True, We can compare kid Einstein vs adult Hitler, ofc. But we were just talking in general.
Again, this was mostly to prove that considering a random child more valuable than a random adult is purely emotionally based. Given that the kid's value is that MAAAYBE it will grow into an adult and provide to society after you invest a lot into it, valuing it more than an already adult providing to society doesn't make sense.
Edvard stated: source post
Time and personal value are what distinguish which of the two is preferable and again that is entirely situational.
Time, a lot of energy put into raising it, and the fact that a tree is already successful in reaching maturity and providing more seeds. A seed might as well not grow into anything. Its value is purely theoretical while the tree is palpable value.
Again: go sell a seed. Go sell a tree. Which one is considered more valuable? The entire PURPOSE of a seed is to grow into a tree. Preffering to lose a tree (adult )instead of a seed (child) doesn't make much sense.
Go sell a child. Go sell an adult. Which is considered more valuable?
I actually think a child would be more valuable in general lol. But probably a lower demand.
Your comparison is not very good.
Systematic stated: source post
"Again, this was mostly to prove that considering a random child more valuable than a random adult is purely emotionally based."
I agree entirely
Key point, being random....when that is not the case...as in the opening premise....what say you two?
Systematic stated: source post
"Again, this was mostly to prove that considering a random child more valuable than a random adult is purely emotionally based."
I agree entirely
I disagree entirely. Since a child has more potential. Which is a direct value. You can argue if its more or less valuable, but you can't deny it and say that it has no bearing (aka purely emotional)
"You can argue if its more or less valuable, but you can't deny it and say that it has no bearing (aka purely emotional)"
You can though, because the truth is you dont know which of the two options workout. So why go with the wildcard, high risk option when cold logic sides with the consistent choice. The reason, people are inclined to side with children in this instance.
Actually children are in higher demand and would be more valuable in sex slavery, they're easier to subdue and intimidate. Children are often enough easier to transport and threaten, and are less likely to run.
Outside of that children that are adopted are usually not considered after a certain age, less so if there is an infant up for adoption. The value or rather lack of value placed on an adult is due to the "they've already lived out their life" but ( medically at 8 years of age you are technically an adult) if we put the adult age at 18, do we still consider them to have a fuller life than a child? Or is it just as tragic? .
Primal stated: source post
Generally...I can barely be arsed to give a crap...but when I bother to...rather keep the bullshit to a minimum and discuss facts and reality....leave the philosophical bulltshit and role play to others....for whatever the fuck a person gets out of it...lol...
I've been watching the sort of language you use in your posts Primal, and from it you sound like a rigid thinker. You have how you see things as what's "sane", as what's "reality", which consequently makes it easier to deny anything that doesn't conform to your brand of thinking when everything's rendered through such a filter of black and white. There's no room for anything outside of your own views within such limitations.
As for this Tree/Seed debate, wouldn't a child be more like a small tree while a seed would be closer to sperm? You can't plant a child to make more children, but you can nurture a small tree to ensure that it keeps on growing.