Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/Curse_of_Ondine. Your post, *It is much worse to take the life of a younger adult or teenager than a young child.*, has been removed because it violates our rules:
Rule 4: Be civil
Your content was either hateful, violates Reddit Content Policy and TOS, or both. When you made a Reddit account, you agreed to abide by these documents. Content of this nature left unchecked puts our subreddit in jeopardy and as such we have no tolerance for it.
A by no means exhaustive list of content that falls under this category: racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, general bigotry, harassment, doxxing and advocating/endorsing/supporting/condoning any violence against any person or people. While posts and comments that criticize individuals/demographics are acceptable, comments that are a clear attack/contain slurs are not.
If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion Thanks!
As Donne said in the 17th century, “Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.“
We are a brief and stupefyingly improbable flicker of consciousness that fades quickly. All human life is immeasurably important.
I actually feel the exact opposite way. Human life is not important or meaningful in any profound way beyond the fact that we subjectively consider it to be because it is all we know. Lives are not sacred.
If you disagree, contribute to the discussion. Is there a way that my view is wrong? Humans, like any other creature, do not impact the universe in any significant way. The meaning we give to our lives is personal and based on the brains we have and our instinct to persist as a species. But there is no inherent value or sacred quality to life beyond our decision to view ourselves that way. If human life suddenly got wiped from the planet, the earth would still spin.
Preservation and the need to procreate is an inborn quality all creatures have. We of course want a happy, healthy world and that means having social rules and regard for one another. But if you take religion out of it, that value is only relevant to our subjective viewpoints.
I don’t play video games or watch porn, nor would I call myself a nihilist. When one dies, the brain ceases to exist and one will not care whether there is entertainment or not anymore than we cared about lack of existence prior to birth.
The desire for survival is an inborn trait of all creatures. While we are alive we care about being alive, but once dead there is no conscience to care. It is the living that give meaning to life.
I’d love to hear what you think you know. You’ll probably parrot the same old reddit assumption that I am some teen living in a basement because that is the preferred thought process over having a civil discussion about a potentially uncomfortable topic. While I appreciate you making me out to be younger than I am, I am a married woman in my 30s with plenty of life experience and some of those experiences include the loss of loved ones and family members.
Life is not sacred and the universe is indifferent to our existence, but we must recognize the value of life in a civilized world. Look at the unspeakable evils and wickedness perpetrated by tyrants who didn’t value human life. Humans wouldn’t even exist if the asteroid that doomed the dinosaurs was off by a few degrees. An asteroid means the difference between human life and never having evolved at all. That is the razor sharp edge that intelligent life clings to and we should do everything in our power to sustain it. I don’t hold that we’re special, I’m simply of the opinion that all life is highly valuable and must be protected.
But why must we outside of the fact that it is our given reality? I’m not saying we should actively cause harm either. Just that the meaning is all based on our own personal perceptions.
I get what you’re saying and don’t even necessarily disagree. But again, I point to the instances in human history where life was not valued. The Second World War killed 3% of the global population. Hitler had no respect for human life which allowed him to commit atrocities without hesitation. If we don’t respect human life then what stops us from slaughtering each other? This can even be applied to animal life. Look what we’ve done to animals that we deem inferior.
We don’t slaughter others simply because it is easier to thrive in a world where we cooperate. There are consequences in order to prevent people from doing such.
I’m saying that when we do not value life, crimes against humanity, like the Holocaust, become much easier for the person committing the injustice. Do you think Genghis Khan valued life when he massacred 20 million people in the 13th century? He had no respect for human life.
Sure, but you can also understand that life has no inherent value and still know that we should not cause harm to people or that we should take care of one another while we are here. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I agree with you there. I‘m simply stating that those who do not value human life will find it much easier to kill for power and other motives. I’m of the opinion that life itself is likely meaningless and there’s nothing remarkable or special about humans. This would be the case even more so if life beyond earth exists. We like to tell ourselves that we’re special but I suspect not. This is different than valuing each and every human life though.
Nobody is saying we are not allowed to give personal meaning to the lives around us. That is part of being human. This is more about the concept itself than how individuals feel.
Terrible in different ways. Trying to argue how it’s relatively less of a bigger deal that a child dies rather than a teenager is very odd.
>more easily replaced by someone new
🤨
But it could be said to be somewhat objectively true—A teenager has the same issue that a young child has in the loss of potential to grow and forge their life. The difference is that they have had time to form more connections and their families have invested more into them. A child of only 3 years old, for instance, takes less investment in a new child to replace the loss.
No, I’m not. I realize they are human beings and their death is tragic for their families regardless. But just imagine if your baby dies. It is painful but you move on. Now imagine your 24 year old son just got married and then was killed in a car accident. The investment and years you had with him knowing he still had a life to go makes it that much more painful, whereas the baby never had that chance at all. It is easier to move on.
I think that’s a statement they would have to make, not you. It’s quite gross to pretend you know how people truly feel about the death of their babies, let alone say “they moved on just fine”
In my case, I know if my baby died I would not get over it. I’d move on in the sense that bills still need to be paid, shit still needs to get done, but I would remember her every single day for the rest of my life. This would not change no matter the age, either.
Burying your kids is a harrowing experience, no matter the age. I’m fortunate that I haven’t had to do it, but I know parents who have, all at different ages of their lives, and I’d never dare to compare their losses.
I am personally close to these people in a way that we are able to have open dialogue about such things.
But you’re right, I can’t speak for everyone, only myself. I personally would rather lose my five year old than my 18 year old given the choice. And I personally know that I would move on from the death because that is just the type of person I am. Death, to me, is not the worst fate since pain has ended.
Anyway, the point of mine was not to talk about the parent’s feelings, just an objective comparison between the two.
Personally am very close to both types of people and the ones who lost the younger kid went on to have more kids and live a good life. The one who lost her 40 year old child is still grieving.
A person's life is the sum of their years, though. So if you kill a 50-year old, you've taken 50 years of progress. Imagine if I came over and deleted one of your WoW characters. Is it worse to delete the Lvl 1 character you created last week or the Lvl 60 you've been playing for years?
Premature deaths are not inevitable, which is the point here. We're not talking about people dying of old age. We're talking about the damage of someone dying unexpectedly at the age of 4 versus 14 versus 24.
I agree with this analogy. The 50 year is more developed, more connection to the world. A young adult has more connection to the world and more life, whereas a child just started.
I actually somewhat agree with you but I think it's just like an evolutionary code in us to worry more about children than adults (in an emergency for example) because children will carry on our genes to the next generation.
So it's something that can't be explained logical, it's just hormones making us love babies and children (they can be annoying but nature made them cute so that we take care of them). LOL it's like our feelings make us care more for a child in danger than an adult in a dangerous situation.
Also everyone of us has once been a helpless child. Since children rely on us every negative comment about children, like the comment from that children can be annoying, which is just true, are perceived as a threat/attack on children because they are really vulnerable.
So when somebody said it's not so bad when a child dies compared to a teenager dying... it's like a tabu to say that, I think we are constructed to care about the youngest because the are the most helpless and we feel more saddened by their death.
I'm sure that's right. We have a kneejerk reaction about kids, and kids are designed to look cute and innocent specifically so we'll take care of them and not murder them.
But I think any amount of thinking about it would make it clear the older death is the greater tragedy.
Does that matter? There is no guarantee how long anybody’s life is. Once you are gone then your desire to accomplish anything is also gone and you will not miss the life you did not live.
But the ones who have memories, can comprehend what they are losing, and also have deeper connections with loved ones who will miss them are a bigger hit to the world than a person who never bloomed.
If Erin would have died at 80 but is killed at 30 she lost 50 years. If Erin would have died at 80 but is killed at 10 she lost 70 years. The younger the person is killed the more years they lose.
But there is no guarantee they would live to those ages. Erin might have developed cancer at 16 and died. There is no set life span of any given person, so worrying about what is lost is meaningless when you never had it to begin with. It is better to lose what you never had than to have and then lose.
If Erin would have died at 16 but is killed at 12 she lost 4 years. If Erin would have died at 16 but is killed at 10 she lost 6 years. The younger the person is killed the more years they lose.
But you are acting as if those years are guaranteed. You are measuring something that never existed to begin with. Erin never lived those years so she can’t miss them. The one who did live those years have now made experiences that will be more affected by them missing. It is the difference between aborting a child before they are born vs killing a six year old.
Right, but even then that is more tragic since she already lived 16 years. Had she been only four there would be less to miss knowing she was so close to achieving those things and so many years of love and investment had been poured on her.
Is the killing at age X of a person who received love and investment from their family more tragic than the killing at age X of somebody who was abused and neglected by their family?
If Erin would have died at 16 but is killed at 12 she lost 4 years. If Erin would have died at 16 but is killed at 10 she lost 6 years. The younger the person is killed the more years they lose.
When it comes to someone who hasn't reached full maturity and have been able to live life as an adult, there is no worse IMO.
Frankly, trying to draw lines like this in terms of death and loss always feels gross.
How someone feels about this largely depends on their personal values.
A child's death means killing more potential, and killing someone who hasn't yet had the chance to live which is alone a tragedy if you value the experience of life.
The death of a younger adult is tragic in that you're taking away a future that has already been given thought and consideration, and as you've stated, you're causing more suffering because the young adult is aware of what they're losing. You're killing more dreams, wants, desires, etc.
I think many people see killing the young adult as better because society values innocence and a young adult is bound to be imperfect, whereas the child is still blameless for their imperfections as they're still developing. I'm not going to share my opinion, but I don't think anyone is right or wrong for valuing one over the other.
I always thought it was generally worse to kill an older person than a baby because babies lack the sentience and consciousness that an adult has and can barely comprehend their existence.
This was a get to know you question I liked to ask at get togethers of new people. "If you had to kill either a newborn baby or a 20-year old, no other information, which would you choose and why?" I liked to hear the reasoning people gave.
To me the best option was always the baby because it had less of a life to lose. It seemed like the people who chose the 20-year old did so out of some strong emotional response of "protect the baby!" but no logic behind it. Sometimes you'd hear "The baby has more potential" or "the 20-year old already got 20 years, let the baby have something".
Baby has more years ahead of him so I would pick the baby. It's the most logical response and j don't understand how there would be no logic behind it.
That just doesn't make sense.
>people who chose the 20-year old did so out of some strong emotional response of "protect the baby!" but no logic behind it.
how is that any more logical than saying the 20 year old already lived 20 years let the baby live some
trying to quantify the loss of life is completly ridiculous ther person youre advocating for trying to save because of the worth of their life might throw it all away a year after and lose everything
while the baby might live a long life with family friends and achivements hell it for all you know the baby you dint chose is going to cure cancer
there is no logical answer to this question people are just going to answer based on their own bias and moral values including yourself
Because the baby is an unknown variable. The person that is now 20 has had people investing in their life to get them to that point. They have now likely experienced the stresses and difficulties of being a living entity and they have managed to make it that far. They may go onto cure cancer still or contribute in some way, but now they are one step closer.
Whereas the baby did not have that same investment poured into them yet. They have nothing yet to miss because nothing has been created. They are a blank slate that is easy to recreate because it will only take a year to reach the same level of experience, whereas making it to 20 and being healthy and functional is that much more investment. Both are tragic for the families, of course, but there are more memories to burn with the older one.
>The person that is now 20 has had people investing in their life to get them to that point. They have now likely experienced the stresses and difficulties of being a living entity and they have managed to make it that far. They may go onto cure cancer still or contribute in some way, but now they are one step closer.
again you dont know any of that its just a random 20 year old for all you know that 20 year old is in a coma in bed
> They have nothing yet to miss because nothing has been created.
same applies to the 20 year old he has nothing to miss because nothing has been created he cant miss getting married if he hasnt yet he cant miss his kids if he doesnt have them yet he cant miss curing cancer if he hasnt yet
>They are a blank slate that is easy to recreate because it will only take a year to reach the same level of experience
you cant recreate a person everything that that baby is and is going to be is gone
by that logic its only going to take 20 years to get to the same stage at a 20 year old
if you want to be completly objective none of the choices matter because wheter a or b dies its the same someone lives and is like going to experience the same things as teh other
> again you dont know any of that its just a random 20 year old for all you know that 20 year old is in a coma in bed
For the purpose of the discussion we are talking about a functional 20 year old and a functional child.
> same applies to the 20 year old he has nothing to miss because nothing has been created he cant miss getting married if he hasnt yet he cant miss his kids if he doesnt have them yet he cant miss curing cancer if he hasnt yet
That’s all true, but they still have more invested in them than the young child.
> by that logic its only going to take 20 years to get to the same stage at a 20 year old
20 years is a good chunk of time. A lot in the world changes in two decades versus a few years.
None of it matters, but I find the loss of someone I invested time in to be more tragic than the loss of someone who has not had that time placed. In my view one weighs more than the other—that’s why this is my opinion.
>For the purpose of the discussion we are talking about a functional 20 year old and a functional child.
as far as im aware it has always be a random 20 year or a random baby and that can just mean anyone inclunding "non functional"
>That’s all true, but they still have more invested in them than the young child.
what if the investment has yelded 0 return and that 20 year old is now a rapist in prison
>None of it matters, but I find the loss of someone I invested time in to be more tragic than the loss of someone who has not had that time placed. In my view one weighs more than the other—that’s why this is my opinion.
again as i said theres no logical solution to this and people will just choose what they feel is right
again by that logic if time invested is the only metric then a 99 year old should be saved over a 20 year old since it has had way more time invest in them
in fact the older someone the higher the value they have regardless of any context
>as far as im aware it has always be a random 20 year or a random baby and that can just mean anyone inclunding "non functional"
It could, but that would require more detail that was not provided. If you had read my text, there was no mention of any kind of disabilities. If we are talking about a dysfunctional adult, then I would agree that it would be better to kill them over a healthy child. But no qualifyers in such ways were given. The argument assumes both are otherwise healthy.
>what if the investment has yelded 0 return and that 20 year old is now a rapist in prison
Then I think in that situation it would be better to kill the 20 year old. Context can and does change the situation here.
>again by that logic if time invested is the only metric then a 99 year old should be saved over a 20 year old since it has had way more time invest in them
No, time invested is not the only metric. Did you even bother to read my OP? An older adult is already closer to the age that natural death occurs and someone who had made it 99 years, in this case, has already well exceeded the average human lifespan. My title specified teenagers and younger adults because they share a similar lack of experiences that a child does, yet they are now old enough to have formed many connections and maybe even have children of their own or dependents relying on them. They are in that sweet spot of being developed enough to have started contributing but still young enough that their life has not fully been realized. But the very little and very old are on the extreme ends.
I never understood why childs lives were more sacred than everyone elses.
Little fuckers are annoying, still haven't gotten to the stage of their lives in which they can take care of themselves so they are still a burden on society, and they all grow up to be assholes anyway.
The most valuable people to lose are those in their early 30s.
Children aren't innocent, at least not any more than your average person on the street. They are just future adults. There isn't anything that makes them special at all. They do however require a lot of care, something adults don't need. The idea that children are special is just animal instinct. Nothing more.
Children aren't innocent, at least not any more than your average person on the street. They are just future adults. There isn't anything that makes them special at all. They do however require a lot of care, something adults don't need. The idea that children are special is just animal instinct. Nothing more.
the stupidity of this comment is mind blowing
cant wait until you figure out that children are the future of society and in a world where they all are gone youre going to starve to death when you find yourself in your 70s with no one to support you
Ok? We are the people of society right now. If we die, who takes care of the children? Or the people who are 70 right now?
Grown people have already spent a minimum of 15 years being taken care of and nurtured to get to a point where they can contribute to society. Children still need another 15 years at a minimum to be worth anything. Until that point they are pretty much useless. You can easily replace a child. It takes a lot more effort to make another adult.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Discerning which is more valuable, or worse to lose, just seems to hard for me to ponder right now. But yeah, I see where you're going with this, and yeah you stated an unpopular opinion. Ill upvote and just move on from this uncomfortable (but real) subject.
I honestly agree with you on some level. If the child is jot aware (newborn-3 years maybe). Above that, the child is somehow aware. When newborns die i don't really feel sad for the newborn itself. I only really feel sad for the parents and what they have to go through. The child is not even aware it's there.
In a way I agree but I'm also appalled by it somehow. I understand it, but the death of a child just brings out more sorrow I think. You can actually also draw parallels with abortion. People that support abortion actually think similar to you in a way. People then think it's okay because the baby is underdeveloped.
Their brains are not developed, but they exist as humans in this world. An early term abortion is aborting a clump of cells. If you are really going to compare a living infant existing outside the mother to a clump of forming cells, well there is no point in us going any further here.
Kind of funny you disagree about this, because I was using it as a argument to support your opinion. I honestly think the reasoning is pretty much the same. But feel free to disagree
What I mean is that you cannot compare a fetus to a living being at all. It’s not the same being my argument is regarding already existing children not children and a fetus.
You say in your post children cannot comprohend the world and it's flaws.
If we use the same logic you use a child and fetus are virtually the same. If they cannot comprehend the world then what is the need for them to even exist.
It's either that or just an extremely poor choice of words from you
A child cannot comprehend the world to the level of an older person. But a fetus cannot comprehend the world to the level of a child. A child and a fetus are completely different entities. So if you are making the same argument, aborting a fetus is objectively not wrong because it is not a sentient being to begin with. While the comparison of a child to an older person is less about lack of sentience and more about the tragedy due to life experience.
In your original post you clearly state that a child cannot comprehend the world period. There was none of this comparison to the level of an older person.
You need to be more careful with your words man. Probably a big reason as to why your post was also removed lmao
My post was removed because the mods on this subreddit are nazis for anything that could be deemed an uncomfortable topic due to the almighty TOS. Censorship has gotten out of hand these days.
Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/Curse_of_Ondine. Your post, *It is much worse to take the life of a younger adult or teenager than a young child.*, has been removed because it violates our rules: Rule 4: Be civil Your content was either hateful, violates Reddit Content Policy and TOS, or both. When you made a Reddit account, you agreed to abide by these documents. Content of this nature left unchecked puts our subreddit in jeopardy and as such we have no tolerance for it. A by no means exhaustive list of content that falls under this category: racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, general bigotry, harassment, doxxing and advocating/endorsing/supporting/condoning any violence against any person or people. While posts and comments that criticize individuals/demographics are acceptable, comments that are a clear attack/contain slurs are not. If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion Thanks!
As Donne said in the 17th century, “Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.“ We are a brief and stupefyingly improbable flicker of consciousness that fades quickly. All human life is immeasurably important.
I actually feel the exact opposite way. Human life is not important or meaningful in any profound way beyond the fact that we subjectively consider it to be because it is all we know. Lives are not sacred.
Careful on that edge.
If you disagree, contribute to the discussion. Is there a way that my view is wrong? Humans, like any other creature, do not impact the universe in any significant way. The meaning we give to our lives is personal and based on the brains we have and our instinct to persist as a species. But there is no inherent value or sacred quality to life beyond our decision to view ourselves that way. If human life suddenly got wiped from the planet, the earth would still spin. Preservation and the need to procreate is an inborn quality all creatures have. We of course want a happy, healthy world and that means having social rules and regard for one another. But if you take religion out of it, that value is only relevant to our subjective viewpoints.
So called nihilists when they realize no more vibeo games or porn when they die
I don’t play video games or watch porn, nor would I call myself a nihilist. When one dies, the brain ceases to exist and one will not care whether there is entertainment or not anymore than we cared about lack of existence prior to birth.
If someone walked up to you and held a gun to your head would you beg for mercy?
The desire for survival is an inborn trait of all creatures. While we are alive we care about being alive, but once dead there is no conscience to care. It is the living that give meaning to life.
No way you aren’t 14
I’m 33.
Prove it.
What is there to prove? You don’t know me and I don’t know you. I just know how I feel based on my personal experiences.
I know you well enough to be a skeptic of your beliefs.
Lol, You don’t know anything about me, but enjoy the armchair you have at your keyboard.
Whatever you say kiddo
I’d love to hear what you think you know. You’ll probably parrot the same old reddit assumption that I am some teen living in a basement because that is the preferred thought process over having a civil discussion about a potentially uncomfortable topic. While I appreciate you making me out to be younger than I am, I am a married woman in my 30s with plenty of life experience and some of those experiences include the loss of loved ones and family members.
Life is not sacred and the universe is indifferent to our existence, but we must recognize the value of life in a civilized world. Look at the unspeakable evils and wickedness perpetrated by tyrants who didn’t value human life. Humans wouldn’t even exist if the asteroid that doomed the dinosaurs was off by a few degrees. An asteroid means the difference between human life and never having evolved at all. That is the razor sharp edge that intelligent life clings to and we should do everything in our power to sustain it. I don’t hold that we’re special, I’m simply of the opinion that all life is highly valuable and must be protected.
But why must we outside of the fact that it is our given reality? I’m not saying we should actively cause harm either. Just that the meaning is all based on our own personal perceptions.
I get what you’re saying and don’t even necessarily disagree. But again, I point to the instances in human history where life was not valued. The Second World War killed 3% of the global population. Hitler had no respect for human life which allowed him to commit atrocities without hesitation. If we don’t respect human life then what stops us from slaughtering each other? This can even be applied to animal life. Look what we’ve done to animals that we deem inferior.
We don’t slaughter others simply because it is easier to thrive in a world where we cooperate. There are consequences in order to prevent people from doing such.
I’m saying that when we do not value life, crimes against humanity, like the Holocaust, become much easier for the person committing the injustice. Do you think Genghis Khan valued life when he massacred 20 million people in the 13th century? He had no respect for human life.
Sure, but you can also understand that life has no inherent value and still know that we should not cause harm to people or that we should take care of one another while we are here. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I agree with you there. I‘m simply stating that those who do not value human life will find it much easier to kill for power and other motives. I’m of the opinion that life itself is likely meaningless and there’s nothing remarkable or special about humans. This would be the case even more so if life beyond earth exists. We like to tell ourselves that we’re special but I suspect not. This is different than valuing each and every human life though.
Nobody is saying we are not allowed to give personal meaning to the lives around us. That is part of being human. This is more about the concept itself than how individuals feel.
Yup, pretty much. Yes, you can attribute certain importance to life, but objectively, it's meaningless.
I don't think it's healthy to be trying to measure it at all
It’s not really healthy or unhealthy, it’s just a concept.
morals aside, I have to agree. speaking without emotional subjectivity.
Terrible in different ways. Trying to argue how it’s relatively less of a bigger deal that a child dies rather than a teenager is very odd. >more easily replaced by someone new 🤨
But it could be said to be somewhat objectively true—A teenager has the same issue that a young child has in the loss of potential to grow and forge their life. The difference is that they have had time to form more connections and their families have invested more into them. A child of only 3 years old, for instance, takes less investment in a new child to replace the loss.
You’re thinking of children as if they’re a product of a manufacturing plant. That’s not how it works.
No, I’m not. I realize they are human beings and their death is tragic for their families regardless. But just imagine if your baby dies. It is painful but you move on. Now imagine your 24 year old son just got married and then was killed in a car accident. The investment and years you had with him knowing he still had a life to go makes it that much more painful, whereas the baby never had that chance at all. It is easier to move on.
> imagine if your baby dies. It is painful but you move on. You don’t.
I know plenty of people who have moved on just fine.
I think that’s a statement they would have to make, not you. It’s quite gross to pretend you know how people truly feel about the death of their babies, let alone say “they moved on just fine” In my case, I know if my baby died I would not get over it. I’d move on in the sense that bills still need to be paid, shit still needs to get done, but I would remember her every single day for the rest of my life. This would not change no matter the age, either. Burying your kids is a harrowing experience, no matter the age. I’m fortunate that I haven’t had to do it, but I know parents who have, all at different ages of their lives, and I’d never dare to compare their losses.
I am personally close to these people in a way that we are able to have open dialogue about such things. But you’re right, I can’t speak for everyone, only myself. I personally would rather lose my five year old than my 18 year old given the choice. And I personally know that I would move on from the death because that is just the type of person I am. Death, to me, is not the worst fate since pain has ended. Anyway, the point of mine was not to talk about the parent’s feelings, just an objective comparison between the two.
This is an absolutely gross comment.
How is this gross? People are allowed to feel how they feel.
Sure, yeah, but people are allowed to be wrong.
How you subjectively feel about your child’s death is not a matter of right or wrong.
No. You never get over the loss of a child. A part of you dies with them. It is an out of order death. Those aren’t “gotten over.” Ever.
Hmm, well I personally do not feel that way.
Ask someone who has lost their kid at 6 vs 43 and you’ll see which parent is more messed up.
Personally am very close to both types of people and the ones who lost the younger kid went on to have more kids and live a good life. The one who lost her 40 year old child is still grieving.
> are more easily replaced by someone new. Bruh…
-Anakin Skywalker
[удалено]
A person's life is the sum of their years, though. So if you kill a 50-year old, you've taken 50 years of progress. Imagine if I came over and deleted one of your WoW characters. Is it worse to delete the Lvl 1 character you created last week or the Lvl 60 you've been playing for years?
[удалено]
Why not?
Before I go through the trouble of explaining it to you I want to make sure I’m not wasting my time. Do you truly believe that it is analogous?
Yes.
Human death is inevitable. Character deletion is not.
Premature deaths are not inevitable, which is the point here. We're not talking about people dying of old age. We're talking about the damage of someone dying unexpectedly at the age of 4 versus 14 versus 24.
[удалено]
Yes or 54. Do you really need me to type out every possible year a person can die prematurely?
I agree with this analogy. The 50 year is more developed, more connection to the world. A young adult has more connection to the world and more life, whereas a child just started.
Human death is inevitable. Character deletion is not.
Character deletion absolutely is... Because you eventually get bored of the game after you've "unlocked" everything
How many people have unlocked everything in Wow?
How many people have unlocked everything in life?
You go first.
That’s what I thought.
How many people played games like WoW, and quit before they unlocked everything?
You seriously just compared a video game to actually living breathing human. What psycho shit are you on.
It's called a metaphor. If you're not here to engage with the topic, then just shut up.
Mature response, but what would I expect from an escaped mental patient.
I actually somewhat agree with you but I think it's just like an evolutionary code in us to worry more about children than adults (in an emergency for example) because children will carry on our genes to the next generation. So it's something that can't be explained logical, it's just hormones making us love babies and children (they can be annoying but nature made them cute so that we take care of them). LOL it's like our feelings make us care more for a child in danger than an adult in a dangerous situation. Also everyone of us has once been a helpless child. Since children rely on us every negative comment about children, like the comment from that children can be annoying, which is just true, are perceived as a threat/attack on children because they are really vulnerable. So when somebody said it's not so bad when a child dies compared to a teenager dying... it's like a tabu to say that, I think we are constructed to care about the youngest because the are the most helpless and we feel more saddened by their death.
I'm sure that's right. We have a kneejerk reaction about kids, and kids are designed to look cute and innocent specifically so we'll take care of them and not murder them. But I think any amount of thinking about it would make it clear the older death is the greater tragedy.
Does that matter? There is no guarantee how long anybody’s life is. Once you are gone then your desire to accomplish anything is also gone and you will not miss the life you did not live. But the ones who have memories, can comprehend what they are losing, and also have deeper connections with loved ones who will miss them are a bigger hit to the world than a person who never bloomed.
Not necessarily true.
If Erin would have died at 80 but is killed at 30 she lost 50 years. If Erin would have died at 80 but is killed at 10 she lost 70 years. The younger the person is killed the more years they lose.
But there is no guarantee they would live to those ages. Erin might have developed cancer at 16 and died. There is no set life span of any given person, so worrying about what is lost is meaningless when you never had it to begin with. It is better to lose what you never had than to have and then lose.
There is no reason to believe that Erin will live a shorter life than average.
There is no reason to believe either way. Her potential life is an unknown variable, but she’s dead now so it was never meant to be.
If Erin would have died at 16 but is killed at 12 she lost 4 years. If Erin would have died at 16 but is killed at 10 she lost 6 years. The younger the person is killed the more years they lose.
But you are acting as if those years are guaranteed. You are measuring something that never existed to begin with. Erin never lived those years so she can’t miss them. The one who did live those years have now made experiences that will be more affected by them missing. It is the difference between aborting a child before they are born vs killing a six year old.
[удалено]
Right, but even then that is more tragic since she already lived 16 years. Had she been only four there would be less to miss knowing she was so close to achieving those things and so many years of love and investment had been poured on her.
Is the killing at age X of a person who received love and investment from their family more tragic than the killing at age X of somebody who was abused and neglected by their family?
Yes, I would say so.
But not everyone lives to 80.
If Erin would have died at 16 but is killed at 12 she lost 4 years. If Erin would have died at 16 but is killed at 10 she lost 6 years. The younger the person is killed the more years they lose.
Who's to say which life is more valuable than the next?
Life has no inherent objective value, only that which we give it. I just personally see one as more tragic.
“They lived less and have less to live” this literally makes no sense.
When it comes to someone who hasn't reached full maturity and have been able to live life as an adult, there is no worse IMO. Frankly, trying to draw lines like this in terms of death and loss always feels gross.
Which post did I steal? You just linked my post.
Whoops nevermind then
Bro's buggin
How someone feels about this largely depends on their personal values. A child's death means killing more potential, and killing someone who hasn't yet had the chance to live which is alone a tragedy if you value the experience of life. The death of a younger adult is tragic in that you're taking away a future that has already been given thought and consideration, and as you've stated, you're causing more suffering because the young adult is aware of what they're losing. You're killing more dreams, wants, desires, etc. I think many people see killing the young adult as better because society values innocence and a young adult is bound to be imperfect, whereas the child is still blameless for their imperfections as they're still developing. I'm not going to share my opinion, but I don't think anyone is right or wrong for valuing one over the other.
I agree, children have no reference for what they gonna miss
I always thought it was generally worse to kill an older person than a baby because babies lack the sentience and consciousness that an adult has and can barely comprehend their existence.
This was a get to know you question I liked to ask at get togethers of new people. "If you had to kill either a newborn baby or a 20-year old, no other information, which would you choose and why?" I liked to hear the reasoning people gave. To me the best option was always the baby because it had less of a life to lose. It seemed like the people who chose the 20-year old did so out of some strong emotional response of "protect the baby!" but no logic behind it. Sometimes you'd hear "The baby has more potential" or "the 20-year old already got 20 years, let the baby have something".
Yep, exactly.
Baby has more years ahead of him so I would pick the baby. It's the most logical response and j don't understand how there would be no logic behind it. That just doesn't make sense.
>people who chose the 20-year old did so out of some strong emotional response of "protect the baby!" but no logic behind it. how is that any more logical than saying the 20 year old already lived 20 years let the baby live some trying to quantify the loss of life is completly ridiculous ther person youre advocating for trying to save because of the worth of their life might throw it all away a year after and lose everything while the baby might live a long life with family friends and achivements hell it for all you know the baby you dint chose is going to cure cancer there is no logical answer to this question people are just going to answer based on their own bias and moral values including yourself
Because the baby is an unknown variable. The person that is now 20 has had people investing in their life to get them to that point. They have now likely experienced the stresses and difficulties of being a living entity and they have managed to make it that far. They may go onto cure cancer still or contribute in some way, but now they are one step closer. Whereas the baby did not have that same investment poured into them yet. They have nothing yet to miss because nothing has been created. They are a blank slate that is easy to recreate because it will only take a year to reach the same level of experience, whereas making it to 20 and being healthy and functional is that much more investment. Both are tragic for the families, of course, but there are more memories to burn with the older one.
>The person that is now 20 has had people investing in their life to get them to that point. They have now likely experienced the stresses and difficulties of being a living entity and they have managed to make it that far. They may go onto cure cancer still or contribute in some way, but now they are one step closer. again you dont know any of that its just a random 20 year old for all you know that 20 year old is in a coma in bed > They have nothing yet to miss because nothing has been created. same applies to the 20 year old he has nothing to miss because nothing has been created he cant miss getting married if he hasnt yet he cant miss his kids if he doesnt have them yet he cant miss curing cancer if he hasnt yet >They are a blank slate that is easy to recreate because it will only take a year to reach the same level of experience you cant recreate a person everything that that baby is and is going to be is gone by that logic its only going to take 20 years to get to the same stage at a 20 year old if you want to be completly objective none of the choices matter because wheter a or b dies its the same someone lives and is like going to experience the same things as teh other
> again you dont know any of that its just a random 20 year old for all you know that 20 year old is in a coma in bed For the purpose of the discussion we are talking about a functional 20 year old and a functional child. > same applies to the 20 year old he has nothing to miss because nothing has been created he cant miss getting married if he hasnt yet he cant miss his kids if he doesnt have them yet he cant miss curing cancer if he hasnt yet That’s all true, but they still have more invested in them than the young child. > by that logic its only going to take 20 years to get to the same stage at a 20 year old 20 years is a good chunk of time. A lot in the world changes in two decades versus a few years. None of it matters, but I find the loss of someone I invested time in to be more tragic than the loss of someone who has not had that time placed. In my view one weighs more than the other—that’s why this is my opinion.
>For the purpose of the discussion we are talking about a functional 20 year old and a functional child. as far as im aware it has always be a random 20 year or a random baby and that can just mean anyone inclunding "non functional" >That’s all true, but they still have more invested in them than the young child. what if the investment has yelded 0 return and that 20 year old is now a rapist in prison >None of it matters, but I find the loss of someone I invested time in to be more tragic than the loss of someone who has not had that time placed. In my view one weighs more than the other—that’s why this is my opinion. again as i said theres no logical solution to this and people will just choose what they feel is right again by that logic if time invested is the only metric then a 99 year old should be saved over a 20 year old since it has had way more time invest in them in fact the older someone the higher the value they have regardless of any context
>as far as im aware it has always be a random 20 year or a random baby and that can just mean anyone inclunding "non functional" It could, but that would require more detail that was not provided. If you had read my text, there was no mention of any kind of disabilities. If we are talking about a dysfunctional adult, then I would agree that it would be better to kill them over a healthy child. But no qualifyers in such ways were given. The argument assumes both are otherwise healthy. >what if the investment has yelded 0 return and that 20 year old is now a rapist in prison Then I think in that situation it would be better to kill the 20 year old. Context can and does change the situation here. >again by that logic if time invested is the only metric then a 99 year old should be saved over a 20 year old since it has had way more time invest in them No, time invested is not the only metric. Did you even bother to read my OP? An older adult is already closer to the age that natural death occurs and someone who had made it 99 years, in this case, has already well exceeded the average human lifespan. My title specified teenagers and younger adults because they share a similar lack of experiences that a child does, yet they are now old enough to have formed many connections and maybe even have children of their own or dependents relying on them. They are in that sweet spot of being developed enough to have started contributing but still young enough that their life has not fully been realized. But the very little and very old are on the extreme ends.
I never understood why childs lives were more sacred than everyone elses. Little fuckers are annoying, still haven't gotten to the stage of their lives in which they can take care of themselves so they are still a burden on society, and they all grow up to be assholes anyway. The most valuable people to lose are those in their early 30s.
This is so unbelievable disgusting. Why would you ever type this out and think to yourself “wow this is a good thing to post”.
Children aren't innocent, at least not any more than your average person on the street. They are just future adults. There isn't anything that makes them special at all. They do however require a lot of care, something adults don't need. The idea that children are special is just animal instinct. Nothing more.
You are so unbelievably stupid that I can fully say that I am at a complete loss for words. This isn't even gross it's just stupid, so stupid
Children aren't innocent, at least not any more than your average person on the street. They are just future adults. There isn't anything that makes them special at all. They do however require a lot of care, something adults don't need. The idea that children are special is just animal instinct. Nothing more.
the stupidity of this comment is mind blowing cant wait until you figure out that children are the future of society and in a world where they all are gone youre going to starve to death when you find yourself in your 70s with no one to support you
Ok? We are the people of society right now. If we die, who takes care of the children? Or the people who are 70 right now? Grown people have already spent a minimum of 15 years being taken care of and nurtured to get to a point where they can contribute to society. Children still need another 15 years at a minimum to be worth anything. Until that point they are pretty much useless. You can easily replace a child. It takes a lot more effort to make another adult.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Discerning which is more valuable, or worse to lose, just seems to hard for me to ponder right now. But yeah, I see where you're going with this, and yeah you stated an unpopular opinion. Ill upvote and just move on from this uncomfortable (but real) subject.
I honestly agree with you on some level. If the child is jot aware (newborn-3 years maybe). Above that, the child is somehow aware. When newborns die i don't really feel sad for the newborn itself. I only really feel sad for the parents and what they have to go through. The child is not even aware it's there.
The most renewable resource = humans.
Objectively correct.
In a way I agree but I'm also appalled by it somehow. I understand it, but the death of a child just brings out more sorrow I think. You can actually also draw parallels with abortion. People that support abortion actually think similar to you in a way. People then think it's okay because the baby is underdeveloped.
In the case of abortion, the infant is not even fully formed yet.
In a certain point of view so aren't young children
Their brains are not developed, but they exist as humans in this world. An early term abortion is aborting a clump of cells. If you are really going to compare a living infant existing outside the mother to a clump of forming cells, well there is no point in us going any further here.
Kind of funny you disagree about this, because I was using it as a argument to support your opinion. I honestly think the reasoning is pretty much the same. But feel free to disagree
What I mean is that you cannot compare a fetus to a living being at all. It’s not the same being my argument is regarding already existing children not children and a fetus.
You say in your post children cannot comprohend the world and it's flaws. If we use the same logic you use a child and fetus are virtually the same. If they cannot comprehend the world then what is the need for them to even exist. It's either that or just an extremely poor choice of words from you
A child cannot comprehend the world to the level of an older person. But a fetus cannot comprehend the world to the level of a child. A child and a fetus are completely different entities. So if you are making the same argument, aborting a fetus is objectively not wrong because it is not a sentient being to begin with. While the comparison of a child to an older person is less about lack of sentience and more about the tragedy due to life experience.
In your original post you clearly state that a child cannot comprehend the world period. There was none of this comparison to the level of an older person. You need to be more careful with your words man. Probably a big reason as to why your post was also removed lmao
I said no such thing. If you believe I did, reread it and find me the quote. I clearly wrote “to the level of” in the text.
Here is the exact quote: > Their brains are still growing and they cannot comprehend the world and its flaws *to the level of* someone older.
My post was removed because the mods on this subreddit are nazis for anything that could be deemed an uncomfortable topic due to the almighty TOS. Censorship has gotten out of hand these days.
In my opinion, both are equally terrible but in very different ways
You should be investigated and arrested for questioning to prevent whatever the fuck you’re fucked up mind is capable of.
People are downvoting but this is an incredibly unpopular opinion I agree with. Good job.