Yotaka Futatabi - Ch. 2 - Ass

[RedArowana]

According to Kant’s philosophy, there is a moral imperative—a duty—to act good unto human beings for their sake rather than as a means to an end. For example, she took action against the upskirt shot for the sake of protecting the girl, but she is also using her own body as a means to an end to get pleasure from drinking, gacha games, and overeating. She is exercising, yes, but only to please her handler which in itself is a means to an end to get a job to pay rent.

Kantian philosophy has gray areas around it, given that he also asserts to absolutely not lying even to someone else's benefit, a polarizing statement that was highlighted by CrashCourse Philosophy. For all we know, her not wanting to kill is a form of "moral obligation" to people's lives like Sakata Gintoki or Battousai, but the story so far is not telling anything. One could argue that the handler is not even utilizing Kant's philosophy since getting her a job is a means of returning the reputation of their company.

 

[RedArowana]

Society also doesn't want you to have kids "for the sake of it".
You benefit from living somewhere with clean streets. Making the streets dirty makes society worse. If you don't contribute to keeping streets clean and you litter then you're not contributing to something that you benefited from which is selfish.
In the exact same way:
You benefit from living somewhere with enough supply of young labour (because that young labour is able to maintain the services and infrastructure needed for a high standard of living). Population collapse makes society worse (because there's no longer enough supply of young labour to maintain infrastructure, keep the lights on or provide for the ageing population). If you don't contribute to the supply of young labour by having kids then you're not contributing to something that you benefited from which is selfish.

What you say is my logic does not follow at all and has nothing to do with what I said.

That's under the assumption that being passive makes the streets dirty, which at worst is just overgrowing one's own lawn. Not doing an action like staying home neither contributes nor detriments the street, and is not selfish.
In that exact same way:
Living somewhere with enough funds from previous employment does not hamper any workings that society is doing, and if anything is giving money to the circulation. Population collapse has a lot more underlying problems than people not wanting kids (cost of living, insufficient subsidies, etc.) and is not accountable to any individual.

It does not follow cause it's the wrong analogy to use. You're implying passiveness is an active detriment.

 

[danbellucci]

That's under the assumption that being passive makes the streets dirty, which at worst is just overgrowing one's own lawn. Not doing an action like staying home neither contributes nor detriments the street, and is not selfish.
In that exact same way:
Living somewhere with enough funds from previous employment does not hamper any workings that society is doing, and if anything is giving money to the circulation. Population collapse has a lot more underlying problems than people not wanting kids (cost of living, insufficient subsidies, etc.) and is not accountable to any individual.

It does not follow cause it's the wrong analogy to use. You're implying passiveness is an active detriment.

Littering is active while failing to have kids is passive, but that is not morally relevant and I'll demonstrate why.
You said "Society does not care about keeping your 'streets clean' for the sake of it." here you insinuate that keeping the streets clean is beneficial to people's wellbeing and that is why society cares about keeping the streets clean, which is correct. You simultaneously insinuate that wanting to have children is "for the sake of it" i.e. pointless and of no benefit to anyone.

But infact having children and thus contributing towards maintaining a constant supply of young labour in the future is also beneficial to people's wellbeing for reasons already provided in my prior post:

You benefit from living somewhere with enough supply of young labour (because that young labour is able to maintain the services and infrastructure needed for a high standard of living). Population collapse makes society worse (because there's no longer enough supply of young labour to maintain infrastructure, keep the lights on or provide for the ageing population). If you don't contribute to the supply of young labour by having kids then you're not contributing to something that you benefited from which is selfish.

What is selfish is benefiting from something then doing not your part to contribute towards that beneficial thing continuing in the future so that other people can also benefit from it.
e.g. suppose you're hiking somewhere and you're not sure of the way and you ask someone for directions and they show you the way to where you want to go, then on a later occasion someone in the same place asks you for directions to the place you went and you don't answer them. This is obviously selfish. This remains selfish even if you tell yourself :

she's got the good idea of living her life the way she wants instead of pandering to whatever society has to say.

Basically saying "well I had a good time hiking. Why should I spend time giving other people directions in the same way that I benefited from people giving me directions? who cares about other people? "

Similarly, you benefited from growing up in a nice society with a high standard of living because there was enough supply of young labour , but by not having kids, you're doing nothing to contribute to that supply of young labour in the future.
You're basically saying
"well I had a nice life with a high standard of living because other people had kids to contribute to the supply of young labour. Why should I care about helping people in the future enjoy the same good standard of living that I benefited from ?"
very selfish and immoral. parasitic.

 

[bornonamonday]

Littering is active while failing to have kids is passive, but that is not morally relevant and I'll demonstrate why.
You said "Society does not care about keeping your 'streets clean' for the sake of it." here you insinuate that keeping the streets clean is beneficial to people's wellbeing and that is why society cares about keeping the streets clean, which is correct. You simultaneously insinuate that wanting to have children is "for the sake of it" i.e. pointless and of no benefit to anyone.

But infact having children and thus contributing towards maintaining a constant supply of young labour in the future is also beneficial to people's wellbeing for reasons already provided in my prior post:

What is selfish is benefiting from something then doing not your part to contribute towards that beneficial thing continuing in the future so that other people can also benefit from it.
e.g. suppose you're hiking somewhere and you're not sure of the way and you ask someone for directions and they show you the way to where you want to go, then on a later occasion someone in the same place asks you for directions to the place you went and you don't answer them. This is obviously selfish. This remains selfish even if you tell yourself :

Basically saying "well I had a good time hiking. Why should I spend time giving other people directions in the same way that I benefited from people giving me directions? who cares about other people? "

Similarly, you benefited from growing up in a nice society with a high standard of living because there was enough supply of young labour , but by not having kids, you're doing nothing to contribute to that supply of young labour in the future.
You're basically saying
"well I had a nice life with a high standard of living because other people had kids to contribute to the supply of young labour. Why should I care about helping people in the future enjoy the same good standard of living that I benefited from ?"
very selfish and immoral. parasitic.

As usual, rather than address the issues that cause most people to not want children, people like you shame them while acting like you have some kind of moral high ground.

Get bent, it's not selfish to be aware of being incapable of raising children because how much harder work culture, rising costs and various social and political problems have made it more difficult to even take care of yourself, much less multiple people. Until you fix those issues, people are going to rather choose not to be parents instead shitty ones.

 

[RedArowana]

Littering is active while failing to have kids is passive, but that is not morally relevant and I'll demonstrate why.
You said "Society does not care about keeping your 'streets clean' for the sake of it." here you insinuate that keeping the streets clean is beneficial to people's wellbeing and that is why society cares about keeping the streets clean, which is correct. You simultaneously insinuate that wanting to have children is "for the sake of it" i.e. pointless and of no benefit to anyone.

But infact having children and thus contributing towards maintaining a constant supply of young labour in the future is also beneficial to people's wellbeing for reasons already provided in my prior post:

Contextualize it. For the sake of your argument being in Japan, it's worse than pointless, but a detriment considering the cost of living.
Infact, contributing labor is only beneficial if you manage to solve the problem of raising said labour in the first place, as stated by my prior post. Even moreso, your argument falls apart when countries that actually have high birth rate end up having high child mortality rates. It's not a good solution without planning.

What is selfish is benefiting from something then doing not your part to contribute towards that beneficial thing continuing in the future so that other people can also benefit from it.
e.g. suppose you're hiking somewhere and you're not sure of the way and you ask someone for directions and they show you the way to where you want to go, then on a later occasion someone in the same place asks you for directions to the place you went and you don't answer them. This is obviously selfish. This remains selfish even if you tell yourself :

What is selfish from forcibly trying to contribute towards a situation that is laboriously intensive for the individual at best and financially and emotionally catastrophic at worst? That's a commitment not many people can do and is much preferable to be a regular citizen cycling the economy.
e.g. Suppose you're hiking and someone forcibly tells you to walk a treacherous path that would require much more preparation, and even though you insist it's not feasible, they still tell you it's the correct path and you end up lost in the woods. This is obviously selfish, and is especially selfish if you think that it's an obligation for you to follow said direction.

Basically saying "well I had a good time hiking. Why should I spend time giving other people directions in the same way that I benefited from people giving me directions? who cares about other people? "

Similarly, you benefited from growing up in a nice society with a high standard of living because there was enough supply of young labour , but by not having kids, you're doing nothing to contribute to that supply of young labour in the future.
You're basically saying
"well I had a nice life with a high standard of living because other people had kids to contribute to the supply of young labour. Why should I care about helping people in the future enjoy the same good standard of living that I benefited from ?"
very selfish and immoral. parasitic.

"I want to hike on this path with the gear i have, but they keep telling me the area with bears is much better, and they don't even give me bear spray for it"
Similarly, that benefit is marginal at best because growing up in that living standard still requires you to work in the office and go home tired. Kids are a heavy burden if society will not contribute to raising them. It takes a village to raise a child, and Japan does not show such a village.

You're basically saying
"I had a a nice life with a high standard of living and I have contributed to the economy well enough, but they're trying to make me do more labor for the benefit of their own society and letting me shoulder the burden of raising them."
That society is very selfish and immoral. Parasitic to its citizens.

 

[SilverSupreme]

If I simply had a breeding fetish then I'd be saying that I should inseminate Japanese women.
Projecting everything as a sexual fetish as though it's the only way you can understand the world and people's motivations says a lot about you.

Saw your name says banned and got curious.

This you?
https://forums.mangadex.org/threads/the-god-of-time-ch-1.2283498/post-26354973

This is creepy. Like you shouldn’t be allowed to live near a school levels of creepy. Search engines show that you also spend a lot of time looking at pregnant woman AI porn (blame yourself for leaving a like or a creepy comment trail under every piece of porn you look at daily). It sure seems like your ideology is just a bunch of fetishes at the end of the day. If your girlfriend isn’t AI then I hope she gets out while she still can.

 

[danbellucci]

Contextualize it. For the sake of your argument being in Japan, it's worse than pointless, but a detriment considering the cost of living.

This is gobbledygook. Unintelligible. What's worse than pointless?

contributing labor is only beneficial if you manage to solve the problem of raising said labour in the first place, as stated by my prior post

This is false, especially for Japan. We know that they need their citizens to have more children to contribute to the supply of labour so that they aren;'t swamped looking after the rapidly ageing population. If their total fertility rate does not rise then living standards will go down which will be much worse for everyone. So by far the better outcome is if their citizens in general feel obligated to have 2 or more children each than if their citizens continue to on average have about 1.1 children each and their population continues to collapse. If people continue not to have kids then future generations of Japanese will experience worse living conditions than the generations who are currently in their fertile adult years. So the current fertile adults have benefited and continue to benefit from good living conditions made possible by a supply of labour , but if they choose not to have kids then they'll not be doing their part to contribute to that supply of labour and thus those living conditions continuing into the future for future generations to enjoy. Benefiting from something without doing your part to contribut towards it continuing in the future so that others can benefit from it is selfish.

your argument falls apart when countries that actually have high birth rate end up having high child mortality rates.

Totally illogical. High child mortality rate isn't caused by having a high birth rate. High child mortality is caused by your country being poor and not technologically developed. Israel has a high birth rate and low child mortality rate because it's technologically developed. If Japan's birth rate rose, it's child mortality rate wouldn't start rising too, it would continue to have a low child mortality rate because it is a technologically developed country like Israel.

You're being so evasive I have no idea what it your actual response is to the argument, so I'm going to have to just ask you again explicitly.
1) Do you deny that it is selfish to benefit from something then not doing your part to contribute towards that beneficial thing continuing in the future so that other people can also benefit from it?
2) Do you deny that if you're hiking somewhere and you're not sure of the way and you ask someone for directions and they show you the way to where you want to go, then on a later occasion someone in the same place asks you for directions to the place you went and you don't answer them , that this would be an example of you being selfish?

I don't think you can deny either of these things without removing all of your credibility since they obviously count as being selfish to any normal person.
But if you agree that 1) and 2) count as selfish then you're committed to conceding that that the following is also selfish:

3) you benefited from growing up in a nice society with a high standard of living because there was enough supply of young labour , but by not having kids, you're not doing your part contribute to that supply of young labour in the future.

Since it's an example of the exact same principle as in 1).
If you want to get our of this and deny that 3) is selfish then you have to show how it is not an example of the same principle as in 1) and 2)
Which obviously you can't do which is why you didn't address the argument directly.

e.g. Suppose you're hiking and someone forcibly tells you to walk a treacherous path that would require much more preparation, and even though you insist it's not feasible, they still tell you it's the correct path and you end up lost in the woods.

This is non-analogous to having children or giving directions after being told drections because walking a treacherous path presumably does not benefit other people , and you presumably have not benefited from other people having walked the treacherous path.
But , if we change your hypothetical to make it analogous, so that you have benefited from others "walking the path" , and others will benefit in the future if you "walk the path" or be deprived of that benefit which you enjoyed if you don't "walk the path", then yes it would be selfish for you not to also "walk the path"
In the exact same way that if you benefit from someone telling you directions then its selfish for you not to give people directions in the future.

that benefit is marginal at best because growing up in that living standard still requires you to work in the office and go home tired.

No, because your living standards would have been far worse if the generation shortly before yours didn't have enough kids to contribute to the labour supply to establish the infrastructure and services which bring about the standard of living you enjoy.
So actually you, i.e. Japanese people, benefited immensely from the generation shortly before yours having kids, and the same reasoning applies to future generations.

Kids are a heavy burden if society will not contribute to raising them. It takes a village to raise a child, and Japan does not show such a village.

This is false. Having in children in Japan today is one of the easiest times to raise children in Japan's history. Child mortality is far lower than it was in the past, there is almost no risk of starving , Japan is safer than almost any time in its history. It's not that there are obstacles making it difficult to having children, it's that people are more selfish and choose not to.
But more importantly , even if it was true that it was more difficult to raise children today than in previous generations, that would make no difference. You still benefited from it so it's still selfish of you not to do your part to contribute towards that thing in the future so that other people can benefit from it.
Similarly, suppose when you were hiking, got lost and you received directions from someone with good social skills who found it easy to talk to strangers so it wasn't much of a burden for him to talk to you and give you directions but you personally felt shy so it would be more difficult for you to give directions to someone else in the future if you came across someone who was lost, it would still be selfish of you not to give directions to that lost person in the future .

You're basically saying
"I had a a nice life with a high standard of living

Because other people before you contributed to society's supply of labour by having kids which developed and ran the services and infrastructure which caused the high standard of living in society you enjoyed

and I have contributed to the economy well enough,

No, because you haven't contributed to the supply of labour in the future by having kids. You've only benefited yourself, not future generations.

, but they're trying to make me do more labor for the benefit of their own society

For the benefit of future generations, in the same way that you personally benefited from people before you contributing to the supply of labour in their future by having kids.

and letting me shoulder the burden of raising them."

In the same way people before you shouldered the burden of raised their own kids and you benefited as a result of the high living standards you enjoyed that was caused by them having and raising their kids
in the exact same way that if you benefit from someone else "shouldering the burden" of giving you directions while hiking then its selfish of you not to "shoulder the burden" of giving directions to someone else who is lost while hiking.

That society is very selfish and immoral. Parasitic to its citizens.

lol calling helping people other than yourself "very selfish and immoral" is actually the pinnacle of selfishness and immorality

 

[danbellucci]

Why yes, I said that a hot female character was hot How could you tell?

Search engines show that you also spend a lot of time looking at pregnant woman AI porn (blame yourself for leaving a like or a creepy comment trail under every piece of porn you look at daily)

hahaha this is just brazenly making things up because you can't engage with the argument. It's as ridiculous as if I were to claim that I found your instagram and you're a supporter of Al-Qaeda.

It sure seems like your ideology is just a bunch of fetishes at the end of the day.

How exactly does the following constitute a fetish :

What I'm saying is that Japanese people themselves should have more kids to stop their population collapse and prevent themselves going extinct, even though I don't have a drop of Japanese blood.
It should be obvious to most people why it's bad thing for Japan's population to collapse and for them to go extinct. The fewer children Japanese people have, the more old people there will be relative to young people , until you get to a point where each young japanese person needs to work to support 2 or 3 or 4 old people which will be much more of a burden on the smaller workforce and make it harder to maintain services and infrastructure because there won't be enough young people working and the ones who are working will have to spend more time looking after old people so the quality of life will go down. All obviously, objectively bad things. Calling seeing this as a bad thing a "breeding fetish" is simply braindead.

?
Obviously there's nothing sexual , let alone deviantly sexual, about wanting a country and people I have no connection to not to go extinct, nor in wanting their quality of life not to decline .
These are normal things for normal people to be concerned with , but if the only way you engage with the world is through masturbation and pornography then you might have trouble conceiving of why anyone would care about anything without having a fetish for it.

 

[TheBlackGamer]

Why yes, I said that a hot female character was hot How could you tell?

hahaha this is just brazenly making things up because you can't engage with the argument. It's as ridiculous as if I were to claim that I found your instagram and you're a supporter of Al-Qaeda.

How exactly does the following constitute a fetish :

?
Obviously there's nothing sexual , let alone deviantly sexual, about wanting a country and people I have no connection to not to go extinct, nor in wanting their quality of life not to decline .
These are normal things for normal people to be concerned with , but if the only way you engage with the world is through masturbation and pornography then you might have trouble conceiving of why anyone would care about anything without having a fetish for it.

I just wanna give a drive by comment and say. You're based af. All your arguments make sense and is fairly normal for anyone who can look at things in the bigger picture and not care solely about themselves.

If there's one thing I will laugh alongside you with it's people bringing up old comments like that has any relevance to the topic or discussion at hand. It's pathetic to do.

 

[SilverSupreme]

Why yes, I said that a hot female character was hot How could you tell?

hahaha this is just brazenly making things up because you can't engage with the argument. It's as ridiculous as if I were to claim that I found your instagram and you're a supporter of Al-Qaeda.

How exactly does the following constitute a fetish :

?
Obviously there's nothing sexual , let alone deviantly sexual, about wanting a country and people I have no connection to not to go extinct, nor in wanting their quality of life not to decline .
These are normal things for normal people to be concerned with , but if the only way you engage with the world is through masturbation and pornography then you might have trouble conceiving of why anyone would care about anything without having a fetish for it.

Did you post this from the gate of a school?

Don’t bother @‘ing me again because I’ll be ignoring it. Cool to see the only other person in the comments who doesn’t think you’re a total weirdo is someone I blocked a year ago for getting into really weird, redpill, alpha male, misogynist rants in the comment sections of romcom manga.
You are the company you keep I guess.

 

[danbellucci]

Did you post this from the gate of a school?

Don’t bother @‘ing me again because I’ll be ignoring it. Cool to see the only other person in the comments who doesn’t think you’re a total weirdo is someone I blocked a year ago for getting into really weird, redpill, alpha male, misogynist rants in the comment sections of romcom manga.
You are the company you keep I guess.

Uh oh! As expected you couldn't engage with the argument and demonstrate why being concerned about dropping quality of life caused by population collapse is a fetish.

 

[Eizki]

This truly is the greatest woman that I have ever seen in my life like god dam she is thick and a pro assassin I literally can't wait for chap 3.

 

[Eizki]

Btw peak Title for this chapter

 

[desinuntesse]

What can i say. I love fat asses my dude

 

[jackjack9]

She should stay the way she is.

 

[RedArowana]

This is gobbledygook. Unintelligible. What's worse than pointless?

This is false, especially for Japan. We know that they need their citizens to have more children to contribute to the supply of labour so that they aren;'t swamped looking after the rapidly ageing population. If their total fertility rate does not rise then living standards will go down which will be much worse for everyone. So by far the better outcome is if their citizens in general feel obligated to have 2 or more children each than if their citizens continue to on average have about 1.1 children each and their population continues to collapse. If people continue not to have kids then future generations of Japanese will experience worse living conditions than the generations who are currently in their fertile adult years. So the current fertile adults have benefited and continue to benefit from good living conditions made possible by a supply of labour , but if they choose not to have kids then they'll not be doing their part to contribute to that supply of labour and thus those living conditions continuing into the future for future generations to enjoy. Benefiting from something without doing your part to contribut towards it continuing in the future so that others can benefit from it is selfish.

Totally illogical. High child mortality rate isn't caused by having a high birth rate. High child mortality is caused by your country being poor and not technologically developed. Israel has a high birth rate and low child mortality rate because it's technologically developed. If Japan's birth rate rose, it's child mortality rate wouldn't start rising too, it would continue to have a low child mortality rate because it is a technologically developed country like Israel.

You're being so evasive I have no idea what it your actual response is to the argument, so I'm going to have to just ask you again explicitly.
1) Do you deny that it is selfish to benefit from something then not doing your part to contribute towards that beneficial thing continuing in the future so that other people can also benefit from it?
2) Do you deny that if you're hiking somewhere and you're not sure of the way and you ask someone for directions and they show you the way to where you want to go, then on a later occasion someone in the same place asks you for directions to the place you went and you don't answer them , that this would be an example of you being selfish?

I don't think you can deny either of these things without removing all of your credibility since they obviously count as being selfish to any normal person.
But if you agree that 1) and 2) count as selfish then you're committed to conceding that that the following is also selfish:

3) you benefited from growing up in a nice society with a high standard of living because there was enough supply of young labour , but by not having kids, you're not doing your part contribute to that supply of young labour in the future.

Since it's an example of the exact same principle as in 1).
If you want to get our of this and deny that 3) is selfish then you have to show how it is not an example of the same principle as in 1) and 2)
Which obviously you can't do which is why you didn't address the argument directly.

This is non-analogous to having children or giving directions after being told drections because walking a treacherous path presumably does not benefit other people , and you presumably have not benefited from other people having walked the treacherous path.
But , if we change your hypothetical to make it analogous, so that you have benefited from others "walking the path" , and others will benefit in the future if you "walk the path" or be deprived of that benefit which you enjoyed if you don't "walk the path", then yes it would be selfish for you not to also "walk the path"
In the exact same way that if you benefit from someone telling you directions then its selfish for you not to give people directions in the future.


No, because your living standards would have been far worse if the generation shortly before yours didn't have enough kids to contribute to the labour supply to establish the infrastructure and services which bring about the standard of living you enjoy.
So actually you, i.e. Japanese people, benefited immensely from the generation shortly before yours having kids, and the same reasoning applies to future generations.


This is false. Having in children in Japan today is one of the easiest times to raise children in Japan's history. Child mortality is far lower than it was in the past, there is almost no risk of starving , Japan is safer than almost any time in its history. It's not that there are obstacles making it difficult to having children, it's that people are more selfish and choose not to.
But more importantly , even if it was true that it was more difficult to raise children today than in previous generations, that would make no difference. You still benefited from it so it's still selfish of you not to do your part to contribute towards that thing in the future so that other people can benefit from it.
Similarly, suppose when you were hiking, got lost and you received directions from someone with good social skills who found it easy to talk to strangers so it wasn't much of a burden for him to talk to you and give you directions but you personally felt shy so it would be more difficult for you to give directions to someone else in the future if you came across someone who was lost, it would still be selfish of you not to give directions to that lost person in the future .


Because other people before you contributed to society's supply of labour by having kids which developed and ran the services and infrastructure which caused the high standard of living in society you enjoyed

No, because you haven't contributed to the supply of labour in the future by having kids. You've only benefited yourself, not future generations.

For the benefit of future generations, in the same way that you personally benefited from people before you contributing to the supply of labour in their future by having kids.

In the same way people before you shouldered the burden of raised their own kids and you benefited as a result of the high living standards you enjoyed that was caused by them having and raising their kids
in the exact same way that if you benefit from someone else "shouldering the burden" of giving you directions while hiking then its selfish of you not to "shoulder the burden" of giving directions to someone else who is lost while hiking.

lol calling helping people other than yourself "very selfish and immoral" is actually the pinnacle of selfishness and immorality

Something less than pointless, like what you are suggesting.
For example, detrimental to living quality.

That take is false, especially with the current narrative they have. We have the Prime Minister of Japan telling people to make sleep optional to increase productivity and you're expecting children on top of that. That problem of theirs was developed by their own work culture, so if so called "benefit" of "fertile adults" is 80+ work hours a week then forget benefitting, making them not sleep is selfish.

Totally illogical. There's correlation on it especially when considering that technologically developed world do not give much aid to those giving birth either. The level of education allows them to realize that and plan accordingly on not having kids.

You're the one being evasive on the root problem of your own argument. let me shoot the questions back while answering them.
1. Benefit is nonexistent when you can't even enjoy your own life because of the standards of living and labor. Do you realize it's selfish to ask people to care for a child on top of that?
2. That implies that the directions they give were good to begin with. Do you realize that if you're hiking then you should be prepared to know your own trail, and that people forcing misplaced directions on an unprepared traveller is an example of you being selfish?
In the contrary its easy to deny these things because you're assuming they actually exist in real life without removing all of your credibility because you're banking on your paradise existing. Unfortunately, you just look selfish to any normal person. And I am sure you actually believe your own points so

3) Does that benefit actually exist? That society is smoke and mirrors because that "young labor" still includes the people you hope to create more young labor

You think you're trying to address a fallacy by correlating those points but they have to be correct in the first place for me to address it. I've been giving you examples with your own analogies for you to address, and you say I'm skipping them?
No, your example is non analogous, since you're assuming the directions would benefit the people who are not prepared (ie not financially stable or unburdened by work). So you're telling me they walked the treacherous path, see people ill prepared and still give them directions to get lost in the woods?
But if we follow your own hypothetical since you think it's already analogous, did "walking that path" mean they gave you your own gear? Own supplies? Did they provide you a rescue in case you get lost from following said directions? No? Then it would be selfish for them to tell you to "wallk the path"
In the exact same way that if they do not give you sufficient maternity leave, and even decency for time offs to spend time with your own children then it is selfish for people to force its citizens to have children.

And yet your current living standards is already bad enough even without raising a future generation.
So actuallly you, i.e. Japanese people, have not benefitted at all since you're still shouldering your own problems. Kids are detrimental in that timeframe.
This needs context. There is no risk of starving and low mortality because those who can't manage children don't have kids. Aka Survivorship bias. People who have children or who want to have children know this.

Even more importantly, it is definitely all the difference. Your so-called benefit is paycheck to paycheck, work to bed cycle. It is selfish of you to force them to contribute more that that.
Similarly, suppose when you are hiking, tired and without supplies because you were lost for a few days, directions does not solve you getting back to camp, or evading the bears in the forest. If you were to give directions to someone else in that state it only benefits them if they actually have their own supplies, and yet you're still dying in the forest. It would be entitled of you to think giving directions in that type of terrain is more than enough "benefit" for them to save themselves.
Other peoples contributions did nothing to get you out of society's own forced labor on you. Even less so if having kids is a burden for both you and the child. There's nothing to enjoy despite the high standard.

That supply of labor is the least of the problem when even standards of living is already difficult. You've benefitted nothing, and the government is trying to give you more labor in the form of children.
Unfortunately that benefit you speak of does not exist, and raising kids even from the context of those who want them is difficult, so they opt not to. They're doing a much better service to the country in comparison to forced child rearing with no government help.

Lol you calling people very selfish and immoral, when more than one person has been disagreeing with your take is the pinnacle of selfishness and immorality.

 

[SUPER7X]

Support the author by buying Volume 1!

 

[cascadiareader]

1. A job with no killing.
A streetwalker.
2. Pays a lot with little work.
A camgirl.
3. Job where you stand around and look pretty.
Every hoe needs a good corner
4. Job that doesn't make you tired.
Just dead fish it in bed for a while.
5. A job with free lunch.
Your pimp can hook you up.

We have a winner everybody.

 

[Iginx]

Great work translating this!! It was perfect!!!!!!