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
Everything is fair in fiction. No matter how sensitive or dark a topic is, fictional settings are the only place where anything should be allowed.
This does not mean that attacking/defaming people is ok, just that “I don’t like this” or “this is insensitive” should never be brought up against the existence of a work of fiction.
I’m not sure if “most” people would disagree with that, but there are too many that believe that fiction should be ruled by (subjective) morale and laws, while I believe it should be the place where anything goes.
The purpose of an education is to learn how to think, not how to work.
A lot of universities are being treated as training centers for the world of work - and this is not ok.
- Anyone who says ‘science doesn’t care about your feelings’ likely has a very limited understand of science
- There should be no prison but no penal system altogether
- Vote, don’t vote, do whatever the hell you want but don’t shove it into people’s face
- Aiming to be politically 100% pure and judging those who can’t be as pure boils down to chasing political activism cookies/elo. The only useful thing is doing one’s best.
unpopular moral take: All religions are absurd cop outs and you should choose your own model for how to be a good person.
People accused of crimes deserve an equal process which includes an arrest, trial by jury, and punishment defined by law if convicted. Not mob justice or outsourced punishment.
Morels are hard to find.
I believe antinatalism is a dire mistake, and the highest thing someone can aspire to be is a parent
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
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.
Antinatalism is a mistake - I think I agree there, mostly because it’s a path to a narrow gene pool and increases the probability of extinction.
Highest aspiration being parenthood - hard pass there, the highest aspiration in life is the seeking and sharing of knowledge.
Lol you should work for an online ad agency.
Im not too judgemental of most anti-natalists but the ones who claim having kids is bad for the planet can fuck right off.
I hate this myth. The world can absolutely support a large human population IF we arent all living the same hideously wasteful lifestyle. We need to change our consumeristic shitstain of a culture. Blaming population growth is just a means to justify continuing to live wasteful lifestyles and not having to change anything.
Its literally just placing a higher value on consumerism than human lives. Its gross.
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
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?
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.
So Nikola Tesla’s life of scientific research was pointless?
Sure why not
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
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.
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.
I get this is an opinion thread, but you dumb.
Its a dumb opinion, but not invalid.
Bringing a person into existence for your own entertainment is the ultimate form of pointless hedonism
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
I don’t think more people is the answer. We’re cancer on this planet.
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
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.
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 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?
There’s no point in living at all. Reproduction doesn’t change that.
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!)
It really all boils down to “live how you want as long as you’re not bothering others”. If you believe heavily in it, then live by it, but stop slamming it into the heads of people who believe the opposite or just don’t care.
It’s part of the reason why younger gens cringe at religion. “Do this or you will go to hell, but do it through us because you’ll go to hell if you do it through another religion.” It’s enough to make anyone balk, and rightfully so. The ground is always shaky, it just doesn’t feel as shaky if you shake with it.
…Now I want a shake.
I agreed with this up until the ‘and’.
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?
To people’s credit for intellectual honesty, you also hear “asteroid impact now plz”.
antinatalism is gross but I don’t think the highest aspiration is parenthood
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
Post online, get a reply. Sorry to upset you, hope you forget it soon.
Yeah that part.
antinatalism is gross
Why so?
deleted by creator
How many kids do you have?
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?
Following the Rule of law seems to be my super-power
HRT should be available to trans kids. it seems I’m increasingly alone in this belief, depressingly, looking at the political situation around the world.
I think individualism has gone too far. We pander too much to each person’s individual rights, and not each person’s individual responsibilities. I’m not talking about human rights here, I’m not talking about labour rights or any of the genuinely important stuff.
I’m talking about the self important experiences of the individual. The idea that someone has the right to believe whatever they want without responsibility to those around them. The most obvious answer is anti-vaxxers that spread literal lies. Whatever about vaccine hesitancy when there is legitimate peer reviewed medical potential for harm, there are levels of hesitancy. But when it goes to the point of fabricating data and spreading lies that will ultimately only cause harm to society, then in that case I’m ok with those people having any free speech rights voided, including full legal culpability for the harm it causes, akin to medical terrorism.
Where established data shows that people are contributing harm to society, contradicting scientifically proven data, and a person deliberately continues to spread misinformation when they are informed that they are causing harm, then they clearly do not care for the protection of the community, they should have forego societal protections for themselves, rights to free speech, rights to own property, and where necessary incarceration. If you’re in a position of power/authority or have specific training in the field, then you should face exponentially greater legal consequences for this deliberate harm.
Many people may agree with the general principles of this sentiment but as a society we are not ready to have that conversation, because the first person to be locked up would trigger a mass protest not widespread agreement. All because we have permitted individualism to far overpower the importance of collectivism. Rights should not be absolute they should always be coupled to responsibilities. Even if that responsibility is simply not to cause deliberate harm to others.
And the idea that someone’s beliefs about reality are somehow important to uphold. That the person above believes they are not doing harm, despite being told otherwise, that this idea should hold any weight in court is wrong. People should be informed of their ignorance and measurable reality is the only true reality that should be taken into account . Just like ignorance of the law is not a defence, ignorance of reality should not be a defence.
If a person is spreading misinformation that causes harm, they should be served a legal notice that outlines that they have been “judged to have been causing harm to society by spreading information that is adjudicated as false and harmful by an sanctioned and independently operated committee, whose ruling has been further agreed upon by a plurality of specialist training bodies in the relevant field. The only entities who contradict this societally important and data derived ruling are those that mean harm to society or those without the relevant knowledge base to make any informed statements on the matter. As of this point you will be treated as the former now that you have been served notice that the information you are spreading is factually incorrect and harmful. If you continue to spread this misinformation you sacrifice a portion or all of your rights afforded to you by this society. Your assets can be seized, you may be incarcerated, and your access to any and all communication with other humans may be partially or entirely withheld. This is a measure to combat information terrorism.”
Civil liberties are a privilege not an inalienable right.
You might think this sounds dystopian but it’s my answer to your question. Obviously it needs baked in failsafes to stop a small few individuals from corrupting it for authoritatian abuse. But just because something could be hypothetically abused doesn’t make it a bad idea. You just need to insulate against the abuse.
So how would anyone benefit from their creativity? I certainly wouldn’t invent anything if I knew some big company could just steal it.
A universal right to self. Get the trans / gay community, the raw milkers, the anti vaccers, the druggies and the prochoice crowd all on the same page.
The government should make no law demanding or preventing the alteration of any and all, organs protrusions or growths of organic matter attached to and constituting the body of a sentient person not under the court directed care of another.
A free society means other people are entitled to make a living even if I don’t like the way they think. I won’t “vote with my wallet” because that’s like saying a lynch mob is “voting with rope”.
The free movement of people is a human right!
Note that capital is free to go whatever it wants to.
I agree with OP’s controversial opinion
