zurew

Oh thats definitely not true. Most violence and crime and most hurt are behind family doors. Also don't forget that it doesn't have to be intentional.

How do you know that? Can you absolutely exclude the love for the child in all instances?

In that case, there is 0% chance that anyone will change his/her opinion on this matter.

Can you write down specifically where Carl is wrong?

I will provide a link (This won't say anything about immigrants, this just shows a basic crime stat comparison between the US and Sweden): https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Sweden/United-States/Crime/table Relevant stats: Total crimes per 1000 | Sweden:138.35 Ranked 2nd. (3 times more than United States) > US: 41.29 Ranked 22nd. Violent crime -> Gun crime -> Guns per 100 residents | Sweden:31.6 Ranked 10th. < US: 88.8 Ranked 1st. (3 times more than Sweden) Violent crime -> Murder rate per million people |Sweden: 9.7 (Ranked 75th.) < US: 42.01 Ranked 43th. (4 times more than Sweden) Violent crime -> Rapes per million people | 635.52 Ranked 3rd. (2 times more than United States) > US: 274.04 Ranked 9th. Murders with firearms per million | Sweden:6.5 Ranked 24th. < US: 32.57 Ranked 10th. (5 times more than Sweden) Violent crime -> Murders per million people |Sweden: 9.7 Ranked 75th. < US: 42.01 Ranked 43th. (4 times more than Sweden) Murders -> Per 100,000 people |Sweden: 2.4 Ranked 87th. < US: 5.9 Ranked 63th. (2 times more than Sweden) Prisoners -> Per capita|Sweden: 75 per 100,000 people Ranked 108th. < US: 715 per 100,000 people Ranked 1st. (10 times more than Sweden) Car thefts per 1000 |Sweden: 6.87 Ranked 3rd. (59% more than United States) > US: 4.33 Ranked 11th.

Do they have a choice not to play it?

@SQAAD Why would you hate hot woman specifically , when Narcissism as a trait is not exclusive to them Not all hot woman are narcissistic So at the end of the day, according to your logic, you shouldn't hate hot woman, but you should scan for narcissistic traits ,regardless of the hotness aspect.

Stargate Project : This guy researches topics like this very extensively. These two video summarize this topic in a digestible way, with quotes and sources. Sources for the first episode: https://pastebin.com/ug0vH78L Sources for the second episode: https://pastebin.com/JbrN02Kk

@Danioover9000 Those are good examples, however the context of the question was around , when one have a disagreement or when we misunderstand each other.

If people would be certain, that non-existence is better than existence, then even if its super stressful to kill themselves, they would do it, because they would percieve that as a better choice. - Example would be fanatic religious people, who are seeing more meaning in the afterlife, so some of them are 100% willing to die for the greater cause. But what I see, is that people aren't so confident in that belief, and I also see that people generally give more weight to love and meaning comapred to suffering.

Yes, but if we go with his position (that non-existence is better than existence), then that should necessarily lead to everyone killing themselves. But thats not the case, so either people don't recognize, that non-existence is better than existence, or the claim isn't true or I don't see something here, that I should.

@Leo Gura Very good stuff!

I don't have any , and I don't need any. You were the one who tried to use reincarnation as a reason for this question: Why would anyone be afraid of death, if according to you, non-existence is objectively better than existence? You need to find a different answer other than the assumption of reincarnation.

If we assume that existence is beyond the physical realm, then your whole position should automatically fall apart, because at that point, we also have to assume that life doesn't start in the physical realm.

@Someone here I don't know what data you saw about suicide, but it seems what you said about suicide being the 2nd most common cause of death, isn't true.

Yes, but to say that the reason is because they were born, is just way too vague of an explanation for that. Again, If what you say would be true (that non-existence is objectively better, than existence),then why would anyone want to continue their life? If what you say would be true, then suicide would be the 1st common cause of death Why would anyone be afraid of death, if according to you, non-existence is objectively better than existence?

@Someone here None of your reasoning is applied in practice, because you don't truly believe in your own morality. If this would be objectively true, we would have killed ourselves a long time ago.

Its only evil if you start with the 'minimization of suffering' axiom. That axiom necessarily leads to anti life positions, and to killing everyone, but it seems to me , that you don't truly want to live up to that , because if you would truly believe in that moral axiom, you would have already murdered some people. So because of your axiom, you basically have a position where you don't consider the mass murder of the entire human race as evil, but you consider creating life as evil.

I think thats not the right question, because you can't stop survival and the fights in nature, even if you kill all humans. I also think that humans being alive doesn't necessarily implies, that we have to cause more suffering than if we weren't alive. I think you can't use permission and consent as an argument, where there is none. This argument could go both ways, maybe they would want to have a life but maybe they don't, the point is that you don't know, and you can't make your moral argument based on the assumption, that maybe they wouldn't want to live. You are basically the decision maker here no matter what you do: If you want to have a child you make the decision them coming to life without their consent If you don't want to have a child you make the decision them not having a life at all (and this is also your deicison) You are responsible in both cases, and you make a choice without the child's permission or consent.

@Someone here Schopenhauer doesn't argue in favour of the minimanization of suffering there. Nature and peace being in the same statement is strange , because nature with or without humans is a fucking battlefield.

So why should we value the minimization of suffering over the maximization of happiness?

Why do you put more weight on potential suffering compared to potential happiness here?

You need to choose between the 'minimization of suffering' and the 'maximization of happiness', because when it comes to choosing between the two, you can't make your choice. You need to find a fundamental axiom here. Sometimes those two are mutually exclusive.

Ohh , okay, then I am sorry, I misunderstood your post. I agree with you then.

With reasoning like this, we are going to end up with reasons to kill all humans, I don't think we want to have a moral system where we end up killing everyone.