A 21-year-old man has ignited a massive online debate after declaring that he refuses to work — because he was born without his consent.

His argument?
Since he never chose to be brought into the world, his parents are financially responsible for him indefinitely. He claims it’s unfair to force someone to work for a life they didn’t ask for — and that the burden lies with those who made the decision to have him.

The internet is split.

Critics call him entitled and immature, arguing that personal responsibility begins at adulthood — no matter the circumstances of birth.

Supporters say his stance is a deeper philosophical challenge to modern work culture, expectations, and even ideas tied to antinatalism — the belief that bringing new life into the world can be morally questioned.

One sentence from a 21-year-old just triggered a global debate about responsibility, choice, and what we actually owe each other.

So… genius? Or delusional?

Bill Clinton is not a keystone in our personalities the way Trump is for his supporters.

Trump orders release of government files on aliens and UFOs
Donald Trump has directed U.S. agencies to declassify and share more records about unidentified aerial phenomena with the public.

Mystery meets transparency push
Supporters see it as a bid for openness on a topic long shrouded in secrecy, while many wonder what the documents will actually reveal.

My cat supports me when it's hard

Former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol has been sentenced to life in prison following his controversial declaration of martial law in December 2024 — a move that shocked both South Korea and the international community.

Yoon Suk Yeol, who served as president of South Korea from 2022 until his removal from office, declared emergency martial law powers in early December 2024 amid escalating political tensions, mass protests, and deepening gridlock with the opposition-controlled National Assembly. The declaration temporarily placed the military in charge of key aspects of governance, restricted certain civil liberties, and imposed limits on public assembly and media operations.

Critics accused Yoon of overstepping constitutional limits, arguing that the security situation did not justify such extreme measures. Opposition lawmakers and civil society groups described the move as an attempt to consolidate power and suppress dissent during a period of declining approval ratings and mounting political pressure. Large-scale protests erupted in Seoul and other major cities, with demonstrators calling the declaration unconstitutional and demanding his resignation.

South Korea’s Constitutional Court later ruled that the imposition of martial law violated democratic safeguards enshrined in the country’s post-1987 constitutional order — reforms that were themselves born out of decades of authoritarian rule and public struggle for democratic freedoms. The National Assembly voted to impeach him, and following his removal from office, prosecutors launched a criminal investigation into charges including abuse of power and violation of constitutional procedures.

After months of legal proceedings, the court ultimately sentenced Yoon to life imprisonment, concluding that his actions represented a grave breach of constitutional authority and undermined democratic governance. Supporters have argued that he acted in response to what he characterized as a national security crisis, while critics maintain the move was politically motivated and dangerous.

The case marks one of the most dramatic political downfalls in modern South Korean history — in a country that has previously seen former presidents investigated, impeached, and imprisoned, underscoring both the volatility of its politics and the strength of its judicial institutions.

The sentencing is likely to have lasting implications for South Korea’s political landscape, civil-military relations, and the broader debate about executive power in times of crisis.