Tartas1995

Weird example but ok. And no, it is not only historical. I stated that in my original comment and I invite you to look at left wing politics but some "left wing" politician's position on some random issue, but a widely supported position by the left wing community. You will see that they are all in opposition of hierarchy. But let's take your weirdly racist example, where is the hierarchy?

That is nonsense. The left was coined by its opposition to the monarchy while the right supported it. So left has been currently and historically speaking in opposition of hierarchies and in favor of equality. The right consequently has been in favor of hierarchies.

Superior to what? Other AIs? Well, OpenAI got the job after Anthropic rejected the government over safety concerns. That doesn't sound superior.

I think all of these actions are morally wrong but could you tell me how they are objective and not subjective? A reasonable person seems to be a person and consequently fundamentally subjective.

You aren’t listening. The labour needs to be done. Who cares about money? When you are 80 yrs old, who will be your doctor? Who will work the fields for your food? Who will provide you any services? Any products? Anything? You will need young people and they don’t come from nowhere.

That is why it shouldn’t be up to the employer. It is called rights.

Billionaires are the problem and we need children for e.g. pensions. The labour needs to be done. People without children aren’t the problem, or the enemy. But they can’t expect the same treatment as people with children. As people with children provide more to society.

I feel like people don’t think half a step ahead. The children that these parents are taking care of, will probably grow up and work. Their work will allow our retirement. People without children just don’t provide the same utility to the society. We need “young people” and if we are unwilling to invest in that, we won’t have them. And then we all moan about lack of social safe nets and pension safety.

Past tense. You can’t change the past. Checkmate!

Until you miss a payment and they hit you with the fine for missing a payment. THEY HAVE TO MAKE MONEY!

No. Their business model is literally currently failing. People can’t afford to pay back. That is why they couldn’t afford saving for it. So the service provider will sit on bad debt until no one wants to leant them money anymore and they are bankrupt.

If anything, your position is in opposition to nihilism. There are different kinds of nihilism. Your position is in contradiction with the “purest” form. The absence of an object value in anything and everything. Your position clearly values personal consent. There are other kind of nihilism, like political nihilism, might not be in conflict with your position. On the other hand, existential nihilism, the belief that there is no inherent meaning/value in life, might seem to align with your position but I think it is difficult to argue in favor of consent, even to being alive, while believing that life is inherently meaningless. I mean, why does the consent of a meaningless being matter to anyone? Of course, you could took an adsurdism position to it but then I would argue that calling you nihilistic would be a mischaracterization.