There was a user that, before getting banned, declared that every single living human being alive on Earth right now should not exist because no one had the benefit of a pre-conception device on hand to somehow determine each individual's consent to exist before they started to exist.
You're glad to be alive after the fact but you still didn't consent to it and it is kinda fucked to bring people into a world that is literally filled with suffering
It is an unserious take to have, especially if applied to an entire society, to forbid births until a magic machine can seek birth consent.
I agree I mean I'm just saying I think it's technically correct but at the same time also stupid and useless for the real world
I said it's technically correct but stupid and useless applied to the real world
Idk why it's such a common thing on this site for people to not separate arguments being made, me saying it's technically correct that nobody consented to be born and that that's kinda messed up doesn't mean I'm a proponent of nobody being born!
Like instead of some absurd baby consent machine, just think "If you could ask and receive consent, should you?" and idk I think the answer in that case would be yeah, you should get consent before subjecting a living being to... gestures around
that doesn't mean I'm a proponent of ending the human race over an unanswerable, inactionable bit of philosophical wankery
we don't need to fight ulyssest when we agree on 90% of this
a materialist (and i'm assuming non-malthusian, because the concern is consent) antinatalist wouldn't think such a machine is possible. if he's not making that part up or misremembering someone's strawman then my best guess is that it's a hyperbolic misunderstanding of "you'd have to meet an impossible standard"
hmm this sounds uncharitable
deleted by creator
idk they sound technically correct to me
deleted by creator
You're glad to be alive after the fact but you still didn't consent to it and it is kinda fucked to bring people into a world that is literally filled with suffering
I agree I mean I'm just saying I think it's technically correct but at the same time also stupid and useless for the real world
deleted by creator
im not an anti natalist dawg
I said it's technically correct but stupid and useless applied to the real world
Idk why it's such a common thing on this site for people to not separate arguments being made, me saying it's technically correct that nobody consented to be born and that that's kinda messed up doesn't mean I'm a proponent of nobody being born!
Like instead of some absurd baby consent machine, just think "If you could ask and receive consent, should you?" and idk I think the answer in that case would be yeah, you should get consent before subjecting a living being to... gestures around
that doesn't mean I'm a proponent of ending the human race over an unanswerable, inactionable bit of philosophical wankery
we don't need to fight ulyssest when we agree on 90% of this
deleted by creator
a materialist (and i'm assuming non-malthusian, because the concern is consent) antinatalist wouldn't think such a machine is possible. if he's not making that part up or misremembering someone's strawman then my best guess is that it's a hyperbolic misunderstanding of "you'd have to meet an impossible standard"
Even with a fully hypothetical magical consent asking machine, any being capable of giving consent necessarily already exists.
The question is, do I giving my consent means nobody alive before me gets to kill me retroactively?