No "/s" needed, Trump said that Wal-Mart should eat the tariffs.
EndlessNightmare
joined 1 year ago
What this idiot has missed is that American doesn’t have the means to make these goods.
Regardless of one's opinions on tariffs themselves, this was such a stupid, hamfisted way of going about it. It's almost like phasing in tariffs incrementally over a period of, say 10 years, would allow for adaption and for production to get spooled up.
I use "10 years" as an example, an economics person would be better qualified on the specifics.
It would seem that America doesn't have a problem with collective punishment
IOW: the state of Israel supports fascism in the U.S. That would make them an enemy of the American public.
especially in America
Lack of common sense and over-the-top levels of bias.
If I believe in numerology and as a result decide to pat myself on the head 12 times before bed that is not evidence that numerology is not a nutty woo woo theory
Well...billions of people on this planet do believe in divine supreme beings. I assume that, for the sake of consistency, you consider deity-based religions to be nutty woo woo theories on similar grounds, yes? I should note that they believe in it to the extent of fighting actual wars over it.
has real world applications.
I already explained the real world applications of antinatalism in my previous comments. These are real things that people do that have actual, quantifiable results.
As I said, prospective parents need to accept the risk that their child might resent them for being born. I’m happy to consider that in the unlikely circumstance that I encounter it
That isn't answering the question though. You obviously think that creating life is good for the life being created, yes? And antinatalists don't.
He would have done more in the service of antinatalism by becoming a doctor and performing sterilization surgeries; lots of childfree people who want to get sterilization have a difficult time finding a doctor willing to perform the procedure. He would be providing the market with an in-demand service.
Or barring medical skills, donating money to various organizations (e.g. Planned Parenthood) that would advance his cause.
You’re talking about it as though it’s a credible ideology when in reality it is, at best, a nutty thought experiment with no real world application.
It is a credible ideology, even if you disagree with it, and there are legitimate discussions to be had in academic and philosophical circles. And it absolutely does have real world applications, even if these are limited in scope:
-
Many people choose to personally abstain from reproduction out of these considerations.
-
Veganism is, at its core, a form of applied antinatalism.
-
The push for spay/neuter of companion animals is another direct application of this ideology
Again, there is room for it so long as it remains limited in scope and isn't taken to an extreme degree such as engaging in abhorrent acts of violence.
It’s not a question of whether being brought into existence is good.
Maybe it should be. If not a question of whether it is good or not, then what is it a question of? And if one does not believe that it is good, then why proceed?
No parent seriously considered whether their unconceived child consented.
This is due to selection bias. One might presume that those who do give this serious consideration would refrain from becoming parents.
/r/worldnews : yabbut it's not genocide because reasons
So we're back to: you can't get consent for creating a new life. Since consent can't be obtained, you have to justify the position of doing something that affects someone without their consent.
There is precedence for this. I think a better analogy, that avoids the paradoxical issues of non-existence, would be life-saving treatment for someone who is unconscious. The treatment can either be administered (without consent, due to the patient being unconscious) to save their life. Or the treatment can be withheld and the patient dies. Justifying this treatment is predicated on the treatment being to the benefit of the recipient and is generally accepted with some various exceptions.
Many people would be of the opinion that creating a new person is beneficial to said new person. However this is where the fundamental disagreement between antinatalists and pronatalists would be. Is creating a new person beneficial or detrimental to the person being created? The hard antinatalism position says that it is "always bad", but of course the answer to this question can be conditional as well and need not be an absolute "always good" or "always bad". And people have different thresholds for where this point is. That's it, that's the difference of opinion.
I’ve never encountered the problem of being told I should have children
Childfree people encounter this all the time.
nor intimidation, coercion, or violence.
It can happen in abusive relationships, but it would be rare in more general situations.
Interesting...
The most common argument I see in opposition to antinatalism is an assertion that creating a life is good for that created life. Maybe not 100%, but strongly enough in that direction for them to make the claim.