Home
>
The Living Room
>
Topic
Butt-hurt Breeders
Posted by juliewashere88
|
Butt-hurt Breeders June 01, 2011 | Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 1,320 |
Well, I didn't mean to piss anyone off. It does seem that I've struck a chord though.
On another forum I use, a poster started a thread asking about antinatalism. I responded that I do agree that rampant, careless breeding on an already severely overpopulated planet suffering from massive resource depletion was immoral, in my opinion. However I don't cling to the label antinatalist because I don't want people to think that I'm for antichoice practices like forced sterilization and the like.
The comment wasn't made to anyone in particular but was merely an answer to the title question. But that hasn't stopped several but-hurt breeders from finding fancy ways of telling me I'm wrong (though, noticeably, remaining unable to demonstrate how I was wrong on even one single point.
Apparently, even though I rejected the antinatalist label, it was out of line for me to answer the question honestly rather than responding with pure breeder-worship.
For anyone interested, the thread can be found here. My username there is Panic_teh_s00prn00b (don't ask, I made that account years ago.)
What do you think, am I some awful person, or am I telling the truth?
On another forum I use, a poster started a thread asking about antinatalism. I responded that I do agree that rampant, careless breeding on an already severely overpopulated planet suffering from massive resource depletion was immoral, in my opinion. However I don't cling to the label antinatalist because I don't want people to think that I'm for antichoice practices like forced sterilization and the like.
The comment wasn't made to anyone in particular but was merely an answer to the title question. But that hasn't stopped several but-hurt breeders from finding fancy ways of telling me I'm wrong (though, noticeably, remaining unable to demonstrate how I was wrong on even one single point.
Apparently, even though I rejected the antinatalist label, it was out of line for me to answer the question honestly rather than responding with pure breeder-worship.
For anyone interested, the thread can be found here. My username there is Panic_teh_s00prn00b (don't ask, I made that account years ago.)
What do you think, am I some awful person, or am I telling the truth?
Anonymous User
Re: But-hurt Breeders June 01, 2011 |
|
Re: But-hurt Breeders June 01, 2011 | Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 1,320 |
Ah, that one doesn't like me.
She really didn't like me in another thread where she tried telling me that Judaism (which I presume is her religion) is a violent religion (as I think she was implying Christianity was since that's the religion the thread was about.) Then I pointed out the atrocities documented in the Torah, and then pointed out some modern Jewish terrorist organizations.
Her response was little more than "you don't know what you're talking about."
I wasn't trying to attack Judaism, I just wanted to point out that she was, indeed, wrong.
She really didn't like me in another thread where she tried telling me that Judaism (which I presume is her religion) is a violent religion (as I think she was implying Christianity was since that's the religion the thread was about.) Then I pointed out the atrocities documented in the Torah, and then pointed out some modern Jewish terrorist organizations.
Her response was little more than "you don't know what you're talking about."
I wasn't trying to attack Judaism, I just wanted to point out that she was, indeed, wrong.
|
Re: Butt-hurt Breeders June 01, 2011 | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 4,532 |
|
Re: Butt-hurt Breeders June 02, 2011 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 12,432 |
|
Re: Butt-hurt Breeders June 02, 2011 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 12,432 |
I was interested in the arguments being discussed by the person who you were engaged in the discussion of littering with. I would have been interested in posting my thoughts, but I'm not asexual and so I don't belong on that board.
Circumstances affect the morality of an action
I think it is clear that circumstances can alter the morality of an activity. The same action could be morally neutral, negative, or possibly positive depending on the circumstances. A simple example would be manipulating the switch of a train track so that it goes down a different track. This would be negative if it meant that the train would then run over the person you had so villainously tied to the tracks. It would be neutral if it were a completely unused portion of track. It would be positive if you diverted it so that it would not run over the non-ipod-listening, non-vandalising, non-stupid teenager someone else had forcibly put on the tracks.
Are you compelled to perform actions to reduce harm?
Does another person's immoral actions compel an individual to perform a particular action to ameliorate the bad? Ethical systems disagree on this answer. Some argue that you have a requirement to do good, whereas many say that you have only a requirement to refrain from doing harm. If you believed that you had an obligation to do good, for instance, you would have to undertake actions like sending all your discretionary income to people in worse circumstances. Or, to refer to the earlier argument, are you wrong if you fail to change the tracks in order to save the person's life?
Morality does require that you not actively cause harm
Most people prefer the less burdensome requirement to only avoid doing harm. Ethical systems which don't require action still compel you to refrain from performing actions which cause harm. That's why you can't, for instance, go torture someone. Commission of an act with negative consequences (when not acting is neutral) is considered bad in every ethical system I know of. Omission may be debatable, but commission is not.
Is having a child an deliberate action?
To me, that would lead to the conclusion that, given the present environment, it is unethical to have a child. However, I view having a child as a commission, whereas others may view it as an omission--we're not talking about IVF here, but just the ordinary situation where someone would have to use contraceptives to avoid pregnancy, or get an abortion to prevent birth. I suppose it has to do with how you view the default state of affairs. I think that having a child is no longer the default (as evidenced by the fact that women in developed countries don't go around having a dozen babies) and requires (or ought to require) a deliberate choice of action, whereas many people are of the opinion that babies just happen unless you take special measures to prevent that.
I'm not sure where the debate could go from there. If someone believes that (a) morality does not compel a person to perform beneficial acts, and (b) avoiding having children is an act of omission, it's fair to conclude that an individual (naturally) bringing one child into an overpopulated world is not behaving immorally. I disagree with (b), but I can see how someone could reach the position I described.
Circumstances affect the morality of an action
I think it is clear that circumstances can alter the morality of an activity. The same action could be morally neutral, negative, or possibly positive depending on the circumstances. A simple example would be manipulating the switch of a train track so that it goes down a different track. This would be negative if it meant that the train would then run over the person you had so villainously tied to the tracks. It would be neutral if it were a completely unused portion of track. It would be positive if you diverted it so that it would not run over the non-ipod-listening, non-vandalising, non-stupid teenager someone else had forcibly put on the tracks.
Are you compelled to perform actions to reduce harm?
Does another person's immoral actions compel an individual to perform a particular action to ameliorate the bad? Ethical systems disagree on this answer. Some argue that you have a requirement to do good, whereas many say that you have only a requirement to refrain from doing harm. If you believed that you had an obligation to do good, for instance, you would have to undertake actions like sending all your discretionary income to people in worse circumstances. Or, to refer to the earlier argument, are you wrong if you fail to change the tracks in order to save the person's life?
Morality does require that you not actively cause harm
Most people prefer the less burdensome requirement to only avoid doing harm. Ethical systems which don't require action still compel you to refrain from performing actions which cause harm. That's why you can't, for instance, go torture someone. Commission of an act with negative consequences (when not acting is neutral) is considered bad in every ethical system I know of. Omission may be debatable, but commission is not.
Is having a child an deliberate action?
To me, that would lead to the conclusion that, given the present environment, it is unethical to have a child. However, I view having a child as a commission, whereas others may view it as an omission--we're not talking about IVF here, but just the ordinary situation where someone would have to use contraceptives to avoid pregnancy, or get an abortion to prevent birth. I suppose it has to do with how you view the default state of affairs. I think that having a child is no longer the default (as evidenced by the fact that women in developed countries don't go around having a dozen babies) and requires (or ought to require) a deliberate choice of action, whereas many people are of the opinion that babies just happen unless you take special measures to prevent that.
I'm not sure where the debate could go from there. If someone believes that (a) morality does not compel a person to perform beneficial acts, and (b) avoiding having children is an act of omission, it's fair to conclude that an individual (naturally) bringing one child into an overpopulated world is not behaving immorally. I disagree with (b), but I can see how someone could reach the position I described.
|
Re: Butt-hurt Breeders June 02, 2011 | Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 1,320 |
Quote
yurble
I was interested in the arguments being discussed by the person who you were engaged in the discussion of littering with. I would have been interested in posting my thoughts, but I'm not asexual and so I don't belong on that board.
Circumstances affect the morality of an action
I think it is clear that circumstances can alter the morality of an activity. The same action could be morally neutral, negative, or possibly positive depending on the circumstances. A simple example would be manipulating the switch of a train track so that it goes down a different track. This would be negative if it meant that the train would then run over the person you had so villainously tied to the tracks. It would be neutral if it were a completely unused portion of track. It would be positive if you diverted it so that it would not run over the non-ipod-listening, non-vandalising, non-stupid teenager someone else had forcibly put on the tracks.
Are you compelled to perform actions to reduce harm?
Does another person's immoral actions compel an individual to perform a particular action to ameliorate the bad? Ethical systems disagree on this answer. Some argue that you have a requirement to do good, whereas many say that you have only a requirement to refrain from doing harm. If you believed that you had an obligation to do good, for instance, you would have to undertake actions like sending all your discretionary income to people in worse circumstances. Or, to refer to the earlier argument, are you wrong if you fail to change the tracks in order to save the person's life?
Morality does require that you not actively cause harm
Most people prefer the less burdensome requirement to only avoid doing harm. Ethical systems which don't require action still compel you to refrain from performing actions which cause harm. That's why you can't, for instance, go torture someone. Commission of an act with negative consequences (when not acting is neutral) is considered bad in every ethical system I know of. Omission may be debatable, but commission is not.
Is having a child an deliberate action?
To me, that would lead to the conclusion that, given the present environment, it is unethical to have a child. However, I view having a child as a commission, whereas others may view it as an omission--we're not talking about IVF here, but just the ordinary situation where someone would have to use contraceptives to avoid pregnancy, or get an abortion to prevent birth. I suppose it has to do with how you view the default state of affairs. I think that having a child is no longer the default (as evidenced by the fact that women in developed countries don't go around having a dozen babies) and requires (or ought to require) a deliberate choice of action, whereas many people are of the opinion that babies just happen unless you take special measures to prevent that.
I'm not sure where the debate could go from there. If someone believes that (a) morality does not compel a person to perform beneficial acts, and (b) avoiding having children is an act of omission, it's fair to conclude that an individual (naturally) bringing one child into an overpopulated world is not behaving immorally. I disagree with (b), but I can see how someone could reach the position I described.
True. Those are very interesting insights.
One more thing that I thought of later, suppose a certain person wasn't aware of the of the effects that our current population growth rate causes? It it any better if a person hadn't thought about it?
One thing I noticed in the forum, I think people got the idea (or invented the straw-man) that I think parents, by being parents, are automatically just immoral evil people, and that's not (always) so. Nor do I hate children (although I don't particularly like them all the time,) as another poster said, seemingly referring to me.
|
Re: Butt-hurt Breeders June 02, 2011 | Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 1,320 |
Oh, just for contrast, in another thread on the same board, people were posed the hypothetical situation of choosing between the life of their pet, or some random baby (then 100 random babies.)
Most people picked their pet.
Most people picked their pet.
Miss_Hannigan_NLI
Re: Butt-hurt Breeders June 02, 2011 |
|
Re: Butt-hurt Breeders June 02, 2011 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,039 |
No contest. I'd pick my pets any day.
You know, I went on a Buddhist retreat and there was one exercise where we were asked to envision unconditional love. You know very nearly everyone in that room (more than 40 people, huge age range) thought of their pets? Yeah, not mom, dad, kids, friends, their pets.
You know, I went on a Buddhist retreat and there was one exercise where we were asked to envision unconditional love. You know very nearly everyone in that room (more than 40 people, huge age range) thought of their pets? Yeah, not mom, dad, kids, friends, their pets.
|
Re: Butt-hurt Breeders June 02, 2011 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 12,432 |
juliewashere88, I think the question of whether ignorance is a valid excuse depends on the obscurity of the information. In the case of overpopulation and the impact on the environment, the problem is well-known, although there does seem to be a taboo about talking about it. Even mainstream news sites cover issues like diapers in landfills, however. Still, there is the misinformation about "underpopulation" (in economic terms, not environmental terms, but the distinction is rarely made) being pushed by governments and the media. Now that is extremely evil, and, in my opinion, much worse than any single individual having a baby.
|
Re: Butt-hurt Breeders June 03, 2011 | Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 1,320 |
Quote
Miss_Hannigan_NLI
Your'e goddamn right I'm picking my pet(s)!
I know I did, although I don't currently have a pet.
Quote
yurble
juliewashere88, I think the question of whether ignorance is a valid excuse depends on the obscurity of the information. In the case of overpopulation and the impact on the environment, the problem is well-known, although there does seem to be a taboo about talking about it. Even mainstream news sites cover issues like diapers in landfills, however. Still, there is the misinformation about "underpopulation" (in economic terms, not environmental terms, but the distinction is rarely made) being pushed by governments and the media. Now that is extremely evil, and, in my opinion, much worse than any single individual having a baby.
Good point. I agree.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.