That’s not how you throw something though

I’m betting fake. The artist is holding the tattoo machine weirdly close to their offhand, which makes me think they’re trying to obscure that it’s not actually laying the ink.

Women are the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best…

They’re presuming that people will exist, which is not a wild assumption

But that’s not a philosophy I particularly subscribe to so I don’t feel compelled to explain or defend it further.

Because the typical standard of consent is that in order to do something to someone, you should have informed consent. If you cannot obtain that, then you do not do the thing. Something that does not exist cannot give informed consent, therefore you should not do the thing.

If living organisms are predisposed to prefer existence, this would imply existence is an inherently preferable state.

It usually is- to a living organism, which is not what we’re talking about.

Prove it

Come on bro you can’t be serious about this.

We agree there

They are not related because you have to exist to experience well-being or “bad-being”. What I’m talking about is consenting to exist.

And how does that relate to angels?

Just to clarify, I’m not advocating for any baby to be taken off life support, that’s a pretty abhorrent thing to accuse me of, if that’s what you meant.

I work in critical care and routinely bring people back from the brink of death. With a living being, unless otherwise stated, their consent to life saving treatment is implied, and I’m happy to give it.

Philosophically, I’m just not convinced that there is such a thing as an implied consent to “make me exist when I don’t exist already”.

That’s just how evolution works- something that already exists and is driven to stay alive is more likely to pass on its genetics than something that is not driven to stay alive. This fact has nothing to do with the philosophy of consenting to exist in the first place.

Edit: missed your first question. Something that does not exist cannot desire.

If my understanding of longtermism is correct, it’s more of a function of utilitarianism. If one wants to do the most good for the most people, then it makes some amount of sense to focus on the far future where presumably there will be more people. Their consent is irrelevant, which is kind of the opposite of what I’m saying, which is that consent is relevant.

I’m not sure what your point is here

Nothing, unless they start existing.

Something that no one has discussed in this highly enlightened conversation here is the issue of consent. A person cannot consent to being born. Full stop. I don’t know of a way around that besides ignoring it.

Ignoring the literal-ness of “all human lives have value”, equating billionaires to an ethic group enduring apartheid and genocide is a hell of a take…

“It’s like relying on unpaid labor when the company has nearly a billion dollars in revenue,” he added. Reddit reported revenue of $804 million in 2023, according to an earlier filing.

It’s not like that, it is that.

As if EMS is stable lol

(Former paramedic here)

I unironically like this

Moreso gives google and meta a fat profit, and they bought congress. I personally also think that suppression of info about Palestine is a driver of the bill as well, and that rewards congress through the legal bribery that is lobbying.