reply to post by dontreally
So anyone who embarks on a conversation should seek to be convinced of the other persons view?
that is not what i said.
generally, acceptance and consideration of an alternate theory is usually the purpose of a "conversation".
dialogue used to force your opinion upon others, regardless how immoral such an act truly is, does not equate to a conversation.
asking for input (why - why not) then proceeding to berate others simply because you disagree is not a "conversation".
not sure where you are that you live in a "liberal democracy" but i'm in the USA and we don't foster that here.
there is nothing immoral about bearing children.
even for those who "cannot afford it" ... we've been doing it for centuries, with or without financing.
logical ?? what is logical about your assertion or question ?
it is not logical to presume the creation of life is immoral in any way, shape or form.
you cannot assume "knowledge" based on circumstance.
in the days of Plato, ppl lived well into their 80s, 90s and beyond.
who's to say that without generations of war, we'd be pushing 200 by now ??
so, if average life expectancy were say 150, would it be immoral to begin procreating at 20 ??
ppl die prematurely every day, what makes you think your "presumed consequences" will follow your outline ?
You just don't like that idea. You actually jettison the argument all together, reducing the act of judging an action according to it's
ethical merit to a question of why the question even matters.
i didn't start this thread, it is not me who is judging ... please put the
mirror down before you type.
i am human, it is not my place to judge or yours for that matter.
and, for the record, it is you who is avoiding my questions, not the other way around.
you've answered one (kind of), what's the problem ??
can't argue sound logic or are you more interested in fishing for any logic so long as it agrees with you ?