Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain’t dead. Remember, don’t downvote for disagreements.

  • jsomae@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I do find topics like natalism and deathism quite fascinating. I’m not certain you’re correct, but I do think what you’re saying is very plausible. I lean more utilitarian, so I find it hard to justify the notion of debt to a specific entity – after all, if you can do right by the entity you create, shouldn’t it be equally good to do right by another entity?

      • jsomae@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Let’s keep the language chill if you don’t mind.

        Yes, assuming such a thing as debt exists. In a different and better world where life is inherently positive, there might not be a debt.

        • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          ???

          If you don’t like how I talk, I guess we’re done here, because I don’t accept your terms. Be reassured at least there was no mal-intent.

          Like, fuck.

          • jsomae@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            16 hours ago

            Basically, I’m saying yes, one owes a debt to their children. I just don’t know how to prove that the concept of “debt” exists at all morally. But assuming it does and it behaves like I think it should, then yes.