Way to I made a new generate energy? What?
Way to I made a new generate energy? What?
I hear milkshakes are actually the best defense. It’s actually best to milkshake Nazi’s before they get maced.
Yikes. So much plastic surgery… And the results are goulish.
Ah yes, because it’s easy to create gun control in a country with 434 million guns in it, and mental health is the wrong place to target, since democrats and republicans alike never seem to actually enact anything in this area.
Regardless, there is a solution… But no, it’s not easy, or anything any dumbass politician seems to be promoting.
I just interpreted this as a fart surgery.
::: WHAT DO I DO?!?!1? :::
Oh, let’s just pretend alternatives like Tidal and Apple don’t exist… SpOtiFy iS tHe BeSt!!1!
This dude… He looks lame. The woman looks great, though.
This was inadaquetly described. The woman looks way fuckin cooler than that dude.
I did that at my first job. I got docked pay for it. I didn’t mind, the others used it to leverage for more.
This is clearly a trap.
Porn is already 100% on their list.
I imagine the weed won’t last long under fascist rule. And the porn is already on the conservative hit list.
Important distinction: Only one side is using “belief”, and that is the one that has subscribed or invented themselves the idea of life before or after death. Zero evidence supports this. I’m not saying it does or does not exist, but it’s a weak point to bring up.
You could just as easily invent the idea of children being literally us, reborn, to justify their creation. Or that children are literal currency in the after-life market. Conversly, what if taking lives gives us points? Maybe the Vikings had it right.
As for your second point, I think it’s the first strong natalistic argument I’ve seen here! I don’t agree with it any more than I agree with the antinatalism folks, but I appreciate the optimistic counter to all of the pessimistic points being made here.
In the end, I guess I remain of the opinion that this area of life (like countless others) is a gray area. I don’t see either extreme as logically moral or immoral without more information being applied on a, case-by-case basis
Yeah, I’m in the same boat. I’m enjoying playing devil’s advocate here, however. People who justify having children as some sort of gift to the world are far less reasonable, and the arguments being made here by those types are exhausting.
I can diffuse just about every comment like this here with a simple word: “adoption”.
Lol, I’m not far-left but I do love comments like these.
It’s important to note that capitalism is far from the only major exploitative system in the world. This said, I’m part of that particular system, and yes… It truly does feel like we’re just cogs in an ever-hungry, broken system.
I don’t believe you won this. I’m not siding with the person you’re discussing this topic with, but they made better moral arguments.
Your supposition that consent can morally come from two seperate human beings, despite the potential condemnation of the new human, is inherently flawed. The same logic could be used to excuse a huge variety of cruelties. Giving someone something (even life itself), does not inherently grant the donors agency over that life.
For example, if a terrible disease that brings pain and very early death is genetically passed on by one person that decides knowingly to have a child, and the child is born with that disease, one could easily make the argument that it was immoral for that individual to have a child, instead of adopting.
THAT’S A BAD PLACE TO PUT A TOWN.
I ain’t afraid of no Dutchmen.