The dog wants to touch the cat’s tits?
The dog wants to touch the cat’s tits?
Women are the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best…
They’re presuming that people will exist, which is not a wild assumption
But that’s not a philosophy I particularly subscribe to so I don’t feel compelled to explain or defend it further.
Because the typical standard of consent is that in order to do something to someone, you should have informed consent. If you cannot obtain that, then you do not do the thing. Something that does not exist cannot give informed consent, therefore you should not do the thing.
If living organisms are predisposed to prefer existence, this would imply existence is an inherently preferable state.
It usually is- to a living organism, which is not what we’re talking about.
Prove it
Come on bro you can’t be serious about this.
They are not related because you have to exist to experience well-being or “bad-being”. What I’m talking about is consenting to exist.
And how does that relate to angels?
Just to clarify, I’m not advocating for any baby to be taken off life support, that’s a pretty abhorrent thing to accuse me of, if that’s what you meant.
I work in critical care and routinely bring people back from the brink of death. With a living being, unless otherwise stated, their consent to life saving treatment is implied, and I’m happy to give it.
Philosophically, I’m just not convinced that there is such a thing as an implied consent to “make me exist when I don’t exist already”.
That’s just how evolution works- something that already exists and is driven to stay alive is more likely to pass on its genetics than something that is not driven to stay alive. This fact has nothing to do with the philosophy of consenting to exist in the first place.
Edit: missed your first question. Something that does not exist cannot desire.
If my understanding of longtermism is correct, it’s more of a function of utilitarianism. If one wants to do the most good for the most people, then it makes some amount of sense to focus on the far future where presumably there will be more people. Their consent is irrelevant, which is kind of the opposite of what I’m saying, which is that consent is relevant.
I’m not sure what your point is here
Nothing, unless they start existing.
Something that no one has discussed in this highly enlightened conversation here is the issue of consent. A person cannot consent to being born. Full stop. I don’t know of a way around that besides ignoring it.
In case you arent- never use an electric razor on your balls without a guard. And even then, I don’t try to get it too close to the skin, just to shorten the hairs a lot.
Then if I want to go further, shaving cream and a safety razor is the way to go. Just try to smooth out the scrotum with your other hand to make it as flat a surface as possible.
I’m pro sex work, however:
I have mixed feelings about the current ubiquity of online sex work like onlyfans. In theory I’ve definitely got nothing against it but I’m worried that a lot of young women are faced with shitty economic prospects vs potentially lots of money on onlyfans. The alternatives are so poor sometimes that it feels like coercion.
I just wish young people had better options all together.
It has never been the cool thing to do
Yeah I’ve literally never even heard of these before this post
In theory, the urethra could be a portal for entry. Wouldn’t be totally surprised if one ends up with a UTI from this but the pathogen would probably be washed out by urine.
I’m betting fake. The artist is holding the tattoo machine weirdly close to their offhand, which makes me think they’re trying to obscure that it’s not actually laying the ink.