Example: I believe that IP is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful.
Edit: pls do not downvote the comments this is a constructive discussion
Edit2: IP= intellectal property
Edit3: sort by controversal
I believe antinatalism is a dire mistake, and the highest thing someone can aspire to be is a parent
and the highest thing someone can aspire to be is a parent
Be a good parent.
Far too many out there are shit, or at best mediocre parents.
If you’re going to say the church, the school, the neighbors, other family members, anyone else is who should raise your kids, you should aspire for a vasectomy.
If you aspire to just pump out kids for a number game, you missed the Dark Ages. Though a Mennonite community may be your thing.
Donct ypu realize the end of the world is nigh, and also bad things happen that cause sadness, and therefore our species should stop procreating until nothing bad ever happens again?
I believe that its pointless to argue this way or that about antinatalism, as we no longer have control of a population encroaching 8 billion. It just becomes a moot point to bash each other on over the internet (which can be said about a multitude of other subjects).
I’m not going to have kids. That’s just what I want. Going extreme on antinatalism or pronatalism is just circling back to telling other people what they should do with their bodies. Everything is just so extreme these days. Its do or die in the eyes of the public, no matter what you do, and its grating.
The debate shows… the next generation it’s OK to have strong feelings both ways?
(initially I was going to make a point that seemed on shaky ground given search engines exist - “not everyone has formed their opinion yet” so for those [young] people, just check out a couple opposing books from the local library and that’s sufficient? Ooooh, what about when they want to debate what they read! Ground feels less shaky!)
Well obviously if you’re fully antinatalist you’re basically working towards human extinction.
But I think that a healthy society includes a few child-free people. In fact, as someone without kids, I’d happily pay a much higher tax rate so that parents can stay home with their kids. I doubt I’d be a good parent anyways, and so I’d prefer to contribute to society in ways people with families can’t.
But I think that a healthy society includes a few child-free people.
Regardless of one’s views on antinatalism, we absolutely need to acknowledge that not everyone is suitable for parenthood. I’m not suggesting that we (as a society) impose restrictions on it. Rather if someone self-selects for not having kids, people need to STFU and accept it rather than trying to shame or pressure them.
Thank you. I did not have kids for a number of reasons, and I can assure you the world would not be a better place if I had. But I do always enjoy people telling me my life is pointless, haha
Why is it the highest thing someone can aspire to? You don’t think being a Nobel-winning scientist is as important as being a parent?
Why?
Because I don’t think there’s a point to living without reproduction. Everything else is living a pointless life of minor hedonism and disappearing into oblivion at the end.
I don’t think doing so is immoral, just pointless
So, you’ve internalized life’s universal purpose as your own. It’s not necessary or even noble. Life will take care of itself.
I don’t think life is ‘less pointless’ if you procreate. It’s both very pointless, except for personal fulfilment. What should it matter if you follow a path that evolution laid out before you. With consciousness, there is no more reason to consider that path in my eyes, just do what feels right.
There’s all sorts of types of reproduction.
Take the reproduction of knowledge, for example. Say you have a person who never had kids, but dedicated their life’s work to something like Project Gutenberg. They’ve ensured art and writing and understanding is reproduced for generations to come. Is that pointless?
So you believe that every person on the planet should be a parent? Is 7 billion people not enough for you?
No, we need more people. Developed countries are facing a demographic cliff that is very bad for us
Because I don’t think there’s a point to living without reproduction.
So the meaning of life is … the continuation of life? Or to put it another way, life is the meaning of life. That seems rather tautological.
There’s a difference between a point and a meaning
This doesn’t help your argument.
There’s no point in living at all. Reproduction doesn’t change that.
Bringing a person into existence for your own entertainment is the ultimate form of pointless hedonism
If the pinnacle of your life is cumming in a woman you need you do some soul searching.
Say it with me: everyone on the Internet is a BOY
The internet, where:
- The men are men
- The women are men
- The children are FBI agents
So Nikola Tesla’s life of scientific research was pointless?
Sure why not
I get this is an opinion thread, but you dumb.
Its a dumb opinion, but not invalid.
Huh. So you enjoy being a mindless husk with the sole purpose of breeding the next generation.
I’m sorry you’ve been traumatized so much by life that you’ve given up on yourself as a person.
I don’t know why you’re so offended at someone having a different opinion than you
It’s not the opinion so much as the perceived judgement. No one would bat an eye if your opinion was simply that you couldn’t see your life having any meaning without kids. But you go on further to say that you don’t see how the lives of people choosing not to have kids has any meaning. Consider one of those families with more than a dozen kids looking down on you for not having enough kids. Saying they don’t understand how your life has any meaning when you could still be having babies.
There’s opinion, and there is just pure stupidity.
I’m not sure why you think I’m offended. But I feel you’re still hurting and perceive this as an attack, so I apologize to you.
It’s fine to give up. Take your time and try to heal. Even if you don’t find value in your own life, raising your children is still very much meaningful as you say.
On, that’s easy to address. You don’t need to have kids as long as you’re improving society so that other people’s kids thrive.
Now we’re inclusive of the infertile and accomplish the same goal.
But I also agree, fucking is the best
Oooeh this is one is gonna piss off a lot of lemmings. This is one of those hard echo chamber topics that haunt Lemmy.
Also don’t mention religion, that will also twist a lot of panties on here
I agreed with this up until the ‘and’.
antinatalism is gross but I don’t think the highest aspiration is parenthood
antinatalism is gross
Why so?
Have kids, find out. Spoiler, it is, for most people.
Sorry but the language here alienates those who cannot have kids. you can speak for youself just fine but the response as stated was gross. ugh you’re gonna fuckin reply to me again aren’t you. i really dont want to continue with this discussion, please, as a personal favor
lemmy needs a fucking disable inbox replies option. i dont want to block anyone and i feel the need to point out this perspective but i really hate getting msgs like these on this particular subject days later
imo u don’t necessarily have to be a parent, you can be a parental figure to a younger person, be a good role model and teach them well
Sure I don’t see why adoption ot being a godfather to someone shouldn’t count. I just think that anyone not engaged in raising children or making the world a better place for them is just using the world and giving nothing back
Just having a child is not enough, parents also need to be helping to make the world a better place.
- The illusion that we are “rational” has done more damage than good, and if we were to just embrace that emotions are not just real, but a stronger influence on people’s behaviour (and therefore reality) than any facts, we might start getting somewhere as a species.
Free speech shouldn’t be a thing and the countries that go furthest with this “right” are dying because of it (looking at you, USA). Before anyone says “what about when it’s your opponents controlling the speech?”: they already do where I live and with my beliefs, and I still think it’s within the rights of the government to control speech
Understanding disability thought and theory is one of the foundations of marginalization justice but one of the most invisible such that, once you understand certain tenants, it’s impossible not to see the impact of their ideas in everything in daily life.
I have to agree IP is against nature but there’s not really any other way to route data over a network.
The solution to the Tolerance Paradox is the Ender solution.
Accept everyone. But the moment one group calls for the violence against any other group, they should be wiped out with overwhelming force to the last. Any group willing to spew hate, is to be culled. Either they learn to accept every other group, or they go extinct.
It worked with the Nazis. It worked with the khmer rouge. It worked with Mussolini. It worked with the apartheid regime.
In turn i also believe that the Ender Solution is the solution to bullying. Fight back, break their noses, gouge out an eye. Make the bully regret even looking at you. As an asian migrant in 1990s Australia in all white school, the first bully was also the last.
Killing yourself is ok. You don’t know what it’s like to be them and be in their head.
I’ll never do it. Even in darkest depths, but respect anyone’s right to say peace out.
I totally agree. Intellectual property is a capitalist myth created only for the purpose of beating other people away from progress.
Any civilized society would believe in the free commerce of ideas.
Nazis are bad, even if they are Ukrainian, and highly self motivated in conscripting others to diminish Russia. The morality of diminishing others apparently has a Russian exception.
I agree with OP’s controversial opinion
My perspective on what rights are and how they work sometimes has people looking at me like I’m literally the devil. But it’s really not that crazy.
First off, rights aren’t absolute and have to be balanced against each other. Spend an hour or two following along with mundane SCOTUS cases and you’ll see all kinds of examples where two reasonable principles come in conflict with each other and it’s not immediately apparent which one should take precedent. I would actually argue that, if you want to treat principles as absolutes, you only get one, because any two concievable principles can (at least theoretically) come into conflict with each other. You can’t serve two masters.
Moreover, what rights actually are are a theory about maintaining order and keeping people satisfied and content. The theory goes that people were reasonably content in a “state of nature” and that if they become discontent in civilization, it must be because they’re lacking something that they would have naturally had. As a general rule, it works well enough - but viewing it this way means that you’re viewing rights as a means to an end, rather than an end of itself, which is a very important distinction. What that means is that if you’re in a situation where you have to choose between upholding rights and the end goal that rights are meant to achieve, then it makes sense to prioritize that end.
Again, something that makes people look at me like a demon (or call me a “tankie”), but like, there was a point in the Civil War where Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus in response to the genuine, existential threat posed by the Confederacy, and it was probably necessary for him to do so, or at the very least he had good reason to think it was.
The well of discourse on this subject has been poisoned by politicians leveraging imaginary threats for self-interested purposes, and the fact that we in the first world are so used to basic security that we take it for granted. Certainly, there’s plenty of people who say, “The ends justify the means,” but who aren’t really following that principle, they just want to do illegal things for other reasons, like torture being motivated by cruelty, hatred, or revenge but justified on the pretense of extracting information to save lives.
However, just because people use imaginary/exaggerated threats like that, that’s no reason to think real existential threats don’t exist for anyone ever. And when you’re facing a legitimate existential threat, all bets are off, you should give it 100% and do whatever it takes to survive and win. If you’re not prepared to do that, you should give up the fight and walk away. Otherwise, how can you ask others to lay down their lives while you’re pulling your punches, just to feel good about yourself? A guilty conscious is a small price to pay.
Somehow, we’ve got all these people with martyr complexes who have got everything mixed up, that your job as a moral agent is about serving these abstract moral principles as an end to itself, rather than your job being to do the things that lead to the best outcomes and the principles being guidelines that generally, but not always, help you find that course of action. It at least makes sense if you believe following those principles will get you into heaven, but many people still act as though that was their chief concern even without believing in such an afterlife.
That self-defense is not a justification for lethal force.
Your feelings are not facts.
Being offended, doesn’t mean you’re in the right and the other person is in the wrong.
Just because your religion says something (or claims it does), doesn’t put you in the right.
You can’t direguard anyone’s humanity. Even billionaires. There are no universally bad people, negativity is always relational.
Though I do think you can weigh a billionaire’s comfort against the folks they made billions from, and that may just be potent enough for the death penalty.
However, I don’t think punishment is a humane solution. Rehabilitation and integration are always preferred. Though again, some folks integrate best as corpses.
i think that institutions should be respected.
It’s the number one problem in american politics right now, everything we are currently experiencing, is from people treating politics like a toy. Rather than an institution.
It’s so incredibly hard to state how critically important it is for the functioning of society, that the structures running our society, are respected.
