Last of Us: Duty to Reproduce?

[Red Fury]

Nothing has changed. Nationstates still likes to imagine excuses for rape or situations where rape might be plausible; while none of them truly understand what rape does to someone.

Nothing about this has been implied to be non-consensual. You're talking bullshit.

Actually in blood sacrifices "virgin" mostly referred to people whose blood had never been used in sacrifice before; not whose lives had been somehow magically altered through intercourse.

Sauce that.

Unless consent has been expressly given it is rape. You're making excuses for date rape; etc.

[The Batorys]

Honestly, what's so great about humanity anyway that our species needs to go on? Maybe if we went extinct the Earth would be able to recover from what we've done to it.

because humans are the only reason anything has meaning.

Without human beings it's all just nature running its course.

Why is that necessarily bad?

[Red Fury]

Nothing has changed. Nationstates still likes to imagine excuses for rape or situations where rape might be plausible; while none of them truly understand what rape does to someone.

Just what side of internet hell did you come from exactly?

It sounds like Forum 7 because NSG isn't that bad. Immaturity is a problem, but as the experienced survive the attacks from school students each summer it gets a little better.

Unfortunately, your side. I've been an on-and-off NSGer for something like 6 years now?

Children and dogs can understand consent. Understanding the question and with respect to OP; consent is often assumed and not expressly given. Too many people assume.

[Red Fury]

because humans are the only reason anything has meaning.

Without human beings it's all just nature running its course.

Why is that necessarily bad?

I love the implications that nature is inferior.

[Utceforp]

And as Rorschach said: ''Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.''

Rorschach caused the deaths of countless amounts of people to be pointless and possibly caused WW3. He's far from a role model.

[Utceforp]

Why is that necessarily bad?

I love the implications that nature is inferior.

Nature is billions of mindless things with no desires other than to eat as many other things as possible and shit out smaller versions of themselves using the other things they eat. Nature is horrifying.

[Benuty]

And as Rorschach said: ''Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.''

Rorschach caused the deaths of countless amounts of people to be pointless and possibly caused WW3. He's far from a role model.

Got to admire that stubborn trait within them though.

[The Batorys]

Why bring it up then?

---

That not an explanation of how the decision is rational. Why should I value the success of the human species?

Because you're a human, you're a social being by nature and everything you hold dear was most like attached to the existence of your species. If not for that, it's simply instinct.

But in this situation, everyone you hold dear is dead already.

[Utceforp]

Honestly, what's so great about humanity anyway that our species needs to go on? Maybe if we went extinct the Earth would be able to recover from what we've done to it.

If you're going to ask the question "what's so great about humanity?", you also need to ask the question "what's so great about life?"

[The Batorys]

Why is that necessarily bad?

I love the implications that nature is inferior.

I know, right?

[Red Fury]

I love the implications that nature is inferior.

Nature is billions of mindless things with no desires other than to eat as many other things as possible and shit out smaller versions of themselves using the other things they eat. Nature is horrifying.

I have a pet snake.

Today it got itself stuck in my belt loop and freaked the fuck out until I freed it.

While I would love to disagree, I really can't.

She's even afraid of the already dead mice I feed her. If I dangle them; she won't strike for fear that it's still alive.

[Dakini]

Nothing has changed. Nationstates still likes to imagine excuses for rape or situations where rape might be plausible; while none of them truly understand what rape does to someone.

Nothing about this has been implied to be non-consensual. You're talking bullshit.

If you're claiming that people have a duty to reproduce, you're taking the ability to consent away from them.

[The Batorys]

No duty to reproduce exists.

I disagree.
In the scenario described, i'd say a duty exists to continue the species.
It's merely an unenforcable one.

Like how it's your duty to hold open doors for people.

Not doing it makes you an asshole, but oh well, people are entitled to be assholes.

Who is the duty to, in this case? You and one other person are the entirety of Humanity at this point. Everyone else is dead.

[Hetland 2]

I dunno if it's been said yet, namely because I'm super lazy and don't want to read all the comments, but if there are two people left... the human race is doomed. The Bottleneck effect will ensure that we'd never be the same, essentially crippling the race. If we had, I dunno, 500-1 thousand people we'd be able to recover safely. 2? We'd be inbreeding within the generation.

That being said, if such a thing did happen, I'd at least try and get along with my partner. If sex happens, cool. If it doesn't, okay. The human race'd die out regardless of what we did, so I'd at least like to let it die out happy.

[Red Fury]

Nothing about this has been implied to be non-consensual. You're talking bullshit.

If you're claiming that people have a duty to reproduce, you're taking the ability to consent away from them.

[Sun Wukong]

Nothing about this has been implied to be non-consensual. You're talking bullshit.


Sauce that.

Unless consent has been expressly given it is rape. You're making excuses for date rape; etc.

No I'm not. Nothing about the OP (and I can't fucking believe I'm defending mushroom) implies lack of consent. It's a normative question. You're creating a non-existent issue just to complain about it.

Which is much more consistent with the stupidity of NSG then the bullshit you were talking about, so well done.

[Utceforp]

Because you're a human, you're a social being by nature and everything you hold dear was most like attached to the existence of your species. If not for that, it's simply instinct.

But in this situation, everyone you hold dear is dead already.

The concept of "sapient thought" is something I assume most people hold dear, which is worth preserving. Like Hetland, and earlier I, said, we're fucked anyway due to the bottleneck effect though. If the question is boiled down to "you're the last person alive, and have to do [insert uncomfortable thing here] to revive humanity, do you do it?" than the answer is a resounding "yes" from me.

[Sun Wukong]

Nothing about this has been implied to be non-consensual. You're talking bullshit.

If you're claiming that people have a duty to reproduce, you're taking the ability to consent away from them.

Duty implies obligation, but not mind control. They can still say "no."

Although, It totally wouldn't surprise me if Shroom's next question was to ask if it's okay to rape them if they say "no."

[The Batorys]

You can't be a dick to people who don't exist. Is spaying a cat being a dick to the kittens they would have?

You are being a dick to all of humanity that existed by choosing to let the species die out. Like pissing on a person's grave, just because the person isn't around to call you on it doesn't mean that it isn't a dick move.

Why is it a dick move to dead people to not reproduce?

[Red Fury]

If you're claiming that people have a duty to reproduce, you're taking the ability to consent away from them.

Duty implies obligation, but not mind control. They can still say "no."

Although, It totally wouldn't surprise me if Shroom's next question was to ask if it's okay to rape them if they say "no."

Is the word "coercion" in your vocabulary?

[Sun Wukong]

Duty implies obligation, but not mind control. They can still say "no."

Although, It totally wouldn't surprise me if Shroom's next question was to ask if it's okay to rape them if they say "no."

Is the word "coercion" in your vocabulary?

If they're being coerced it's by the circumstance. Which hardly qualifies as rape.

[Dakini]

If you're claiming that people have a duty to reproduce, you're taking the ability to consent away from them.

Duty implies obligation, but not mind control. They can still say "no."

Although, It totally wouldn't surprise me if Shroom's next question was to ask if it's okay to rape them if they say "no."

You don't need mind control for rape. You just need to put someone in a situation where they cannot really say no. A situation where you declare that someone has a duty to reproduce is such a situation where the ability to freely say "no" has been taken away.

[Utceforp]

You are being a dick to all of humanity that existed by choosing to let the species die out. Like pissing on a person's grave, just because the person isn't around to call you on it doesn't mean that it isn't a dick move.

Why is it a dick move to dead people to not reproduce?

Well it means that everything humanity built or did in its entire existence is now pointless and worthless.

[Dakini]

Is the word "coercion" in your vocabulary?

If they're being coerced it's by the circumstance. Which hardly qualifies as rape.

If you're coercing someone into sex with you, it's rape. If you're saying it's okay to coerce people into having sex, then you're saying that you're okay with rape.

Which is something I'm really not comfortable with, even in extremely limited hypothetical circumstances.

[The Black Forrest]

Nothing about this has been implied to be non-consensual. You're talking bullshit.

If you're claiming that people have a duty to reproduce, you're taking the ability to consent away from them.

Well? There is the ethical dilemma. If extinction is the alternative, is consent valid? Excluding of course a single pair is not a valid number to repopulate.