You can’t make a thread saying sexual violence is bad because of suicide, and then not allow people to discuss the consent principle as it pertains to suicide.
If you use “lives saved” numbers that imply involuntary survival is good, then you will get commenters pointing out that this violates the consent principle.
Well that is just a terrible argument, because no one’s consent is being violated when we prevent their lives from being bad enough that they want to commit suicide.
and that the x-risk reduction efforts implies actively causing a future that contains astronomical amounts of additional rape.
That’s not really new. Having more population implies having more of… everything.
This is both true and relevant, even if it goes against the usual euphemistic framing and may therefore sound counterintuitive to you
Look dude, if you want to go around saying “we should let the planet go extinct so that wildlife doesn’t endure the tragedy of existence” then the onus of justifying things that sound counterintuitive on their face is on you.
Well that is just a terrible argument, because no one’s consent is being violated when we prevent their lives from being bad enough that they want to commit suicide.
That’s not really new. Having more population implies having more of… everything.
Look dude, if you want to go around saying “we should let the planet go extinct so that wildlife doesn’t endure the tragedy of existence” then the onus of justifying things that sound counterintuitive on their face is on you.
Nice exercise in goalpost-moving, kbog.
Errrr, no.