debate

@dyadka_yar The obesity point was to show humans arent rational actors. They eat excessively while knowing full well what they are doing to themselves, and yet that moment of happiness (aka the bad food) overshadows their own future health. Same with smokers. There is a risk of lung disease, yet people still smoke cigarettes. Why would they do this if they were fully aware of the reality of the risk? "You reap what you sow." So then smokers who contracted lung cancer shouldn't be allowed to undergo chemo because they did it to themselves? They're reaping what they have sowed, they "knew" the risk, so why should we offer chemo treatments to smokers? As far as the coconut blow job hypothetical, I agree. Which is why I'm a capitalist.

smoking is a perfectly fine comparison when testing out his "reap what you sow" ideology I haven't even touched the morality of abortions, right now wer just discussing whether or not the women are truly to blame i say they arent, the same way a smoker isn't entirely to blame for their lung cancer. humans are irrational, no one really grasps the consequences of their actions if they have to suffer them at a future point. especially so if its only a roll of the dice if they will suffer any at all. just like obese people, we will put the consequences out of our mind if it means we can have a moment of happiness global warming being another example. the planet is literally dying but that's only 'in the future' so why do something to curb it right now when it would be inconvenient? its like the marshmallow test, every animal has their time limit for how long they will wait for the second marshmallow, and humans would rather eat a single marshmallow in that moment than wait a month for two

Reaping what you sow is not a bad term. That term came from farmers sowing the fields and reaping them with a scythe. Meaning you planted the seed so you are responsible for the result. In this case women literally planted a seed inside them or allowed it so obviously they have the result to bear a child. Which is not a bad thing.

@solid_snake95 i literally just said that im poking holes in the 'you reap what you sow' ideology you don't tell a life time smoker with lung cancer that he cant get chemo because "he played a stupid game and won a stupid prize" we help them because we understand that humans are not rational actors, and wer kind to them because of it i get what the analogy is... as i said above, we don't apply that to obese people who want to get weight loss surgery or people who need chemotherapy for lung cancer... you eat meat, and red meat gives you an elevated risk for heart disease, but you don't think about that when your chowing down on a burger or steak. and if you did contract heart disease from it no one is going to tell you 'thats what happens when you eat red meat' theyr going to help manage the heart disease this is what i mean when i say we don't apply that ideology to other things, so we shouldn't for people who have recreational sex humans are not rational actors, we do irrational things all the time because we want to feel good. if you deny that youv done something like this and fully was willing to accept the consequences, your a liar.

you dont eat a burger and think "i could get colon cancer from this but im willing to accept it" its literally the same thing with sex. you don't have sex and think "i could get pregnant and i am willing to accept that" you wear a condom so this DOESNT happen, the condom is literally the statement "i don't want to get pregnant." there is no full proof way to have sex and not have a baby unless you get your tubes taken out, and that's a very costly surgery, and you might want children in the future it is not practical to tell people who don't want children to just not have sex. abstinence programs are shown to not work humans arent robots, wer easily swayed by our impulsive need for instant graditication

@solid_snake95 Do you agree/are you aware that there's a difference between "consent" and "legal consent"?

@animekid Legal consent is where it is on a documented form in writing and can hold up in court. However, normal consent is just between the two parties orally therefore is not (most of the time) proven to even happen if one side of the party backs out on the agreement.