exist (and for others to exist), somewhat misleading.
Please, read my palm. Tell everyone what my beliefs are.
That is merely a component of suffering. That should be avoided imo, but it isn’t the only thing that should.
I struggle to find such activities. I’m not stating there are none, just that I can’t remember any off the top of my head.
A negative experience which causes physical or psychological distress to a person or group of people, often for extended periods of time or with lasting effects after the experience itself has stopped (ie. trauma).
Saying this statement is meaningless is the same as saying philosophy itself is meaningless, but it can be a valuable tool to help us define our values and offer a base from which every other aspect of life can be evaluated more precisely. I don’t see how it’s misleading at all.
That statement was more hostile than I intended it to, in hindsight, and I see how it might be hypocritical to complain that you are lumping all “young liberals” (as it seems) in the same strawman when I ended up doing the same to you. I was quite offended by the transphobic comment so I reacted in an emotional way. Sorry.
I believe you follow some conservative beliefs (from an american standpoint) pretty strictly and that might be the bias shown in your arguments towards traditional values and against modern, sort of more “extreme” or what you perceive as catering to emotions rather than rationality (which I think they really aren’t, but even if they were, emotions are a part of life, if you value life, surely you’d value emotions too?). My critique to that is that conservatives often fail to see that their own positions and points of view are similarly coming from an emotional, and not rational, place, as they react to change by clinging to traditional views “because that’s what has been done until now”, without any actual rational reasoning for them. Like you yourself said, just because a lot of people follow a given ideology doesn’t make it right, the majority might be wrong, it’s just the majority. The same could be applied in this situation.
For instance, you might see having children as the rational choice because that’s what humanity has done since it began existing and due to it being a necessity for the continuation of the species, but is that not your natural, biological impulses speaking for you? Is it truly rational, logical thought? Why does humanity have to keep existing? You might have arguments and answers to those questions and that would make them rationally valid, but “just because” is not a rational answer.
Only those with some qualification in child psychology should raise children.
most times small things happen to most children that have a huge psychological impact on them. these things can be avoided by child psychology experts because they actually know what they’re doing.
There are primal instincts that push us towards wanting children, but pleasing the more complex parts of your brain is much more fulfilling, enough that you don’t need to appease those primal instincts. I’m not arguing that having children wouldn’t provide some happiness at certain points for everyone, just that there are other things that will make you much more happy and don’t risk the lifelong wellbeing of another human being. and again, for some people the more complex part of their brain will want children, because of genuine interest in the process of raising a child, not because of a temporary high that will fade as soon as they need to pay attention to their actions around the child or make tough decisions about discipline.
That’s great to hear, my observations must be anomalous then.