4 ms·

Well, crux_ misrepresented my views, and that's that. But fine: At birth, does one newborn somehow deserve better education, improved nutrition, and a life th

Well, crux_ misrepresented my views, and that's that. But fine: At birth, does one newborn somehow deserve better education, improved nutrition, and a life that will offer far more opportunities and fewer hardships than some other child? In fact, parents are responsible for their own children. I am not responsible for other people's children. That is a hard, cold fact. The only way to force equality is just that: To force it. People who are careful with their finances, with their vocations, with their reproductive activity inevitably wind up supporting other people's children. Think what you will about that. To me, it is disgustingly criminal.

abstractbill 19y ago
In fact, parents are responsible for their own children. I am not responsible for other people's children. That is a hard, cold fact. That doesn't sound like a "cold, hard fact" to me. It sounds like an opinion on the best way to structure responsibility within a society. Do you believe you have any responsibilities at all, to society at large? If so, why do you specifically exclude children?
- mynameishere 19y ago
  Do you believe you have any responsibilities at all, to society at large? Yes: To not force others to raise my children.
  - jacobolus 19y ago
    That’s not a responsibility to society. That’s a rejection of society. Which is to say, in your eagerness to repeat your previous point again, you’re deliberately avoiding the question asked of you. If the answer is “no”, you shouldn’t be afraid to say so.
    - deleted 19y ago
      [deleted]
keating 19y ago
> inevitably wind up supporting other people's children. Think what you will about that. To me, it is disgustingly criminal. Leaving those children hanging out to dry would be what I'd consider disgustingly criminal. I'm not sure I can get my bile to rise to that level for helping them. Being taxed to help children is about the last thing I'd fight against, as a matter of priority. First I'd go after the actual wasting of tax dollars, which helping children certainly is not. In fact, it's essential if you care about society even from a _self-interested_ standpoint. It's similar to health insurance. Is it "fair" that if you don't need to use it, you end up paying for other people who aren't so fortunate? If you live long enough, the probability approaches 1 that you'll need it. And it may cover more in hospital bills for you than you paid into the system. I think the essential basis of your objection is that life is a competition and that if you're winning, you should be able to press your advantage instead of having your lead reduced by outside interference. By contrast, those of us in the "cooperation" camp think instead of fighting over who gets the bigger piece of a smaller pie, we can make the whole pie bigger. And taking a broader view, even eliminate competition altogether by providing computational resources to each individual that will maximize hir experience of life (via completely convincing VR), given what our limited brains are even capable of and how it pales in comparison to the possibilities of nonbiological intelligence.

abstractbill 19y ago

In fact, parents are responsible for their own children. I am not responsible for other people's children. That is a hard, cold fact. That doesn't sound like a "cold, hard fact" to me. It sounds like an opinion on the best way to structure responsibility within a society. Do you believe you have any responsibilities at all, to society at large? If so, why do you specifically exclude children?

mynameishere 19y ago
Do you believe you have any responsibilities at all, to society at large? Yes: To not force others to raise my children.
- jacobolus 19y ago
  That’s not a responsibility to society. That’s a rejection of society. Which is to say, in your eagerness to repeat your previous point again, you’re deliberately avoiding the question asked of you. If the answer is “no”, you shouldn’t be afraid to say so.
  - deleted 19y ago
    [deleted]

keating 19y ago

> inevitably wind up supporting other people's children. Think what you will about that. To me, it is disgustingly criminal. Leaving those children hanging out to dry would be what I'd consider disgustingly criminal. I'm not sure I can get my bile to rise to that level for helping them. Being taxed to help children is about the last thing I'd fight against, as a matter of priority. First I'd go after the actual wasting of tax dollars, which helping children certainly is not. In fact, it's essential if you care about society even from a _self-interested_ standpoint. It's similar to health insurance. Is it "fair" that if you don't need to use it, you end up paying for other people who aren't so fortunate? If you live long enough, the probability approaches 1 that you'll need it. And it may cover more in hospital bills for you than you paid into the system. I think the essential basis of your objection is that life is a competition and that if you're winning, you should be able to press your advantage instead of having your lead reduced by outside interference. By contrast, those of us in the "cooperation" camp think instead of fighting over who gets the bigger piece of a smaller pie, we can make the whole pie bigger. And taking a broader view, even eliminate competition altogether by providing computational resources to each individual that will maximize hir experience of life (via completely convincing VR), given what our limited brains are even capable of and how it pales in comparison to the possibilities of nonbiological intelligence.