zurew

Yes I said that, but I didnt mean what you mean by that sentence. I meant the fact that most people are not against all consent violations in a principled way not that there cant be consent violation. There isnt any internal contradiciton shown there. Spell out the p and not p if you think there are internal contradicitions. Also, again, none of what you said shows to antinatalists that the human condition is not bad. Where do you think I made the point that those two are not distinct? My exact point is that these two things are distinct and that both of them are important to consider. Violation of consent means that you subjugate an individual to a set of unwanted experiences. Future violation of consent means that you subjugate a future sentient being to a set of unwanted experiences. Now try to apply and use my semantics and show under how I use these terms whats the contradicition or the incoherence without switching back to how you use these terms. Like knowing that once your daughter will be born she will be a sex-slave. You know before your kid is born what set of unwanted experiences she will go through and that was the meat of the 'violation of future consent' all along. This is why I implied that you using a different definition of consent that is incoherent with there being a future violation of consent doesnt really change substantially anything. Applying your semantics to the sex-slave example doesnt at all change the gravity of what you do once you decide to birth the kid. You know what set of unwanted experiences you will make her live through. Applying it to the p-zombie example, you know that once it actually becomes a sentient being for the first time and its reminded about the rape, that it will go through a set of very negative experiences. The same goes for the comatosed and the sleeping example. You having a broader definition for moral responsibility doesnt change the core of what the antinatalists saying. Using your semantics antinatalist would just say that you cant be morally responsible then, because the very act of creating life is morally irresponsible rather than a violation of future consent (under how I use the term). I was suspicious that I was arguing against AI, but now I can be sure about it. Well, in that case I will open a new tab and will argue it out with chatgpt and claude then and see what other things they have to say.

The whole point is that anti-natalist consider the "human condition" to be bad. Your are not making it not bad , by harping on it not being a consent violation.

Making the subject a p-zombie who never was a subject and because of that never had bodiliy autonomy doesnt make the rape any more okay (at least not under my view, under your view it might be okay, because there isnt any such thing as future violation of consent). Its entailed in the example that there will be a consenting subject (at the time when the act will be executed). Its literally entailed and decided at the moment of paying the psychopath for it. Its not just a plan to do it. Its a deterministic event which caused at the moment of payment. No im not mistaking it, you are trying to reduce the example down to just intent, but its not just intent, because in the example its entailed that it will necessarily happen once the payment is done. The payment is the causal factor that necessarily leads to the rape. Some guy already made this argument for me: No the main point still stands regardless who wins the label battle. The only thing that was done is a re-labeling and the categorization thats put on it. Whether you want to label necessarily subjugating your future kid to having capacity for experiences and to a set of really negative experiences (including the realization that he/she will die) as a "violation of future consent" or just "moral responsibility" doesnt change the substance in any way and it doesnt really refute the main point that most anti-natalists make. You didnt show how they are wrong in any way, all you did was you appealed to a different set of moral intuitions that you have. You also managed to somehow tie another topic yet again back to"west is bad" as if that would be relevant to anything. We understand your traumas dude, but this is not a therapy session. Is the west in the room with us right now? You also managed to bring up the beyond stupid bro science "argument" against veganism by appealing to history like how all low tier debaters approach the topic.

So under your view this is not a violation of future consent - One psychopath pays 10 million dollars to a dude to rape the next future sentient person. Its guaranteed that the rape will happen but the person who will be raped is just a clump of cells right now.

Im not an anti natalist, im just trying to establish there (the thing you responded to) that there is such a thing as future violation of consent, which zazen still denies.

Just to be clear, under your view - it wasnt rape , because there wasnt any conscious subject who could agree or disagree to the act. You had to appeal to bodily autonomy so that you dont need to bite the bullet. I can change the example where we start with a p-zombie who isnt a subject and who never had the capacity to consent. Since its not a subject it doesnt have bodily autonomy. That p-zombie gets raped a 1000 times and after that it gains sentience and is reminded how the rape was done. Its guaranteed that once it gains sentience it will be reminded of what people did with its body. And all the rapists know this information before they rape the p-zombie. Is the act of having sex with the p-zombie in this example a violation of future consent or not? Also again under your view, the mother who is using heroin during pregnancy isnt doing anything bad, since its just a clump of cells and there isnt anyone (a subject) who is being harmed. What kind of moral responsibility are you talking about there, the welfare of a clump of cells? Yes and its very obvious that this is the case. I can easily generate more examples. One psychopath pays 10 million dollars to a dude to rape the next future sentient person. Its guaranteed that the rape will happen but the person who will be raped is just a clump of cells right now. Is the act of paying 10 million dollars to the future rapist a violation of future consent or not?

Also I shouldnt have even granted the moral responsibility part that you brought up. Because given your starting logic, there is nothing to have moral responsibility for, since its just a clump of cells right , its not a developed sentient human being yet , so what is being violated and harmed in the present? Ohh the fact time works in one way and that you have responsibility for the future kid who isn't just a clump of cells anymore, right? So even when it comes to just physical harm ,your own starting point completely collapses if you want to talk about welfare.

Yes it is future violation of consent. No it doesnt collapses 1) because no one cares about all types of violation of consent the same. 2) You can only think ahead a few steps ahead. What you are bringing up is a pragmatic and epistemic issue, that doesnt at all engage with the problem that is invoked. The problem at hand is that you reasonably know epistemically what kind of consent you will necessarily violate in the future. If your brain can track the fact that your action in the present can violate and harm a being who isnt sentient right now, but will be in the future, then you should be able to cognize and apply that to consent as well. What you failed to track is that the heroin example is compatible with both btw, because it isnt just bad because of the physical harm ,but because of the potential psychological harm as well. If you know beforehand that doing heroin wont do any physical damage to the kid, but the kid realizing that you did heroin while you were pregnant with him will reasonably do psychological damage to him, thats still bad, right? You necessarily subjugate a being to a set of experiences in the future and you know that before that being actually becomes sentient. You also know that generally most sentient beings dont like or not okay with the kind of experiences that you necessarily subjugate that future sentient being to. Lets get into rape examples. There is an unconscious person and you can decide to have sex with that person without him/her knowing about it. Its added to the example that after he/she wakes up you tell him/her what you did. Is this only bad if they end up disliking what you did and its cool and good if they like it in the end? If you dont like the sleeping example, we can change it to comatosed people. Yes what you said was stupid and you got butthurt about it.

Its not a stretch at all, because you gave that weird reply to the heroin example, so I just draw your attention to what was the implication of your reply. Yes, and its a stupid statement , because it doesnt engage with how time works. What you failed to track is that you can violate future consent in the present right now, if its guaranteed that the being that is violated will become sentient.

Naruto. Its a classic, you should definitely watch it.

So its okay to make your future kid a heroin addict because he isn't sentient yet.

I suspect he is big brain signaling to some of the Game B guys by using big words (Jim Rutt and Jamie Wheal and Jordan Hall seem to follow him).

Your line of thinking only works in abortion arguments where the termination happens before the being can devevlop sentience. So of course, with there being no sentience - no violation of consent happens , but if its entailed that it will be proctected and nurtured until it develops sentience, then consent violations necessarily come up. This is the difference - its wrong to use heroin when you are pregnant and you have the intention to have/keep the kid vs its not wrong to use heroin when you are pregnant and have the intention to abort the fetus before it can develop sentience.

Yeah it seems that you had a different thing in mind when it comes to the label "anti-natalist", but I think when it comes to moral-intuitions we probably align on most things. And I also agree that people downplay suffering. Like why the fuck not think through what you will most probably put your future kid through? I think you can easily push hardcore pro-natalists with illness hypotheticals. Like if it would be the case that you knew with 100% chance that your kid will have down-syndrome with the combination of cancer and being crippled and having schizophrenia and needing to breath through a breathing tube for the rest of his/her life and we can stack any other horrible things on the top of this - would you still feel okay with having that kid? Like really?

Do you have any heruistics for recognizing/realizing category errors?

Btw I agree with the general sentiment that this type of moral philosophy is pointing to. I think consent and suffering are very important things to think through and reflect on. And I also agree that most people want children for selfish reasons.

I dont have it formalized in any way, again all I can tell you is that If I reflect on it - I intuitively know that Im okay with violating consent in a bunch of scenarios , because I care about certain things more than just consent. Yes , but you still go for it, right? If you would be against it in a principled way, then you wouldn't risk it, but you are okay with making the risk of violating consent in a bunch of scenarios. You can go with this, but this goes back to what I said from the beginning. You are not against violating consent in a principled way and if we go back to the question I asked, then the answer is obviously "its okay to have children in a world where there is 100% guaranteed bliss and 0% chance for any suffering." And from then on, the talk isnt about "its wrong because you violated consent" but "its wrong because of the negative stuff you put the kid through".

Its not about being pro killing people , its often times an unrecognized entailment of the view. Its compatible with you having a principled stance against all consent violations. If you think that violating consent in any type of way is fundamentally so wrong that it overwrites everything else, then it necessarily leads to reducing all consent violations to 0. And the answer to your earlier question is that under my personal view its wrong, but not because all type of consent violations are fundamentally wrong (you do violate consent every time you do any type of action where you dont 100% know that the other being is okay with whatever action you do), but because when it comes to things specific to sex, that type of consent violation is fundamentally wrong under my view. No its not necessary, again its only necessary under certain specific scenarios like sex. Pragmatically you wont find any anti-natalist who live up to this. When you ask a question without asking me whether I will be okay with it or not, you are potentially violating my consent and dragging me through and experience that I didnt consent to.

Cant see your answer - whats the answer to the question I asked?

No it isnt. So in a hypothetical where there is no chance of any suffering at all and there is guaranteed pure bliss , you are telling me that these people would still be against having children? its not, most who are not virtue-signaling pussies about it would say what I said - If they would have the pragmatic means to do so , they would end all suffering forever and that involves killing all life. Because again this often times goes back to negative-utilitarianism.

1) You can just reject the main premise that suffering is something that you have to care about the most (to the point where you ignore everything else). Generally when it comes to moral intuitions , I dont think most people agree with the underlying thoughtprocess. Like imagine biting bullets like "No,no no even in a world where there is only 1 millisecond of suffering and 10 trillion years of guaranteed full bliss, its still wrong to have children, because they cant consent to that 1 millisecond of suffering" Once you start to think about hypothecials like that, you suddenly realize that you are not against suffering in a principled way. 2) The other one is a pragmatic one - You dont have the means to kill all humans and even if you did, there would be still incredibly amount of suffering on Earth when it comes to other beings reproducing. So the argument is that you have reason to have children and or to not stop people from having children as long as you believe that there is a chance for technological progress, because the more you progress there the more chance you have to end up in a place where you can actually kill and destroy all life (and with that end reproduction and suffering).

Yeah it seems to me that you can get stuck in dead ends if you are linguistically/conceptually confused and engage in for example category errors. Like imagine the zen master telling you to contemplate for 40 years the square root of red. "No no no dude, dont chicken out, just contemplate it a few more decades and you will figure it out" "You are just not open minded to the possibility, that square root can have the property of redness".

Like this is the level of idiosyncrasy people here engage in and they refuse to clarify further 💀

Nah, it doesnt get settled, because people generally arent interested in clarification and I think a good chunk of them genuinely dont understand the difference between sense and reference and the difference between syntax and semantics - these concepts needs to be explained to them first before one can start the real convo. Like you can explicate as much as you want with what intended meaning you use certain phrases and a good chunk of the people here won't be able to engage with that.