鴉PieFedWhat is one moral you have that most people don't agree with?
submitted by
edited
Example: I believe that IP is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful.
Edit: pls do not downvote the comments this is a constructive discussion
Edit2: IP= intellectal property
Edit3: sort by controversal
Comments are disabled.
Don't mess with other's private property
Don't kill people
It's that simple
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon#Private_property_and_the_state
I agree don't mess with (what's described here as) personal property, not private property.
I thought of a few stupid things, but everyone talking about kids made me think of this one.
I am strongly against Trickle down suffering.
"I put up with this terrible thing when I was your age, and even though we could stop it from happening to anyone, it's important that we make YOU suffer through it too."
Hazing, bullying, unfair labor laws, predatory banking and more. It's really just the "socially acceptable" cycle of abuse.
I agree, and I take it this far: "I worked hard and paid for my house, why should some lazy loafer get housing for free? I paid 24,000$ in tuition, why should kids get free college?" I think that, at some point, one guy has to be the first guy to benefit from progress, and all the people who didn't benefit just have to suck it up. I would 100% pay a much higher tax rate if it meant that homelessness was gone, hunger was gone, kids got free education... I'm Canadian, so I don't need to say this about health care. Yeah, I paid an awful lot of mortgage, but if someone else gets a free house? Good!
UBI is coming to Canada sooner rather than later.
Strongly agree. Someone has to break the cycle of abuse, it's wrong to contribute to the cycle so that it can continue harming others in the future.
Edit, one example that comes to mind is the extremely long shifts in the medical field in America. One guy who was really good at being a doctor happened to be someone who voluntarily took on very long hours. Now there is this persistent mindset that every medical worker must accept long hours and double shifts without notice and without complaints.
There are a few cases where it benefits the patient to avoid handing off the case to another doctor, but generally it just limits the pool of people who are willing to go into the medical field, and limits the career length and lifespan of the people who do go for it.
I sort of disagree. Some pain and suffering is what helps some people become better versions of themselves. Doesn't work for everyone though, so it shouldn't be the default experience, but rather a last resort.
I agree with OP, and I think you may as well but are stating it differently. Hardships and difficulty so indeed provide the opportunities to better oneself, but that shouldn't come from contrived abuse like bullying or hazing. Those are instances of someone using their previous difficulty as an excuse to make it harder for someone else which I don't believe is morally correct.
Maybe, maybe not. My thought for the comment was "tried to help, didn't work, off you go and experience as is".
Because not everyone learns the same way, so we can't apply a fix-all universal method. Some kids, adults even, don't get it until they experience it themselves.
What that "it" is changes from person to person and every time we think "why don't they just understand", maybe it's that they can't understand and need a different way of learning "it". Which sometimes is painful.
I get you, and I agree with that. What I'm talking about is more specific. I'm not saying remove all suffering. Suffering will always exist. I'm saying if given the option to cause suffering to another or not, "well, it happened to me" is NOT justification for suffering.
It's not pain and suffering that you admire its perseverance. You can have one without the other.
Perseverance against what if not pain?
The fact that this is your reply goes to show you need to learn more.
Sorry, I'm not into S&M play.
Yes, facing adversity does build resilience. However, creating adversity for another just because YOU had to face it is wrong. I had a professor who called our career a "brotherhood of suffering" and would purposely create artificial stumbling blocks and make things more difficult because he had the same done to him. It's perpetrating a cycle of abuse. I've now gotten to the point where I've taught in university and in the hospital and I try to break that cycle. It's still a very difficult path, the content and pace are still taxing. Many still don't make it to graduation, why make it harder then it needs to be?
Misguided pride or PTSD perhaps?
Unavoidable pain and suffering, sure. This is about contrived, otherwise unnecessary suffering to "prove a point" or pay it forward in a negative way.
Ah yes, the "poverty builds character" argument that's often used to justify poverty.
Nah mate, it's the "rich ppl need to experience poverty in order to empathize" argument.
Why should anyone need to experience poverty in the first place?
Because resources are finite and frugality is needed at times.
Global agricultural systems produce 4 million metric tonnes of food each year. If the food were equitably distributed, this would feed an extra one billion people (paper)
Food is clearly not finite, we produce more than we already need, so why does it cost money? Why don't we give food to people simply because they don't have enough pieces of paper or coins of silver?
The ancient people of Teotihuacán decided to stop building pyramids and instead built everyone homes, in a sort of luxury social housing, that "In comparison with other ancient Mesoamerican patterns of housing, these structures do look like elite houses." (Source) This one is especially fascinating and maddening.
It seems that a peoples society can just, you know, make the decision to build and provide a luxury life for everyone, even in the "hard" ancient days of old. Why can't we provide a good life for everyone? Why are people obsessed with the idea of suffering being a prerequisite to urban society? It would require proof of a large scale, urban society with no evidence of hierarchy being able to collectively build some sort of intricate sewage technology without any top-down management or something... https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/chinas-oldest-water-pipes-were-communal-effort
Poverty is artificial, it's a product of using social violence through some abstract currency to protect people from literal violence. Money isn't the root of all evil, but evil is the root of all money.
Bonus Reading
Trickle down suffering is a great term for it, I'm going to use that for future use.
Mine: Kids are pretty great, actually. They are smarter than you think and can make sense of a lot of stuff you wouldnt expect them to. You should treat their thoughts and feelings with the same respect that you would give an adult.
If you look at the facts kids are leaning towards progress. Less underage sex, less drug and alcohol use, and women are more educated then ever. Boys are starting to lag though:/.
I don't think "less underage sex" is a good thing. It means that humans remain in a state of childhood longer and longer. They're achieving life milestones at later and later ages. I'm not gonna say when the correct time for everyone to start having sex is, but when I was in high school 15 or 16 was a lot more common than 18+
Is this an “I turned out fine” opinion, or is this based on something more concrete?
Do you actually think it's a bad thing to have sex at 16 years old? I think it's a bad thing that young people are so terrified of living their lives for so long
No, I never said that but it does show that this serious situation isn't taken lightly.
What serious situation
That's actually a crazy thing to say that we need more under age sex.
That being there are 2 types of people, the ones who cherish childhood and those that want to go up.
We need teenagers to start living their lives again, which it seems like they're not. A lot of people under the age of ~24 are in a really poor state, developmentally
And mere sex is the way to do it? What about laws restricting social media from being as predatory and anxiety-/depression-contributing towards young people, as has been well-documented over the past, entire decade? As that other Lemmy user said, where is your scientific evidence that younger sex is the way beyond just your own opinion? Encouraging sex without solving the hypercapitalist issue is just pouring more gas on the dumpster fire, if anything.
Teenagers slept around because they were bored. Now they can learn coding and game. They are legitimately using less drugs. Drinking less and having sex left because they are busy developing skills for work and life.
This is so dystopian
Sex has nothing to do with emotional or mental maturity except with more education you are less likely to have casual sex. It has nothing to do with "becoming a man or woman". Plenty of adults are extremely accomplished without getting sex involved. Sex is literally just an act of putting your genitals together. How does that make an adult from a child? It doesnt.
It literally does though
I agree to some extent. I don't really think that people are remaining in "a state of childhood" as you put it but more so that people are actually forced to think about the future in an unhealthy way. Kids aren't acting like kids because they are told even before high school that if they fuck up that their life will already be ruined and there will be nothing they can do to fix it. Which leads to them focusing on school or not connecting others. I have more I could say but I think that the lack of sex and drugs are a knock on effect from some pretty unhealthy things that people are making kids think.
I think Gen Z voters reversed the trend in many nations including Germany and the USA, at least the males have a strong conservative bias compared to Millennials.
Part of Gen Z and almost all the people my age I know are heavily conservative. It's pretty isolating.
Unpopular Opinion: Kids are great? get off the stage
U should lurk more lemmy comments. Mfers here really are anti children
Kids are crazy smart of you don’t baby them their whole lives. Talk to them like responsible adults and (surprise!) they’ll learn to behave in responsible adult like ways.
Hey, thanks for this answer. I am under the impression that there is a lot of negative talk about having kids in the News/internet etc, which made me very anxious about the decision to have my own. And while I think that it's important to vent about the difficulties of parenting, I sometimes miss people who voice the positive things about it.
You should definitely not feel bad about that. And please don't let the doomers on this platform influence how you feel about your decisions. They have a very negative view on the world because they are terminally online, don't go outside, don't see all the wonderful things life has to offer just around the corner or down the street. I mean, times are tough, shit happens, that's a fact. But kids actually are better at adapting to changing times than we are.
My kids bring me great joy. I share my hobbies with them and adopt theirs. Spending time with them is not a loss or hindrance. Having kids is not for everyone and that's fine, but the negativity online it outright toxic.
That's a mixed bag. They can be very smart, but they still don't have the experience to properly contextualize many things.
Plus you can make them do a ton of chores for twenty bucks a week.
Ah yes, the lovely child labor.
/s
I like to call them little adults in this context.
As in, they are adults, but still growing. If adult is the end game, we should treat them as such.
This doesn't mean don't protect them tho respective of where they are at, which is dynamic and surprising.
Kids aren't dumb, but they are stupid.
They are still growing and cannot handle the full dose of reality yet.
I also apply this logic to animals. A lot of people, even some pet owners, are quite far divorced from our connection to animals, and don't spend enough time with them. Even wild animals, they are far more intelligent, inquisitive, emotional, and communicative than most people give them credit for, and coexistance with them would actually be a wonderful thing. I'm not religious, I don't say grace, and I eat meat... But anytime I eat an animal I try to at least be mindful and thankful for the animals sacrifice.
"Humans are the weakest of all creatures, so weak that other creatures are willing to give up their flesh that we may live. Humans are able to survive only though the exercise of rationality since they lack the abilities of other creatures to gain food through the use of fang and claw."
Absolute free speech is overrated. You shouldn’t be able to just lie out your ass and call it news.
The fact that the only people who had any claim against Fox for telling the Big Lie was the fucking voting machine company over lost profits tells you everything you need to know about our country
People in the US often misunderstand what sorts of speech can be "free". There's plenty of restricted speech in the US - hate speech can intensify the sentencing on crimes, libel and slander are both punishable civilly, speech that directs or is likely to incite "imminent lawless action" (e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater - that is actually the legal reason for why you can't do that if there isn't a fire).
That doesn't even begin to cover the sorts of speech that are heavily suppressed by the government and media but aren't legally restricted - like how the media chooses not to cover large popular protests sometimes (famously, the antiwar protests around the invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan), or gives disproportional representation to counter protesters to give the illusion that both sides are equally popular, or how anti-capitalist stances are generally ignored or downplayed. Not illegal, but if you can't really engage in those sorts of speech publicly, they may as well be.
Agreed, news needs to be held to a higher standard than it is now. There's a whole list of journalist code of ethics that basically distils to be truthful, minimize harm, be independent, and be accountable.
*some example of minimize harm;
Republican senator floats using violence against journalists who report 'fake news'
I believe that the more wealth a person has, the more likely it is that they abused and harmed others to achieve that wealth. Therefore, the more wealthy a person is, the less I trust and respect them.
I don't think that it's wealth generation is equal to immorality. But the more wealthy you become the more insulated you are from the struggles of regular people.
If capitalism was not so psychotic, inhumane and bloodthirsty, I might agree. In the current world market? If you are worth more then double/triple what your average local family house is worth, I will probably hate their personality and what they stand for.
They'll still get the benefit of the doubt and I'll still engage, because everyone is their own person, but they are playing 3-0 behind and have lots to prove. There's a reason upper management is full of similar personality types.
I think you just proved my point. Your willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (a moral judgment) but you're gonna be wary of them.
Nothing is wrong with that stance.
What about dentists, doctors, programmers, etc.?
I feel like this should be more about those involved in the upper echelons of megacorps.
Mine is related: I believe in an estate or "death" tax, at least on the ultra-wealthy. These people have exploited workers their whole lives to "earn" it, and almost certainly used unethical loopholes to hide it and keep it from being taxed, so at least recover the taxes before it's dropped in the lap of their heir. They won't even personally be negatively impacted by it since they're already gone. Sure, the next-of-kin gets less, but that's the whole point; they did even less to actually earn it!
Killing yourself is ok. You don't know what it's like to be them and be in their head.
I'll never do it. Even in darkest depths, but respect anyone's right to say peace out.
Agreed. The idea that you *owe* people your life is pretty nuts. At the end of the day, you can be robbed of everything, *including* your life. But it's the one thing you're not allowed to end. In a perfect world I do think that people who are suicidal should both:
(a) have to discuss their suicide with a trained professional. What does this look like? Idk. But probably along the lines of "are you capable of healing / can we heal what is causing these thoughts or no?"
(b) be able to get professional euthanasia. No pain, someone to be there with them through the process. Not just a sterile room where you go to die, but a place you are going to leave your pain behind and move on
If there is an afterlife, hopefully they find peace there.
Deleted by author
That’s absolutely true, and as I said, I’m not a professional and I would never claim to be, and would never want someone to end their life if they could be helped (probably every person who would regret it). That being said I think there is a social stigma of “don’t do it because what would happen to [x]”? I’ve had close friends that ended their lives and the focus after was on who it affected rather than why or how they got there and why they didn’t get help. Additionally our society is built on a system of “work to live” which can certainly be crushing to those who already feel crushed. Hopefully we can do better in the future.
Deleted by author
Sure, I won’t say anything further. The original post was about common morals that you may disagree with and now we’re in pragmatics, no reason to continue
Being "proud" of your acheivements is fine.\
Being "proud" of your country or your state or your football team that you're not a member of,or your ethnicity is douchebaggery.
Being proud of someone else makes you a douchebag?
Any pride which implies superiority over others is douchebaggery. Especially when based on exclusivity of group membership for things you didnt earn yourself. Or anything used to shame others.
Being proud you made yourself work out every day is good. Saying you are proud that you have a better body than most is douchbaggery. Being proud that your wife is hot is douchebaggery. Being proud that your city made the playoffs is douchebaggery. Being proud of yourself that you worked hard and are financially stable is fine, especvially if you keep it to yourself. Being proud that you are rich is douchebaggery. Being proud of the price of your car is douchebaggery.
Theres nuance there, I'll leave it to you to figure it out. I think if your pride is intended to make others feel lesser then you can do better.
You are assuming having pride means you put down others accomplishments, but that's not always the case. You can be a fan of a sports team and still not hate the opposing team.
My mam has a union jack she flies outside her house. I always say "do you forget what country you live in?" To her all the time about it
My country is ranked most patriotic in the world, at 94%.
I'm part of the 6% who isn't patriotic. I'm instead proud of THAT. Especially since we have an extreme football fandom that I'm really getting tired of being a part of, mostly due to the hooligans that resulted from this. After the last World Cup, I just stopped caring.
Pride, like most emotions or feelings, exists on a range. You can be proud of all of these things, including your achievements; it's the degree to which you carry that pride that determines the "douchebaggery," don't you think?
The sports team, I would say, probably has the lowest "douchebaggery threshold," as the spectator is so far removed from the team—especially for professional teams—whereas the others carry more involvement and/or stake for its community.
The pay rate of the lowest paid worker of any company or institution should be somehow legally and directly tied to the pay rate of the highest paid executive.
If the executive wants to make more money and gets a raise, then so do the workers.
I'll go farther than that: the highest paid worker should be paid no more than X compared to the lowest paid worker *or contractor/subcontractor*, including 1099 contractors.
The government works for them, not us, so the somehow can only be a union.
That cats should remain indoors. Pet cats kill approximately 2.4 billion birds in the US alone, not to mention all the other animals that they also kill. I love cats as much as the next guy but keep them indoors for the love of nature
Plus, they are %99 less likely to get hit by a car or eaten by a coyote.
also they just live longer.
outdoor cats average..what..5 years? Indoor cats can get to 20. a lucky few even more.
Definitely!
I have a take on this that I think no one will have fun with:
In my opinion there is no moral way to keep a cat as a pet.
Allowing cats to roam as they desire results in the aforementioned ecological damage. The opposite - keeping cats locked in a few thousand feet at best for twenty-odd years of life - is cruel.
As someone who was raised in the woods with outdoor cats and couldn't imagine keeping them inside - even though we lost two as I grew up - it's a circle I just can't square. So I figure that if and when I get cats, I'll dodge the question and adopt some older cats who were already raised inside and couldn't be trusted to go outside safely anyway.
Counterpoint: leash laws for cats on non-private property. You can and should be able to take your cat for a walk, but you definitely shouldn't let those little murder machines out on their own.
I wouldnt say its a counter point. A cat on a leash is definitely fine. Its letting the cats roam freely that is the problem
In my experience, humans do tend to prefer this policy but *cats* do not. Consequently, outdoor cats tend to be cats that are particularly good at getting outside in defiance of their owners' interests - either by physical escape or social manipulation.
Are the cats wanting to be outside, or are they just wanting to be away from you?
Cause I've never had a cat that wanted to be outside. Sit in a window and watch the world, yes, but as soon as you give them the ability they ran and hid.
In my experience, they want to go outside early in the morning and kill something (bugs are popular - my cat's never been big on tree climbing or bird killing), bring it back inside and meow until I acknowledge their triumph and give it a head-scritch. Then they want to bask in a sunbeam in my study while I work, attack my computer cord, and meow for dinner when it gets late in the day. Round out the evening curled up on my lap watching a movie. Sleep at the foot of the bed. Wake up and repeat.
Omg, he'll meow at the door for an hour straight if I don't let him out. Then he'll stick his head outside for, like, ten second and demand to be let back in again. Then go back to the door and ask to be let out again. So I typically just leave the door cracked, when the weather is nice, and save everyone some drama.
Ive picked put my cat outside a few times just for her to run back to the door and want in. 4 cats in the house, and only once did one get out. It was a freak accident, dog started barking while i was opening the door and the no brain cell cat fled at the noise but instead of up the stairs like normal it ran out the freshly opened door. Took a couple days to get him back but now hes so scared of the front door.
depends on your country. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7909512/
edit: sorry was talking with someone and realized that this isn't as clear as it should be. this isn't a 'moral that most don't agree with' in all countries. like the US.
It’s okay to call stupid people stupid to their face - them, their ideas, whatever it is that they’re doing dumb. In the U.S. we’ve gone too far over on the “tolerate all people and their views” which has allowed fascism and MAGAts to gain far too much power - putting idiots in their place is (or at least would have been) the best way put it back where it belongs.
I think there's a difference between not calling someone an idiot and tolerating their bad ideas and actions though. I agree people need to be stopped, and not tolerated, but when the only answer is insulting them with various names like idiot or nazi, all that ends up happening is they keep their toxic and destructive ideas hidden from the public, and then band with others labelled idiot and nazi, until they feel comfortable in a group to express their rhetoric without fear.
At which point you make such groups illegal and start investigating and prosecuting, officially and not.
Yeah, I know that won't get us to a state of educated well-meaning humanity caring for all life. But I can't deny seeing some assholes getting their own medicine will make me smile for some time
Nice, a clean descent into authoritharism and fascism.
fuck the slippery slope apparently
I've spent a day thinking whether to reply this or not. In the end, can't expect you to read my mind, so here it goes: look at my point about not getting to a better place, which is why I am not going to actually do things like that, despite holding the position that oppressors have every right to become oppressed. Sadly, this way does not end oppression
Criticism isn't intolerance. Confused about freedom of speech?
unpopular moral take: All religions are absurd cop outs and you should choose your own model for how to be a good person.
No that's quite popular here, thanks for outing yourself as a bigot and welcome to my ever growing blocklist
Agreed. You are very welcome on my list :)
Username checks out, I guess.
Oh my a comment I've never once heard before ever
I don't think that's unpopular on this platform.
People acting as if they're brave for voicing an "unpopular" opinion, when they're actually with the vast majority on that platform...
The fundamental problem with questions like these is that people are inclined to upvote morals they agree with, and downvote the ones they don't like, instead of upvoting answers that fit the question of unpopular. I don't know that there's much to be done about that though.
Religion is cancer. All of them.
Hotter take: ban religion completely outside of religious facilities and private dwellings.
No iconography, no discussion, nothing. You can go into your temple and do whatever stupid shit you want, you can aid the poor if you want, but everything to do with your religion stays behind closed doors.
super redhot take: implement a lifelong exclusion for being around unattended kids for any priests that are caught pedophiling. Mandatory bright red wrist bracelet wearing for life. And exclusion from ever being a priest again.\
Include any higher ups in the church who knew about it and didnt immediately report it to the state law enforcement. There should not be any second system of justice within the priesthood. They follow existing government laws around abuse of children or they are acting criminally, no exceptions. If the pedopriests take off the bracelet they report it immediately to law enforcement or they can face life in prison, still wearing the bracelet.
True but you gotta remember the most violent and horrific religion of them all....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_religion
I think the bases of all religions are similar enough... Don't be an asshole, don't be selfish and help others in need, accept everyone, etc...
Problem is the people that actually follow religions (specially when it's a big part of their life) are mostly assholes that don't follow the basic dogmas they themselves preach.
Nope, not even close. It's not even the basis of Christianity, and we associate that one with this message the most (for some reasons). If there is a basis that all religions share, it's that unwavering notion that the religion in question is the right one, and every other is heresy and should be eliminated.
Yeah because everyone deciding on their own code of morals and ethics will surely contribute to social cohesion... :/
I don't necessarily disagree, but this game is just sooo short-sighted.
Isn't that what laws are, in theory, supposed to do? Establish a minimum standard.
I know that in practice, there is significant deviation from legality and morality, but lots of people pick and choose the parts of religion they want to follow as well.
Circumcision is multilation
The big thing is just not comparing it to female circumcision. Both are fucked up, but female circumcision is done *explicitly* to destroy sexual function. It’s rare for male circumcision to go so wrong that all sexual function is lost, but that’s the goal of female circumcision.
Male circumcision started in the usa explicitly to stop boys from masturbating. With Dr Kellogg's goal a world of numb sex. All the health reason were either just the healthy effects of no masturbating or made after the fact.
And that not the oldest we have writings from the early Muslim world wwre someone wrote that we do so baby associates pain with his genitals. Amd thats not the oldest record explaining male cicr as an anti sex anti pleasure.
I mean, it definitionally is. Even if you use a less charged synonym like "body modification of a major part".
The normative/moral take would be that *all* genital mutilation is bad.
I think that's starting to come around, no?
Anywhere with a major Jewish or Muslim population is going to struggle with that one.
And the usa
What if it's done with consent, to an adult?
The stock market should be illegal in all countries. Its basically a legalized gambling ponzii scheme.
Retirement also shouldn't be tied to this type of system.
I'll spot you the second one, for certain. The idea of retirement being pegged to the market indexes is a big mistake, as it inversely correlates the need for labor with the supply and generates that supply in a population least capable of supplying it. You don't want a bunch of 65 year olds retiring during a bull market, when equity prices are high and demand for labor is stretched thin. You don't want a bunch of 70+ year olds trying to re-enter the labor force during a recession.
To the first one... equity markets *aren't gambling*. They are, fundamentally, lending markets. The purpose of the stock market is to create a public space for businesses to borrow cash at rates below that of the bank lending rates. That's fine and good, actually. And I might even consider it a better alternative to traditional retail bank lending, as the modern financial system is a dead weight loss on both public and private business activities.
What I might add, in order to curb the impulse to speculatively invest, is to fix the price of equity at some price-to-earnings ratio range. The speculative investment in firms occurs at the margins - with firms like Palantir and Tesla enjoying prices well in excess of their revenues, while firms like Berkshire Hathaway are trading at surprisingly good rates. The ponzi scheme aspect is in the marketing of equities - often with miserable balance sheets - as safe and profitable.\
Trading around index funds is comparatively safe over the long term and a good way to incentivize both savings and capital growth domestically. The trick is in enforcing strong sound regulations without those regulatory firms being captured by the businesses they seek to regulate. But arbitrarily decreeing that all businesses need to vet their lending through private banks doesn't solve the problem of speculation. It just pushes the speculation onto the spreadsheets of retail banks.
Came here looking for this. Agreed.
I believe antinatalism is a dire mistake, and the highest thing someone can aspire to be is a parent
Donct ypu realize the end of the world is nigh, and also bad things happen that cause sadness, and therefore our species should stop procreating until nothing bad ever happens again?
To people's credit for intellectual honesty, you also hear "asteroid impact now plz".
Oooeh this is one is gonna piss off a lot of lemmings. This is one of those hard echo chamber topics that haunt Lemmy.
Also don't mention religion, that will also twist a lot of panties on here
antinatalism is gross but I don't think the highest aspiration is parenthood
Why so?
Have kids, find out. Spoiler, it is, for most people.
Sorry but the language here alienates those who cannot have kids. you can speak for youself just fine but the response as stated was gross. ugh you're gonna fuckin reply to me again aren't you. i really dont want to continue with this discussion, please, as a personal favor
lemmy needs a fucking disable inbox replies option. i dont want to block anyone and i feel the need to point out this perspective but i really hate getting msgs like these on this particular subject days later
Post online, get a reply. Sorry to upset you, hope you forget it soon.
Yeah that part.
On, that's easy to address. You don't need to have kids as long as you're improving society so that other people's kids thrive.
Now we're inclusive of the infertile and accomplish the same goal.
But I also agree, fucking is the best
imo u don't necessarily have to be a parent, you can be a parental figure to a younger person, be a good role model and teach them well
Sure I don't see why adoption ot being a godfather to someone shouldn't count. I just think that anyone not engaged in raising children or making the world a better place for them is just using the world and giving nothing back
Just having a child is not enough, parents also need to be helping to make the world a better place.
I believe that its pointless to argue this way or that about antinatalism, as we no longer have control of a population encroaching 8 billion. It just becomes a moot point to bash each other on over the internet (which can be said about a multitude of other subjects).
I'm not going to have kids. That's just what I want. Going extreme on antinatalism or pronatalism is just circling back to telling other people what they should do with their bodies. Everything is just so extreme these days. Its do or die in the eyes of the public, no matter what you do, and its grating.
The debate shows… the next generation it’s OK to have strong feelings both ways?
(initially I was going to make a point that seemed on shaky ground given search engines exist - “not everyone has formed their opinion yet” so for those [young] people, just check out a couple opposing books from the local library and that’s sufficient? Ooooh, what about when they want to debate what they read! Ground feels less shaky!)
It really all boils down to "live how you want as long as you're not bothering others". If you believe heavily in it, then live by it, but stop slamming it into the heads of people who believe the opposite or just don't care.
It's part of the reason why younger gens cringe at religion. "Do this or you will go to hell, but do it through us because you'll go to hell if you do it through another religion." It's enough to make anyone balk, and rightfully so. The ground is always shaky, it just doesn't feel as shaky if you shake with it.
...Now I want a shake.
Why is it the highest thing someone can aspire to? You don't think being a Nobel-winning scientist is as important as being a parent?
I agreed with this up until the 'and'.
Be a *good* parent.
Far too many out there are shit, or at best mediocre parents.
If you're going to say the church, the school, the neighbors, other family members, anyone else is who should raise your kids, you should aspire for a vasectomy.
If you aspire to just pump out kids for a number game, you missed the Dark Ages. Though a Mennonite community may be your thing.
Antinatalism is a mistake - I think I agree there, mostly because it's a path to a narrow gene pool and increases the probability of extinction.
Highest aspiration being parenthood - hard pass there, the highest aspiration in life is the seeking and sharing of knowledge.
Im not too judgemental of most anti-natalists but the ones who claim having kids is bad for the planet can fuck right off.
I hate this myth. The world can absolutely support a large human population IF we arent all living the same hideously wasteful lifestyle. We need to change our consumeristic shitstain of a culture. Blaming population growth is just a means to justify continuing to live wasteful lifestyles and not having to change anything.
Its literally just placing a higher value on consumerism than human lives. Its gross.
Lol you should work for an online ad agency.
How many kids do you have?
Suicide shouldn't be illegal. If you've tried treatments and seen a therapist for years but just want out - you should be able to schedule a day to be put to sleep.
I think its immoral not to give people a dignified way out.
But you're damaging government property! /$
I can agree with it for elderly people and/or people with a sever chronic condition who have little to keep suffering for. But for younger people with "fixable" problem I would hope we first male sure they get all the support they could need and want before euthanasia becomes an option. I know we aren't anywhere close pretty much anywhere in the world, but in the interim until we get there? I don't know, be angry at politicians and voters until they stop gutting public health care maybe.
Okay, yes, let's make sure that help is available *if they want it*. But what if they don't? Should a suicidal person be forced to accept help that they don't want?
Moreover, if you forbid people from ending their own life at their own discretion, who really has ownership over their body?
My problem is capitalism. Will it get fixed in my life? No.
Sometimes the "temporary problem" is temporary in the sense that your life is temporary. One permanent solution please!
I was gonna say the same. I'd also like to add that forcefully confining, isolating, and drugging people for being suicidal is immoral and a waste of resources too. Involuntary commitment for people who don't harm others should be illegal.
Involuntary commitment is bullshit. They never forced the 1% into treatment for their undiagnosed hoarding mental illness. Just for the serfs apparently
I think it shouldn't be illegal even if you didn't exhausted all other options. It's my life, and if I want to end it I should be allowed to do so.
I agree with you, but I go even further. I think suicide should be legal, in all cases. There should be suicide booths that provide a humane, painless dead, for free use by whoever wants to kill oneself. And I am of the opinion that this would improve society. If the "slaves" of today's society had an easy way out, perhaps the CEOs and the billionaires would have to start paying living wages and wouldn't be able to take advantage of people and ruin the environment/society.
And another interesting scenario would be: You kill a CEO, run to a suicide booth, kill yourself.
This, of course, will never happen because the people at the top would never let it happen. And the fact that the people at the top are against it, is enough proof, imo, that this would be a net gain for society/humanity. Something that endangers the top is good. Fuck them.
Never thought of it that way. Honestly I could be convinced of that.
But I could also be convinced that at minimum it should be 3 years after the human brain has had an opportunity to fully mature.
We aren't a mature species.
I think suicide should be legal for all ages. If one didn't ask to be born, why should one have to wait many many years to exit?
And while I am of the opinion that suicide should be legal and freely provided, mental health (and all other forms of health) should also be provided freely.
Well as someone who struggled with depression in high-school and mental illness I know now after educating myself that your brain changes as you get older.
If I hadn't seen my 30s I wouldn't have felt that self love I matured into.
You're assuming they wouldn't find this agreeable to get rid of "undesirables".
As someone who is at the very least passively suicidal, I couldn't agree more. Fuck all this shit let me go.
Open borders. I strongly believe in open borders as a moral imperative. Human beings have been migrating for survival, resources, and exploration for over 20,000 years. The concept of nation-states imposing constraints on movement is a modern invention that doesn't align with the inherent human need for freedom of mobility. People in the southwestern states of the US with Mexican roots will tell you "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us."
Wouldn't it turn the whole world upside down if nation states had to compete for their population?
While this is a noble goal, in practice it'll just lead to the collapse of every modern nation. If we reach some utopian future where resources are no limit then it should work, but I very much doubt it would work right now
Deleted by author
If every border opened up and tons of people moved into Europe/USA and other wealthy countries they would inevitably collapse. Trust in the system would erode and it would all devolve into anarchy.
I doubt a lot of people would voluntarily move out of wealthy countries, those that want to already can, so it would be a one way transfer of people.
We already see a lot of tension in regards to migration and opening borders would make it 100 times worse
Deleted by author
If you have money, borders are basically open for you. I haven't seen many upper middle-class and higher people migrate to second or third world countries. So it's safe to assume that that also wouldn't happen when borders are actually open. This leaves less fortunate people from all over the world. If you are telling me they will migrate to a different second or third world country, you are delusional. They will migrate to first world countries. And those cou tries will collapse.
Don't get me wrong, I think open borders are a great concept and people should be free to live wherever they want. But with our current system it just doesn't work. If we have something like a world government and just earth, without individual countries, it's a different story.
Oh no not our current system that doesn't provide for everyone! What will we ever do if we lose our chains!?!?
Deleted by author
Would you mind explaining how you imagine wealthy countries would fare if we removed all borders tomorrow? How would social security and societal services work with a massive influx of people without any increase in taxes?
More people means more tax, but perhaps we should abandon the concept of money and the economy altogether. This shit does *not* work for the working class.
In the EU. You're free to move to any member country to live and work there.
Then we had brexit, and as huge part of that was the "freedom of movement" in the EU. The British didn't like "Polish plumbers" coming to the UK.
Deleted by author
Good, fuck those nations. They all suck.
Do you have an example of a good nation?
Yeah, the fact that you can want to go somewhere, and have the resources to do so… And a faceless government bureaucrat hundreds of miles away can just go “lol no you’re not allowed here.” It is mind boggling.
fellow border abolitionist! i recommend people to read Borders by Thomas King. Borders are not real. It's past time for land back
Then groups clash directly. People were simply killed for being in the wrong territory. How should resources be managed? You can open borders but then roads won't be free.
I still agree though that borders are wrong.
This is a difficult concept for us “modern humans” to wrap our heads around so I get why some of the responses are “civilization would collapse”. But hear me out: We assume that most people in the so called “3rd world” (global south is a better term) actually want to migrate to the wealthier western nations. This is not entirely the case. In the majority of cases people do not want to uproot their families, leave everyone and everything they know behind, have to learn a foreign language and culture. Desperation is what mostly drives this decision!
What I am saying is if we had open borders in the first place migration would actually decrease because nation states would have to compete for human capital, ultimately raising the standards of living for everyone. That is different than what we do now, where nation states exploit people for their labor, do not provide for their basic needs, creating a class driven society where the elites (the one’s who do the exploiting) continue to rule for generation after generation, in many cases with impunity.
Comment I agree with: “If you have money, borders are basically open for you” - @[email protected]
The proof of this is the Trump’s administration concept of the gold card, not to be confused with the green card. The gold card is for individuals who will invest at least $5 million in the US. They than can get a gold card with trump’s face on it and come in and out of the country whenever they please as if there are open borders for them. Link: Trumps Gold card
Comment I do not agree with: “If every border opened up and tons of people moved into Europe/USA and other wealthy countries they would inevitably collapse. Trust in the system would erode and it would all devolve into anarchy.” @[email protected]
I think this is misguided. The rule of law and enforcement of it would not simply cease to be because of opening up of borders. This is exactly what the ruling elites conditioned society to think and it is baseless Hollywood type propaganda created to keep the working class fighting among themselves and under the boot of the ruling class. They want you to think this way because most people who immigrate to another country are honest hard working people and NOT criminals. What do hard working honest people want to do? They want to provide for their families the best quality of life possible. How does one achieve that? One cannot by his or herself, one needs to join the many in the form of working class unions. What would happen if we the working class people all joined unions? We make the Capitalists elites our bitch. We dictate the working conditions and we decide what is a fair wage. Do you see where I am going with this? THERE IS STRENGTH IN NUMBERS and the ruling elite minority could no longer exploit the working class majority.
Regarding the collapse of wealthy countries I was more thinking of the social securities like free healthcare, education, retirement, welfare etc. I don't think the justice system will collapse and agree that that is right-wing propaganda. But I can see the first things I mentioned happening when there is an influx in people that do not immediately pay I to the system to finance it for others. This might not apply to the US where education and healthcare isn't free to begin with, but in countries like Germany where it's the case it might be more severe. On the other hand, the retirement system is already very strained in Germany as there are less and less young people to pay for the old ones that retired...
In the United States we do not have the social welfare system that Europe does. Our political class chooses to invest in the military and imperialist wars abroad instead of providing "free" college education or healthcare for our people. It's not right and is a big reason that Bernie Sanders, the only socialist democrat in the US congress has become so popular, because he is constantly telling us that the richest country in the world has zero excuse not to provide those basic needs to its people.
I think that is another fallacy that the ruling class elites like to tell us: don't let all those foreigners in or our healthcare and education system will collapse! Fear mongering is what this is. For example in the United States in the last decade undocumented immigrants have contributed roughly $200 Billion into the Social Security system of which they do not get to benefit from. Also, immigrants have contributed immensely to local economies, revitalizing entire forgotten manufacturing towns in the Midwest that have been destroyed by outsourcing of jobs to Asia for cheap labor. My point is a huge influx, which I don't believe would happen anyway, would just contribute to the tax base because regardless of immigrant status in the US you pay taxes just by being another consumer. Social programs including healthcare and education would just adjust over time.
You know who actually is about to cause the collapse of our social security and medicare systems in the US? Elon Musk, Trump and their billionaire cronies who infiltrated government and NOT migrants coming over the border working the fields for $5 per hour.
Based on your comment it seems to me like you're a German citizen. Let me give some unsolicited advice: Fight like hell to keep your social welfare programs! The news lately seems to be showing that Germany is re-militarizing and that may come at a cost just like in the USA they will try to claw money away from social programs to redirect to military spending. Fight like hell so you don't become the capitalist wasteland the USA has become with ruling elites trying to privatize every program.
I think immigration laws are inherently a violation of universal human rights. What is a more basic expression of freedom and liberty than being able to choose where in the world to build your life?
Full marks for unpopular (at least everywhere but here).
Counter-moral: any community has the right to decide its own membership.
I would argue a community can decide their membership, but society is a collection of communities and cannot decide their membership. Otherwise you end up with theocracies and/or racial supremacist states.
a "you can choose who you associate with, but not who your neighbors are" sorta deal
That's a great way of putting it.
Stealing is OK, the ok-ness of the stealing is inversely proportional to the wealth of the person you steal from.
If you steal 100 dollars from someone who only has 1000 dollars, that's reprehensible, but if you can nick a few million off a billionaire fucking go for it.
I think that was the generally agreed upon belief before capitalist propaganda changed our collective morality.
Robin Hood wasn't portrayed as a villain.
Any modern robin hood would be vilified and most people would believe it.
Didn't realize I felt exactly the same. Same goes for stores. If the local store screwed themselves in my favor, I'd likely say something. If the big box store fucked up? LOL, *mine*.
That just means all you have to do is come up with a justification and steal all you want for the most part and we as humans are very good at this sort of mental gymnastics. One might say that cognitive dissonance is one of our biggest super powers.
I think relative harm factors in too. Decimating someone's resources when they're likely to struggle to feed themselves next month? Or course that's reprehensible. Taking a tiny portion from someone who won't even notice, especially when you'll probably get a lot more out of it? Now you're practically Robin Hood
Yes but this is a very shallow view which ignores other consequences like moral order, trust and social landscapes.
I don't know if it's a moral per se, but I think nobody should be able to decline being an organ donor. It is an absolute and unforgivable waste to let bodies rot/burn when they could save someone. There is no reason, no good reason, to not be an organ donor. There is no good reason to be able, even after you're dead, to just let people needlessly die.
And religious reasons are even more moronic. What God, if you truly believe he's good and righteous and loving, would want you to let someone else die if you could save them? Why is your meat sack more important than somebody's life? Don't most people believe the soul leaves the body? It's just meat.
I've had countless arguments about this, but nobody has ever been able to give me a compelling reason as to why letting someone die to protect a corpse is right or just.
The only counterargument to it I can imagine is that in shit-backwards healthcare systems like US one, it will disincentivize bad doctors from saving your life. If you're poor and your family can't afford good lawyer, they don't have a good reason to give 100% to save your life, when they can give it 80%, and then sell your organs for good profit. It's not an argument against compulsive organ donation, more of a one against shit healthcare systems, but still.
Obviously I am not for the sale of organs. And in a system where everyone is a donor, waiting list will probably be much shorter giving people less incentive to try and acquire organs in unethical ways.
But you're right of course, the system has to be robust and fair to not cause issues with it, though of course this is true for any system, not just organ donations.
I mean, that's the biggest counter-argument I've always seen against it. Similar to being against capital punishment: sure, you could perfectly execute (pun slightly intended) it if it was a perfect system devoid of bias and personal interest but, in the face of that lack of reality, giving that much power to the State is inadvisable on reality-based principle.
A family member of mine used to take organs from Cytek, possible misspelling, to DFW airport for transport out of the country. It's already a lucrative business.
Your view of god seems to be very much influenced by the Abrahamic religions.
You may not agree that it's important for the deceased or their relatives to keep the body intact until it's buried.
But there's a point to be made that this simply isn't your, or the state's, or anyone else's decision.
That only the deceased and their relatives have the right to decide that, no matter what their reasons are.\
Ultimately, you're proposing that as soon as the brain stops functioning, the body of the person immediately becomes state property.
And that's a hard point to make, since everything else they leave behind usually doesn't, and all of our traditions surrounding death go against it.
Trust me, you're not the only one who has said these things. I am fully aware most people disagree with me, haha. I've had some explosive arguments in real life about this, because ultimately it's a very.. emotional subject for people.
Just to respond to your points. I think "tradition" is never a good argument. Slavery used to be a 'tradition', stoning people used to be (and still is in some places) a tradition, circumcision is a tradition. None of these are good just by virtue of being a tradition. Traditions can and should change, especially when they're based on ignorance or hatred or actively harming people.
I am not religious and my example about the soul was really just an example. I know plenty of self-proclaimed christians who use their religion as a reason not to be a donor, and I just don't understand it.
Why should the relatives of the deceased have the final say on it? Is the corpse their property? If it were, they could choose to take it home and let it rot in the basement. Or cut it into pieces and feed it to dogs. Or use it for target practice, stuff it like a piñata. I wouldn't be surprised if there are places in the world where people are allowed to do that, but where I live it's not allowed. So if the corpse is not their property, then whose is it? Not the deceased, because they're dead, they don't own anything anymore. Not the relatives. Then who? If nobody is the owner of the corpse, then why shouldn't the state use the parts that can help people?
Look, I know there is no country in the world that will ever implement what I would want, but at the very least they should all make it opt-out, because this way people who don't care (and wouldn't take the time/effort to register as a donor, even though they wouldn't necessarily mind being one) will automatically be a donor, and the people who are really against it will opt out. Also, if they refuse to make it non-optional, they should make it so that non-donors cannot receive a donor organ themselves, or automatically move down the list when a donor needs one.
Yes, it makes the most sense for the corpse to be their property, unless the deceased has specified what to do with it instead.
You know, like it's done with everything else a dead person leaves behind.\
No, laws regulate what you can and can't do with your property.
A gun is your property, but you can't shoot it wherever, cause it is dangerous.
If you let a corpse rot in your basement or throw it in the woods, that poses a danger to others or the groundwater, so you can't do that.
But the body was never anyone's property. It was (part of) the person (and you can't own a person), until they died. It is never counted as property in any legal sense as far as I know, it's indivisible, you can't seperate it from the person while they're alive. It's you, you are it. Until you die. And then it's a meat sack. But it seems to me it's in some kind of legal limbo regarding ownership.
I am not an expert btw, I honestly have no idea if there is any real ownership involved when it comes to corpses. I do know that you're not allowed to do anything with it, aside from.. putting it to rest in your preferred way, as long as it adheres to regulations anyway.
Edit: in any case, ownership or not, basically your choice is to either potentially help save someone's (quality of) life or let the corpse rot/burn. Everyone who chooses the latter is, imo, reprehensible. And it serves no purpose, it's a total waste. Hence my wish for it to become non-optional.
A meat sack is a *thing*.
And in our system, for every single *thing* which exists, there is someone who ultimately decides what to do with it. An owner.
This is the question: Who owns this *thing*?
So we've established it's a thing. I don't mind agreeing to that. That doesn't change my opinion about organ donation, however.
I'm pretty sure the body IS property of the person who has it, at least once they're old enough to make medical decisions. That's why you can donate it to science in your living will. In the 'relatives should be able to do what they want with it' case, cutting it up would damage its integrity, and if the will doesn't specify who owns what then it could be a dispute that requires arbitration, much like when people have to agree to sell a house together in an estate, and then you'd need to i guess freeze it or something while they legally hash that out. Of course religious-born laws on mutilation of bodies means that you can't actually put that in your will, even tho if you go the science option the government will totally do that. It's hypocritical, I agree.
That sounds so weird to me. What if you have 4 siblings.. they all own a quarter of you? But they're not actually allowed to chop you in 4 pieces? What about stuffing. I get letting a body rot is a health hazard, but animals get stuffed all the time for people to display. And since humans are animals, and if the bodies can be owned.. then that should be legal, right? As far as I know it's not.
And even if.. technically I own my own body.. I can't sell it, I can't kill it (well I can, but suicide is still illegal as far as I know, not that most people care because when you're succesful, it doesn't matter if it's a crime), I can't chop it up and sell the pieces, or give it away. Hell, many people aren't even allowed to get the medical care they need, because a bunch of strangers are deciding what's best for you (abortion, trans healthcare). So if a bunch of strangers can decide what you can't do with your body while you're alive, then certainly they should be able to decide what to do with your corpse.
I'd posit that 'ownership' means very little when you can't do anything with your so-called 'property.'
Now I also wonder which laws take precedent. If someone... chops up the body of your loved one, which you 'own,' is it corpse desecration or destruction of property?
While I sort of understand your point our society already contradicts that. If a person were to die under suspicious circumstances, an autopsy would be performed regardless of the dead or any relative's wishes, and that would violate the integrity of the body as much as an organ donation would. Therefore we as a society understand that there are limits to one's personal beliefs.
I also disagree with the person you're replying to, I think the system should be opt out with the following conditions:
in India, there is a religious group that believes/ed bodies should be donated to the sky. they laid out the bodies for the vultures to take them. The entire body would be picked clean in less than a day, going directly back to nature. Sadly most of the vultures are gone now, due to pharmaceuticals. Strangely vultures can consume cyanide and other crazy poisons, but not certain pharmaceuticals that help humans.
Have to admit I know basically nothing about vultures. Can't say I'm surprised that another (sub?)species goes extinct due to humans. We seem to be very good at that.
I would shred my body out of spite before passing. I paid exorbitant living expenses my whole life just to exist and now that I'm dead you want more of me?
Get fucked!
You know what? I understand the feeling. But then I realize that the poor guy waiting for a kidney is really not to blame for how fucked up society is.
My only caveat is that I'm not an organ donor, but my wife and family know that they can authorize organ donation on my behalf if it comes to that. I just want someone who knows me personally to make the decision, not just a hospital board who is playing a numbers game. Maybe a bit more selfish, I just want someone in my court who will pause to think about it.
Why? But why are you not an organ donnor and why would your wishes even matter? You will be death. Your organs can either decompose in the dirt, or help save a life and reduce suffering. Why do you want "someone in your court" to decide?
It is, indeed, very selfish of you. Why?
If I'm not dead though, if I'm in a hospital with a 50/50 shot, or in a coma, or in any number of ways where I'm still alive. Not saying I don't trust doctors, but I want that decision to be my spouse's, even if I'm on an operating table. They know my wishes, and they will say yes only if they're satisfied there's nothing else to be done.
Hmm, can you actually choose who the organs go to? In my country at least I don't think that's allowed. You're either a donor or you're not, but it's doctors/hospital/board/however it's called, who decide where the organs go, based on need, probability of success, etc. But I suppose that's different in every country.
No you can't, and I don't want to choose where, but if a doctor thinks it's time, I simply want to make sure that they go and talk to my spouse or family member first, before automatically doing something.
Your perspective is entirely based on Western views of autonomy and social utility. Diminishing other cultural perspectives on the sanctity of the human body doesn't make you enlightened, you're legit just ignorant.
You should post the perspective you actually agree with so people can discuss its merits here.
My perspective is that forcing people to become organ donors feeds into a narrative that humans as physical entities are only significant in terms of the value they create (in this case, value manifests as the possible transplantable organs). This is a fundamentally Western perspective, informed by economic theories that promote the valuation of all tangible assets without considering exogenous variables that could adversely effect "value", or otherwise writing them off as costs.
I'm opposed to your perspective because it creates the precedent for Westerners to continue rationalizing the dehumanization of people under the safety umbrella of good capitalist business practices. As I said earlier, I believe your argument lacks validity outside of a Western context.
I am lost at your comment. Seems like a word salad in which you say absolutely nothing of substance.
What does being an organ donor have to do with capitalism, or with the western society? And what does it have to do with "humans as physical entities in terms of the value they create"? What are you talking about?
What???
If you can't understand, then you're proving my point.
That's quite the clever tactic. Just throw together a "salad" of an argument — so incoherent and lacking in logic that no one can make sense of it. Then say, "if you can't understand it, you're proving my point." Win? Somehow?
Sure, that's fine. To each their own. Not the first time I've heard that prioritizing the living over the dead is ignorant.
I don't see a need to be passive aggressive just because a stranger doesn't agree with you. More the point: it's only ignorant if you think you we live in a vacuum
No, it's actually the truth. You can't imagine how many people share the sentiment that corpses > living people. I wasn't being disingenuous, I've heard it so many times.
It's a free world, you believe what you believe.
Edit: not sure what you mean with living in a vacuum? What I believe is that it's a binary choice. You either choose to potentially help someone by being a donor or you don't.
I think inheritance of money is bad. It seems to be some agreed upon good, you should leave money and assets to your children. But WTF? This drives inequality, generational wealth accumulates and so does generational poverty. I think the world would be better if it was more use it or lose it, and you couldn't pass it on like that. Or not so much at least.
That is a controversial one, but my response also will be.
In that case, would it be better if someone were to gamble all their money and lose it all while they are still alive, rather than to pass it down to their children? Would someone die more peacefully knowing they gambled all their money away, rather than leaving it to their children, leaving their children's lives uncertain? Is passing down a home to stay for their children really such a bad thing, rather than forcing them to fend for themselves in a horribly inequitable world where people are often unable to afford housing?
Personally, I don't think making everyone have nothing or the equivalent of nothing is the solution to wealth inequality, I don't think that solves poverty.
Also, how much inheritance should be allowed? None? $250? $2,500? $25,000? $250,000? $2,500,000?
What about a rich relative leaving money to their disabled cousin who was on lifelong disability, is a significant lump sum inheritance of half a million dollars for said disabled cousin still bad? Does it become bad if said cousin instead weren't disabled in this example?
I'm not so sure it's as simple as all inheritance of money is bad.
How about we collect the potential inheritance of everyone that passes and then divide it equally to everyone who became 18 that year. Or it goes to a government fund that pays for a 30k bonus to everyone turning 18 (or 25, etc).
I am seeing this myself. I grew up in a Munich suburb and everyone was growing up in houses except my migrant ass and the other migrant asses, we were in rented apartments. Then, when we became young adults, guess who didn't have to pay for rent, who was rather worryless about their housing situation long term? Because everyone knew they would inherit the houses that were surging in value and are now between one and several million euros worth.
Now I am getting older and am friends with refugees. You want to tell me that the daughter of the guy who worked himself off after leaving Afghanistan at age 15, learning German but only managing to get a salesman apprenticeship, deserves *nothing* as inheritance? Because this is what it is going to be. His parents have worked their asses off raising 9 kids in a small home, they had no money but they gave it all.
We are all in our very early 30s and we can already extrapolate how differently our financial situations, our security nets, and our children's security nets will be. And we are lucky living in a social democracy.
So if you cap it to 30k, that still means that parents dying means that their children's lives are still left uncertain. There would still be the problem of people being unable to afford housing.
I'm not sure that no inheritance at all, or 30k for everyone at age 18 actually solves anything.
Fuck em. A lot of children's lives are uncertain.
Once a statement like that comes out, you've lost the plot completely.
We're reading different books. Mine is called Equality.
2.5M sounds ok to me. Even 10M would get the 99.9% of the benefit. The important part is that it's capped.
Honestly, I agree with that. I think a 2.5 million cap is reasonable for pretty much everybody. Nobody ever needs more than that, and nobody could ever reasonably obtain more than that in their life normally.
I guess I just feel like the playing field should be a lot more even at the start. So if you have above whatever the threshold is when you die, all to taxes and all those into a pot sort of like social security, to go to every kid not just your kid. I don't know what the line would be, and do know that in this world, rich people would still find some loophole to financially advantage their kids, I just find it immoral.
If the world worked so that everyone could leave a windfall then that would be a different world. In this world yes I think it's bad, the results have been bad, and yeah I know that's an unpopular stance.
I don't think my mom owed me what she made with her life. It's not mine, I didn't earn it. I didn't have to support her, she spent her money and not more. That's fine.
The disabled cousin might not need the windfall if we didn't let people hoard so much. I'm just not sure how it's morally acceptable for those who have rich generous relatives to have a life so different from someone who doesn't, though.
But the playing field is never going to be equal. There are always going to be some people more disadvantaged than others, so having the same cap for everyone could leave people in unequitable situations.
I think a hard cap of like 2.5 million could be fair, because it at least balances some of the inequality by not having people be outrageously rich to the point where it's unachievable for anyone not born into it. Like, inheriting 250 million or more is far more than anyone could ever obtain in their life normally.
So in that case, all disabled people should live in poverty because it's not fair if only some do? If we can't help everybody then nobody should be helped? I'm not sure that's a great goal to achieve.
*So in that case, all disabled people should live in poverty because it’s not fair if only some do? If we can’t help everybody then nobody should be helped? I’m not sure that’s a great goal to achieve.*
I'm not sure how you jumped to this. My point is that if more of the money went back into society in general, maybe all disabled people who could not work could get a more reasonable amount of money and care and live more comfortably, instead of the few who have a rich uncle.
We should make inheritance less powerful but also make it easier to build up your own financial security and have better social safety nets.
Generational wealth is in opposition to the idea of equality and egalitarianism.
Basically every economist and economy-philosopher agrees with this. Inheritance tax is by far the most effective tax out there.
I literally just argued the opposite with my FiL. I think property should be illegal to inherit. If you have multiple children, you usually end up with a disagreement on what to do with it and how to split it up. It allows the consolidation of property for wealthy families.
I think a lot of resistance to this is most people want their kids to be comfortable, and it's a lot harder to make sure that everyone is comfortable than just making sure what you have can be transformed into keeping your kids in a good spot.
Being trans, gay, bi, black, or a different ethnicity than what is considered 'normal' in your society doesn't make you special, or less than human. I support trans rights and want to treat all humans equally on a base level. Assuming someone who looks or sounds like a woman is a woman is not transphobic, even if they are a trans man. Nor is assuming a man is straight homophobic.
At the same time, I think it's strange to introduce yourself as trans or gay in a public setting or on a social platform as if it's your calling card or occupation to be proud of. I was born with double-jointed thumbs, I don't think I should be congratulated or mocked for that, the same I don't think someone born with a man's body and a woman's brain, or otherwise decides to identify as a woman later in life, or is sexually attracted to either anything or nothing, should be given more than a passing acknowledgement.
I understand the world is cruel and harsh, and so I understand why there needs to be an LGBTQ community, but there -shouldn't- be one.
By the same argument, there shouldn't be a straight community, with institutions and laws and religion that assume it to be the default, the tabula rasa of humanity.
Really, you're just arguing against the fact we exist within a historical context. You can try and cut it away - except! Oops! In doing so, you just added yet more history to the pile!
Well I'm not really arguing against anything, the question was what moral do I hold that I don't think most people agree with.
Yes, that's basically what I said. I would prefer we live in a world where sexual orientation is no more prevalent a feature to define someone than their hair color. I wish there didn't need to be laws for or against gay marriage, or rights for specific types of people over others. But this is reality and not a hopeful fantasy, so again I understand the the need for the LGBTQ community, and laws to protect and represent the people part of it. But at the same time, I personally don't think anyone should be celebrated (or mocked) for being part of it.
I get what you're saying, but reducing it down to a thing we have because we need it is... overly clinical? Not particularly hopeful, anyway. Even if sexuality didn't have the historical baggage that it does, I think things would still trend towards a community. People form a sense of shared identity over things. It's what people do.
That's true I suppose. I may be overly cynical (and clinical) when it comes to such things, I think that stems from the extremely stifling household I grew up in, where my parents wanted me to be religious, wanted everyone to know I was religious, and wanted me to let everyone know I was religious, as if I was a lucky one to find salvation. At some point the browbeating wore off, and I realized whatever opinions and beliefs I held didn't make me more or less than anyone else, and that no one else's would make them any more or less than the average human to me. (So long as their opinions and beliefs don't bring harm to others, that is.)
I honestly agree 100%. I support all my LGBTIQ+ people, but in an ideal world I really shouldn't need to. My support is purely there because there are people who actively want to hurt them, and for no other reason. Part of me worries that some of this support can come across as special treatment
Similarly, I wish people would stop bringing stuff like their sexuality/gender up without prompt, it just comes off as... self-centred, I guess? Bonus points if it's in their twitter handle
That being said, probably my best online friend was a trans girl (mtf). None of our conversations revolved around them being trans, we just played games and laughed together. Good times
I actually have a friend like that as well. We played a lot of games and participated in roleplay communities together. I didn't even know she was trans until one of her friends brought it up for some reason. My reaction was just kind, "Oh, neat, anyway."
I have a different friend who I knew before her transition who is a lot more vocal about such a thing, and while I do respect her decisions she definitely wears it as a badge of honor. A few months ago we were playing Minecraft with some of her friends, and I didn't know any of them.
One of them (to me) had a feminine name and a feminine voice, so when I was talking to my friend, I asked "Hey where did Zoey (example name) go? I need to give her some iron." And my friend immediately cut me off to correct me that he was a he, and that he was trans, with a very angry tone to her voice. I understand misgendering may be a problem... but how was I supposed to know? We're faceless voices across the internet, I know referring to everyone as they/them is 'safer', but that's a little ridiculous to me (Especially because I've met some people who -don't- want to be referred to with gender neutral pronouns)
I know that might sound hypocritical, that I don't think people should introduce themselves as trans or anything else, and that I shouldn't be villified for making an innocent misassumption. Having my cake and eating it too.
I would assume the goal of transitioning is for people to believe you are what you say you are, without the label of trans. I'd never have guessed that my rp friend was trans, and similarly if my friend had not told me their friend was trans, I would have just assumed he was a feminine guy, and not a trans man.
Are you saying there shouldn't be one because it's a strange thing, or are you saying there shouldn't be one because we shouldn't need one?
They're saying that there shouldn't be one because we shouldn't need one.
All spectrum of existence and life is valid equally. No discrimination due to no prosecution occurring across the spectrum and therefore no aspect of the range is special. When none is special, then there is no reason to center an identity around it BECAUSE it's accepted by society.
As a thought experiment, imagine if we discriminated based on height and based an entire identity on introducing yourself as a "#mountain queen👸" or something
Ah, I understand, I agree then.
To be fair, people do discriminate based on height too, do they not?
People make fun of short guys, tall girls, etc.
Simply being family doesn't mean you get to remain in my life. Cut off anyone who is toxic or otherwise not good for your life and health. This includes parents.
After a decade it is still surprising to me how many people seem appalled by my no contact situation. I'm sorry, but I've wasted enough of my life on them and wishing for a fantasy dynamic that will never exist.
"But they're your blood..."
So what.
"But they're your family..."
No they're not. I made new family.
Some people have really judged me for this decision. I judge others as they complain about their toxic families they never do anything about.
10,000% yes.
When employers start the "we're family" bullshit, all i can think is how correct they are. Abusive, exploitative, narcissistic gaslighting thieves.
just like my fam.
Good on you. It takes courage.
it's okay to tell billionaires to kill themselves
agreed. also its fine to be happy when bad people die. The world instantly becomes a better place, why shouldn't we all throw a party?\
including that Brian Thompson health care CEO asshole.
having kids is a right that should be earned. full assessment and parenthood training course required.
While I agree on the surface, the stark reality is that this would inevitably be used as a eugenics program. Imagine the current “speedrunning fascism low %” administration having the legal authority to decide who does (and more importantly, who *doesn’t*) get a parent permit.
I begrudgingly agree with this point. The government shouldn't have any control over procreation.
absolutely. which is why this is just a fantasy and a dream, not something thats actually feasible.
Agree, but I also see how it can never be implemented. For all the good I think it would do, it would immediately be warped to some sort of ethnic cleansing.
probably, yeah. not to mention it would further decrease the rate at which children are born and it is already too low in most places.
sad indeed
How eugenics of you
by assessment i dont mean check if theyre the right race. i meant a mental checkup to see if theyre even fit to be a parent. genetic and ethnic cleansing has nothing to do with that.
So what's the criteria: adherence to a socially acceptable set of values and ideals? Full development of mental capacities? Literacy tests? Psycho analysis? Eugenics extends beyond physical phenotypical characteristics.
People will say they hate eugenics but then just argue for the same concept under a different term. Anyone who agrees with this should read Eugenics and Other Evils by G.K. Chesterton, where he criticizes and refutes the idea of giving the state authority of who can have kids when.
What happens if unqualified people get pregnant?
tell them to take the assessment and training course or else child protective services come knocking
How about "you can have kids when the unborn child consents to being born"?
Your takes are way too mild guys.. Yet again, I will go even further:
I am an antinatalist:
It is always better to not exist.
"Better never to have been", by Benatar, should be mandatory reading.
Yes, Yeeeeeeeeees this one
Fucking yes.
Violence against oil company shareholders is justified defense of yourself and others. Starting with a face slap for small-time diversified 401k oil investors.
Death penalty is wrong. Also vengeance prison is wrong, VERY unpopular opinions. I can't tell you how many people will full on yell at you if you say this in public. I think rehab prison is what should happen for any prisoner that isn't in for murder one or rape, domestic abuse. Financial crimes? House arrest, monitored assets, no access to exploitable systems. Property crime? Make sure they have a legitimate job, parole, house arrest if serious, garnished wages. We could have the vast majority of prisoners on parole or house arrest and in treatment, or jobs programs and out prison population would be at a normal percentage compared to the rest of the world.
Sounds like Europe. Maybe a bit more extreme since property crimes and financial crimes exceeding a certain monetary amount will get you jailed, but "casual" offenders will get exactly that.
And no death penalty, that's just barbaric to begin with.
I don't want to live where you live.
Your opinions shouldn't be that alien to people.
Oh RED IN THE FACE mad when you say this shit outloud in the US, we don't have this prison system because of back deal profiteering, we have this prison system because it's DEEPLY held cultural beliefs that any crime can and should be met with draconian punishments and that prison should be a torture device.
Eating and using animals when there is a plant-based alternative is wrong and should not be done.
Make the plants free and people will naturally eat more of them.
Probably. It's a shame that meat is so heavily subsidized. Without the subsidies, meat would be far too expensive for normal earners. In my country (Germany), for example, you pay 19% tax on oat milk and 7% on cow's milk. Because cow's milk is considered a staple food...🤡
Ok so genuine question (and also my odd moral I guess?) why is eating a plant more moral than eating an animal? They're both equally alive and subsequently equally dead. Sure plants don't have a nervous system but they do react to harmful stimuli in a way somewhat analagous to a pain response. The only real difference appears to be that we can relate to animals more.
Eat plants: plants die
Eat animals: animals have to eat a bunch of plants first meaning way more plants die and also animals die
Plants don't have an agent that feels negative or positive feelings. Its stimulus-response system starts and stops at that. Animals on the other hand can experience suffering and pleasure, and and it's morally wrong to inflict the first and deny the second
this is only true under a limited set of moral beliefs. most people aren't utilitarians though
But most people do care if someone hurts their own dog. Why is causing pain to animals not okay when dogs are involved but it is for pigs, cows and chickens?
Kant dealt with this like 200 years ago. have you tried actually learning any ethical philosophy?
Your arguments lack any logic so don't lecture me about philosophy. It doesn't matter here at all what Kant said since most people don't agree with him on that.
you can't prove that
I also can't prove that you have one. It's not a standard we operate under.
so it's probably not a good basis for making moral decisions
It is. You're already doing it, otherwise you will be having zero problems with killing and eating random humans. You just put your line at believing that humans have agency, even though you just as much can't prove that. We have pretty good understanding of how biological organisms operate at this point. We don't need to spend generations on disproving solipsism anymore.
Would you say that cutting a carrot is equal to cut the throat of a cow?
Plants do not have a central nervous system or a brain so they are not able to feel pain or emotions. Animals can feel, dream, have friends, same as we do. Just not as complex.
You are also denying oxygen to those cows
If that's the litmus test, then there are certainly animals that aren't sentient and don't meet those requirements. Is it OK to eat animals that do not have brains?
you can't prove that
Here is my prove: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8052213/
TL;DR: Abstract
Claims that plants have conscious experiences have increased in recent years and have received wide coverage, from the popular media to scientific journals. Such claims are misleading and have the potential to misdirect funding and governmental policy decisions. After defining basic, primary consciousness, we provide new arguments against 12 core claims made by the proponents of plant consciousness. Three important new conclusions of our study are (1) plants have not been shown to perform the proactive, anticipatory behaviors associated with consciousness, but only to sense and follow stimulus trails reactively; (2) electrophysiological signaling in plants serves immediate physiological functions rather than integrative-information processing as in nervous systems of animals, giving no indication of plant consciousness; (3) the controversial claim of classical Pavlovian learning in plants, even if correct, is irrelevant because this type of learning does not require consciousness. Finally, we present our own hypothesis, based on two logical assumptions, concerning which organisms possess consciousness. Our first assumption is that affective (emotional) consciousness is marked by an advanced capacity for operant learning about rewards and punishments. Our second assumption is that image-based conscious experience is marked by demonstrably mapped representations of the external environment within the body. Certain animals fit both of these criteria, but plants fit neither. We conclude that claims for plant consciousness are highly speculative and lack sound scientific support.
that's not proof they aren't conscious
"...plants have not been shown to perform the proactive, anticipatory behaviors associated with consciousness..."
Actually, (correct me if i'm wrong) carrots are not dead until you boil/cook them.\
I love poking holes in people's analogies without addressing their points.
We've been doing this for ages, actually we evolved eating meat.
We slaved colored people for ages. Woman had much less rights back in the days. We lived in caves for decades. Etc.
Just because we have been doing something for a very long time and it is socially accepted does not automatically make it right.
They are correct though, don't vegans have to take suppliments to fill in on things missing from their diet? Maybe eating less meat can be a goal for humanity, but I think we still need some until lab/fake meat is yummy enough.
Edit: now i think of it, suppliments are available so maybe my comment doesnt matter.
If you are thinking about B-12, that is already artificially added to meat products too. So even people who eat meat aren't getting it the "natural" way. Now there are available plant milks fortified with it which does the same thing.
Yes, vegans should monitor their health more closely to make sure nothing is missing, but it wouldn't be particularly difficult to get everything you need from plant based sources.
And actual milk fortified with it.
If modern medicine and things like vaccines are ok, then so are supplements.
Supplements are lower impact and less "unnatural" than animal agriculture.
I think that a reduced meat diet is good for the environment but being vegan is very far in my opinion.
comparing women to animals is what misogynists do. comparing colored people to animals is what slavers do.
I'm not a vegan, but that's not what they're saying at all.\
They are comparing slavery and misogeny to the killing of animals, not the animals themselves.
Additionally, why do people complaining about these comparisons always view it as lowering the standards for certain groups of people rather than raising the standards for animals? It's the wrong takeaway from the comparison.
Plant-basee alternatives are such a joke to me.Plant based meats and alternative milks are built upon an infrastructure that demands massive resource extraction from third world countries, buttressed by an impoverished underclass that suffers generational trauma to feed the transactional corporate machine. Just don't eat meat; veggies, fruit, and legumes are all you need.
You're right, they aren't perfect but they are better than meat in most cases. If a plants based meat alternative is what it takes for someone to reduce or stop their meat intake then that's a moral improvement in my book.
I think this is the one thing that is impossible to defend. In my opinion, not being vegan is impossible to justify, on ethical and moral grounds. And I am not vegan currently (I was in the past).
Why?
Why not?
most people don't believe that. I think it's fair to ask for some justification
I'm genuinely asking. People approach this topic from different sides, and I want to understand.
Because I think it is wrong to kill an individual if it is not necessary. Calorie intake is not a legitimate reason if it can also be plant-based.
The death penalty makes sense, but only for CEOs or politicians who knowingly make choices that result in the deaths of hundreds. The Boeing CEO should have been executed for knowing negligence that resulted in that string of crashes.
That's because there is much less of a chance of "getting the wrong person", since the buck has to stop there, the fish smells from the head, and it is the one situation where the value of deterrence trumps rehabilitation or other concerns.
I have a little bit of a different take on this. If we're going to kill companies for their crime, which we should cuz apparently they're people and therefore should have to pay for the crimes like people do, why not just kill companies? Instead of pretending a CEO is not just going to be replaced by another CEO with the exact same morals, cuz they all are, let's actually kill the company. Revoke it's corporate charter. Kill the thing that makes it a company. Kill the thing that protects it from retribution. Kill the things that keep all those investors and stockholders who are constantly praying for more and higher numbers safe from consequences.
My guess is, a CEO would take it almost as hard to find out they've lost 100% of their power because the entity they were in charge of no longer exists vs finding out their lives are about to end.
Especially if the CEO in question was legally blocked from being in charge of any other company ever. They can work, they can earn a living, they'd just be blocked from ever climbing the corporate ladder again.
I believe that if it were thoroughly enforced, this fate would seem as bad as death to the awful CEO's of the world.
Another way to do it: Deny them every step of the ladder they fucked up.
And they'd need to restart from a regular position equal to their experience (e.g. CEO -> Manager of department or something equal to the highest non C-suite managerial job).
If they fuck it up, they have to be fired, are not elligible to be hired for >10 years at the same company and are only possible to be employed at a position lower to their current one.
Optionally to add: 10% penalty of their gross worth (Including every asset in their position or by a direct proxy).
If only big corpos were held to the same standard as individuals :(
Sorry, execution is only for the poors and examples
I am against the death penalty out of principle, not practical reasons. It goes fundamentally against rehabilitation, its effect differs from person to person drastically, it's just weird and vengeful. And making exceptions for edge cases is not good for a justice system.
So what if you do this instead: consistently enforce, say, 10 year prison sentences for murder as a CEO. This kind of stuff would stop overnight. But that doesn't happen unfortunately.
In any law targeting people with that amount of power, the consistent enforcement part is the hardest part.
Veganism. It's interesting to see how even seemingly very moral people throw logic out the door when the topic turns to not killing animals.
Totally.
And I think the torture and abuse of non-human animals is fundamental to the treatment of human animals. When I see hegemony promoting the genocide of humans, it's obviously related to the complete devaluation of non-human life.
Agreed! Caring for (more than) humans tends to extend a great length.
It's interesting to me in the reverse, because it's sort of how the food chain works, granted I do hate seeing the inhumane conditions in which a lot of animals for food are kept (if we were still cavemen it seems more ok than now because it'd be more of a fair match between us and our prey).
Also plants feel pain too (please also kill them humanely).
The food chain hasn't really been a thing for us in a long time now and you know it. We've surpassed the traditional food chain.
P.S. I kill my plans more humanely than any animal will ever be slaughtered.
Anyone who has attended a single biology class on plants can tell that they can't feel anything. You need a brain and pain receptors, plants lack both. But such obvious lies are perpetuated so you can keep abusing animals guilt-free.
Especially when it's "foodies" that pretend to have this enormous respect for food. Shouldn't these people be on the bleeding edge of things?
They have respect for the culture behind the food, for the effort that the person that made the food went through. Maybe even for the effort that the farmer put into growing the ingredients for the food.
Is your belief based on an animal's capacity for consciousness? If so do you think all animals, regardless of their intelligence, deserve the right to not be eaten? Where would you draw the line?
Let's look at this from the other direction.
Would you kill and eat a human? How about a monkey or dog? Where do you draw the line for your acceptance of murder?
No I wouldn't. But I would kill and eat an insect, fish, or bird.
Hi there, good question. For me there's no morals tied to the level of consciousness. That allows for cherry picking.
I apply the very simple principe "don't do to other living beings what you would not want to be done to you".
Ok but plants are also living beings so you should not eat them by your rule.
This is a common philosophical counter question I hear. While completely valid in its core, it distracts from the real problem. Have you considered the fact that we need food to survive? I'd rather choose the food (based on current research that plants don't feel pain as animala do) that seems to cause the least harm.
Meat or animal products of any kind don't fulfill that criterium.
Then we have the fact that it contributes negatively to our planet and the production takes a huge toll on both plants AND humans alike. It simply isn't efficient in any way.
So this really isn't an argument worth discussing.
If you consider all this, there's really only one logical choice based on the morals we decide on as a society. Which is currently seriously hypocritical.
I'm not making a larger claim here, I'm just asking the vegetarians to explain the logic of their belief.
It sounds like now you're saying that you want to reduce pain rather than the killing of intelligent/conscious life.
In that case would you be OK with slaughterhouses if they treated the animals humanely and killed them as quickly as possible before they could feel significant pain?
No, I am against all killing and intentionally inflicting of pain. I don't mind you trying to poke holes in (my) logics at all by the way. Nothing in life is foolproof, otherwise philosophy wouldn't exist.
Plants don't have any consciousness at all.
Did you read the comment I replied to?
They're talking about level of consciousness when it's established that the entity in question has any consciousness at all. It doesn't mean considering those with no consciousness, like plants or rocks. (I don't agree with it though, levels are worth considering.)
Hmmm, I wonder why people dedicated to forcing 95% of the population into an unwanted lifestyle change ever receive pushback at all? I mean it's completely reasonable to radically alter the diet that has supported humanity since before talking was invented but I'm sure you have a ton of nifty ideas on how to make lentils almost taste like chicken
Your username suits you at least.
Quite a typical response because no one is forcing you to do or change anything. It's still very much a choice. Even if it actively negatively contributes to both animal welfare and the earth existence.
You can debate how far one should go in veganism, but I think it's hard to defend the stance that there should be NO change of course in the current (intensive) animal factory farming scene. There really are no winners and humans don't realize how the system also makes life worse for them in the long run.
You can deny it, and try to use strawmen reasoning to the debate, but realize it makes you seem uneducated on the matter.
That being said, you do you, I won't change your stance and you won't changeine. I simply gave my opinion in this thread.
We made an unspoken promise to the animals we domesticated: If you provide for me and my family, I will ensure your line never fades from this world
It is unethical to abandon that promise, and the extinction of a species may be the single greatest wrong mankind can commit.
If you compare the health of wild animals to domestically cared for animals, you will obviously see that domesticated animals are healthier and have greater opportunities for enrichment and happiness under human care.
Yes there are vile humans who torture and keep animals in miserable conditions, and they should pay consequences for their cruelties and greed
Don't you dare paint every farmer with that same corporate battery farm brush.
I am not here to change your stance, I'm here to mitigate the dangerous attitudes your poorly considered stance engenders in others.
Dozens of species go extinct every single day, in large parts due to deforestation for animal agriculture. Acting like keeping a handful of species we eat from extinction is somehow noble is silly by contrast. The concept of a species is a human construct in the first place, individual animals don't care that their species (which isn't even natural, we bred them like this) is kept going.
It's not about if those animals live under animal agriculture or in the wild. The animals in the wild already exist, the ones in captivity wouldn't exist at all, if we didn't breed them.
Most animal meat nowadays comes from factory farms. Worldwide it is roughly 90%, in the US it is 99%.
Um, source?
People, please do not feed the troll
I am not fully going to reply to your statement, because the user below did so very clearly already.
Just remember, none of these conversations are centered around YOU or your situation. It's about the planet as a whole.
Without trying to insult you, it sounds like cognitive dissonance is at play here.
And I'd like you to quote the place where I said this was 'my' situation.
What a pathetically transparent attempt to slide the conversation.
You might not literally have said so, but you replied with a very defensive stance about your situation, unsolicited. This implicitly made it about yourself.
You sound quite upset about this, but there's no need to. I am just an internet stranger.
Anyway, have a pleasant day!
Diet and religion have always gone hand in hand.
Ok, but tbh religion is about controlling every aspect of life.
That's like saying morals and religion have always gone hand in hand. Can non-religious not have morals?
People with strong food philosophies and beliefs act in a manner similar to religious zealots. They preach, condemn those who don't believe, have food "sins", are closed minded, etc.
Being vegan is about not abusing animals. One might call it an ethical philosophy or principle. It's not a "food philosophy".
I only want to eat humans, but some asshole made it illegal.
Fair, I am sure there are humans you can consensually eat though. ;)
I think the issue for me is less about not harming animals but more about the massive infrastructure of resource extraction, exploited labor force, and resource-intensive production that directly contributes to pollution and the undermining of low-income populations to subsidize vegan plant-based alternatives to meat and dairy. Vegans that support this industry arguably cause just as much harm to animals (including human workers and beasts of burden) as your average Texas Roadhouse customer.
Extremely ignorant take. Oxford Scientists Confirm Vegan Diet Is Massively Better For Planet
You don't even need sources for this, use common sense. What's going to cause more harm and resource consumption - growing five times more grain to feed animals and then eat those animals, or simply eating the grains directly? Animal agriculture is responsible for mass deforestation, a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and species extinction. But no, it's the vegans "arguably causing just as much harm."
Wouldn't it be nice if people bothered looking up things before they talk about them?
It's not about being better than someone. Avoiding both animal and human harm can (and often do!) go hand in hand.
Many vegans I know try to reduce their harmful effects on the planet altogether.
Not many omnivores I know even try to help at all. Some do, but the ratio is completely different for this segment in my experience.
I mean throwing up a study about how vegans in the UK produce less greenhouse gas emissions than high-meat eaters only proves that veganism is better at producing less pollution. I never argued that it's not.
But the study you referenced doesn't account for worker exploitation, inequity in food distribution, or trade asymmetries. I think plant-based diets are fine, but many vegan products occupy industries that still perpetuate monocropping and resource-intensive production lines that produce massive profits for executives while leaving farmers with the short end of the stick.
I don't have a bone to pick with vegans, I just think being vegan is a stop along the way to a healthy planet, not the destination. I'm striving to be as nuanced as I can when I offer my critique, which is essentially we need to start discussing why slaughtering animals is morally bad but exploiting workers and agriculture in third world countries isn't. Having a healthy planet and lifting people out of poverty shouldn't be mutually exclusive goals.
You talk about nuance, but then just ignore a major point I made? Any kind of exploitation only increases many times over for non-vegan products because of how inefficient they are. Animals don't just pop into existence. Not only that, slaughterhouse workers have it way, way worse. You can look about their trauma and miserable lives, many articles will come up upon a single search.
Moreover, your critique isn't even relevant to veganism, which just makes it disingenuous. It's an agricultural issue and vegans aren't responsible for the way it is with their tiny population. On the other hand, meat and other animal products are inherently morally bankrupt.
I urge you to double-check your supposedly nuanced critique because this has been discussed many times over and it doesn't look like you've looked it up.
So veganism isn't related to or affected by agriculture? The plight of farmworkers worldwide is invalid because it's not as traumatic as slaughterhouse workers? You keep trying to frame my argument as anti-veganism, but it's really not. At this point I can only consider that I've triggered you in some ridiculous way that has nothing to do with anything we're talking about
I'm only responding to your critique. You're strawmanning me, I never said their plight invalid - I explained why it's worse for animal products. I'm not trying to "frame" your argument as you claim, I responded to as it is objectively. Bring your counterpoints, not personal accusations.
this study is just warmed-over poore-nemecek 2018, and suffers from the same flawed methodology to make its hyperbolic claims
You commented without *any* methodology at all, how do you expect to be taken seriously? It's not just "this" study either, every credible study on the matter shows quite clearly how disastrous animal agriculture is on the environment. Are you going to claim they all suffer from the same flawed methodology? Do you also believe that climate change is a hoax?
Bring your counterpoints, not personal accusations.
You contradicted without any evidence or reasoning. I reminded you that it's a pretty well-known fact, not something one study unexpectedly revealed, and asked how you would go about discrediting all the science. No personal accusation.
i'm certainly willing to read any study you can present. this study relies almost entirely on poore-nemecek 2018, which combined LCA data gathered with disparate methodologies, and did so against the guidance of the LCA studies themselves. it's garbage. it's not science. writing a study that relies so heavily on that study is also garbage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_husbandry#Environmental_impact Plenty of sources are referenced in this section. Also, I wouldn't trust some short comments without any explanations over studies published in Nature.
I believe it is immoral to own more than one house.
Nobody gets their second until everyone's had their first.
Ideally children should be raised by more than two people.
Interesting one. Do you mean it in the "it takes a village" sense or in some more specific sense?
Specifically five people.
No, I will not elaborate.
Is it the same specific five people for every child in the world? They must be super busy :/
Parent 1, Parent 2, Mr Rogers, Miss Rachel, and Blaze from Blaze and the Monster Machines.
Five people and a horse.
It takes a village, but more than that. In my experience (mostly speaking of my friends) rather well-adjusted people had significant influence from multiple adults living in their home: grandparents, aunts and uncles, roommates, family friends. They also tended to be involved with community things like sports and arts where they'd get close mentorship from other adults not in the home.\
Though, everyone I've known who had a professional caretaker (nanny, etc.) is a hot mess. So it's more about having multiple people who care for you properly, not just more caretakers = better\
I know a fair few kids of single parents who also kick ass, but most of them have some trauma too.\
US culture is pushing that living with family is a sign of laziness/poverty and the opposite of success, when that couldn't be further from the truth. Individualism is killing us.
Well yeah, "ideally" children should be raised by parents who are millionaires and have unlimited time, but for the rest of us we just make do.
All the kids of wealthy parents that I know are a mess. Their parents neglected them to pursue wealth. :[
If you cannot cook yourself a basic meal (I'm talking boil water, dump a box of pasta in, cook it, strain it, then add red sauce from a jar level of basic), you have failed as a human being. An adult using the whole excuse of "I just can't cook" is pathetic and inexcusable unless you have genuine mental incapacities that prevent you from learning a basic recipe and how to use a stovetop, especially now with access to the internet/videos teaching how to cook.
I can cook just fine, but I really prefer baking. With cooking you have to make sure you are there watching it the whole time. I love how with baking I can just mix it up in a bowl, pour it in a pan, and cook it for an hour in the oven.
I don't know what value my comments adds to this discussion, just wanted to share my love of baking ig.
Hell yeah, I love to bake. I definitely prefer baking over cooking, though I do enjoy both. I usually make bagels or cookies, but I'm gonna try my hand at sourdough bread soon. What do you like to bake?
Agreed, cooking edible food in the twenty first century is such a low bar, just follow a recipe and make sure nothing gets burnt and it is cooked through.
BUT I'M SO BUSY /s
I can't really cook but even i can make myself some scrambled eggs or French toast.
That's cooking a meal! See, you're doing it without even realizing it.
I also have next to no interest in cooking. I do not enjoy cooking. To me it's like playing an instrument, which I have no training but could technically do, just not well.
The same thing could be said about any skill, if you just break it down like you said. Doing mechanical work, for example, is just removing bolts, following directions, and using the internet (assuming, that you have access to tools).
I don't think it's ever been can't. Just don't want to. Like me and cooking.
Yeah, I'm not saying you need to ENJOY it, just that you should be able to do it in order to feed yourself. We all have daily tasks we don't enjoy doing, but being able to adequately feed yourself is necessary for survival.
I don't ENJOY swimming and wouldn't choose to swim for pleasure, but I know how, because I don't want to drown if I fall into deep water. It's basic survival.
I've met several people over the years who literally cannot cook a single thing for themselves and either rely on others to cook for them or live off take out and microwaveable meals. People who would look at what's in a cupboard and would just go without eating simply because they never learned how to follow directions.
I think in a basic survival situation where cooking is the thing you to survive, any functioning human would (probably) be able to cook something. Even if they burned it to the point of lowering the gained calories a notable degree, there would still be something "safe" to eat in it. But I do understand what you mean with you swimming example.
I've known people to be taken advantage of by shops because they never learned basic maintenance of the thing they use everyday. Or sell scrap/vehicles because they felt they had no other options for a massive loss.
While I agree, my ex once lit the house on fire while trying to make ramen.
Given, she was stoned out of her mind and passed out long enough for all the water to boil off. I got home from work just in time to find the bone-dry noodles burning in the pot.
That's quite the lore
I feel like most people do get this, but aren't very good at defining how exactly rationality breaks down and where.
Let's ditch the notion that we are civilized altogether. We aren't.
Well, yes we are, but only because the concept of civilization is a completely arbitrary social construct based entirely upon the subjective sensibilities of who you ask at any moment.
On the same note we should acknowledge that we have a intellectual limit and that we should all aim to understand where the limit lies.
But understanding, predicting, and reacting differently on emotions are all learnable, and very rational.
For example: don't punch the TV when you are angry about loosing a game. Instead realise where the anger is coming from. Probably frustration, but why are you so frustrated when you loose? Some frustration is understandable, but what causes so much frustration that it turned into violent anger? And can you predict what actions or circumsfamces may result in that frustration or and anger (e.g. alcohol consumption)?
The most rational fictional species I know, Vulcans, do not lack emotion. Quite the opposite. But they have learned to control their emotions.
No no, you're right
But often the people that most vehemently stamp their feet about how rational they are, are the most emotionally-driven (and spiteful) motherfuckers in the planet. Cranking about how they are rational beings while being entirely driven by negative emotions from high school times that they never addressed.
Rationale is just as often, if not more so, as emotions to commit atrocities. It takes a great deal of rationale and emotional disregard to dehumanize people, and the "high horse of rationality" and "predicting models" is often required to cause things like the holocaust or to rationalize the genocide in Gaza ("Killing children is wrong, BUT....") No emotion required, in fact, rationalizing against emotion is the requirement.
The "rationale" behind such atrocities is always based on emotion, not actual reason. Usually fear. Analyzing why you feel that fear, and whether it is justified, will help to avoid falling into such logical fallacies.
Ignoring the fear, and dismissing it as illogical will not help anyone. You have to acknowledge the emotion, and analyse it. Allow it to exist, but avoid acting on it before analyzing it.
In fact, acting on emotions, especially on fear, will often result in such atrocities. Since it is fear, not reason, that eliminates compassion.
Ps. I like the discourse. Please don't see my comments as a personal attack. Even if neither of us changes their oppinion, understanding the other is valuable.
I have two mantras that come to mind when this conversation comes up.
1) "Let your front door and back door open to your thoughts and feelings, just don't serve them tea."
2) "What a liberation it is to realize that my thoughts and feelings aren't who I am. Who am I then? The one that realizes it."
this is true on the neurons' level in your brain. I also only agree that it's rational because my emotions allow me to accept such rationality
Polygamy should be legal. If three or more consenting adults want to commit to each other, who the hell cares? Same goes for relatives in sexual relationships who aren't having kids. Like why do we care who fucks who as long as everyone is capable of enthusiastic consent?
I agree with the first one. Everyone should be able to love any adult in any way shape or form they want with consent of all involved parties.
But the the relatives one runs into issues with abuse and clear voluntary consent. Grooming is an actual thing, and a much bigger potential risk if the groomer is raising you from your infancy. I would add the caveat if you really want to make it acceptable, it should only be allowed between people of the same generation, and only when they're well into adulthood.
I mean these things should be legal in a world where coercion, manipulation and abuse are still frowned upon. Why I put *capable of enthusiastic consent* in there.
If a 30yo and a 60yo genuinely want to bang, I got no problem with that.
The problem is that there is no real way to be sure of what is happening in incestuous relationships. While its possible that nothing untoward happened when the daughter was a minor in a situation that she and her dad are now together there is no way to tell be sure.
It’s legal in many countries. You might want to check out how it plays out there in terms of human rights?
*...as long as everyone is capable of enthusiastic consent*
So at least some balloons? Maybe some of those little flags to wave.
In an ideal world all fucking would be followed by a party with cake.
You guys aren't doing post-coitus cake?
That's sweet, but I really don't need another risk factor for diabetes.
I treat all people with religious beliefs as members of a dormant terrorist cell.
They could be your nice neighbor with whom you can interact normally on a day-to-day basis, but in the end they all have compromised against logic and, in the right conditions, that is a terrible liability.
As a progressive Christian that has spent my entire life actively helping the poor, needy, and visitors to our lands may I say a full throated 'fuck you' to you and everyone like you.
Every time I see someone like you paint every theist with the same brush they dip for regressive protestants it makes my efforts to counter their vile spew that much more burdensome. But you do you. I guess. At some point I'm just going to stop trying bc I'm tired of being lumped together with the 'god hates fags' crowd.
I hope your childish bigotry is worth losing 1/3 of your allies
This is the kind of response I am used to: swearing due to offended identity, inherently divisive terminology like "our lands" and blaming for causing you to lose theist intestine wars.
Having tried a lot in the past, I know that a comment thread is not the place or modality to conduct a fruitful conversation with a Christian.
Being born a Catholic, I can tell you that epiphany came when I realized that all the good things I am sure you did do not need to bring with them the mark of a (made up) system of power: you own it yourself and the real animus driving your actions can be just a feeling of belonging to the human species at large, a species free to roam any land without the need to plant flags nor to feel attached to any place only to limit the potential of others and one's own.
I have EDS and am medically angry nearly all of the time, it is in my fucking profile. It is a burden for me to mask my coms style and frankly anyone who expects it is too thin skinned to be worth talking to anyway. Using my response to justify your persistent bigotry is entirely you my friend and I can guarantee you that I am not like anyone you have ever spoken to before.
I too was born Catholic, Catechism and everything, and became an atheist at age 14, then an anti-theist at 20.
There is literally no argument you can make that I haven't already made better
And at 30 I had an experience that profoundly changed my perspective and I abandoned my childish atheism and have been a gnostic Christian ever since.
Every one of my past arguments were laid bare for what they were: Justifications for me to continue to live a life that I desired, instead of the life my creator made me for.
I would truly enjoy a spirited debate with atheists, and I have tried to have such since before the internet had pictures, but sadly I haven't found more than a clumsy shopkeeper's handful of you that could maintain intellectual honesty for more than 3 posts.
Wait a second... gnostic like in Gnostic? I didn't know it was still a thing. I thought they had you all killed by the other Christians in the 2nd century.
Not completely, there were holdouts in Ethiopia and Iraq but the writings survived and are only more applicable today.
Point of order: In my case the supposedly heretical sect label happened to apply but when most Christians use lowercase 'g' gnostic they are referring to the fact that they have certainty that God exists via inner secret knowledge.
While that does hold true for the myriad of sects labeled as 'Gnostic', there is a ton more conceptual dogma that is not considered true by most lowercase 'g' gnostics
Not that any of you heathens really care.
Under extenuating circumstances your argument does hold true. However being religious doesn't automatically mean you are not smart or somehow incapable of logic.
Exactly, you can conduct most interactions without problems and a good portion of them will even share the same views as me (a non-tankie-leftie).
The best depiction of what I mean on film has been given by Marcia Gay Harden in The Mist, in my opinion.
That is the kind of situation I prefigure whenever someone discloses faith to me, minus the tentacles.
Loved that movie. I guess I see where you're coming from; but your rhetoric stinks of elitism and condescension.
You are probably overestimating how much thought everyone who expressed a disagreeable moral here gives to that issue. Theists are the last of my problems.
Yeah still condescending. Whatevs
Sounds kinda mean
Not as mean as the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials. Those are just a couple of small examples of what religious freaks do when no one stops them.
Sounds like I have some reading to do on those topics. It is weird when you see evil people wearing a cross for example, but I think they'd be just as evil without their religion? But yeah I'm sure their religion is a way for evil people to reason with themselves about what they do.
"How dare you speak against the authority of the church or practice any religion but mine. That's heresy! You will be tortured until you confess your sin. You might escape execution if you are willing to implicate others in your conspiracy against God. If you insist upon your innocence, the only result can be execution. We already know you're guilty, that's why you are here." That's both events in a nutshell.
HRT should be available to trans kids. it seems I'm increasingly alone in this belief, depressingly, looking at the political situation around the world.
Too much risk of peer pressure and influence by outsiders.\
It's a deep invasion into the body chemistry and shady guardians/doctors could do more harm than it would help actual deserving recipients.\
So it's the usual: The one ruins it for all.
Full agree. People on here are spouting thinly coded eugenicist ideals and saying bodily autonomy ends when you die and makes you just another vector for resource extraction, but somehow enabling children to be who they want is an uncrossable line.
"We can't allow you to transition because you're not old enough to make a decision that could cause irreparable damage that you might regret later, but have you considered killing yourself?" is the insane nightmare scenario that we're headed to.
From the UK (recommendations for a proposed law), "Doctors can bring up AS [assisted suicide] before the patient has mentioned it, including under 18." They sure as hell can't do that for HRT. Call me crazy, but if you're old enough for a doctor to suggest suicide, you're old enough to trans your gender.
I mean that's what hormone blockers are for, anyway, though since a lot of places put medical rights at 14 you could start there. Precocious puberty is overrated.
I was about to write that too lol. I understand
That capitalism is good. There is no economic system more efficient at progress
It’s government that’s the failure. It’s Governments responsibility to shape the markets so capitalism benefits society and they have failed miserably
You say that like capitalism doesn't encourage and incentivize capitalist to warp the government and those markets to their benefit. You can't separate capitalist government from capitalism, they're inherently linked. From the very first emergence of capitalism that has been true. It's a core tenet of the entire system.
I also think that well-regulated capitalism with social programs is the way to go. It's so fucked that the US ruled on shit like Citizens United and moved away from that.
There is no system under capitalism where money doesn't change the rules to help money. Even in well regulated systems the advantage always goes to the wealthy, and they use it to cheat as well.
How do you mean there is no system? What's your basis?
history, game theory and psychology.
A system that rewards you with a thing that can break the system results in a broken system as the most competitive will be the most unscrupulous
It doesn't matter where you start the regulation, the ability to leverage wealth against greed for corporate capture guarantees that corruption will always favor the most unethical actors.
Capitalism sucks, but it's the best we have so far.\
Its resource distribution is terribly inefficient, but it's miles better than the "trust me, bro"-approach pushed by those heavily into alternative systems.
Doesn't this rely on the premise that the goal of capitalism is the only possible goal?
Do we need to progress at auch a rapid rate? Isn't rapid progress what got us into the place we are now?
Capitalism has fueled the growth of industry, which has accelerated global warming, the destruction of flora and fauna that are essential to life as we know it. It has created billionaires who only care about being richer and planted the belief in billions of peoples heads that they need to strive to this goal as well.
You can blame governments all you want. But i think thats too simplistic of a view of where the corruption started. They didnt bribe themselves into allowing people to become billionaires. It was a slow process with many moving parts and the greed, fueled by capitalists is why we are in this state.
Just blaming the government is ignoring so many factors.
I personally would prefer to live in a world that only develops things it needs, including leisure items/products but not in excess and never in the name of profit. We shouldn't bankrupt half the world to sit on our IP thrones and call it good.
Its bullshit.
No, the goal of capitalism is to use a profit goal to harness the human base emotions of greed and lust for power. It has no other goal, no right or wrong, but is merely a tool. It should be a tool. Capitalism serves merely short term profit.\
Government creates the market, issues regulations to establish competition, fairness, transparency, contracts, currency, legal frameworks. Government expects to last longer than a contemporary CEO: is it too much to ask that they regulate the market with a long term perspective? Government is elected by the voters: is it too much to ask that they regulate the market for the good of those voters whom they desire to re-elect them ?
Our system of checks and balances seeks to harness similar base emotions to prevent fascism and other abuses of authority by giving each politician a realm where they wield the most power. No matter how unscrupulous a politician.their lust for power drives them to placate voters sufficiently to get re-elected, drives them to limit the ther branches of government from encroaching on their prerogative. No matter how egocentric a politician, no matter how much he holds himself above others and above the law, he is driven to prevent others from cheating more than himself. How craven and spineless must you be that even this isn’t enough to make the power hungry stand up for their own greed? Isn’t enough for the corruptible to use the force of law to bring down the other corrupted?
But somehow capitalism bought government. The most egocentric bowed to a personality cult. The power hungry found it easier to manipulate voters than to placate them. The corruptible commit their grift in public
I would say that capitalism does seem like paradise, but as soon as you think even slightly deeper it's terrible. Sure it's great for everyone to be able to choose where to work or not work, and to have many different options on what to buy, but it falls apart rather quick. People often don't have much of a choice of where to work and they are forced to participate in capitalism to survive, which means abusive employers run rampant. And as far as product choice, it seems great, but with infinite growth we will run out of resources to continue.
Those are all excesses of capitalism, which don’t need to happen. Capitalism is only economic: we should be able to expect the self-interest of the political realm, the cumulative self-interest of voters/consumers to check unfettered capitalism. It usually does, but this balance has been tipping over time
I wouldn't say capitalism is good, but the alternatives we've discovered so far are either unworkable or worse.
Capitalism emerged at a time when Feudalism / Manorialism was the norm. In a Feudalist society, lords owned the land, and serfs belonged to the land. Workers were required to work on the land allocated to them for their entire lives, and their children were bound to the same land. There was no incentive for anyone to innovate or improve efficiency because there was no competition.
Capitalism was an improvement on that system. At least under capitalism, workers could move to another capitalist's factory. At least there was competition so there were incentives to improve efficiency, and maybe sometimes to improve working conditions so that workers were more willing to work in that factory. Also, at least in theory, people weren't assigned "factory owner" and "worker" titles at birth. It was difficult, but at least possible for a worker (or group of workers) to start a new factory. And, a badly run factory could result in a factory owner becoming just a worker.
Capitalism is better than feudalism, and better than the systems that came before feudalism which were mostly slavery-based and/or violence-based (obviously there's a lot of overlap there).
Then, there are theoretical alternatives to capitalism which don't actually seem to work in the real world, at least on a large scale. Collectivist things sound great in theory, but in practice almost always seem to result in oligarchs or dictators taking over. Also, because economic systems and political systems are intertwined, collectivist systems without centralized decision making power are vulnerable to being invaded by neighbours who are centralized and organized. AFAIK, we've never seen a collectivist system able to fend off invasions and keep operating in a collectivist way.
As a result, capitalism is the best solution we've been able to come up with so far that takes human nature into account and is stable over hundreds of years. But, the best capitalist systems are heavily regulated ones where the accompanying political system is constantly working to reduce the power of the people who get rich via capitalism. The capitalists hate that, and want a system where they get all the power, without realizing that effectively transforms the system into a dictatorship / oligarchy, which isn't a good system even for the capitalists. But, oh well.
Capitalism and government have always been works in progress. It's useless to categorically praise one and condemn the other without acknowledging that they both have strengths and weaknesses. It's pretty clear that completely unrestrained capitalism is neither the cackling villain nor the golden hand of prosperity many people see in it, and likewise government isn't by definition tyranny either. We just haven't found the right combination yet.
Capitalism is fairly well understood, as is its excesses. If we use it for the good of society we all benefit. However if we use it for the good of only a few or if we let it use us, we end up in the current dystopia
I was with you until "unrestrained capitalism is neither a cackling villain...".
Unrestrained *anything* tends to become a cackling villain.
We probably outlived the neanderthals primarily because of our capacity for advanced social order through rules.
None of us individually care for rules, but rules are our secret to success.
We need to rediscover our passion for nuance and tuning and obeying our rules.
How are you defining capitalism?
There is indeed a wide range of systems of capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
I fall more on the side of:
Ah, so capitalism = markets.
There's also the classical Marxist definition which includes many non-market systems and *doesn't* include some proposed market systems, and the "capitalism is when the government doesn't do stuff" definition. Probably others too, so I thought I'd ask for clarification.
It's just an evolutionary selective pressure, but applied to organizations of people rather than organisms. Currency rather than calorie. And like any evolutionary system, it settles into the first pattern that just happens to work.
Sort of like those early photosynthetic bacteria that oxygenated the atmosphere -- and eventually suffocated on the stuff. Killed by the very process that kept them going day to day. Of course, those bacteria were genetically predetermined for it. Nothing they could do to prevent it. We don't have such a convenient excuse.
I do like that analogy of republicans as the early photosynthetic microorganisms drowning in their own filth. It leaves us room to hope that evolution will build a worthy successor that thrives in clean air and bright sun
CO2 carbon dioxide im talking about climate change not republicans, we're *all* drowning
Tell me you have a high school grade understanding of macroeconomics without telling me you have a high school grade understanding of macroeconomics.
do you actually think people are in control of this system? even the most powerful capitalist is still just exercising a privilege, to be stripped away and replaced should they ever push against the profit motive
Oh son...
At least tell me where your undeserved arrogance comes from...
when was the last time a bug hit your windsheild? we're destroying the ecological foundation we're living in, and we *know* we're doing it, yet it still continues at pace. the sum decides what the parts do, what other conclusion can I draw?
Something that will make your confusion less: The rich can live quite a long time without any ecology at all, and they have paid very skilled think tanks to provide them with all the necessary plans and manpower.
For the last decade survival estates for the ultra wealthy have cropped up everywhere.
The wealthy could choose to cease their exploitation at any moment but that means less for them to hunker down with. They know about ecologic and economic collapse just as they loudly shout it it's possible and they are exploiting even harder to get the last dregs before the mass riots.
So yes, there are people controlling it. Just that there is no motivation on heaven and earth to convince them not to destroy the world for their own luxurious survival. And they will pay our brothers and sisters to hold us down as they do it.
I think people should pay for software, including open source software. Don’t get me wrong, I love open source. I’ve probably spent multiple thousands of hours writing and maintaining open source software. That’s only because I have free time and like to do it. I’ve made $0 doing it, even though several companies use my software. If it started affecting my life negatively, I’d have to stop.
We pay for things like video games, but it’s incredibly difficult to make money in open source, even though the time investment can be just as much for the developers. I guess my point is, if there’s an open source project you like or you think is valuable, toss the devs a donation.
The model I like is free for personal use/paid for commercial use, but doing that in open source is practically impossible as a small dev. Big tech companies should be required to support the open source devs they rely on, imho.
Software that is critical to economies should be open source and subsidized by governments, paid for by taxes on businesses that rely on it.
I think if people had to pay for every software package, it would get very expensive, very fast. I am against having to pay for FLOSS. I am, however, of the opinion that FLOSS devs should be paid. Professional use should pay them, and big companies using FLOSS packages should pay the devs of said packages a *substantial* amount. Facebook uses something free? No way, you will pay.
Basic Income would also help FLOSS.
Most of us would agree with you.
I have to agree IP is against nature but there's not really any other way to route data over a network.
I used to think so too, but last night I found this super cute and informative blog about recovering our free will online and now I'm super hyped about NNCP and mesh networks!! 🥹
Carrier pigeon, anyone?
Prostitution should be legalized everywhere. With regulation of course to ensure the protection of the workers and clients.
rather than legalized i think the better word is "uncriminalized" with the sort of support that any workers have. Revolting Prostitutes: The Fight for Sex Workers' Rights was a good read that helped me gain more understanding
Could you explain the semantic difference for me?
Not the one you replied to.
Decriminalise (the proper word) is to stop prosecuting people, it still illegal but not criminal charges would be presented to people breaking the law, maybe civil fines at most.
Basically, the system turns a blind eye on the topic.
Legalise is to change the laws to not only no longer to be a crime, but also recognises that is legal to do it. Usually it involves regulations on the topic.
Take alcohol for example, let’s imagine if you have a store that sells alcohol and the police pays you a visit.
Scenario where is illegal to sell alcohol: The police arrests you and you could face prison.
Same scenario but selling alcohol is decriminalised: The police ignores the alcohol.
Same scenario with being legal to sell alcohol: Police asks four your license, checks that the bottles came through the proper channels (no counterfeit and product of dudose procedence that can pose a health risk) and questions people about if you sell to minors.
People are usually in favour of decriminalising prostitution rather than legalisation cause they want to be left alone. Legalisation would make it like any other job, requiring a permit, pay taxes and probably a license, however it would bring the same protections as any other business (for example, a sex workers could call the police without fear in case is assaulted by a client).
Wouldn't it be best to legalize it altogether then? Who benefits from decriminalization?
Usually the arguments I saw in favour of decriminalisation instead of legalisation are:
I’m in favour of legalisation and proper regulations (I think in professional porn industry actors/actresses are required to be tested periodically), however I also worry about the point 3.
I think that it's more complicated than that.
Okay, so there's regulation. Who bears the cost of compliance? What happens when a sex worker is out of compliance with safety regulations, e.g., they are infected with HIV and aren't informing clients or using barriers? How do you handle that?
Keep in mind that a *lot* of people turn to sex work on an irregular basis, to pay for rent, drugs, or similar; very few of them are going to willingly go through any kind of licensing process, and most will lack the ability to pay for a license.
Yeah you can’t really require a license to do something like that, it is impossible to enforce. What you can do is offer safety systems. Free protection, free testing, safe harbor when needed, a safe space to work. People want to be safe, if you make it free and easy they’ll use those services and our societal cost goes down.
I think that, in order to make it work, you *also* need to have a national single-payer healthcare system so that when someone *does* get infected with an STI, they can get treatment without breaking their bank account. But you also need to ensure that they aren't unable to pay their expenses during a course of treatment, and you certainly don't want prostitutes infected with HIV working until their viral load is so low that they're effectively unable to infect other people. (And yes, free PREP would help, but given that a number of sex workers are prostituting themselves in exchange for drugs, I don't think that worrying about exposure to HIV or getting PREP is very high on their priority list.)
I *do* think that a bare minimum would be for cops to have to take reports of sexual assault against prostitutes seriously. ...Which would require major criminal justice reform...
Completely agree and in regards to many now illicit drugs too, I think.
I also think that open relationships should be much more normalized, if not the statistical norm. Just my opinion.
Polyamorus people deserve marriage equality!
If you count humans as animals then cocaine and clothing from companies like Temu and Shein aren't vegan.
Cocaine manufacturing and distribution is full of human exploitation and suffering. Using it should go against the vegan ethos of avoiding consumption of things that are the product of exploitation. Similar to honey, milk, or eggs.
Similarly, Shien and Temu make nearly all of their products using slave labor in terrible working conditions using dangerous chemicals without any precautions.
I didn't even know Temu sold cocaine.
That kind of blew my mind.
Is there a high percentage of vegans using cocaine? Genuine question here. I do completely agree with you, though.
Damn that is enlightening.
We've humanised ourselves to the point that we forgot we were animals, and to the point that *it's a bad thing!*
Yeah I avoid chocolate as well for that reason (at least the non fair trade/rainforest alliance, those certifications still have issues but at least they're an improvement). Coconut products made in Thailand are also typically pretty bad. Unfortunately at the end of the day it's basically impossible to not consume anything that exploits people or non-human animals at some point down the chain but I do try and avoid the most egregious ones I know about at least.
Absolutely.
Pretty sure almost every legit vegan is anti-capitalist.
And while "there's no ethical consumption under capitalism", people try to improve. I think that excluding the murder of animals is one of the easiest and most obvious ways to do so.
I also doubt that vegans are heavily representing for Temu and cocaine or exploitative products in general. Most likely they're more aware of these issues than the average chud. Definite straw man there.
A society's moral character is best judged by how it treats its least, not by how it treats the average, or median, or best.
I think that’s actually a pretty common view, just not often loudly professed by people with power or platforms.
I hope youre right.
In my lived experience... no, it is not.
90% of poor or moderately well off people I've known will still argue for supply side Jesus right up untill the moment their worldview is actually applied to them personally.
EDIT: And then the 10% that do agree with that idea theoretically, well they absolutely never apply it personally, in their own lives, amongst people they know personally.
This shouldn't be a thing most people disagree with, it is a proven fact
That take is anything but disagreeable. Please read the assignment.
So said Ghandi.
Platitudes don't stop gangs of thugs from walking around beating you up and taking whatever they want. If nobody physically stops them everybody else ends up having to stay home and hide.
Platitudes do protect the poor from thugs if platitudes are embodied by people of courage and moral character willing to meaningfully advocate for them and protect them with force if necessary.
If your society does not do this, your society is of low moral character.
Actually acting in line with your expressed morality is the bare minimum, first threshold of your supposed, proclaimed, performed morals being... things you are actually willing to promote in the world.
If your morals do not actually guide your actions, you are merely cosplaying them, and are just a pedantic preening poser.... with low moral character.
Socrates disagreed with the reasoning behind his assigned fate, but accepted it nonetheless, in accordance with his conviction to his principles.
A morality that is not built on responsibility and duty to others is no morality at all.
ITT: lots of morals that most people (here) agree with. Predictable.
That unfortunately ends up being the dynamics of these kinds of posts. I usually try to upvote only with what I believe is an actual unpopular opinion for the sake of the question.
Yeah, I was scrolling and scrolling and could barely find a comment that most people wouldn’t agree with.
Freedom of religion is important and religions shouldnt receive special treatment
Monogamy is very often an extremely toxic factor in many relationships.
Amen.
Nobody takes issue with the idea that people can't own people. Until they're in a relationship and they start thinking of their partner as their property.
The insecurity around the all-or-nothing nature of monogamy creates all of the problems in monogamy.
Plus: orgies. Like. What's the point of living without orgies?
Sex with one person, forever, no group sex, incessant discussions around fidelity driven by insecurity, gee, where do I sign up?
Relationships come with boundaries and limits though, right? You're treating monogamy as ownership, but that's backwards. My partner free to have sexual relationships with whomsoever they want; however, they aren't free to have any relationship at all with *me* if that's a choice they make.
I affirmatively chose my partner; when I made the choice for them, it meant that I made a choice to give up my sexual and romantic autonomy to pursue the relationship with them. I can take my autonomy back at any time, but if I do, I also permanently give up the relationship that I have; that is a boundary that they set, and I knew that when I chose the relationship.
I have been in polyerotic/multiamorous relationships. What is lacking in them is depth. Building relationships takes time, and time is always more limited in poly relationships. The more partners you have, the shallower each relationship gets. Oh, yes, I know that poly people will say that love is infinite. And perhaps they're even correct. But the time you can spend with each person is very definitely finite.
I feel there is no good reason to artificially limit your number of romantic/sexual partners to 1. I do think there are good reasons for monogamy such as lowering risk of STDs or if you don't have the mental capacity to care for two partners. However, if you can make it work, I don't see any issue with polyamory.
Monogamy often allows some less healthy facets of people flourish. Sometimes people will be like "oh I'm just so jealous I can't help it. I don't like when he plays soccer on that co-ed community team, so I don't let him". Like, what. That's so immature and untrusting.
I was going to post something a bit like this too. I think perhaps a lot of people on lemmy are on board with this idea, but if I talked like that around family, work colleges, or even friends - I think I'd get a lot of pushback.
Victims should be the ones to decide whether forgiveness is deserved. no one else.
What does that mean in practice?
It means if your abuser comes back to you and swears they've changed and they can totally be a part of your life again... You can tell them to fuck off forever because you can't forgive what they did to you. It means not feeling bad about that.
yep. or if your preacher tells you to forgive the molesters they exposed you to, or that the cops just made a perfectly understandable oopsie and beat you nearly to death but hey forgive and forget - no.
the victims should make that decision, no one else.
People shouldn't be jumping through hoops to conceive their own child while there are already children in need of a home
Yep.
Its an act of pure vanity to spend hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to forcefully conceive a child when there are *so many* children out there, desperate for a loving home.
Prioritize the already-living before creating more of them.
That self-defense is not a justification for lethal force.
I partially agree: I think a lot of "self defense"-claims are bullshit on the basis that in most cases it's possible to walk away. Stand your ground laws and cops "fearing for my life" is among the worst excuses for lethal force there is.
But given no other choice, when someone's life is genuinely in danger, I think it's justified, unless you caused the situation yourself.
A guy tried to rob me at gunpoint in 2016. I had a canister of 18% pepper spray on my key chain. He wanted me to go into my own pockets to give him what he wanted, mistake on his part. When he looked over his shoulder I sprayed him. If I had been carrying a gun, I might have hesitated to use it because of the finality of it. Hesitation could have gotten me killed. No sane human wants to kill other humans. Because pepper spray is nonlethal, I didn't hesitate. Yet, some states like Michigan forbid stun guns and pepper spray over 2% concentration, while handing out firearms like candy on Halloween.
This is part of the philosophy of Kung Fu as well.
Your feelings are not facts.
Being offended, doesn't mean you're in the right and the other person is in the wrong.
Just because your religion says something (or claims it does), doesn't put you in the right.
Everyone would agree with that. But they're lying to themselves.
I just realized that feelings are, in fact, facts. On what level, that would need to be determined.
It is only a fact *that you feel* xyz. It does not remotely mean that xyz is true.
Eh. Feelings are facts; I would feel upset if someone shot my dog, that's a fact. Reacting to inputs is a normal thing to do, and it can be a healthy and important thing to do.
If somebody says something factual and offensive and thinks because they've stated something objectively true, that they should be immune to social repercussions, at best they're tactless, at worst they're cowards who don't want the responsibility of how the things they say affect those around them. If it's important, needful of saying, and likely to upset people, grow a backbone and own it. If it's not important and likely to upset people, maybe don't be a dick.
We need stricter social rules again in a lot of areas and children need to be brought up stricter again. Now I don't mean we should get back to being in other people's business in regards to what they wear or who they love. But let's go back to shunning people for littering. Teach kids to sit still and be quiet in certain spaces like public transport or restaurants. Ostracize people who are loud and disruptive in public. Let's just implement some stricter social rules again.
Lets shun bad people but also let the children play, they don't have to be robots in public, unless they are the bratty type kids that are mean. But also idk, everything within reason i guess.
All drugs should be legal, but bodily autonomy is to high a purity test for everyone on planet earth.
Admit it everyone, capitalists will not let us live in peace. At least let me get high to numb the pain of existence.
The free movement of people is a human right!
Note that capital is free to go whatever it wants to.
Say communism without saying communism... Ok, give me your clothing because I need it for work... You said it... It's capital for production means
That reply makes no sense, also communists believe personal property and private property are two different things. Nobody would take your clothing... did you really think no communist philosopher ever thought of that?
Why are you using so many ellipses?
it's a millennialism.
The purpose of an education is to learn how to think, not how to work.
A lot of universities are being treated as training centers for the world of work - and this is not ok.
I'm Vice President of a computer science club for my Community College and i feel this exact same issue. The people above me run it like it's a training center for a job. There's no aspect behind it besides business and business connections. It's something i desperately wish i could change
It's a sad world. I keep meaning to run a code club for my students (thinking we just work through lazy devs' shmup tutorial together), but I keep getting sidetracked by trying to deal with department politics -_-
I'd kill to be able to help teach my peers just once. Department politics have been a blight on clubs though
You can't direguard anyone's humanity. Even billionaires. There are no universally bad people, negativity is always relational.
Though I do think you can weigh a billionaire's comfort against the folks they made billions from, and that may just be potent enough for the death penalty.
However, I don't think punishment is a humane solution. Rehabilitation and integration are always preferred. Though again, some folks integrate best as corpses.
Billionaires aren't human and they don't think of themselves as human
Don't carry water for your oppressors
Humans are human. Just harder to accept immutable human rights apply to humans that do anything to fight the notion. billionaires take shits just like anyone. i agree that we need to stop enableing the opressor just never assume their behaivior aint human - because it sadly is.
No, eat the rich, bury their bones and grow a better world from them
They had their chance, now they pay
They're only worth something to the grass they fertillize.
Exactly. They can cooperate for a better world. I think they'll have to, soon.
Of course, I'm not going to shed any tears for the corpse of someone who prioritized their next super-yacht upgrade over my geandchldren's clean air and food.
But I'll keep advocating for everyone to have another *chance* to cooperate for public social good.
"No good billionaires” means we never stop monitoring (and legally limiting) billionaire's choices, not that none of them can ever make a right choice.
Religious people who push their fake shit on you.
Can you just NOT!
If I wanted an imaginary friend WTF makes you think I'd pick your asshole POS of a god?
That was rhetorical.
Feel like most people would agree with this tho
yeah this is one that gets me, and doubles down with "if you don't believe in my invisible friend, you must be allied with their invisible nemesis!"\
like, fuck mate, I don't believe in your god, why would I believe in your devil? ffs
The lies that a community believes define that community. They want you to be part of their community.
I'll just keep being a nuisance here and say it. I genuinely do like this instance but I can't make sense of the infatuation for the AI here when isn't this part of the problem? AI "art" generators are fundamentally wrong and harmful to the artistic community. Artists are part of the nerd crowd too. We studied like crazy to hone our craft. There are a few traumatic historic events that the use of AI art theft machines harken back to. In more recent history, fascist regimes have tried to erase art altogether, or covet it for themselves. The same can be said for colonists, and it was to our chagrin a casually accepted part of Western culture to incorporate all sorts of bastardized appropriations of beautiful things they'd seen that didn't belong to them. It's just something to think about.
At the end of the day, people are thoughtlessly using a machine that takes the hard work of countless artists (of all different walks of life, different classes, backgrounds, mediums) to spit out uncanny, empty slop.
I'll keep saying it. And it may take years to undo this shit if ever. That's fine.
Okay, a pretty decent amount of people feel similarly as I do on this topic, but here I just feel like an outlier at times due to the number of pro-AI slop communities. Then again, I also notice that only a handful of the same people run those communities and contribute to them. I guess it's because we're a smaller community and I'm also a negative Nancy, so I tend to notice those glaring issues more here. I think it's important to get this message across on here, because why do we want to emulate even one ounce of Musk's energy here? Fuck that. Reddit already has their Midjourney sh-stuff. And they are not like us. So, we should strive to be better than Reddit.
I kinda feel like all I hear is anti AI talk. Meanwhile I'm in the camp of don't demonize tools, demonize what people do with the tools that's damaging.
As for art, I don't know how to ascribe value to art. The Mona Lisa exists. As do copies of it that are worthless. At what point will the original have no value by virtue of the quality of the copies? Will a molecularly identical copy made with a Star Trek replicator make the original worthless? Or will it always be valued as the original?
if the tool builders stole your work to create them, never compensated the creators, didn't even ask them - I suspect you'd feel differently. it's gross and people are like "well, it's just artists what do we need them for?"
I wouldn't. Ideas should be free, and there should be no barriers to them, or ownership considered. If you create a thing, everyone else should be able to use that thing however they wish, and with no limitations, to create their own things. Full stop, no exceptions.
This is why I pirate. I will never consider or acknowledge ownership or license when consuming media, art, or information. If you release an idea to the greater world, then it's my idea, my art, my music, my software, just as much as it's yours as the creator. And I'll do with it whatever I will.
cool story bro.
copying isn't stealing, and modeling isn't even copying.
the greatest threat an artist faces isn't that someone might copy their work, but that no one will want to
I get it, you'll care when they get around to stealing your work.
copying isn't stealing.
oh, so you copied all the answers on your exams?
pfft. quit it kiddo, you're not equipped for this.
Depends on what tool you're talking about.
Sadly in this case the tool, in its product form, is already in breach of a moral principle, because it is a derivative work and stealing labor without consent.
If you are referring to the GPT algorithms, that's more subtle. We need to figure out how to regulate it better.
no, it's not
How is it not? The most popular GPT models are trained on copyrighted works.
that isn't stealing.
It is in my country.
Is the artist who writes with inspiration from previous works also stealing? Every story draws from other stories. Most art is always a representation of things that explicit consent was not always recorded to create.
This reminds me of Napster days. We can pontificate endlessly over the moral and philosophical arguments. Meanwhile, time is passing and the tools become more commonplace. I just skip to the end and change with the times. The other option is to die with old fashioned beliefs. Neither option is correct, it just is what it is. Which do you prefer?
You're so right. I guess it doesn't matter what happens between now and the inevitable future. -_-
You can be flippant or you can respond earnestly. You don't want to discuss then don't comment in the first place.
It isn't the "quality" of the piece that makes it more valuable, but the intrinsic quality of being the original. An exact, molecularly identical copy might make that messy, in that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them, but the true original is still the one with the value.
You use the term "AI slop" more than once, but honestly I feel like a lot of the "real" art that's shared here is human slop. I guess the thing I would have that most people wouldn't agree with is that most art by humans is shit, and we shouldn't feel like we have to pretend it isn't just so we don't hurt someone's feelings. You ever been on DeviantArt and looked at the newest submissions? Half of it looks like it was finger painted by toddlers.
There's a lot of artists walking around thinking that AI is gonna steal their hard work, when nobody with eyes would want their work hanging on their wall, because it's human slop done by someone with no talent.
One for the world:
I think dog / cat ownership is immoral. There are huge energy and material costs to supporting those animals.
Cats when allowed outside will decimate ecosystems and are literal invasive species. As for dogs, I can't help but feel that they've have been weaponized into a deniable tool for harassing other people.
One for Lemmy:
I think capitalism can be good. I think in an ideal world where everyone's needs are met, there will still be a market and people getting ludicrously wealthy. And I think in that ideal world those ludicrously wealthy people can translate that wealth into political power.
This seems insane for those of us trapped in this present, but I think it is good for there to be a mechanism where understanding some reality that is tied to physical phenomena gives people power.
I think large organizations can get by for a very long time inculcating in their members strange philosophies. If the only path to power is by acquiescing to your superiors and parroting dogma, I think that would be bad.
Of course, conditions in the real world look nothing like those in that ideal world.
Edited away: I think dog / cat ownership makes you a bad person.
I thought it was unnecessarily inflammatory and regret choosing that inflammatory language
Capitalism is frankly completely incompatible with everyone's needs being met. By definition capitalism relies on exploitation.
Well this one definitely qualifies as potentially unpopular. As an added bonus, it's also wrong, but that may explain why it's so "flat earth" un-popular.
True. No one should let a cat outside; not ever. It's cruel to the cat and cruel to the ecosystem and never required.
I'm sorry you can't help that. Maybe that's something to work on?\
I'm not a fan of dogs, especially as we responsibly move to density housing and save space for shared green space and agri needs. But a badly behaved dog is 20% juvenile trauma and 80% parenting.\
We don't have a test or an enforceable license to ensure people who know how to care for an animal are the only ones who get to; but if you advocated for such a thing I'd be marching there with ya.
But, do learn.
Do you differentiate between people who purchased their pets vs rescue, or do you see all pet owners as the same?
I think owning pets in our modern urban lives doesn't make sense like it used to, but I have always had pets and do enjoy them. Every single one has been a rescue though. I could not personally justify supporting breeders and pets as an industry.
Honestly, I just dislike other people's dogs. They're off leash, aggressive, and slowly bleeding into every space. Having a neighbor that encouraged anxiety and barking was an exceedingly unpleasant experience.
That being said, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of animals being created for and existing for humans. The situation is definitely better than the livestock industry and there's also the complication that the pets seem to be happy and humans seem to be happier with pets. It would also be exceedingly cruel to take away service dogs from those that have them.
But, pet ownership is rising world wide. Given the demand, they'll be bred. Pet QoL is going up. Now that they're family, their environmental impact is going to grow.
Yes, rescues are better than the alternative. Spaying and neutering reduce harm. I wish that the default pets would instead be cold-blooded terrestrial animals and rodents. I wish pets were unable survive outside of captivity.
I think it's generally immoral to own pets and that if one does, one should strive to maximize the human happiness:externality ratio. It's a minor immorality, but the OP asked for controversial moral opinions.
I'm not touching the first one, but the second I agree there's a nieve understanding where it *could* be good. As soon as they start using their power to prevent others from gaining power (which always happens instantly) then there's an issue. The more money you have, the easier it becomes to make money and keep others *from* making money, creating a situation where they're subservient to you because they need resources you control to survive. There's no freedom there. The *only* way it can work and be good is with ruthless government oversight protecting the people and redistributing accumulated wealth.
I see Big Pet has gotten to you 😔
There's a danger of power accumulating in any system. But there are mitigations. The greatest threat to this fantasy system are barriers to entry. If everyone has their needs met, then there can be a minimum wage of 0. With the minimum wage at 0, I think barriers to entry will drop dramatically and it'll be that much harder to protect "your" market share.
If we get rid of "intellectual property", barriers to entry drop even further. Switching costs can be minimized by open standards. But then we run into the harder questions of the physical barriers to entry (rent, commodities, factories) and regulatory barriers to entry.
With a reasonably low barrier of entry, I hope that there will be enough centers of power that are intrinsically opposed to one another so that they cannot combine and oppress us all.
And for any government, what's to stop them from oppressing us instead? The people always will have some mechanisms of control but every system will have its own difficulties and weaknesses. And the relationship isn't just companies becoming governments, but there are also governments becoming companies. In fact, I'd argue it is more common for governments to become companies than vice versa. Cuba's GAESA is in hotels, while Myanmar's Junta and the IRGC are pretty well diversified.
I agree with you, but you just invented Socialism again. You get your needs provided and the means of production are available for you to produce with. That's socialism.
I think rescuing animals is good, but continuing to breed them is absolutely morally wrong
Are you thinking of the fake "service dog" thing?
I feel the need to point out there's multiple definitions of it in use, even, and people slide fluidly between them.
From my point of view of life, it feels like the belief of "Do unto others as you would like others to do to you" is no longer something most people seem to believe in.
I kind of like "treat others the way they treat other people."
This is a good one, thanks for sharing.
Feel like these days it’s “do unto others what you imagine others would to do unto you.”
"Treat others the way you want to be treated" is such a core belief of mine. Im in my late 20s now and I'm more and more disheartened by how rare it is to meet people who believe it. Growing up I couldn't understand. Now that I'm older I still have issues coming to terms with it. People suck and it sucks.
Genocide is bad.
It's promoted by hegemony throughout my culture. Both "parties" support genocide almost completely. If I even ask for a non-genocidal candidate, I'm attacked by libs. It's a disgusting society.
Edit: Commented in the wrong place my bad
I think a lot of the liberal attacks were more of a “there’s a time and place, and this is neither” issue. The Genocide Joe posters were at their peak right as Trump (who straight up said he’d be worse about genocide than Joe was) was at the height of his campaign. The big difference was more about whether “perfect” should get in the way of “good enough.” Nobody thought Joe (and later Kamala) was the perfect candidate. But they thought it would be *better than Trump*.
If you live in a state that’s 100% guaranteed to go blue, then sure, abstain your vote in protest. After all, it won’t make a difference. But if you lived in a swing state, then abstaining was the same as saying “I don’t care who wins, even if it makes the genocide measurably worse in every way.” It’s cutting off your nose to spite your face, while also trying to claim moral superiority. Refusing to vote for a democrat because of the genocide was like handing a flamethrower to a compulsive arsonist, because the current administration didn’t do enough to support firefighters.
The end goal *should* have been to keep things from getting worse first, before you focus on hammering the genocide before the midterms. But apparently people on high horses don’t know how to play the long game.
The problem I've found is that liberals will say that "Now is not the right time" all the time and there never ends up being a right time to talk about it. It feels like a cycle of right before the election so can't talk about, right after the election so can't talk about since they haven't had time to address it, then the midterms are coming up so can't talk about it, then right after the midterms they don't have the power to address it anymore so can't talk about it, then the presidential election is coming back up again so can't talk about it. There's also the fact that more people pay attention during election seasons so talking about it then allows you to reach the most people. And at the end of the day all it would take to get these people on your side would be to oppose the genocide. It would have some impact but I would say the majority of voters who care about Israel enough to change their vote based on it were probably already voting Trump with how pro Israel he is, so you would be gaining many more voters than you lose.
There's never a "right time" to bring up a topic that they don't want to address because they are complicit.
I don't see democrats pushing to change the voting system so people can vote how they want and transfer their vote if their preference doesn't win. Republicans and democrats love First-past-the-post voting and the hostage situation it will always be.
The time is now, the place is here. For a political party that prides themselves as great advocates.of democracy, why are democrats preventing people from voting how they want in the blue states they control? Sounds like something a Republican would do.
While simultaneously screeching at people during election seasons that voting outside the two party system is a wasted vote. Encouraging voters to "hold their nose" in the "most important election ever". This shows their hand. Democrats understand that FPTP voting is undemocratic and doesn't represent people well.
Yet.... crickets on electoral reform.
I guarantee you the usual suspects will be posting and commenting here about 3rd party voters when the mid terms roll around. All while doing *nothing* to change the voting system.
I've casted my last damage control vote for the democrats. If they want a vote from me, they can implement these very reasonable reforms so I can transfer my vote to them if my first 10 picks don't win
Electoral Reform Videos
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems
STAR voting
Alternative vote
Ranked Choice voting
Range Voting
Single Transferable Vote
Mixed Member Proportional representation
Seems like a very US-problem.
The solution to the Tolerance Paradox is the Ender solution.
Accept everyone. But the moment one group calls for the violence against any other group, they should be wiped out with overwhelming force to the last. Any group willing to spew hate, is to be culled. Either they learn to accept every other group, or they go extinct.
It worked with the Nazis. It worked with the khmer rouge. It worked with Mussolini. It worked with the apartheid regime.
In turn i also believe that the Ender Solution is the solution to bullying. Fight back, break their noses, gouge out an eye. Make the bully regret even looking at you. As an asian migrant in 1990s Australia in all white school, the first bully was also the last.
The hilarious part of this is that Orson Scott Card is extremely Homo phobic to the point of wanting it to be a crime and jailing people.
He's one of the hateful groups that would need to be culled under your proposed action.
Absolutely. I’ll even throw Rowling in there. I read their books before i was old enough to know what kind of people they were. Doesn’t change that i learnt those lessons from them. Ironic (but fitting) that their writings would turn their audience back against them.
Man you would be getting rid of 99% of Lemmy with that
90% of humanity really.\
Humans are seemingly inherently violent. Get more than 500 of us in a place with unlimited resources and well go to war over who gets which corner.
To quote Margaret Thatcher, "a man who doesn't own a car by the age of 26 can count himself a failure."
I heavily disagree with that statement. Everyone has reasons not to drive. From disability, to cities being designed for walking and public transport, to being opposed to the pollution that is caused as a result of it, to not wanting to participate in traffic congestion, to not being able to fucking afford one, to being so bad at driving that you just give up after failing that license test multiple times, or to simple personal preference. Are all these people failures apparently? How does that make sense? Well, I guess the people who give up after failing the license test are, but everyone else??
I'm to drunk to drive
Drunk driving is one of the leading causes of car collisions, so... you're making great progress.
It's the nature of conservatives to break things into simple concepts and metrics that are easy to comprehend and conceptualize because facing the nuance and complexity of reality requires work and bravery.
Understood.
If you're a juror and you vote guilty, knowing that the person you're voting guilty for will be executed, if they are later found not guilty, your head should be next on the chopping block.
I am fundamentally against the death penalty. It is not a power the government should ever have.
I'd argue that a prosecutor is more guilty of a bad death sentence than a jury. The jury only hears what's brought into court. If the prosecution are withholding evidence or didn't do their due diligence on collecting evidence then it's not the jurors fault. The jury was lied to, and it's the prosecution's job to bring forward all evidence, not just the stuff that supports their case.
I, also, am against the death penalty. I don't trust anyone with that job. However, at the same time, I also believe some people should be killed. People who gravely endangered humanity and caused immense suffering to everyone who exists and will exist, for example, pro-capitalist and pro-modern-slavery people such as Elon Musk. Or the guys from the Volkswagen emissions scandal. People like those should not exist.
Yeah, in practice the death penalty doesn't work because the justice system is both fallible and corrupt but if we could somehow eliminate those problems some people are certainly deserving of it.
Whilst some people may deserve it, no one person or entity deserves the power to enforce/enact it.
Pacifism.
The overwhelming majority of people, no matter where they sit in terms of culture, religion, and politics, see total nonviolence as a naive position.
But it’s among my most deeply held beliefs.
I think a person can be a pacifist, I don't think a country can
I think it’s fair to say that, for a person to be consistent in their pacifism, they probably also need to adopt:
Or some combination of the two, as was the case for the Diggers.
Everyone on the planet adopting religious anarchism is a lofty goal to be sure.
I don’t recall saying that “everyone on the planet” should or could adopt any kind of belief.
Pacifism isn’t aimed at victory.
The point about a county not being able to be pacifist the way that an individual can be is the same reason that the requirements proposed would require universal adoption. The aim of pacifism is irrelevant when it's the target.
abolish the state
Abolish all states would be the much higher bar required.
right
If only.
I can see that. It is my firm belief that sometimes, under very strict circumstances, violence is justified because it's necessary. But refusing to take part in it is a valid position to have.\
For example, nobody can force you to take voilent action to save a third party, in the same way nobody can force you to pull the lever in a trolley problem.
I think one of the more controversial ones I have is that I don't tend to be in favor of things like MAID or voluntary euthanasia. I understand why people are for it, but I don't like the idea of killing someone over something that is ultimately in their head, like pain or a person's desires, and the way I tend to evaluate the value of life has something of a floor (that is to say, I do not really believe that there is such a thing as a "fate worse than death" so to speak, because I believe that death is the least functional state a person can have and anything above that implies at least *some* functioning even if that state is still highly undesirable).
I reckon you could be tortured out of that belief, although I don't wish it on anyone.
Probably yes, however, I consider a person under such conditions to not truly be sound of mind, as torture is rather extreme duress, so that isnt really much of an argument in my view. I dont dispute that you could inflict an amount of suffering on me that would make me wish to die, I just think, while not in that state, that if I were in it would not be ethical for me to make that choice, and so that under that circumstance I shouldnt be able to.
Now extend that idea to the torturer being cancer cells. You will suffer extreme agony until you die. There will be no reprieve outside a partial numbing of the pain from high morphine doses that keep you mostly out of consciousness.
Or have I misunderstood your other comments and you covered this scenario when discussing the terminally ill?
I did consider things like that to be under the case of terminal illness yes. I do understand that circumstances, especially around such disease, can bring about extreme suffering, and that the way brains process pain can override a person's normal feelings on the matter and make them seek death to end it. Its just that, I think that an end of existence (which, not being someone that believes in afterlives, is what I believe death is) is the worst possible state, worse than any amount of suffering (even an *infinite* amount of such, not that a human can actually process an infinite negative stimuli). As such, I view it is as more ethical to extend life for as long as possible than allow it to end early.
I acknowledge that a person in great pain will likely disagree, even myself if my life brings me to that, but I dont take this as actual evidence that the pain is worse, because pain shuts down a person's regular thinking and can in high enough amounts override that persons values and ability to think clearly about them. In other words, I think that a person, any person, even myself, that is in sufficient pain will consider that pain worse than death, because pain is almost like a sort of mind control in that it forces you to think that way, but I think that person, even myself in that hypothetical, would be wrong about that. In the same way that if some cruel inventor devised a machine that manipulated a person's mind and forced them to have suicidal thoughts, I would think it wrong to let the victim act on them.
I understand your position now. You can probably have it in your Advanced Directive to deny you life-ending care should that be an option where you live. Hopefully you won't get to make that determination for someone else.
If a person is in such immense pain that they would rather be dead and there is no reasonable expectation from an objective standpoint that their situation will change (e.g. they have metastatic cancer in multiple organs), then they will never return to the state of mind that they want to live. Denying death at that point is sadistic.
What about unimaginable suffering before one's certain death? Would this not qualify as a worse fate than death?
I don't really have a strong opinion on this topic, but one example comes to mind that shows that many people don't act according to your maxime. Have you ever seen those battlefield suicides that are filmed by the drones in Ukraine? I'm not going to link them here, but they are plentyful. So, so many soldiers, many of them wounded, decide to take their own life to avoid going through an experience that they probably view as worse than death. I just think it's interesting and worth considering.
I think I alluded to this in one of my other responses, but I would hold that things like that are situations that the person involves *thinks* are worse than death, especially given that all they would be able to think about under those conditions is what they are or anticipate feeling rather than what death is. They may also simply have beliefs about death that are nicer than what I view it to be.
A lot of the objection i get along those lines seems to be "But have you considered just how bad (horrible fate) is", when I totally acknowledge that there are some truly agonizing things that can happen to someone, my objection is simply that I believe death is just *that* bad.
I think I understand your position.
In a previous post, you seem to give value to *functioning* as opposed to being dead. Why is that? Why does functioning even matter if your position seems to be that death is the absolute worst thing that can happen to someone?
A person can lose all brain functions and remain alive, implying that there is no chance of making new experiences of any kind. Does that count for you as *functional*?
I would consider brain death to be death, if thats what you mean, I had thought that was a common enough position that I didnt need to state it. I guess I should clarify that I meant *mental* function there rather that just one's bodily functions. If you irreparably lose all brain functions, your mind is gone, so "you" are dead even if some of your body's cells can be kept alive.
I would have agreed with you when I was younger, but now that I'm older I think I changed my mind, I'm not so sure it's fair to make people suffer with late-stage terminal diseases where their whole life is reduced to suffering.
Is constant, unending suffering where you are in a state of constant unimaginable and untreatable pain a state worth living, though? Should people have to live that way, just because death is "worse"?
Everything is in someone's head. Without consciousness, we are nothing, so saying something is "in someone's head" is the wrong way of putting it.
Have you ever heard about functional neurologic disorder? Just because symptoms are psychosomatic does not mean they are not actual symptoms.
Personally, I'd be "ok" with it, if it wasn't such a slippery slope and if liberals and politicians could be trusted not to take it too far. Under capitalism, it's inevitable that it's going to be used as a solution for people who are seen as a "drain" on the system, and as an excuse to not provide accommodation and a higher standard of care.
It's always *justified* by pointing to an extreme case like a terminally ill elderly person living in constant physical pain but then in *practice* it's, "What do you mean doctors shouldn't tell depressed teenagers to kill themselves? Are you saying that mental suffering isn't real?" I'd rather it be banned entirely if that's the endgame these sociopaths are after.
I'm in the same boat, maybe because I'm in the U.S. I'm in favor of it on paper, but would feel really, really hesitant to ever support it in this country, because it would be like a month before they'd take off their masks and be using it to euthanize the homeless en masse.
I am of the complete opposite opinion. Not letting people decide if they want to live or not is the ultimate restriction of personal freedom. I think there should be some kind of process for euthanasia for practical reasons cause most people will eventually feel they want to keep on living, but for those who don’t there should be a right to die.
I actually agree that it is a restriction on personal freedom. Its just that, in my view, maximal personal freedom isnt actually a moral absolute, but a moral heuristic, something that is usually true and so makes a decent guideline, but not under every circumstance. This is simply one of the situations where I think that heuristic fails and no longer aligns with what I view as moral.
Maximizing personal freedom shouldn't be the only goal, yes. But not letting people choose whether they live or die is *minimal personal freedom* to me. Or it should be, like the bare minimum.
Tell me you've never suffered without telling me you've never suffered...
I bet you'd change your mind if you were personally in enough pain.
I've answered responses along those lines a couple times at this point. My position is that pain is a bit like mind control; you probably could get me to change my mind that way, but the reason for doing so wouldn't be anything to do with the reasons *why* I think this stuff unethical and everything to do with the way sufficient pain overrides one's normal thinking and forces you to pay attention to it.
"Someone/something could torture you into changing your mind" doesn't say anything about how right or wrong the original position is, you could probably torture someone into believing the earth is flat if you kept at it long enough and the victim wasn't unusually strong willed, but that doesn't make it so.
It's true, that doesn't *prove* anything exactly. Your position is intellectually self-consistent. It's more that I suspect you'd re-asses aliveness as a good basis for ethics with that source of information.
Okay, I'll revise that to "I bet if you hung out with other people in unbearable suffering for long enough, you'd change your mind". With "long enough" being anything from days to decades depending on your own compassion:conviction ratio.
Paying for your porn is righteous (assuming the money goes to the actual actors).
There is no ethical consumption while living a capitalist way of life
Yeah, just try and stop me from drinking my own piss ghandi!
Everyone made fun of onlyfans, I think it should be praised. While it's definitely not perfect, it's opened the door for individual sex workers to make their own business, vs joining the notoriously predatory world of porn and sex work. Instead, they make their own rules, set their own boundaries, and except for a 20% cut from the site, they take home everything else. It's a huge win for them.
The only other thing against it I've seen is "they shouldn't be doing it at all" which is a completely different argument". If they're going to do porn, I think OF has changed the game.
Aside from the predatory accounts only fans is a way that creators can directly benefit from their work.
Agreed. There's also a lot of downsides too, but it's a step in the right direction
Or if it's nsfw art, the money supports the artists.
Can you explain what IP is? Abbreviations don't mean anything if you don't know it.
Intellectual property I think.
intellectual property: copyright, patents, trademarks, etc.
Ah gotcha thanks for clarifying
no problem, there's like 2 or 3 very common different usages of IP anyways
i think that institutions should be respected.
It's the number one problem in american politics right now, everything we are currently experiencing, is from people treating politics like a toy. Rather than an institution.
It's so incredibly hard to state how critically important it is for the functioning of society, that the structures running our society, are respected.
Bro, your institutions are captured. Yes they run society still, but they run it against the people who are supposedly to be protected by them. This is why fascist takeovers start with the institutions and then the institutions keep running, giving formal "legitimacy" to the crimes of the fascists. Nazi Germany did everything legal in Nazi Germany. Opposing Nazi Germany was criminal in Nazi Germany and against the institutions of Nazi Germany. But it was the right fucking thing to do.
And the simplest solution to prevent this, is to simply not vote people who are a threat to your own country, into your own fucking government, nobody seems to understand this.
Literally all we had to do, was not ask for this. But unfortunately the entire US voting populous has the collective intelligence of a bag of rocks for some reason.
While you are explicitly correct, the implication is that institutions deserve respect by virtue of being institutions. Respect should be earned, or rather, given until proven unworthy. I refuse to respect an institution that fails to acknowledge the sanctity of life, much less fulfills the needs of the people it governs.
you can say this all you want, but this line of thinking is the exact reason why we're where we are today. People like you check out, and start voting for memes, or shitpost value, rather than actually fixing issues, and putting the government in a more respectable position, which leads to people like Lauren Boebert, and MTG being actual real people in the US congress.
and likewise, that government will fail to respect your wishes for a functional government that does anything at all. It's a tripping point, once you trip, you fall down the mountain, and it's really, and i mean *really* hard to get back up.
Yeah, the ATF for instance. Anyone knowledgeable about the ATF does not trust it, after Waco and Ruby Ridge
there was a time that the government was highly respected. then the government betrayed us. Intuitions don't betray their people, they edify. Once an institution betrays its people, it becomes a ruin in history. or should.
the government does not simply "betray us" we betrayed the government, by electing unqualified idiots to the electorate, who then fucked us over, unsurprisingly, because they're stupid.
That's. .. a take
Deleted by author
This isn't a moral. A moral is a rule you follow about how to act; what's right or wrong.
Sorry got confused moral with opinion
some particularly stupid people treat economic systems as moral systems
ie spreading/stopping communism is a moral good.
I have two.
There is no such thing as toxic masculinity or toxic femininity. There is only toxic individualism.
Sometimes, you shouldn't be yourself. The person you are might be awful. Bullying and societal pressure correcting you to a norm can be a good thing.
I beg to differ. I've been self-repressed for many years from speaking about my problems with my close ones because of toxic aspects of the social understanding of masculinity that I absorbed.
Same, but when I began really looking at it and trying to overcome it, I found it's a very universal experience, certainly not divided by gender.
When you look at these odd archetypes of what people want out of the ideal man or woman, they all share the same core. Strong, independent, doesn't need help, doesn't want help. The individualistic experience is such a sad, lonely, miserable, experience. They want to be able to go it alone, but in hundreds of thousands of years of truly human existence, going it alone is such an exception. Our weights and burdens and lives are meant to be shared. They always have been and always will be.
For example, I have a 4 year old son who has been infatuated with ballet for a couple months now. There are dads today who are beating their sons for liking ballet. It's terrible. But it's not that ballet is "queer" or that men don't do ballet. There are plenty of men who are queer. There are plenty of men who do ballet. But, I don't do ballet. If I beat my son, it's because I am making it about myself. I don't want a son who does ballet. That is as narcissistic and individualistic as it gets.
That's not to say that it's not toxic masculinity, just that the toxic masculinity is narcissism in a trench coat.
I feel like you've mixed a very general problem with a very specific pair of problems, here.
You had me in the first half not gonna lie.
As for the 2nd, I guess you need some corrective bullying. Where would you like to meet up?
Explain norm.
The beatings will continue until civilization improves.
Broadly speaking, I'm a Pacifist and believe any kind of military confrontation or military aid is bad public policy. The idea of collateral damage - civilian casualties taken in pursuit of military objectives - is fully immoral and should be broadly rejected. Military resources should be tasked first and foremost as disaster relief and recovery with the primary mission being the preservation of human life, rather than offensive missions to defeat or deter an opposition military.
Military reprisals (starting with the MAD policy and going down to retributive strikes in border disputes) are monstrous and should be ended. Military prisons should be closed and POWs immediately repatriated. Embargos, particularly those aimed at economically vulnerable nations like Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea, serve no useful purpose and should be lifted immediately. And the only offensive military action should be reserved for securing evacuation routes for refugees, with the bulk of resources dedicated to extending shelter and both immediate and long term relief to the refugees we accrue through these policies.
So, I'm genuinely curious - what do you think the US should have done during WW2?
I can tell you what we shouldn't have done. We shouldn't have turned away the 937 passengers of the St. Louis. It shouldn't have done the mass arrest and internment of Japanese American civilians. We shouldn't have sent Germany military aid in the form of IBM computers and Standard Oil. Hell, there was a laundry list of American government-backed big industry supporting German and Italian Fascists even after the bombing of Pearl Harbor
What the US *should have been doing* was enforcing the accords struck after WW1, implementing a Marshall Plan in Europe and North Africa and East Asia 30 years earlier, and providing immediate unconditional refuge to anyone threatened by a fascist government, rather than hot-housing them in fascist states until they either fled to the Middle East, Latin America, or Soviet Russia or got shoved into the ovens and gas chambers.
And how, exactly, do you enforce the accords--the accords and reparations that directly led to WWII--without the use of military force?
For starters, you actually join the League of Nations you proposed at the end of WW1. Then you can open up trade and create large economic unions (the EU being a good example) that create business incentives that transcend borders and governments. Open borders, international business ties, and populations with international relations deaden the enthusiasm for interstate military conflicts in between neighboring states.
The single biggest deterrent to a US/China military conflict has been the degree to which American and Chinese people travel and do business with one another all the way across the Pacific Ocean. Arguably, the biggest deterrent to a Chinese naval invasion of Taiwan is the degree to which the two territories have productive and amicable trading and travel relations. By contrast, it was the indefinite sanctions on Iraq in the 90s that paved the way for full invasion ten years later and nearly triggered conflicts in Syria and Iran (which averted conflict in large part due to economic ties to France, Turkyie, and Saudi Arabia).
Military force does not enforce accords between states. The Peace Dividend does. And you can't have a Peace Dividend without trade, travel, and strengthened diplomatic relations.
...Which doesn't address the issue. How, EXACTLY, do you enforce anything without the willingness to use force? Have you seen NATO Peacekeepers? They rarely--if ever--use force, and as a result they are almost entirely ineffective at preventing shit.
Tends to, but the accords that ended WWI required Germany to pay absolutely ruinous reparations; even with open borders, international business ties, etc., the economic depression caused by that treaty would have laid the foundation for WWII. Moreover, I note that both the US and the EU had fairly solid trade ties with Russia prior to their invasion of Crimea, and that has done pretty much fuck-all to temper Putin's imperial ambitions.
So, again: how do you enforce ANYTHING without being willing to use force?
Do you really believe that? Or is it maybe that the US always has a naval detachment close by, and has pledged to use military force to ensure that Taiwan remains free? Because China has certainly been ratcheting up their insistence that Taiwan is *theirs*, and that they intend to take it.
It does. It preempts the re-arming of Europe in the 1930s.
UN Peacekeeping has a Sexual Abuse Problem
Seems like they are all too eager to use force, just so long as it is directed at the vulnerable and easily exploited.
I was aware of some of this from reading "The Arms of Krupp" someone on Lemmy pointed me to, but not the extent on the US side. Great link tyvm.
That depends on your point of view. The point of view of US lawmakers is that, by forcing people into "hunger and desperation" (quoting them) through imposed economic violence, they'll bring about a change of regime. Of course, that's absolutely disgusting, but it does serve a purpose, which in many instances worked (deposition of Mosaddeq in Iran, sanctions to Chile's Allende...). I just disagree with the methodology and the purpose because I'm not Satan, unlike US policymakers.
Okay, yes, but it's a *bad purpose*.
But, again, the Shah and Pinochet were *bad dudes* and elevating them to national office only really managed to secure cheaper-than-market-rate natural resources for a decade at the expense of tens of thousands of people's lives. And then the end result was what? The Iranian Revolutionary Guard reclaiming Iran? The twenty year dictatorship of Pinochet plunging a valuable ally and trading partner into hyperinflation and social upheaval? Wouldn't US firms paying market rate for oil and copper have been better for everyone in the long run?
I think individualism has gone too far. We pander too much to each person’s individual rights, and not each person’s individual responsibilities. I’m not talking about human rights here, I’m not talking about labour rights or any of the genuinely important stuff.
I’m talking about the self important experiences of the individual. The idea that someone has the right to believe whatever they want without responsibility to those around them. The most obvious answer is anti-vaxxers that spread literal lies. Whatever about vaccine hesitancy when there is legitimate peer reviewed medical potential for harm, there are levels of hesitancy. But when it goes to the point of fabricating data and spreading lies that will ultimately only cause harm to society, then in that case I’m ok with those people having any free speech rights voided, including full legal culpability for the harm it causes, akin to medical terrorism.
Where established data shows that people are contributing harm to society, contradicting scientifically proven data, and a person deliberately continues to spread misinformation when they are informed that they are causing harm, then they clearly do not care for the protection of the community, they should have forego societal protections for themselves, rights to free speech, rights to own property, and where necessary incarceration. If you’re in a position of power/authority or have specific training in the field, then you should face exponentially greater legal consequences for this deliberate harm.
Many people may agree with the general principles of this sentiment but as a society we are not ready to have that conversation, because the first person to be locked up would trigger a mass protest not widespread agreement. All because we have permitted individualism to far overpower the importance of collectivism. Rights should not be absolute they should always be coupled to responsibilities. Even if that responsibility is simply not to cause deliberate harm to others.
And the idea that someone’s beliefs about reality are somehow important to uphold. That the person above believes they are not doing harm, despite being told otherwise, that this idea should hold any weight in court is wrong. People should be informed of their ignorance and measurable reality is the only true reality that should be taken into account . Just like ignorance of the law is not a defence, ignorance of reality should not be a defence.
If a person is spreading misinformation that causes harm, they should be served a legal notice that outlines that they have been “judged to have been causing harm to society by spreading information that is adjudicated as false and harmful by an sanctioned and independently operated committee, whose ruling has been further agreed upon by a plurality of specialist training bodies in the relevant field. The only entities who contradict this societally important and data derived ruling are those that mean harm to society or those without the relevant knowledge base to make any informed statements on the matter. As of this point you will be treated as the former now that you have been served notice that the information you are spreading is factually incorrect and harmful. If you continue to spread this misinformation you sacrifice a portion or all of your rights afforded to you by this society. Your assets can be seized, you may be incarcerated, and your access to any and all communication with other humans may be partially or entirely withheld. This is a measure to combat information terrorism.”
Civil liberties are a privilege not an inalienable right.
You might think this sounds dystopian but it’s my answer to your question. Obviously it needs baked in failsafes to stop a small few individuals from corrupting it for authoritatian abuse. But just because something could be hypothetically abused doesn’t make it a bad idea. You just need to insulate against the abuse.
How would you deal with violent crimes (murder, rape, abuse, things that are considered morally reprehensible by most people, regardless of religion and affiliation) without a penal system? Mob punishment?
I would suggest this article as an introduction to penal abolition.
But, to sum some common abolitionist answers, I would say :
Restorative justice programs have been implemented in Indigenous Canadian communities with higher success than the existing contemporary justice system. With high recursion and incarceration rates for indigenous people, those programs address the root of crime without punishment while still holding perpetrators accountable. Most importantly, it's done in a way that seeks to support rather than re-victimize those affected by crime.
I absolutely agree with the abolishionist movement but hadn't known till now that it was large scale and worldwide. I agree with the changes being made locally without understanding the whole philosophy, basically. Thanks for giving me a good reason to learn more about it.
My pleasure, really! Ruth Morris and Kaba are, for me, the two insisting the most on the link between first nations practices of restauration and possible ways to start an abolitionniste strain from there, if you're interested in these..
As for the movement in general, it started to grow in the 60's. Mainly driven by professors of law and critical criminology, on the one side, prisoners movements and unions on the other side. A great deal of anarchists, a lot of religious people, a few moral radicalists. Many had a common experience of nazi camps. That may be too simple of an explanation, but some of them explicitly state that to account for their interest in prison and hatred for the penal system.
I appreciate that. I'm going to see if there's anything published on/by them *at my local library.* (not sarcastic I love the library)
Here's a more easily readable version that doesn't require a download:
https://sci-hub.st/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00728496
It's gatekeeping. As far as I can tell, the *stated* goals are never the actual point in practice. Which sucks, because there's a lot of important issues.
I don't know the word "gatekeeping" well but maybe that's it. I was specifically thinking about a situation I had to witness. Two men, one of them being my friend, celebrating about a political action that went well. Except one of the group, a woman, got caught and was facing prison charges. The two men started to rejoice about how the trial would be a great place for her to claim their ideas in front of the judges and the press, make it a political trial. All this time, the woman was literally trembling for a very good reason : she was afraid of going to jail, she didn't want that.
This scene made me realize if there's some kind of collective emancipation to be find somewhere it's not in this kind of act of purety. People should do what they want and can at a certain point in their lives. Not me forced into becoming the martyrs they don't want to be because it's a good thing to do "for the cause".
It's more of a slang word, but it's the act of arbitrarily not including certain people in a group, and including yourself in that group, in order to make yourself feel special or better emotionally. In the Anglosphere at least, activists do that a lot. They do it to non-activists, and to each other even more.
Sorry, I may have inserted my own "pet issue" here. Your story just sounds like a lack of empathy.
It was, but actually, gatekeeping as you defined it fits the kind of situation I broadly wanted to refer too. This example is a little extreme, but yeah. Thanks for the definition, btw!
Found a libertarian.
Wait what does libertarian mean in English. Because with use two words, "libertaire" and "" libertarian" in French and although I'd gladly identify as the first, I have nothing but contempt for the second.
I feel like there is some need for a very very small number of prison like places to exist. There are a some people that just enjoy hurting others and if left in a place where they can do it they will but they are so few and far between that I'm not even sure that its a meaningful amount.
Among penal abolitionist, there are minimalists and maximalists. To better understand how some abolitionists can think that in some residual cases, a segregative solution may be used, one needs to keep in mind that penal abolitionism wants the abolition of the penal system, i.e. a special form of cooperation between police, courts and prison.
Some others would disagree, though. I would personally disagree, but with fellow abolitionist, I try to keep an open mind and understand we basically strive for the same thing.
One important thing : it is commonly accepted among abolitionists that one is stuck with what tools are at their disposition to seek justice. As such, no abolitionist will ever tell a victim what he or she should do. Even one of the most radical contemporary one, like Mariam Kaba, seeks to set up transformative justice devices for people who don't want to engage with the penal system for various reasons (for example, secondary victimization)
Yesterday I got shit for supporting ZorinOS Pro. So I guess paying for FOSS.
It seems donations are okay, but when distros frame it as a Pro Version purchase then the FOSS peeps get pissed. Even though no one could point out what's actually being locked behind the pro version, because spoiler: nothing is locked behind it.
On Lemmy, no one pays for anything but everyone makes a living wage.
Ya, everyone supports workers until the bill arrives.
I also use Zorin. I feel validated
How is zorinOS? Do they ship new software or do they hold it back for testing?
It looks good, things work out of the box and it's stable. CLI use is minimal, perfect for newbs. Besides that it can keep grandma's laptop running. So yeah pretty decent OS.
Man, I'm all for paying people for the time and effort they put into software. But what's the point of Zorin OS? Doesn't seem better than other Linux-based OSs.
Summary death to bicycle thieves, and anyone else actively wrecking the world. I am averse to the death penalty in most cases, but bicycle thieves are actively wrecking their communities. Someone rides a bike because they: - Have no other option - Are trying to improve their health - Are living car-free or car-lite - Are trying to enjoy the locals with active transportation OR - Are complying with a court-ordered driving suspension
Stealing bicycles undermines these goals and poisons the community.
Of course, we could easily scale this up to, say, almost all CEOs of megacorporations.
Getting your bike stolen is one of the worst feelings, too. Mine is my transportation and excercise, how I get to work and how I unwind.
Most bikes aren't insured, like a car. There are resources to register your bike for free (Garage 529) in case it gets stolen. But unless people are actively searching for your bike, or someone tries to pawn it, on one's checking those things.
If I caught someone trying to steal my bike I think I'd be within my rights to take a finger.
Unpopular on lemmy or irl? Because I have plenty for lemmy
how about both?
Irl, I don't think infinite economic growth is reasonable, feasible, or practical. There's only so much land, only so much space in the world. Once we leave Earth, that changes, but not until then.
We should stop developing new plots of land and start building up. If a plot of land is already developed, it's fair game. But no new plots of land.
I'm tired of seeing every empty field and forest getting bulldozed, although that's not unpopular.
On Lemmy, I think illegal immigrants should be deported as a default. If they commit serious crimes, sure, jail them. But the vast majority should just get deported. And claiming asylum when you get caught is abusing the asylum system and ruining it for people who actually need it.
We should also heavily reduce the amount of legal immigrants too. We take in a fifth of the world's immigrants, and we do not have a fifth of the world's population. Immigration doesn't really help the common man, it's used to suppress wages. It's a kind of a selfish thing, because more immigrants means less fields and woods, but immigration isn't helping anyone but the rich either.
Abolish the ATF and the NFA. People have the right to defend themselves regardless of what the government says.
Protective tariffs like the Chicken Tax are good for domestic industry. This is a feature not a bug. I was thinking this long before Trump got in.
As a liberal i feel I need to step in and defend endless economic growth. Its not tied to resources as they're only one way an economy can grow. Economic growth can be 2 people buying digital art from each other.
Majority of the companies are nowhere near being resource capped. From their point of view the only thing for then to do is to keep doing more of what they do best. The problem and reason why endless growth gets a bad rep is that consumers are super apathetic and governments do a terrible job of regulating. So companies exploit consumer apathy and "eat" smaller companies with illegal practices.
Immigration helps the common man by filling low level positions that most natives will not take. A lot of immigrants don't know the local language and/or the local culture, so it is fair that they take free, unwanted jobs.
Further, there are a lot of protections for the workers, including immigrants, meaning wages and working conditions do not fall below acceptable standards. Immigrants strengthen the core pillars of industry, which might even lead to an increase in productivity and better conditions. They contribute to the economy and help pay public services which benefits the broader community.
The reason why native people don't take shit jobs is the bad wages (also lack of benefits). You pay truckers five bucks a mile, suddenly every trucker is native born. You pay ditch diggers thirty bucks an hour, watch all the guys turn up.
Guess what happens if you take all the cheap labor away? The companies don't just shut down, they start paying more. It's how Unions work.
I think that once it’s viable it would be ok to release a virus which genetically modifies all humans to be more empathetic and to think more critically.
It would be a violation of bodily autonomy, which I generally do believe in, but I think it’s necessary for the productive and positive future of humanity on the single planet which we currently inhabit.
(Yes definitions of intelligence vary, and epigenetics and nurture play a role, but we’re talking statistics and a statistical improvement is still an improvement)
"You're not MAGA? You must not be thinking critically. Here are some genetic modifications to make you love trump forever."
if it has no downsides, is it even against bodily autonomy?
This is like arguing you shouldn't sell farmed food in grocery stores, because it violates the bodily autonomy to starve and die in famine.
I mean releasing said virus into the public; let’s say it’s airborne. That would violate bodily autonomy as we are modifying people without their consent. But yeah I agree it doesn’t really have too many downsides beyond potential for unintended consequences.
yeah but like, by that argument, burning wood is a violation of the bodily autonomy of other people.
Farting in a public space would be an equally problematic activity.
The biggest argument here is that it's "artificial" and "alters human comprehension" but i'm not really sure it would even matter, because ethically, you would have a hard time arguing against it.
Murder being illegal, is technically a violation of bodily autonomy, but we collectively agree as a society, that this should be the case, because the net effect of murder being illegal, is beneficial to society.
the worst possible case, is that it has a mortality rate, of like 0.001% or something, which would kill a lot of people, but would that even negatively impact the world? It's hard to say.
considering that viruses mutate, this would be the most horrible thing to ever befall humanity….
If you haven't already, check out *Upgrade*, by Blake Crouch. Good book, similar premise.
My perspective on what rights are and how they work sometimes has people looking at me like I'm literally the devil. But it's really not that crazy.
First off, rights aren't absolute and have to be balanced against each other. Spend an hour or two following along with mundane SCOTUS cases and you'll see all kinds of examples where two reasonable principles come in conflict with each other and it's not immediately apparent which one should take precedence. I would actually argue that, if you want to treat principles as absolutes, you only get one, because any two concievable principles can (at least theoretically) come into conflict with each other. You can't serve two masters.
Moreover, what rights actually are are a theory about maintaining order and keeping people satisfied and content. The theory goes that people were reasonably content in a "state of nature" and that if they become discontent in civilization, it must be because they're lacking something that they would have naturally had. As a general rule, it works well enough - but viewing it this way means that you're viewing rights as a *means* to an end, rather than an end of itself, which is a very important distinction. What that means is that if you're in a situation where you have to choose between upholding rights and the end goal that rights are meant to achieve, then it makes sense to prioritize that end.
Again, something that makes people look at me like a demon (or call me a "tankie"), but like, there was a point in the Civil War where Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus in response to the genuine, existential threat posed by the Confederacy, and it was probably necessary for him to do so, or at the very least he had good reason to think it was.
The well of discourse on this subject has been poisoned by politicians leveraging imaginary threats for self-interested purposes, and the fact that we in the first world are so used to basic security that we take it for granted. Certainly, there's plenty of people who say, "The ends justify the means," but who aren't really following that principle, they just want to do illegal things for other reasons, like torture being motivated by cruelty, hatred, or revenge but justified on the pretense of extracting information to save lives.
However, just because people use imaginary/exaggerated threats like that, that's no reason to think real existential threats don't exist for anyone ever. And *when* you're facing a legitimate existential threat, all bets are off, you should give it 100% and do whatever it takes to survive and win. If you're not prepared to do that, you should give up the fight and walk away. Otherwise, how can you ask others to lay down their lives while you're pulling your punches, just to feel good about yourself? A guilty conscience is a small price to pay.
Somehow, we've got all these people with martyr complexes who have got everything mixed up, that your job as a moral agent is about serving these abstract moral principles as an end to itself, rather than your job being to do the things that lead to the best *outcomes* and the principles being *guidelines* that generally, but not always, help you find that course of action. It at least makes sense if you believe following those principles will get you into heaven, but many people still act as though that was their chief concern even without believing in such an afterlife.
Copyright is bad and this includes AI breaking copyright laws. Unfortunately people are too emotionally driven to come to a rational position here.
Artists still starve with copyright laws. We should provide for all so people can create or not and still live in peace.
People don't choose to be pedophiles. We shouldn't hate them just for existing.
People choose to abuse children, and that should be strongly punished and I think the majority agrees with me on that.
But a non-offending pedophile is someone with a *disability* and should be treated as such.
I see where you are coming from, and have thought about this before when there was a group of people near where i live who were doing a sort of vigilante mob tracking down suspected pedophiles and terrorising them.
It just made me consider that they might be attacking people with a mental disorder who could/should be treated.
But just to speak to what you said, if they are non-offending, are you talking about the ones that dont physically assault children? Because the ones who are viewing and distributing csam are still harming children. Maybe not directly, but its like supply and demand, isn't it? People make it if people want it.
I think perhaps even the violent ones should be treated for a mental disorder. Maybe punsihed too, but if you draw parallels to other violent crime, many argue other criminals should be rehabilitated. Should this extend to pedophiles too?
The more i type, the more nuanced this becomes in my head. Perhaps that in and of itself is evidence that despite the obvious knee-jerk reaction to probably one of the most heinous things a person can do. Perhaps there is just more to this than anyone is brave enough to admit. (I say brave because anyone that sees you defending a pedophile automatically accuses you of being a pedophile, which is a fucking pathetic leap to make)
Having said all of that. If anyone ever did anything like that to my kids, i would rip their fucking heads off.
I intentionally left that vague because of the nuance you mentioned. I think most people agree that physical assault of a child is heinous. Consumption of CP is more of a difficult gray area.
What? No, consumption of it is NOT a grey area. Wtf?
Sure it is. A lot of people would agree that viewing drawings or AI generated CP is a victimless crime.
Or for another example, two under-18s taking nude pics and sending them to each other. Technically illegal, but morally? Probably not bad.
It isn't?
Sure, consumption means creating demand, but it's not directly harmful for the child. There is definitely much more wiggle room than when talking about straight up abuse or creating material.
I'd be inclined to agree that pedophiles should not get access to CSAM, and even just owning some should be an offense. I am open to discussion with professionals though, if they say it will be helpful and deliver a good argument, I'd be open to change my opinion. Which makes this a grey area IMO
If it's pornography of an unwilling subject, surely the distribution and consumption is harmful to the subject, as it's a violation of their privacy and integrity.
If someone had put secret cameras in your bedroom, would you be completely cool with them selling the pictures online?
What if you were abused, let's say threatened with a weapon and forced to undress in front of a camera, a traumatic experience for sure. Afterwards you learn that the film is being traded between people who get off on this stuff. Would that really not feel like a further violation?
Would you really be unaffected by the knowledge that for the rest of your life, at any time, there could be creeps getting off on your abuse?
Pedophilia is a paraphilia, and unlike sexuality, it can changed, but needs the willingness of the pedophile.
Is there research showing that? My impression was that short of chemical castration it's almost impossible to remove.
Awful crimes necessitate forgiveness even more urgently than mere mistakes. To brag about deeming anything "unforgivable" is amoral and disrespectful of the nature of human soul. Anybody is eligible to redemption.
I agree that anyone is eligible for redemption - contrary to the zero-tolerance moral purity attitude that seems popular now. But a society where people were instantly forgiven for whatever bad things they did wouldn't work, because those people would make life miserable for everybody else. The system needs a way to discourage those people so the vast majority can live their lives in peace. So the question you didn't answer remains: how would you deal with horrible actions?
I agree. I don't believe instant forgiveness is ever warranted. Albeit I don't take forgiveness for something that can be ponctually granted, more like an ongoing effort to let the door open for the other's return. It's still up to the other to make the effort, on his side, to crawl back out of the hell he let himself slip in.
drinking and driving isn't inherently more dangerous than just driving, and it's a skill you can practice.
You're just factually wrong. Now you may have an argument that someone that's driving drunk may be a better driver than someone that's a bad driver while sober, but alcohol impairment reduces inhibitions, increases reaction time, impairs motor control, and alters judgement. That objectively makes you a more dangerous driver compared to your sober self.
would you rather be the designated driver leaving a bar at 2am knowing you're in a society that frowns upon drunk driving, but maybe people are well practiced at it, or knowing your in a society that punishes it drastically, so only the most desperate people attempt it?
Definitely the second. Because those people would *still* be driving drunk in the first case.
Having 2 horriblly-drunk drivers on the road is still better than having 2 horribly-drunk drivers plus another 20 moderately-drunky drivers.
I guess we all have different risk assessment
Hard one to upvote.
There's a little nuance here, I guess. The legal BAC limit isn't necessarily the same limit for every person. But there's a point where any amount of practice isn't going to fix your lack motor skills and impaired brain. And the more intoxicated you are the more dangerous you are to yourself and others.
can be compensated with basic safe driving. be alert at intersections, give any cars in front of you a three second lead, etc.
and like... knowing the roads you're driving will make all this safer, especially if you've practiced
No amount of lead time or knowing the roads is going to help you when a pedestrian or deer walks into the road, the vertigo kicks in, or you pass out completely. Driving safely may reduce the likelyhood of a catastrophe but driving sober would reduce it significantly more.
You're rationalizing your bad behavior to yourself. You've got a pretty good chance of hurting someone if you continue. Quit while you're ahead.
knowing the road let's you know the likelihood a pedestrian it deer will be there
With all conditions being the same, a sober driver is still much safer than a drunk one. Traffic and hazards are not always predictable.
with all conditions being the same, a sober driver is safer. that's easy to conceed. driving is an inherently dangerous activity, and drinking and driving can cause a marginal difference. it's not night and day, and the risk can be reduced with practice.
How do you get enough practice to get good without killing someone or yourself first?
real catch22
all things being equal, is say they are marginally safer. practice can reduce that margin.
Are you drunk right now?
I'm driving
Those basic safe driving techniques are based on ideal conditions. Take the three second lead for example, that's on dry roads with good visibility. You wouldn't follow that close if it was icy, because now your reaction time is not going to be enough, you have less control over the road so you must increase your follow distance.
Driving drunk is the same, your reaction time is now slower so again three seconds isn't enough. You don't have the same control over your body and alertness, so you need to drive even slower and more cautiously.
Now you're the odd one out. Your overly cautious driving will confuse the people driving around you because it'll be less predictable and odd. They'll try to pass you causing the chance of accidents to increase.
This is long winded, but the point is you simply aren't at your prime when you're driving impared. Be it high, drunk, sleep deprived, etc, you shouldn't on the road in that state as you increase the risk for everyone else. I urge you to reconsoder before you hurt yourself or someone else.
good tip. keep em coming
Wow.
eyo! You just won my first downvote. Didn't quite make a full year, sorry the vintage isn't up to snuff
I'm glad you keep the roads so safe.... for me
Mon cherie, protegonist of reality, but of course
Based asf. My friends tell me I drive safer when I’m high 😭
There are studies on this, smoking impairs your driving a lot less than drinking. But it's not good to drive while high, to be clear...
Yeah it makes you drive a lot slower which is inherently safer than drunk driving (even though you’re still under the influence). In my experience, I tend to have way too much fun drunk driving. High driving I’m either a little paranoid or chilled out so I’m driving safe. Drunk driving I get excited and do stupid shit.
Lowk I think the issue is when you’re an alcoholic cause you get complacent. An infrequent drunk driver is still a little on edge and doesn’t want to fuck up. An alcoholic drunk driver thinks it’s normal to drunk drive
I hope you'll listen to those who are telling you you're wrong on this, because the results matter:
Two year old run over in Cul de sac by drunk driver.
yea. don't drive fast.
A universal right to self. Get the trans / gay community, the raw milkers, the anti vaccers, the druggies and the prochoice crowd all on the same page.
The government should make no law demanding or preventing the alteration of any and all, organs protrusions or growths of organic matter attached to and constituting the body of a sentient person not under the court directed care of another.
With antivaxx though - I think that’s a “your rights end where mine begin” kind of issue. Some moron shitting themselves to death because they think milk tastes better without the poop germs boiled out can take themselves out, but I have a sibling who can’t get certain vaccines/some vaccines are less effective. I think he has the right to not be exposed to easily preventable diseases.
You could cover this pretty accurately by making being in public without vaccinations count as reckless endangerment. In theory, an antivaxx person in isolation is not the issue. The issue is them exposing other people.
Exactomundo. Philosophically fine, if you can find a way to make your choice not impact others.
Another big problem is they don’t tend to vaccinate their kids either. IMHO, kids deserve a higher standard of care/protection than “whatever their birth giver thinks is appropriate.” (Medical neglect fucking sucks - try pulling off your braces with pliers lol)
Good point! The amount of crackpot "here's how we can fix society" ideas I've come up with that are completely ruined by the existence of children is honestly crazy. I know "protect the kids!!" has been co-opted for some rather unsavory agendas, but it really is important, moreso even than we often consider.
At that point the disease is not composed of your own body and DNA and shedding it would be made illegal to do in public.
People who drink cow milk are exploiting another sentient being
Finally, I can sell my body to a cannibal after i die. This is legit what I want done with my dead body.
If they're all on the same page, how do you feel about excluding any single component of this group from private property? Is it ok for businesses to exclude the unvaccinated? How about the others? If not, is that infringing on the business owner's right to self?
I think a lot of people would say it's ok to do that to some and not others, which means these groups can't be on the same page.
This is to prevent the government from making laws, i believe people should be allowed to choose who they interact with and serve provided their business is not funded by any taxpayer funds (ie subsidies, grants, etc.
No no healthcare or schooling discrimination, sorry if u cant eat at jims ruff n tuff diner.
If I had no say in the creation of a system I should not have to participate in said system for the benefit of others.
This is the basis for every sovereign citizen (aka "sovcits"); isn't it? Doesn't sovereign citizenry really only make sense if a sovcit goes "all the way"? I ask this because sovcits seem to partake in society's services provided by the collective (like roads, traffic signals, police, firefighters, etc.) while complaining about state overreach when (1) they have to pay something like property tax or (2) when they have to deal with LE. I'm not saying you're wrong to have a sovcit mentality, but doesn't a sovcit have to stop using society's services and put up a real defense when LE gets involved? I'm not recommending you do either; I'm just saying while the system is flawed, at least, Western "democracies" have one. The alternative seems to be (1) leaving the country or (2) fighting anybody who threatens your sovereignty.
If it were legal, and mind you this is hilarious to me, I'd disappear into the woods and never return or put my coin into the suicide booth, but as I said it isn't legal. Land is somehow owned and never by the people that need it the most, and bodily autonomy isn't even ours.
I get what you're saying, but I pay my taxes and participate in this machine just like anyone else, but I don't like it. And the system isn't flawed. It works as it is meant to.
This country, US, doesn't want me and I have nothing to provide any other country so I'm stuck, and I'm certainly to weak and cowardly to fight anyone or anything over my bleak views.
I understand the frustration, but that third paragraph suggests you're not very happy with yourself? I ask because everybody knows a country is not a sentient being with feelings and opinions; a country is just a variety of individuals with differing opinions. Anyway, flowers can grow even in junkyards; can we not find peace and the means to enjoy and improve ourselves... in any country?
that sounds selfish and evil unless I got you wrong. can you give an example? like jeff bezos paying $0 in tax because he does not benefit from social security or medical care?
I mean modern society as a whole. The serfdom, the racism, the capitalism, the voting, the suffering etc. I didn't want any of this and I'm expected to participate and if I don't there's something wrong with me and not the systems. Your gut reaction proves it pretty well thinking that's selfish and evil.
I think peta is probably right to kill all those dogs. Better to be euthanized than to live in a kennel.
They're taking on extreme cases a lot of the time. Not always defendable, to be sure, but there is a reason the animals end up there. But "Kennels" vary greatly in their strategies and environment, generally.
There are shelters that are open access and take in all that show up. Which get criticism from the "no kill" shelter movement which do not. Violent and very sick animals exist among the large populace and not all want to deal with that fact and pawn off the hard decisions to others.
There are also shelters with extensive fostering programs that have a goal of changing the adoption environment entirely.
At the end of the day they all do good work in a tough, often unrecognized, field.
Well, I got it right here in the name.
Want to know something fun about US parents??
Patents don't really protect new inventions. They give people a right to sue for financial damages and there is no criminal force of law (this is a generalization and I am not a lawyer). So courts don't really go "hey, stop using invention ABC, someone else has a patent on it." They just say "hey, that other guy invented it first, give him some money."
Patents (not other forms of IP) are made to be wildly public so people can invent things on top of previous inventions.
Does it always work like that? No. But it's one facet of US federal law that I find interesting, and a little bit hopeful.
People accused of crimes deserve an equal process which includes an arrest, trial by jury, and punishment defined by law if convicted. Not mob justice or outsourced punishment.
I don't know if you've been paying attention but there is no equal process and never has been, there have always been different rules for the rich
How do we hold the rich accountable if no one else will?
You call it mob justice, I call it 'what happens when the voice of the people is ignored for decades'
Save the world, bury the billionaire class
None of that means there shouldn't be an equal process, just that there isn't one at present. I think you both are completely correct, the challenge is how do we reach a society that can hold someone accountable, no matter what their wealth level? Alternatively, how do we prevent someone from becoming so wealthy they suborn society?
Never in our lifetimes has there been a system where the wealthy are given equal treatment, and the only brief moments that they were are sparks in history that quickly were snuffed out wherever they arose
Stop carrying water for your oppressors, they aren't giving you a space at the table
build a society that values something other than money. On small scales it works great, artist communes, religious communities, homesteaders. They will all tell you that money isn't the most important thing.
Unfortunately that takes several decades of cultural shift for large scale change, and money will fight you every step of the way.
Wealth isn't the issue, it's the concentration and hoarding of it for power and control.
If I could thanos snap away all the sociopaths, it would solve itself in 15 years
It is the rule of law, you are talking about the rule of law. Try to advocate for it. Oftentimes spelling it out for rage-blinded vigilantes already helps toninig things down.
So many!
Veganism and more specifically the belief that all life is more important than any non-life threatening situation.
Death penalty is a terrible but needed solution for certain crimes. For example I don't think that it is fair for society to pay for a lifetime in prison for a mass murder. I think taking away basic human rights is something that should not happen lightly, but it is just at times.
Age of consent is kind of weird and should be more about an age gap. What I mean is that if the age of consent is say 15, then if a 14 yo and a 18 yo have sex it is illegal, while a 15 yo and a 40 yo is not. Both cases are problematic, but an 18 yo can be still childish and not fully understand the situation, still wrong but I wouldn't necessarily call it pedophilia (Depending on the exact details) But a 40 yo having sex with a 15 yo? That is pedophilia.
There should be a wealth limit. A point at which taxes just go to 100%. I think that a system can be made so that being rich and successful is still a thing, but that no one can reach "ridiculously rich" status.
All current LLMs and diffusion models are piracy, no two ways about it. If you stand with AI generated content you should stand with piracy (looking at you, corporate assholes)
Fun fact: it costs more to put someone to death than to keep them in prison for life. This comes from all the court and logistical costs. The death penalty is actually quite expensive.
Another fun fact: innocent people have been put to death, and there are still many innocent people on death row. Look into the Innocence Project to learn more.
These are important facts, but they are a symptom of a bad system, not of the concept itself.
There are so many wrong things in our judicial system.
But what I am saying is that under the right system I think it could work. But to be fair, people say that about communism so maybe I'm just naive.
I don’t see any system where fast-tracked, state-sanctioned murder can ever work.
Not fast tracked, efficient. A proper process, and as long as it takes to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, just a system where the proper process doesn't take a billion years and a billion dollars.
Honestly, ever since this execution, I've been against any death penalty. There have been way too many innocent people killed from the death penalty.
Not to mention the numerous issues and the moral quandry of legal murder as a state sanctioned form of punishment.
At the end of the day, what's the ultimate goal of murdering someone on death row? An example for deterrence? Apparently it's not effective any more than a life sentence and you don't have the risk of killing someone who was innocent.
I agree with some of your points, but I you should try rewriting your age gap paragraph. It's very hard to understand and in your 15/18 year old example I think you end up saying the opposite of what you intend.
Also pedophilia has a specific definition and is not interchangeable with underage. It's specifically for prepubescent attractions.
What would be the word for someone who is attracted to very young teens? Also, while it isn't as easy to define, emotional maturity is also a factor. Like I know that some 16 yo can look physically adult but are mentally still a child, and while it wouldn't be wrong for an adult to be physically attracted to them, it would be wrong to actually want to engage in anything sexual with them.
Hebephilia.
I would argue that every 16 year old is still mentally a child. It’s just not enough time to learn how to be an adult.
It's hard to say anything about mental maturity based on age IMO.
I have seen 16 yo who are smarter and more mature than some 20 yo. That's not to say that the 16 yo are mature adults, but rather that even 20+ yo can be immature and even 16 yo can be mature. But it's for sure less likely to be the case for a 16 yo.
Everything is fair in fiction. No matter how sensitive or dark a topic is, fictional settings are the *only* place where anything should be allowed.
This does not mean that attacking/defaming people is ok, just that "I don't like this" or "this is insensitive" should never be brought up against the existence of a work of fiction.
I'm not sure if "most" people would disagree with that, but there are too many that believe that fiction should be ruled by (subjective) morale and laws, while I believe it should be the place where anything goes.
I think there's a huge chasm between "I don't like this" and "This should not exist". The former is perfectly reasonable.
Exactly my point. It's a good thing that we can make stuff that some people dislike freely. The only other option is to never, ever, do anything, as you'll always find people that are against *anything*;
Should *any* critiques be levelled at fictional works, then? If a work has a character that's an insensitive racial stereotype, am I allowed to criticize the character, not for being an offensive stereotype, but for being one-dimensional and poorly written? If so, why, exactly?
You're allowed to criticize anything. The point is that some people are actively looking to forbid the existence of this or that on their personal whim.
The same way you're free to ignore a piece of work you don't care about, any author is free to ignore criticism of it. I'm just advocating not forbidding imaginary things, which is unfortunately a thing.
The problem I see is in popular works of fiction, the scenarios seem too specific. Racism, rape, torture, whatever... they all start to come off as weird sorts of validation, wish fulfillment, or cheap shock content. Instead of satisfying a role in the plot, it subtracts from the immersion because you're wondering if the author is into vore or whatever.
I think it's good to have an outlet for these sorts of things. I just think it's less about freedom of expression and more and audience reach, i.e., they didn't get dark because it limits the demographic.
There are people outright advocating that some topic (of their choosing) should not even *exist* in fiction form. I'm referring to these.
One is free to like or dislike any work of fiction, no matter how (subjectively) good or bad it is. One is also free to ignore it, as it will have exactly zero impact on you in that case. Once one starts to forbid the existence of something that have no bearing on them, on the principle of "they don't like it", that's a problem.
Kind of the opposite but I think monogamy is not tied to morality like our society makes it out to be and more often than not is a crutch for people with issues around extreme jealousy, interpersonal insecurities and possessiveness.
There are real consequences of sex though: pregnancy and communicable diseases. Some of these can be mitigated (e.g. modern contraceptives), but I think they are at least factors to consider in favor of monogamy.
That said, I believe that life-long monogamy (as would be prescribed by marriage) is fighting against human nature.
I think that what you're describing is not conducive to monogamy but rather secure and trusting relationships in general. I think many people tend to assume that quality exists within monogamous relationships whereas they assume non-monogamous relationships to be more frivolous.
Would you expect an unwanted pregnancy to be handled inherently better simply because the relationship of the parents is monogamous. I would think that's entirely up to the strength of the relationship and the maturity and means of the people involved, regardless of orientation.
Similarly with communicable diseases, I don't think non-monogamous people are any less capable of practicing safe sex with people that they trust. Of course, it would make intuitive sense that the more people you're exposed to the higher your chances are of contacting something but in reality there is no significant difference in the rates of contacting a disease between monogamous and non-monogamous people.
I don't think it's amoral. I personally want to share something special with someone else, and not share that with others.
I'm not saying monogamy is amoral, only that I argue with the general belief that it is the moral standard for intimate relationships.
I agree, just wondered what "more often than not" meant.
I think more often than not people default to monogamy because that is the only moral framework in which our society generally finds intimate relationships acceptable. As a result of monogamy's monopoly on intimate relationship structures, possessiveness and extreme jealousy in response to threats of non-monogamy are normalized and are almost considered a virtue depending on the context.
I get what you're saying. I don't know about the last part, ”normalized" is a spectrum unto itself. "Unsurprising", for sure. And I took your original statement to really mean there are people with unhealthy jealousy/possessive traits hiding within the framework of monogamy.
Carry on friend, just wanted to ask a few questions to make sure I understood what you were saying.
Two that may be controversial. 1st There is no such thing as a just war. Both sides will always justify war and believe they're on the right side of it. I can still look at the war and choose a side but I dont think im morally above someone who chooses the other side.
2nd, warcrimes and rules of war are always valid strategies and people will always brake the rules if they think it would help them win or not lose. I understand the reasons we have them and i support post war trials to punish those who commit them but I dont think I'm morally above people who commit war crimes since I'd do exactly the same thing if it helped me not lose a war.
3rd one: you have a moral duty to defend your country from invasion.
Deleted by author
If someone attacks you then you should fight back or make peace. Nothing wrong with defending yourself.
With me saying "just war" doesnt exist I'm trying to attack the justifications used for war. In history we see nations saying "we have to go to war because "all these things have happened that justify our moral right to war". Its not "the moral thing to do" there is another reason why you want you to go to war. Say that instead of hiding behind this moral reason that supposedly entitles you to go to war morally.
Like Ukraine defending itself against russia. Its (in my opinion) not enough to say they do so because they were attacked and so they are justified. They do it because they want to hold their territory and think with the support of the west they can retain it.
Deleted by author
Yes there is no such thing as a war that is just. This also applies to rules of war because one side will break them if they need to survive and I can't blame them for doing so.
The cost of war in my opinion is to high for us to be making a framework of when its OK to go war. Also its unfair since major powers abuse the framework to justify their war then turn around and label another war unjust. Its just not how war should be treated. If you want to go to war just do it. There are enough alliances and countries who look unfavourably on warmongers that I think just war is pointless.
My comment might be rambly became its 5am and I'm on my phone in bed.
3 seems to contradict 1 otherwise it wouldn't be a moral duty.
I disagree fundamentally on 3. If someone has no issues with their nation being invaded then that says that their are fundamental issues with the way that nation was being run.
As a hypothetical if the US attacks Canada and then starts pushing the US back past the original borders I will not help push back to where they used to be.
Also the whole war crimes thing to me seems crazy because most of them are because they are some of the worst possible ways to die. I can confidently say that if I knew that it would win a war I wouldn't use mustard gas.
I totally agree. Intellectual property is a capitalist myth created only for the purpose of beating other people away from progress.
Any civilized society would believe in the free commerce of ideas.
People should be jailed for violating a DNR order.
Have you seen them violated often?
A few times. It's usually a close family member forcing them to be revived.
I've rolled patients into my ambulance just to stop what some first responder started because of excessive pressure from a family member knowing the patients were on DNR orders. I hope I've been better to my family so that they trust my judgement on my own existence when the time comes.
I know the dead can't thank you, so I appreciate you for that. I hope whenever it's my time that I get someone like you that can understand and allow the right to die.
Where I'm at, family can supercede a DNR. The rate of OHCA survival is so low anyway that it usually doesn't make a difference. Emotions are so high and so raw, even when it's an expected death, that I don't blame anyone for anything done or said at that time. It's been rare that I've seen it done- the most common reason for not following a DNR is that no one can find it. Second most is it was filled out incorrectly or not the actual official document.
Religions that seek to dismantle secular democracies should be persecuted, otherwise we're just ending up with a different take on "tolerating the intolerant", and end up like the USA, Hungary, Poland, Russia, et cetera.
Religious freedom should stop at wanting to dismantle secular democracy, just like we don't allow murderous cults, we should also not allow anti-democratic ones.
I think it’s our moral imperative to correct people, namely friends and family, who blatantly regurgitate false information.
Mostly I am referring to US Conservative talking points (or propaganda).
Many people don’t want to start arguments with people they know and prefer to keep the peace or avoid hot topics, but I think letting those kind of falsehoods go unchallenged and letting people only hear assenting opinions is a small part of what got the US into this situation.
To be clear I am not talking about correcting people on every little thing because that would make for an incredibly insufferable person to be around, but intentionally misleading or false information presented as truths.
I was going to say "Copyright is theft" but I see that's basically OPs take, so I'll settle for 'same'.
I don't care about putting shopping carts in the coral, they deserve to be free range
This is a moral failing.
Buy local goods, even is it cost more... most people will go for cheapest price, even if you're handing your money to warlords and human trafficking.. same argument every time "There will always be
It
Antinatalism: the belief that the creation of sentient life is morally wrong
I agree with the addendum, "... Given the current outlook on the world / our society / what that sentient being would be forced to endure."
I believe there is a possible, though highly improbable future (or, more likely alien world) that exists where it is moral to create sentience because there is significantly less suffering. Where sentient beings care for the well-being of each other.
A free society means other people are entitled to make a living even if I don't like the way they think. I won't "vote with my wallet" because that's like saying a lynch mob is "voting with rope".
What? You won't "vote with your wallet" meaning you freely give your money to companies that do evil?
I buy what I need and don't subscribe to, "Think like me or I'll hurt you!". Companies don't do evil, individuals who work for them do. Boycotting a company might give you a nice warm glow of social justice, but it actually hurts lowest-level employees way more than CEOs. But why think about that when you can just downvote this comment as heresy, right?
That's a terrible take (no offense).
Continuing to buy Nestlé products as an example, just reinforces their use of slaves. Whoever it hurts not buying their products doesn't even cross my mind because I don't want to continue lining the pockets of slave owners with my money.
p.s. idk if nestle use slaves, just used them as an example i think they might tho
"I think they might tho" is a perfect example of meme-driven morality. Most people never actually check (I mean,. you didn't). Nestle is the usual Hitler example (probably valid tho) that people use to justify the whole mentality of boycotts. But most of the time it's more like they heard a CEO donated to Trump - for example my in-laws refused to shopt at Home Depot for that exact reason. Turned out their info was out of date - the guy they were thinking of hadn't been involved in the company in like 10 years. Kind of reminiscent of the bogus 10-year-old WMD intel the Dubya administration used to justify invading Iraq. But who has time to look that shit up when we got scrollin' to do! And as I said, boycotts hurt employees more than CEOs. If a company is actually hurting they relieve their pain by laying people off. IMO it's a lazy way for people to pretend they're fighting for justice when they really aren't. "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out" morality.
I just used Nestlé and slaves as an example. Feel free to change the company name and reason to anything else. My point is just that any company doing anything bad enough should stop you from supporting them.
Most people don't care enough about doing this (me included at times), which is sort of how (one reason) we've ended up with these massive companies that can do whatever they want. It sucks to say but if Nestlé went out of business and 10k people lost their jobs, it's probably a net good for the planet when the next good company takes lead (good as in pays and treats employees fairly, etc). This outcome sounds better than letting them run free as we do now.
In reality if we were able to hurt a companies bottom line enough, like Nestlé, jobs might not be lost, because they may actually change and become better to the point where we can buy their shiz again.
My point is that "companies" don't do bad things, executive decisionmakers do, and boycotts have little if any effect on those individuals. If anything they hurt the lowest-ranking people in the company who have absolutely no say in business decisions. It's like beating up kids because you heard their parents were assholes. What works is laws that regulate business practices so the bad decisions can't be made. Mob tactics do nothing but give people a false sense of accomplishment.
If I stop buying from Nestlé then the slaves wouldn't have a job any more. Duh.
Just kidding, fuck Nestlé. I've been boycotting for a couple of years although I do miss some of their cereals..
Well I didn't downvote you, but anyway, keep being the problem then bucko
Im downvoting you because you compared the literal murders of people to not spending 5$ on a chocolate bar. If you actually equate the two then your morals are so shallow as to not even be worth considering.
Books and media that are similar to "Subtle art of not giving a Fuck" is harmful to society, and supports apathetic beliefs. They are conservative views because they support separation of society instead coming together, and working out differences. The result can be seen in how people voted or not voted in elections. Every time I see a comment like "I'm tired" or "who cares" on social media in response to news, is screaming apathy, like they don't even want to think about being good. Genocide happens all the time because there is lack of care for the those people. Homeless people do not get the help they need because people would rather treat them like trash. Trash, actual rubbish, is an afterthought for most people, not caring how their trash is being handled. America has a huge trash problem, where many throw theirs on the ground. Glass is highly more recyclable than plastic, yet I see more and more plastic every where, thanks oil industry. The recycling refund system in america hasn't increased, for inflation, since its implementation decades ago. The list is endless. Apathy is every where, I see it all the time determining peoples actions and voices. First step to combat it is to be mindful of an issue and think of how it could be important to someone else, which can be hard to do, to put yourself in the shoes of someone else.
Lots of people are stressed and emotionally exhausted. Many can't afford to care about everything that are probably a a good idea to care about because they're emotionally overloaded, sick of being disappointed and/or fed up with putting effort or investing emotional energy into things day after day to see no difference whatsoever in the big picture.
I'm not saying they're right but maybe put yourself in their shoes as well.
Existing on its own is very stressful to many people under difficult circumstances.
Supporting just causes is good but maybe don't expect everyone to be able to emotionally afford to invest time and energy in all things that matter.
Thats one of the worst books I have read.
I wish there was a third option to knock down things that aren't actually controversial. In threads like this an upvote and a downvote are both an upvote.
Upvote to agree Downvote to disagree Sort by controversial
Understanding disability thought and theory is one of the foundations of marginalization justice but one of the most invisible such that, once you understand certain tenants, it's impossible not to see the impact of their ideas in everything in daily life.
Abolition of the family's necessary
If you want humanity to go eusocial, it's most definitely necessary.
Unsure what you mean . Didn't say anything about (reproduction|eusociality)
You saying family abolition's necessary for eusociality ? Or you're sayin family's necessary for eusociality ?
The first! I was thinking it would likely lead to an evolutionary period of transition from a pack to a hive biological paradigm, regardless of centralized reproduction taking place or not.
The way we see intelligent multicellular organisms collaborating in large numbers we can see a lot of in nature, but few of those cases are in states of balance as stable and effective as eusociality.
Was referring to family as in the (construct|institution) , never though much the evolutionary implications
Yeah, that's what I figured! I just like extrapolating and thinking of the further downs.
At this point I honestly believe human eusociality is inevitable on the long run, even with several near-extinction events.
For what?
https://www.tumblr.com/tagged/family%20abolition
Ok, so there's a tumblr hashtag, but again. For what?
(Complete autonomy|freedom of association) for everyone but especially children
Again, why? For what purpose?
Sophie, is that you?
Zoos suck. Put those animals back where they belong. Or eat them.
Zoos are good if they serve as sanctuaries for animals. Otherwise I agree with you.
Zoos in The Netherlands are pretty great, with lots of room and props/shelter for the animals, but have you been to Japan? Man they're atrocious, it makes me sad. Just concrete boxes with a window and maybe a branch for them to sit on
Never been to Japan, but I came from San Diego, which has, apparently, one of the best zoos in the world. And while they do take good care of the animals (I guess…) it’s a drag to see a fkn polar bear in San Diego.
The state must be abolished. In fact, all forms of hierarchy must be abolished.
Yeah, it would be great to have to arm myself just to drive down the street because the dude at the corner decided to implement a toll to drive in front of his house. Lawlessness! The only law of the land under anarchy is might. The concept of "right" goes out the window.
I used to say that when I was younger. But power vacuums fill up fast with brutal assholes. It took us centuries come up with ideas to balance power and obviously we're not done yet. But abolishing hierarchies will lead to utter chaos. There is no species without it.
States are a mistake though, I agree with that. :)
I don't believe in capitalism. I don't think we should strive for endless economic growth. Sustainability and shared benefits and burdens are the way to go.
IP? Do you mean imaginary property? If so, I agree. I think that ideas and culture should be shared. I understand the stated goal (protect individual inventors from being exploited by huge corporations) but that's not how it's played out. It's used as a tool of control by powerful companies to stifle innovation. Ask any 3d printer hobbyist if they like stratysus. (I effing hate them) there should be some mechanism to protect inventors but this isn't it.
The weaker part of a conflict is not always in the right just because it's weaker than the other part and got beaten up.
Full on empathy for all things. Sometimes it even bleeds into inanimate objects.
Empathy for private property is pretty common
I've once caught myself empathising with a bottle cap all alone on the ground. Discarded separately from the bottle it came from to never be together again. So it's not just about my property.
To me empathy is a social connection where feeling aren't just being heard, but understood. I'm finding it difficult to understand how that could apply to an object, so what's your definition of empathy?
As a rapper, I totally agree. I'll go with: decentralized community defense would be far more effective than the police. And, you know. Wouldn't be them.
The idea has been floated before that we should rotate random citizens (ok, maybe not 80 year olds) through police service, sort of like ancient Athenian democracy.
This would preserve the idea of community policing. Maybe this would be safer than mob justice but more professional than the out of control police we have now.
That's a decent idea. But, here's another one: there's no objective morality, obviously, but we do have a thing we can point to. Community collaboration, and the instincts we've developed as primates. We don't need to be involved in international trade deals. We need to check on our neighbor when a grocery delivery is rotting in front of their door, or show up strapped when some loud motherfucker causes is causing issues. I propose that any semblance of objective morality lies in our genes and us being social primates. This whole civility thing is nothing but gaslighting authoritarianism.
I worry that more decentralization in us law enforcement would be even worse. It's far too easy for violent cops to shuffle from agency to agency with a paid vacation between bouts of oppression.\
We don't even have standards for major things like rules of engagement with deadly force aligned nationwide. Further decentralization sounds a bit terrifying.
I'm thinking, more like, you and your neighbors arm yourselves and be in each other's business.
like a militia? or a lynch mob?
Yup. I envision those existing. For example, In the area I come from, the "Bikers Against Child Abuse" exist. Maybe there's a Bikers Against Bikers Against Child Abuse? It's not pretty across the board, and if you peel back a single layer of the world right now, neither is it.
yeah I really don't want a future of dueling militias. hard pass.
*Broadly gestures at the world*
I'm going to add to this. Any homogenous system you suggest rejects the subjective nature of morality, and needs to be enforced through force. Unevolving, nonreactive, subject to rule by the majority. Consistently, we see that civilians favor policies most of us would agree with, but money interests prevail. I'm the Soviet Union, beaurocratic interests prevailed. That's just what you get with centralized power, and humans needing to fulfill a role to provide for their families. Try to rally your neighbors in your immigrant community that black people shouldn't be allowed in. Then, try to rally them around lowering rent. Finally, try to convince a piggie (the long arm of billionaires) to literally negotiate a single thing, or show up in a timely manner, or not forge documents.
Against IP as in if I spend my life creating something you'd be ok with a big company just stealing it and steam rolling me?
Personally, I’d be against *corporate owned* IP. Leave the IP with the individual artists and writers, who are historically shit on by the large companies. Force the massive companies to actually keep the artists and writers around (and pay them well!) if they want to continue using an IP.
Yes! Now this I can get behind. Companies aren't people!
No, but if we lived in a fantastical star trek society where everyone had the resources they needed to do the things they wanted to do... Yes.
The flip side being the rest of society providing support for you to pursue your lifes work. If it's just you struggling along on your own then you should be able to make sure you're getting paid.
I agree and hope for this. A world were people create to express and not to survive.
Yes, but without IP you can take anything the big company makes for anything you want to do with it.
And they can look at any small business, be it product, art, any book anyone writes, and they can flood the market, crushing you and profiting of the thing you made. Can people not see how this goes both ways and how this would destroy any desire for creation, knowing rich people will just take it and stomp you out immediately?
Imagine you write the next Harry Potter book or some shit, you're catching on and getting popular and now it's gone. A different company is printing your book and you don't get any money. They're making movies off your book and you get nothing. You go to stores and see merch from your book that you wrote that you'll never see a dime of. This is the world you want? Where the rich can easily just take anything with no defense from the creator?
Without IP the company would also get approximately 0 money for selling movies or books. This hypothetical doesn't make sense.
What? They still sell things like merchandise and make money from it. You can make money selling Mickey Mouse hats if you don't own the IP. I feel like you don't understand the situation being presented.
You write a book. I make a copy and sell that exact book because I doesn't exist. I just made money off your book. It's that easy.
Yeah but you can't really profit off of that because *anybody* can print the book. And if there's no IP, I can just download the book and print it myself. Or read it as a PDF. Or download the IP-free audiobook and listen to that. Even for printed books, competition drives the price to the production costs so very little profit is being made there.
Otherwise big companies would be making big money off of shakespeare and the bible. But that's not how they make their money, they make their money with IP monopolies instead.
You're missing how commerce works. A big company can flood the market. They can use better materials and ship faster due to being entrenched.
Like, hey, you could make an iPhone but will you? You can make a movie too, but will it be as good, you can make merch, but will it be as well designed and distributed?
Even in your example, where anyone can make a copy of the book, what about the author? They could pour years and their heart and soul into a book just to make no money, is that ok?
Big companies make money of Shakespeare and the Bible all the time. I don't know why you would think they don't, they very much do.
You're also mixing monopolies with IP. You can have a monopoly with or without IP.
How can you steal something that you can't own?
Say you write a book.
A big company can take that book, print it and sell it without you seeing a dime. Then they can sell merch and make movies off your book without you seeing a dime.
It's pretty obvious, but people think IP only protects companies for some reason
IP only protects those who have the means to defend their IP in court, which is rich people and companies.
Sure. I don't think that is theft.
As a consumer, you can download the book, listen to a free audiobook, or print it yourself if you want to. The company only gets money if they somehow make better physical version than what others have access to.
To me this is not at all akin to ownership or theft.
False. This shows a lack of knowledge around the topic. Off the top of my head I know a specific case where a small grocery store defended it's IP from Apple. In your world that wouldn't work. I mean how did JK Rowling go from a poor person with a story to a rich author. She had no money to defend her IP.
This take is just wrong. Factually.
So if you create a book or song or art piece, you shouldn't be entitled to the money that those make? They should just all be free? I mean sure, but then people will stop doing it, because of it doesn't make money people need to work to pay bills, they can't create.
The first example was a company, and the second example I assume was done under a book deal, so a company.
Good night
this is always how people respond to anti-IP sentiment. i’m actually glad OP was specific enough to not just say copyright and expand his condemnation to IP generally. i agree with the OP that IP is such a brazen violation of nature as to be sinful, and im not really religious.
in what world does your strawman argument here exist? bc it certainly isn’t this one. don’t believe their noble lies that IP and copyright legislation is somehow good for artists. *people now, with copyright, are literally “steamrolled” just the same way you suggest in your hypothetical.* all those people making fan art and media through no small commitment of their time are forced into a black market because it is *literally illegal to draw and sell mickey mouse*. but i suppose that isn’t “real” art and doesn’t “deserve” to be protected by the law the same way? dude get your head out of your ass. do you not see how illogical the entire premise is? this is an assault on you and your peers. it’s quite literally fascist at best. and no this isn’t some woke fucking rambling. this is a real tool of oppression used against us that is so well-honed people like yourself *beg* for the boot.
It doesn't exist? I can write a book and someone can steal it. I can develop a product, shark tank style, and just have a big company steal it.
The fact that you think someone should be able to write a book or make art and not own it is crazy to me. That's just letting rich people own everything because the have enough money to stomp you out.
no. my point is that the world we live in now is the one you are describing. if rich people are the only ones able to afford litigation to support their copyright, then it *might as well only exist for them*. they *do* own everything, with the way things currently work.
the solution is, yes, crazily enough not attaching an arbitrary monetary value to information that is fundamentally free to produce and distribute.
you’re brainwashed, man.
I'm brain washed? Lol, ok, since you want to make this about the people in the argument and not the topic itself fine, but it's still worth pointing out how you're wrong.
You came across as an I'm 13, and this is a deep post. I get it. You hate rich people; we all do, but you clearly have no idea how IP laws work, thinking it's just the guy with the most money running around stealing stuff lol. You have some fantasy in your head where if we open everything up it'll be all better. Ignoring the reality of how laws and lobbying worry, ignoring how patents work, ignoring how you don't need millions to fight an IP case. I mean how did every famous author make money? They owned their own works. You are sorely misinformed about a topic you have more feelings about than facts.
This is %100 not the case. Small mom and pop grocery stores have won cases against Apple. You're just making stuff up, and I'm brainwashed? lol
No. Fully no. There are tons of authors, artists, and inventors who have made money off their inventions. You live in some other reality where no one owns anything right now. What you're saying is they shouldn't have the sole rights to what they create, you want it to be even EASIER for the rich to take. Because right now, despite what your angsty self might think, that's not how it's happening. And what do we get? Oh, I can make my own iPhone now, wow, yah, I'll get right on that.
You are fighting FOR the rich at this point.
You need to take a breath, educate yourself, and speak on the topic once you know it better instead of ranting about how you feel and think it should be, all from a place of ignorance.
Maybe the problem is the existence of big companies then. IP didn't exist as an idea until the 19th century, and humanity made plenty of progress between that and hunting-gathering.
It existed as more than an idea in the late 1800s, because it is referenced in the US Constitution in 1787.
It looks like the concept was established earlier:
Intellectual Property
IP are things you create, art, books, stories. A person should own the book they write...
As an artist, designer (lil software engineer). I agree. Most of the advanced technical know how are out of public knowledge reach. There's no way to find that information online, even considering pay walls.
I agree with your attitude about IP. For tens of thousands of years humans freely imitated every good idea they saw, in a process known as "the spread of civilization". But then somebody figured out how to make shitloads of money by producing copies of other people's work and paying them a pittance, aka "royalty", and suddenly copying and imitation became immoral.
Maybe look at the time since when inventions grew exponentially and you'll see that it correlates with IP protection.
Every protected IP right may be an incentive for someone to circumvent it thereby generating new ideas/inventions.
There is no black and white. Some exploit the IP rights but this should be a reason for politics to amend the law so that the exploit is no longer possible. Hate the player, not the game.
Invention and cultural development had been growing exponentially for centuries before IP laws - it was called The Renaissance. The creation of IP laws to enrich publishers didn't start that. Pretending it did is a common false talking point.
Funny enough the first documented IP right occurred 1474 in Venice, the beginning of the Renaissance.
However, it can be discussed whether there really was an exponential increase in inventions during that time.
Also, I did not say that IP rights started the development but that it correlates. Causation and correlation should not be mixed up. Whether IP rights caused the exponential growth or the exponential growth made it necessary to protect the ideas I don't know.
This is a bit meta, but I believe morality is objective. Actions have objective moral worth; epistemological disagreements about how we know the moral value of an action are irrelevant to the objectivity of goodness/badness itself.
Except that the objective morality of things is completely meaningless if we have no way of knowing it, so it is at least relevant.
I wouldn't say we have *no* way of knowing, just that we disagree (often on edge cases). But people way smarter than me spend their lives thinking about these things and form convincing arguments is support of definitive answers.
To draw a parallel, *most* of human history we observed the world and reached conclusions. Mostly we were wrong but sometimes we came pretty close. Then we discovered the scientific method, which allows us to move closer to the truth over time. (Note, though, that the epistemological worry reappears, albeit in lesser form, as the scientific method must always be amendable to new empirical evidence that contradicts highly confirmed theories.) My hope is that philosophy will discover a science of normative facts, giving us an agreed upon method for determining moral and aesthetic value.
Don't just tease me like this, what's the objective standard? And like I'm totally following along, but i still want to know what the disagreements are.
I just like ethics and want to hear what you think.
Personally I go for deontological ethics. Actions are right or wrong in themselves, regardless of their consequences. So if it's immoral to lie, then it is even wrong to lie for good reasons. This contrasts with consequentialist ethics (i.e., the consequences of the action determine its moral worth) and virtue ethics (i.e., good actions are what the morally virtuous agent would do).
Kant's deontological procedure for determining the moral worth of an action is what he calls the Categorical Imperative. The procedure can roughly be summarized as follows: ask yourself if I willed that everyone did the action I'm considering whether it would be logically consistent. To return to the previous example, if everybody lied all the time, then lies would lose their effectiveness. Hence, lying must be morally bad, because it is self-contradictory. *Mutatis mutandis* for murder, stealing, etc.
The classic argument against Kantian deontology is "if the nazis come searching for the jews at your house, is it still wrong to lie?"
And if we use your procedure: "if everyone always lies, then the nazis will know who is hiding jews," the lies won't be effective, and therefore the action is self-contradictory. Thus it is wrong to lie about harboring jews from the nazis.
But if we reword it to "if everyone always denies hiding jews, the nazis will not know who is or is not hiding jews," thus it is not self-contradictory, therefore it isn't wrong to lie about harboring jews.
Yes, there are problems with the categorical imperative. Another problem: what if two moral duties are in conflict? A third: can't we phrase the same action under different descriptions in a way that yields different results?
There are objections to every moral theory because this is philosophy and we rarely reach a consensus on topics this large. These problems are indicators of epistemological grey areas. They do not, in my opinion, entail moral nihilism.
Can you talk me through the experiment setup to measure or observe that morality? I'd like to confirm it.
Reposting my response from above:
Personally I go for deontological ethics. Actions are right or wrong in themselves, regardless of their consequences. So if it’s immoral to lie, then it is even wrong to lie for good reasons. This contrasts with consequentialist ethics (i.e., the consequences of the action determine its moral worth) and virtue ethics (i.e., good actions are what the morally virtuous agent would do).
Kant’s deontological procedure for determining the moral worth of an action is what he calls the Categorical Imperative. The procedure can roughly be summarized as follows: ask yourself if I willed that everyone did the action I’m considering whether it would be logically consistent. To return to the previous example, if everybody lied all the time, then lies would lose their effectiveness. Hence, lying must be morally bad, because it is self-contradictory. *Mutatis mutandis* for murder, stealing, etc.
How does effectiveness of lying have anything to do with the morality of lying?
If I am ineffective at providing for my family (disability/sicknese/other means for which I cannot control), is that immoral?
I'm leaving some philosophical details out for the sake of space. Kant thought that the moral law is a duty that is imposed upon the self by reason. But we cannot place a duty on ourselves that is logically inconsistent. Since the moral law should be the same for everyone, if everyone doing something leads to a logical contradiction, then that must not be an action prescribable to ourselves by reason.
The notion that we (morally) ought to do something implies that we could do it; conversely, if we could not do the action, then this implies that we are not morally obligated to do it.
So how do you evidence that this value is objective?
I'm not sure I understand your question
I agree that some things can be objectively immoral, but I think there's a lot of grey/subjective areas too.\
Is it objectively immoral to not spend 100% of your free time helping others?\
What about choosing to have kids instead of adopting?\
Turning someone's life support machine off after they've been declared braindead?\
Killing a serial killer in an act of self defense?
I can see your perspective, but I would argue that these are epistemological grey areas, not moral ones. Again, just because we don't know whether something is true/false or good/bad doesn't change the objective value of the fact.
Of course, for non-normative facts about the world, we have the scientific method to help us to move toward the truth. (Note here that the epistemological problem reappears, albeit in a lesser form, as we cannot be sure whether science has reached the truth; the scientific method is always open to new and contradictory empirical evidence.) Recall, however, that most of human history lies before science. Left to our own observations, we believed in such theories as geocentrism and the four humors. Hopefully ethics and aesthetics will reach a science for determining the objective value of normative facts.
The way I see things, there is nothing objective about morality because it is based on cultural principles, and these vary from place to place and through time as well.
This position is called Cultural Relativism and it has a number of damning consequences:
I don't know the term you mentioned so I'll be talking about the points you made, not the term itself.
So, I don't need morality to condemn the human suffering that slavery, female genital mutilation, or genocide creates. I don't need a moral lens for this, just a practical one -- out of solidarity, for freedom, equity, equality etc, for everyone on this planet. This is why it's easy for me to justify any fight for social justice. These fights are by default systemic so against the status quo. I hope it is clear why I don't need an objective moral truth.
I would like to ask you, when you say morality is objective who defines it and what is it?\
So your suggestion is that we can keep our moral judgments out of practical considerations without espousing the objective truth of moral facts? This would lead one to act *as though* they believed in objective moral truths. Which is fine! It would be like thinking numbers don't exist (perhaps because you don't believe non-physical/abstract entities exist) but acting *as though* numbers exist because it is useful to do so. I don't hold that view, but I can see your perspective.
The question of who defines morality is potentially a category error. We don't ask who defines descriptive facts about the world. The Earth is round, that is a fact, and its truth does not depend on anyone's opinion. It is our job to develop ways to figure out whether it is true. Similarly, there are normative facts about morality and aesthetics. Some things are morally or aesthetically good, and it is our job to determine whether it is good.
Admittedly, we have had more success with descriptive facts than with normative facts.
I was not satisfied by my previous answer, so I thought of deleting it and giving it another try.
Not at all. I would be extremely hesitant to suggest something on this topic, for all people. In a way, this is the reason why I talked about how I see things on a personal level, specifically.
About the category error, once more I don't know the terms you use, so I will answer from what I understand by the way you describe them.
My question was related to a notion (objective morality), and not a physical object (i.e. a rock). Notions exist - to my understanding - because we use language, so we should be able to define them. An object like a rock, is there even if language is not used. So I don't see where the category error could be.
Finally, I will rephrase my 2-part question for clarity, because only half of it got kind of answered:
Since you claim that morality is objective I would assume that you would be capable of tracing where this objectivity comes from, how it emerged, and how it stays that way. I'm not too sure how to phrase this as a question, but it's something along those lines.
Also, if it were objective for all people, I imagine we would all know its content. But, for example, the terms morally good & morally bad even tho they are commonly used in modern languages, they often have different content. So, it seems clear to me that the terms morally good and bad are not objective. So which morality is objective? Please, describe the content of this notion you claim to be objective.
I'm having a hard time understanding your view. Do you think that morality is relative to each person's view point or do you think that moral facts do not exist at all?
To recapitulate: If you condemn an action or practice, slavery for example, then this is typically understood as a moral judgment. You have judged that the practice of slavery is bad rather than good. But you said you do not believe in objective facts about morality. So, in order to understand your view, I took you to be substituting moral reasons for practical reasons. So instead of saying slavery is bad for moral reasons, you're saying that it has consequences that are undesirable. Hence, I argued above that this is to act *as though* morality is objective even though you do not think it is. The analogy with numbers was meant to illustrate the salience of such a view, but it seems this is not your position.
Now on to my view. For someone who thinks that facts about the moral goodness/badness of actions are as objective as facts about the physical world the question "who decides the facts?" is erroneous. "The Earth is a sphere ." = true. "One person murdering another." = morally bad. Even if everyone gets together to decide that the Earth is flat, this would not change the descriptive fact about the world. Even if everyone gets together to decide that murder is okay, this would not change the normative fact about the world.
I have my own philosophical views about why morality is objective and how we can make moral judgments. I wrote this in other comments, so I will paste them here:
"Personally I go for Kantian deontological ethics. Actions are right or wrong in themselves, regardless of their consequences. So if it’s immoral to lie, then it is even wrong to lie for good reasons. This contrasts with consequentialist ethics (i.e., the consequences of the action determine its moral worth) and virtue ethics (i.e., good actions are what the morally virtuous agent would do)."
"Immanuel Kant’s deontological procedure for determining the moral worth of an action is what he calls the Categorical Imperative. The procedure can roughly be summarized as follows: ask yourself if I willed that everyone did the action I’m considering whether it would be logically consistent. To return to the previous example, if everybody lied all the time, then lies would lose their effectiveness. Hence, lying must be morally bad, because it is self-contradictory. *Mutatis mutandis*, for murder, stealing, etc."
"Why should we think that morality comes from our own reason? In a nutshell, if morality were dictated to rational agents through an external source, we could not be sure of its objectivity (i.e., universal and necessary validity). Moreover, the notion of an external source that dictates morality conflicts with our being free moral agents. Hence we must legislate ourselves through our own faculty of reason such that the moral law holds objectively for rational agents such as us. From this the Categorical Imperative, a procedure for determining moral worth through logical consistency, is supposed to follow."
Not necessarily. I personally think that we can know right and wrong, but our epistemological access to moral facts is not required in order to think that the moral facts are objective. Again, consider the analogy with objective facts about the physical world. The Higgs Boson is an elementary particle that we did not know about for most of human history. It is only recently, in conjunction with discovering the scientific method, that we have gained access to facts about the Higgs Boson. The point is, objective facts about the world are not dependent on our ability to know them. The same is true about normative facts. Morality can exist objectively without our yet having a method to determine what the moral facts are.
So you kinda agree that even if morals objectively exists that we can't measure them with reasonable precision?
We'd have to have a strong grasp on the hard problem of consciousness. So there is no good reason to espouse objective morality in this day in age.
I agree.
I understand the purpose, though. It takes time and effort to develop ideas. Odin forgive me for sounding like I'm defending the pharmaceutical industry, but it can cost hundreds of millions of dollars in salaries, materials, and everything else to develop a product. Without IP, someone else will just take the result of your R&D and go straight to development and selling; you make the investment, they profit. So, what's the alternative? How do you get people to dump vast amounts of money in research without giving them some mechanism for recuperating their costs? Or will everyone just suit around waiting for someone else to do the research, so they can snatch up the results and start selling product?
Personally, I think R&D should be done by public institutions and funded by the public, and then be IP-free. I'm not certain that it would be a complete solution that replaces the system we currently have, though.
Well I'd be glad to try your idea, it doesn't sound worse then what we have currently and the current state sucks old car tires.
We should gather up all of the people that pushed the Palestinian genocide (including those that censored or shamed others for speaking up about it) and turn them into a gory pile of steaming meat using the weapons that they used on innocent Palestinians.
Nazis are bad, even if they are Ukrainian, and highly self motivated in conscripting others to diminish Russia. The morality of diminishing others apparently has a Russian exception.
You seem to believe there are Nazis in Ukraine, why?
Nazis have ruled Ukraine since 2014 US sponsored coup that installed them in power. Their hatred for Soviet Union and Russia dates back centuries of competing, though same biblical interpretation and hats, Orthodox Churches, but they romanticize specifically their WW 2 SS divisions and Jewish extermination camps as national heroes, since the 2014 coup.
War and murder and suicide, has a pro Ukrainian and anti Russia, exemption in morality here.
Mwpaahahaha, ok.
There are Nazi's everywhere. We had a nazi (self-proclaimed national socialist) public gathering just the other day in the Netherlands. You see to believe there are no Nazi's in Ukraine, why?
I'm sure there are *some* Nazis in Ukraine, just like there are some in Russia, some in Germany. I would expect there are even some in Israel.
But, OP was talking as if Ukraine is uniquely Nazi. And, later on he/she claimed that "Nazis have ruled Ukraine since 2014 US sponsored coup that installed them in power", despite the fact that Zelenskyy is jewish.
Claiming that being Jewish and supporting nazi sentiment are mutually exclusive is (hopefully) you being uneducated. I would suggest you read up on nazi, Jewish en zionist collaboration before, during and after ww1 and 2. Try reading up on the Warsaw Ghettos.
Following the Rule of law seems to be my super-power
Ooof now that is controversial
How ?
Any kind of forced or mandated treatment for drug/alcohol users by law is wrong and punishing people for refusing treatment is also wrong.
Based on opinion around here? Freedom of expression is *good* & doesn't need compromises beyond the harm principle.
Morels are hard to find.
and false morels will seem fine at the time and then randomly kill you years later.
That's easy, just cut your morel open and check if it's hollow. Supposedly, I wouldn't know...
hunting an fishing when a man needs to feed their family is is fine no matter where you are. A person has a right to survive and eat without being molested by the police and greedy judges.. A person with no money is still a person.
...and at no other time.
People who believe that people with nonphycoactive thc metabolites in their system are less valuable than people that don't are worthless pieces of human trash themselves. I'm not sorry, I just want to be allowed to be happy.
Preach brother
Agree with you on IP and I agree it seems to be sadly a minority opinion.
Many people have very strong opinions about ip while they themselves never benefit from it. If anything they are losing out on better technologies. Many things are patented to prevent someone from beating the status quo. These patent holders often just sit on the patent and don't do anything with it because they are profiting of the established way.
I agree with OP's controversial opinion
You can take a penny, but you don't have to leave a penny.
I believe that intelligence is stupidity in the opposite direction, but not in the way that most think.
Edit: Let me clarify that anything in the extreme is fallacy. Intelligence becomes isolation, wisdom becomes condescension, stupidity becomes ignorance.
Yet most seem to think excess amounts of wisdom and intelligence is tantamount to success and even being just a little bit stupid is something to ridicule. I will die on this hill.
Being stupid is not something to ridicule, but it shouldn't be something to admire either.
The way you describe intelligence and wisdom are not true examples of the concepts. Truly intelligent people understand the value of social integration, and truly wise people don't condescend.
Too much of anything is bad, but when it comes to these things, there's only 'too much' in relation to your peers. If there's a too large discrepancy, a new tribe is what you need.
I partially agree. Intelligence tends to also go hand in hand with anxiety a lot of the time. A lot of true geniuses don't even know what social integration is. There are a lot of extremely intelligent people that shy from society as a whole.
It might be just the groups I've been in, but I've seen a lot of escapism in the intelligent individuals I've met, and people are all too happy to just ignore their existence and flock to the few shining stars. I can't quite really put words to this, so I may not be really articulating what I mean properly. Sorry about that. I'm honestly just concerned for the good people that get squashed by society. That just don't fit in. Most of those individuals tend to be highly intelligent, however, ridiculing people who aren't as intelligent is the same deal.
I guess I mean to say that my people are the hiding people. The people who have something to say or to contribute, but this fast paced world is just too much for them.
Hi! I'm your people. I have few but very good friends. I'm currently working on reintegrating a bit more because the world can use every pair of hands right now. Doesn't feel right to stay on the sidelines for too long.
I'm in the same spot, tbh. I want to do something, but I just can't figure out what yet. I'm not giving up though. We can definitely do this.
Good luck to us both then! :)
I will never be needlessly cruel or violent to a vulnerable individual. Most people do it at least three times a day.
How do I sort by Controversial in Summit? All I see is Hot, Top, New, and Old.
Hi I'm a New Old Hot Top, you summoned?
The sanctity of life. All life is sacred and must be treated as such. Even non-human animals, even plants. We should be working for a world where all living beings have their right to life respected and preserved.
Deleted by author
Good point. DM me your address, and I'll respect your life by using all the parts of your body after I thank you for your sacrifice
So there is no difference here between human and non-human animals. In your post you included planta, seemingly on the same level. So... What do you eat to stay alive?
Doctor: I can't treat your fungal infection. BTW, your immune system is under arrest for murder.
as a woodsman , I agree. nothing should ever be harmed simply to impress a punishment. physical punishment is the lowest form of communication, and hunting for sport is nothing more than punishing a creature for existing.
Free speech shouldn't be a thing and the countries that go furthest with this "right" are dying because of it (looking at you, USA). Before anyone says "what about when it's your opponents controlling the speech?": they already do where I live and with my beliefs, and I still think it's within the rights of the government to control speech
L take
my take was so provocative. I just deleted my comment after typing it all. look at the comments and replies in this thread it's not worth it lol
Let me guess - pineapple on pizza?
No to pineapple but tomato sauce is okay? Why is one fruit okay?
He's a monster!
You caused a bunch of good discussion, you can be wrong, but it's not bad to be wrong and learn from it.
rights are not real, and convincing people they have them actually allows their sovereignty to be infringed.
Wouldn't they have no sovereignty to infringe if rights are not real?
I can be sovereign without rights
Remember to sort by controversial!
So how would anyone benefit from their creativity? I certainly wouldn't invent anything if I knew some big company could just steal it.
Exactly, that's why Leonardo da Vinci was willing to paint the Sistine Chapel. He knew he'd be protected by IP...
First it wouldn't be stealing then and second ou could use their former IP as well. And just because There's no IP, doesn't mean you wouldn't have to give credit
Ah yes, let me just make millions by producing a 200 million dollar minecraft movie with all the top agtors and use all my networking to get it into all the cinemas worldwide
IP includes patents
Why would a company do anything to do a "Honorable mention" and pay with *influence*?
The law for IP can be played by both parties. It's just companies that have too much ressources can bend those rules in their favor which is the actual problem.
I assume this is referring to art but if not then disregard this. Yes, there's countless tutorials provided by artists. There's free videos online. Tumblr is a great place to learn drawing. The reason not to steal from artists through AI is for same reason I don’t want to use apple or windows, google. It’s corrupt at its core. It contributes to hurting and screwing over people. Buying art from artists or even just downloading another artist’s work supports another human because even if you didn’t buy it, people will still inevitably want to know the artist. Ideally, a person should buy the work from the artist, the same way if you go to a farmer's market, you should pay the vendor for the veggies they grew. But even if you steal or pirate art from someone, someone will want to know who made it.
Opensource and art are not so unalike. from my clueless but learning tech newb pov, linux users or any non corporate tech user is doing everything from scratch. The command terminal is their sketchbook.
Not disagreeing with you, but isn't your theory why we have nuclear bombs now?
What do you mean by IP?
Intellectual Property
Okay makes sense, I kept thinking IP (address) and was confused. Thanks!
Jar Jar Binks was the best part of the Prequel Trilogy. Those movies would be unwatchable without a bit of comedy.
I don't think a shitty taste in movies is a moral value.
Any debt or due you owe needs to be paid back unless you were forced physically to sign the contract. I'm just waiting for advocates of debts forgiveness. If you don't like variable interest rates, just ask for the fixed one... They're more expensive but they're fixed
I think student loan and healthcare debt is immoral. No civilized first world country should be bankrupting it's citizens with debt from getting education or healthcare.
On what basis you say it's immoral? It's moral on the behalf both Tanakh, the Bible and Quoran.
Old books written by long dead men hold little sway over me
So don't say "immoral" on basis your carl marx who never worked, abused his family and servants, and lived off Engels income who was a plain industrialist not implementing any single idea he was praising so
bro what? did you have a stroke?
Bro, don't you know the confirmed biography of Carl Marx?
Healthcare debt could be considered to be under duress. At what point are you "physically forced" to sign? Does "accept this medical treatment or die" make the cut?
Don't reinvent the oldest laws in the world. Just read it... No, you're are not forced by anyone, just living with consequences of your choices in most cases. Most of cancers and diseases today are the ones because of our eating and living habits. There are very few inherited ones
Don't two of those say it is immoral to charge interest?
You're not forced to take student loans... Second it's fixed rate which is legal according to the Islamic banking rules ( cost plus murabaha). Third in Europe people are able to pay their own university costs without taking loans
Have you considered life in sunny Qatar? You'd probably like it. Oh, and debt doesn't die with the debtor there; it's passed on to the heirs. It's an absolutely fantastic system for ensuring that the wealthy always get to stay that way.
Both Quran and Bible say the debt needs to be paid back and debt needs to be paid back when heirs want to get it back. However, they can choose if they want or not... If not, the debt is not passed on the heirs. Tell Muslims, Christians and Jewish that their holy books are immoral. Good luck
Christians have already *de facto* decided that parts of the bible aren't a good basis for laws; otherwise, we wouldn't have laws allowing someone to declare bankruptcy. As far as I can tell, most countries that are majority Muslim allow for bankruptcy procedures when a person or business is insolvent and will be unable to pay their debts. Israel *also* has bankruptcy laws that dissolve debts.
The number of countries where a debtor must pay back every single farthing they owe, regardless of solvency or ability to pay, and the debt passes on to heirs, is vanishingly small.
In the Bible the jubilee year lasts 49 years. Still it's considered immoral in all Abrahamic religions not to pay own debts and you told 'not paying own debts' is moral in some cases (like from the rich). Don't compare things stoning for being gay with not paying debts - the first was only once mentioned, maybe twice in torah, second all over the bible (both old and new testament)
Stoning for being gay is mentioned all over the bible...? There's a mistranslated part in the old testament that says that it's an 'abomination', but textual analysis indicates that it was a condemnation of *pederasty*--which was common among the Greeks at the time--rather than a condemnation of being gay. Paul def. had a problem with gay people, but that appears to be a revulsion with Roman practices and customs, rather than anything strictly religious. Jesus said nothing about it directly. On the other hand, Jesus DID say that you should gouge your eyes out rather than look at a woman in lust, and yet, evangelicals elected an unrepentant, thrice married, multiple-adulterer as president.
Do you understand a meaning of 'hyperbole Bible was written by priests and they were educated people. Besides: give exact quotes with refs before you want me to response to your "watered down monologue"
Regarding homosexuality ( yes it's about homosexuality nor pederasty)
https://www.biblestudytools.com/leviticus/20-13.html