sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
No bio...
User ID: 2725
How do you define surrogacy as selling children if at no point does the child become the new parent's property?
That argument applies to surrogacy 1:1.
Perhaps in the world before, when children were factual property of the head of the house. Today, as some lament, we do not own our children.
What does it mean to "not be Christian enough"? This sounds more like a political division than the faith that all are saved if they follow Jesus Christ.
Marriage was a contract historically, at least until it's become more like a suggestion in many countries.
That was pretty much my first thought. If you sign up for surrogacy, by all means keep the baby even if they're gonna be half-braindead, but don't expect to be paid for the job.
If anything here can be called demonic (as in, driven by alien forces beyond mere human wickedness), it is not the act of purchasing a child from a woman individually (rather than in lifelong contract), but the use of courts to arbitrarily litigate sums in vast excess of the original contract from, as far as I can tell, thin air.
I liked the sequel more, actually. "I guess we'll just have to kill 'em" is far more honest. Every atheist who's talked to smart theologists knows there can be those who can beat you in an argument even when they're wrong.
I do not put triumph over sickness, infirmity and hunger in the same box as deciding that you don't need to consider fellow humans either.
As theistic debates go, this appears to be a particularly crude one on part of Lewis. Not only being inherently deficient because he writes for both his side and his opponent, but also writing his opponent's side inarticulately. This is the equivalent of drawing the christian as the chad and the atheist as the soyjak.
I do not believe the sort of people you exalt is an improvement. Certainly I do not wish to see them anywhere near power, especially power over me or any number of my kids.
I want to see leaders who have paid and continue to pay for leadership in sweat and/or blood. Even the most venal and corrupt of leaders today do pay, although some of them pay insufficiently and that makes them complacent and fattened on power.
There is also the thing where you deny that you see yourself among the elite of the new world order, but the plausibility of that denial strains my credulity. You display exactly the same mindset that you believe should be empowered and you're frankly displaying the worst of that mindset. When I imagine the world you're portraying I imagine a world where potential men like you have been given power by a thought experiment god (since you're unfit to seize it). It's a deeply contradictory world.
There is plenty of discontent in Russia about how the war is going, included among the opinion makers. It does not rise to unrest because unrest is outlawed and the law is enforced.
(The discontent among the opinion makers is, admittedly, primarily of the "we should be having this war but the leadership are thieves, morons and cowards" kind rather than "we shouldn't be having this war" kind because expressing discontent of the latter kind as a public person is extra no bueno.)
I do not believe Putin has memories of Operation Barbarossa, he wasn't there. Invocations of WW2 sentiments just sound extremely fake and contrived to me.
That's closer to what hubris means, unlike your initial attempt to apply it to what I said.
I think the word you're looking for is "selfishness".
Hubris would better describe someone who seeks the fruits of power with profound ignorance of how power is claimed and held.
You asked why I responded to you in an emotional way and I answered.
Regarding your view on the world, I won't be sacrificing myself to perpetuate those smarter and more beautiful than me, and that goes double for those whose genius and beauty is only evident to themselves.
Equality is not the same as fairness. I believe those who labor to better the world should be compensated. The potential men who could maybe better the world, but only if they feel like it and also if everyone stops getting in the way, should not be compensated for potential.
I disagree with yours.
One could say that I observe a stable moral-aesthetic superposition between "the world should be fair!" and "the world is unfair, act like it". "The world should be unfair in my favor" is not a part of the superposition.
I don't think I'd make the cut, in no small reason because I'm far from making the cut in the current elite structure.
The emotional reaction you're noticing is in response to the fact that you seem to think you'd make the cut. The_Nybbler has put it better than I could, you don't have the qualities that form the core of any aristocratic class.
My oughts about higher education institutions are different than my oughts about the base structure of society. If you looked for my opinion on something that's even lower stakes, such as competitive gaming, you'd find that it doesn't align with my views on an ideal society either.
It seems so to you because you believe that you're obviously correct and perhaps that you're a natural ally to me, so it must only be "false consciousness" clouding my mind.
One's welcome to not accept it, and I wish him luck in getting more than what he's given. I just don't care for made-up justifications for why he "deserves" more than mere dregs of an upper middle class salary.
I don't want to be in the club with you, not particularly, no. You haven't proven you're a valuable ally who can bring about any justice, beauty, genius or action you want a coalition for, you haven't proven you're fun company, and rest assured you haven't proven you're a threat I should prefer to be with rather than against.
If I ever consider taking over the world you won't be the kind of person I turn to.
I thought you couldn't make soccer more of a joke.
Not only am I obviously aware of that, it doesn't help your argument.
We don't know that they are more tasty, because species segregation has banned any investigation into this question. You have that privilege. Now imagine if you had to fight tooth and nail not having the privilege, and if there were no species segregation police force you didn't invent, organize, or sufficiently fund that was willing to enforce your species privilege. Your existence would be much more precarious in such a world.
We have some reports of the taste. And we do know from evidence that it is not enticing enough to even fund a decently-sized black market. Criminals widely trade in weapons, drugs, sex, slaves, children, sex slaves, child slaves and sex with children, yet human meat remains an afterthought for the very few depraved.
Even if I lived next to a cannibal barbarian tribe without any protection, my existence would not be substantially more precarious than living next to a non-cannibal barbarian tribe.
This whole exchange, you have struggled with distinguishing descriptive and normative statements, redefining my normative statements as different descriptive statements and then claiming that those descriptions are not true. For example, I say I want an aristocracy. You then define an aristocrat as any person that gets some social authority, and remark that you don't think I have any. Then you say I'm not an aristocrat.
There is no objective definition of aristocracy or aristocrats. When I deny you being an aristocrat because you do not rule, this is me being charitable, conceding the implication that if you were higher on the totem pole, I would not question your status as an aristocrat.
Less charitably:
- You are not to my knowledge a descendant of any hereditary privileged ruling class
- neither appointed as such
- neither evidently possessing any virtues commonly associated with aristocrats at a high level, other than intellect (taking your claims of high IQ at face value)
For all I can see your self-designation of an aristocrat is mostly according to a definition you have custom-made to fit yourself but not the people who you are bitter about losing status to.
This is indeed not a productive discussion. There have been other posters who combined high opinion of their own virtues with low tangible evidence of such. This is not a good combination. You want someone to care about your high IQ without asking for what you have accomplished with it, join MENSA. I heard it's a dull community precisely because it attracts the people who have the measure of intelligence but not the virtue of it, but perhaps you'll find it different.
That does not appear to cohere with your designs for the world at all. As far as I understand, you want the world to coordinate on bringing certain kinds of people (the "smart" ones), regardless of heritage or proof of work (because proving your smarts through work is cheating and real proof is the IQ test), to the forefront.
This will not happen if there are only sets of families because every family will be looking out for itself. Any uniting principle that goes above familial ties and nepotism will, by definition, be society.
This only coheres if you include yourself into the set of bad people who have come up with society to justify their evil behavior (such as declaring that they should be prioritized).
- Prev
- Next

Property is something you can own.
Parents (including adoptive parents, or legal guardians) do not own their children.
It is possible to own a person extralegally (such as through enslavement by human trafficking), but this is not an inherent part of surrogacy.
Thus I figure surrogacy does not make children into property. Not any more than being able to waive parental rights does.
More options
Context Copy link