That is a very good point…

With Donald Trump dead, the replacement candidate would win without effort. The same is true if someone targeted Biden.

They’re both so bad that their deaths would boost their own parties.

I am 100% behind this movement. FUCK HR.

There are few things more terrifying than this concept… To be alive, healthy, and also dead in just a day or two…

When people say they aren’t Nazi’s, but all they do is tweet about Nazi’s, and support Nazi ideas, and defend Nazi’s…

Well, then yes I think they may, in fact, be Nazi’s.

It’s amazing anyone has to say this. Like, Elon isn’t a subtle person. How do some people not know what’s going on - particularly people who USE his platform?!

I’m exasperated by this comment. It is 2024, and this question can be answered by countless people that have never used Twitter.

Stop using the platform if you don’t like the far-right.

Yeah, I’ll vote blue… But get this fucker off the ticket. I’d much rather it be Kamala, or like… Nearly anyone really.

It seems the Russians won the war after all, as I look around at all of these clearly compromised people running our country, or trying to run the country. Half our political system is ensuring they do this without any criticism whatsoever.

The idiots have all but won. Idiocracy is becoming a reality, and I say that with no humor or jest whatsoever.

Seriously. This fucker wasn’t even born here, why is he supporting this? I fucking hate self-entitled rich shitholes that think the ideas that even THEY push shouldn’t apply to them.

Eat the rich.

Some solutions don’t have FOSS counterparts, such as Arlo’s that are driven by batteries. Arlo doesn’t give footage to police, though.

Remember when we (on Reddit) thought that John Oliver was the guy that would enlighten everyone to what’s really going on?

We got the wrong Jon.

Yeah, I remember… But I also remember nearly a decade of shills and astroturfing. Fuck Reddit.

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.

What if you bring a child into the world that’s born with a major, incurable defect?

Life is not always full of joy, in fact, for many it’s devoid of it. I think really good points are being made here against children.

I don’t believe it’s necessarily immoral to have kids, but I DO think it’s a serious grey area. It’s emphatically not the positive action society makes it out to be.

I really appreciate this point of view. I don’t strongly find myself on either side of the isle here, but I think you are making stronger points than those supporting the mainstream opinion that procreation is essential and important.

The argument against you seems to be “but there have been worse times to have kids, and people still had them.” That is emphatically not a good argument.

You’re awfully judgy for someone who doesn’t like other people judging you for having kids.

Just let people have a difference of opinion to you. It’s okay if some people look down on your choices. This is inevitable in life.