What is one moral you have that most people don't agree with?
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
470
Comments1146
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.
Trickle down suffering is a great term for it, I'm going to use that for future use.
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
I agree completely, also, that Teotihuacán link was a fascinating read, thank you for that.
Nice theorycraft, but it's just theory. In real life, it doesn't work.
For one thing, by our own definitions, life is inherently evil. It takes, consumes, destroys, selfishly breaks down something else in order to sustain itself. We may rationalize it in different ways, but it can't escape that attribute. And as long as an individual has to sustain themselves, they will have no choice but to commit evil. But we selectively view badly those who indulge themselves.
Another is that perfection cannot be achieved, wastage is unavoidable. We have to produce more than is needed or we will end up with less than required.
Accidents, logistics, incompetence, corruption and the like cannot be completely prevented. There will always be something beyond the calculated parameters that can and will eventually overwhelm a system.
And let's not forget about the desire to control. Whether tyrants or the utopic society you're implying for, it's about control, whether to control oneself or all others. But is the mind that easily controlable and should it be? The desires we have and the willpower to pursue or restrain them aren't that easily defined.
We are not all of the same mind. Neurodiversity proves that people are different in thought and in feeling. The pursuits and responsibilities two different individuals can maintain for themselves over their lifetimes can go below or above the set standard and a civilization must take into account the satisfaction of its citizens in order to avoid its own downfall.
Also, what was achieved in one society will likely not be accepted in another. So good luck expecting everyone, everywhere to accept a unitary system simply because it's better. I sincerely have my doubts that anyone can succeed in that.
This all has to take into account the planet's uneven geographical resources distribution as well. Our current production rates barely give a damn about sustainability. Soil nutrition, water consumption, population density, logistics and so on have to be taken into account, so this means population relocation, specialized production specific to regional conditions, limitations of product diversity and availability.
Anyway, what you want can't be done and if it can be done, it can't last because people aren't static pieces of paper. A near-perfect distribution of basic needs requires a level of sacrifice and constant maintenance that we lack the willpower and stare of mind to accept responsibility for at this point in time.
...
Tl;dr:
To make it simple with a one-off example, will you feed fascists or racists if it meant their continued oppression of minorities? And if so, can you ensure everyone else will do the same?
Equal or equitable basic needs indeed need equal or equitable behavior, but we ourselves lack that. And due to that lacking, we make do with what we do have.
What should be doesn't matter, only what is.
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
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:/.
Is this an “I turned out fine” opinion, or is this based on something more concrete?
No, I never said that but it does show that this serious situation isn't taken lightly.
If you dont think sex shouldn't be taken lightly phew o boy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Unpopular Opinion: Kids are great? get off the stage
U should lurk more lemmy comments. Mfers here really are anti children
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.
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.
Plus you can make them do a ton of chores for twenty bucks a week.
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."
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!
Housing as an investment is wrong.
The price of basic human needs should not be tied to the rise and fall of the stock market, nor should ones retirement depend on the hyper inflated values of houses. 500K+ for a small house is absolute price gouging bullshit, regardless of location.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Circumcision is multilation
unpopular moral take: All religions are absurd cop outs and you should choose your own model for how to be a good person.
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.
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.
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."
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 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?
There is no utility in punishment. Wanting people who wronged you to suffer isn't a desire for justice, but a desire for revenge. Dangerous people can be stopped from hurting others without locking them in cages or treating them poorly.
it's okay to tell billionaires to kill themselves
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ideally children should be raised by more than two people.
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.
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.
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 believe it is immoral to own more than one house.
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.
I have to agree IP is against nature but there's not really any other way to route data over a network.
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.
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.
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?
having kids is a right that should be earned. full assessment and parenthood training course required.
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.
Eating and using animals when there is a plant-based alternative is wrong and should not be done.
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.
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.
There is virtue in minding your own business. If it doesn't effect you directly you don't need an opinion on it and you certainly shouldn't share it or expect anyone who is effected to care what you think. You're a bad person if you support people who want to use force to control how other people live their lives. You're evil if you would use force to control how someone else lives their life.
Prostitution should be legalized everywhere. With regulation of course to ensure the protection of the workers and clients.
Freedom of religion is important and religions shouldnt receive special treatment
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.
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.
Victims should be the ones to decide whether forgiveness is deserved. no one else.
Animals don't exist for us to use. They aren't ours. Outside of survival scenarios, it's wrong to eat animals or take things like milk or eggs from animals. It's fucked up.
Extend that to plants and mineral resources, and you'll be both fully moral and dead.
Plants and minerals aren't conscious, don't have feelings and sense of self.
They also don't exist for us and aren't ours. Your first comment didn't mention consciousness or feelings.
I mentioned specifically animals, and didn't feel the need to go into detail to why I feel that way. It doesn't feel like you're really commenting on good faith, so I'm not gonna respond any further than this.
That hasn't been proven yet, and plants and trees do have sensations and awareness of others around them.
Also I don't understand how you can reconcile your opinion about animals when they hunt each other, play with their preys, and are sometimes cannibalistic.
Why impose human concepts of ethics onto animals that survive based on instinct? Humans are omnivores, and in places where we have access to Lemmy, we also have access to things like grocery stores and farmers markets. We don't need to eat animals to be healthy, nor do we need to eat any other animal products. We do so out of tradition, or familiarity, and then justify the horrible way we treat other life because we like the taste. Plant life having sensations isn't equivalent to the sensations that we know that animals have, and the suffering we know farming animals causes. And rather frankly, eating animals requires growing more plants and killing more plants than just eating the plants.
Listen, I understand where you're coming from. But plant farming can be just as bad as animal farming. They cut down massive swaths of local wildlife, trees, flora, and use pesticides and other means that soak into the ground water and run off into lakes and streams. That affects literally everything too.
Yes, animal farming causes massive emissions. It's filled with cruelty and waste. But so is plant farming. You can sustainably farm. But if you shop anywhere but your own back yard you're contributing to that pollution. The produce we get at markets and stores comes from those big battery farms. Even farmer's markets aren't safe anymore - at least here the sellers are no longer small-time farmers. They're resellers and from the big company owned farms that have more acres than workers. Because it's too expensive for small time farmers to keep up with demand.
Vegan leather is so much worse for the enviroment than leather made from skin. Actual leather decomposes and becomes food for the earth. Vegan leather is usually made of plastic. The nail polish my spouse found recently is vegan - it's made with plastics rather than biodegradable materials like beetle shells and plant-based colors.
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. You are a part of this cycle too.
No, I don't think you do understand where I'm coming from. One aspect of that is that I haven't made a long thorough explanation of where exactly I stand because that was never my original intent w/ this thread. I meant it as one comment sharing an unpopular viewpoint, but I digress. Totally, animal farming also causes emissions. So does driving. There's cruelty and waste all throughout capitalism - and we should do what we can to avoid as much of it as possible. Some things are in our personal control, such as choosing what we eat, where we shop, and reducing our personal waste through re-using things. Veganism is one part of activism, not the whole. I can totally agree that "vegan leather" is awful and instead of buying plastic people can use what they already have, or simply put not buy leather OR pleather products. I do, however, still take issue with treating other sentient living creatures as if they are products for us to own and use however we want, with no regard to their own desires, and with no autonomy over their own lives. If a human is raped, we consider that one of the worst things you can do to a person and if caught, the rapist will likely end up in prison for a very long time. But if you set up a factory to systematically forcibly impregnate millions of cows, take their children at birth and kill them, then harvest the milk they produced for those children for human consumption, then not only is that considered totally ethical by most people, but you'll end up making a lot of money off that operation. Eugenics on humans is typically seen as unethical, but when we breed chickens to produce more meat so much that as they grow their legs break because they cannot handle their own body weight, that's seen as fine and just business. When we throw millions of male chicks that aren't useful as they won't lay eggs, onto a conveyor belt that drops them into a box of spinning blades to chop them up, or put them into gas chambers, that's just business. The worst possible things you could do to another person, you can do to an animal that feels many of the same things we feel, and it's seen by the general population as totally fine because they like the fucking taste of a cheeseburger - even though they could just eat a black bean patty and a slice of fake cheese. And yeah, plant farming has it's problems - and part of the advantage of not eating animals is that it takes less plants to eat just plants, then it does to eat animals - since you have to feed those animals too. We're all part of this cycle, and there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but that doesn't mean that animal agriculture is okay or should be supported in any way.
of course not. but it is probably ok, regardless of whether there is ethical consumption under capitalism
animals graze, and what crops they are fed are often crop-seconds or parts of plants that people can't (or won't) eat.
So you have moved other animals into your circle of respect but not plants. You still draw a line somewhere.
And outside of that line, you chomp down with the crushers evolution has placed in your mouth
What an incredible concept, that one would want to avoid causing suffering yet still eat.
Some people are so chauvinistic that they dont recognize their kinship with animals. Because animals cant speak. Then they come up with bullshit like `animals cant suffer´.
Some people are so chauvinistic that they dont recognize their kinship with plants. Because plants cant make sounds. Then they come up with bullshit like `plants cant suffer´.
Pretty wacko generalization. Human animals who do this are called sociopaths. My dog has never done any of this stuff. There are tons of herbivores, etc.
Weird carnist fantasy. Too much "social darwinism".
Cool story. \s
Firstly, do you mean only animals aren't possessions? What about all other things and resources?
Secondly, are you saying people should do they best to keep consumption to a minimum, while surviving themselves? Does this mean we could let all animals die and stop existing because we have no use for them, or should we do our best to maintain biodiversity and life on this planet?
Do you feel the same way about plants?
Do you think that plants are sentient?
Do you think fish are sentient?
ITT: lots of morals that most people (here) agree with. Predictable.
The free movement of people is a human right!
Note that capital is free to go whatever it wants to.
People shouldn't be jumping through hoops to conceive their own child while there are already children in need of a home
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.
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'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.
Monogamy is very often an extremely toxic factor in many relationships.
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 think the main argument against that is that if someone is going to follow through with it either way I'd much rather them do so in a painless way with a medical professional and that allows family and friends time to process. Obviously there should be requirements like therapy and stuff first, it shouldn't be the first option presented, but if a person wants assisted death due to a mental illness that will cause them to suffer the rest of their life I don't think that should be treated much differently than a person wanting assisted death due to a physical illness that will cause them to suffer the rest of their life.
Personally I'd never encourage suicide, but I also don't think its morally wrong, and I think it is morally wrong to stop it by force. At the end of the day, people have bodily autonomy, no matter how tragically they use it.
That's the law in all countries that allow euthanasia, as far as I'm aware.
It's definitely not. I distinctly remember a thread from a year ago about a young woman killing herself through euthanasia purely because of mental illness and a bunch of people on here supporting 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The death penalty should be used only for white collar crimes and violations of the public trust. These crimes have the greatest impact on society, and usually have the strongest evidence reducing the chances of a wrongful conviction.
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.
Paying for your porn is righteous (assuming the money goes to the actual actors).
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.
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.
That self-defense is not a justification for lethal force.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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 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.
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.
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.
So Nikola Tesla's life of scientific research was pointless?
Huh. So you enjoy being a mindless husk with the sole purpose of breeding the next generation.
I'm sorry you've been traumatized so much by life that you've given up on yourself as a person.
It's not the opinion so much as the perceived judgement. No one would bat an eye if your opinion was simply that you couldn't see your life having any meaning without kids. But you go on further to say that you don't see how the lives of people choosing not to have kids has any meaning. Consider one of those families with more than a dozen kids looking down on you for not having enough kids. Saying they don't understand how your life has any meaning when you could still be having babies.
I'm not sure why you think I'm offended. But I feel you're still hurting and perceive this as an attack, so I apologize to you.
It's fine to give up. Take your time and try to heal. Even if you don't find value in your own life, raising your children is still very much meaningful as you say.
There's opinion, and there is just pure stupidity.
I get this is an opinion thread, but you dumb.
Its a dumb opinion, but not invalid.
If the pinnacle of your life is cumming in a woman you need you do some soul searching.
Say it with me: everyone on the Internet is a BOY
The internet, where:
So, you've internalized life's universal purpose as your own. It's not necessary or even noble. Life will take care of itself.
So the meaning of life is ... the continuation of life? Or to put it another way, life is the meaning of life. That seems rather tautological.
This doesn't help your argument.
I don't think life is 'less pointless' if you procreate. It's both very pointless, except for personal fulfilment. What should it matter if you follow a path that evolution laid out before you. With consciousness, there is no more reason to consider that path in my eyes, just do what feels right.
There's all sorts of types of reproduction.
Take the reproduction of knowledge, for example. Say you have a person who never had kids, but dedicated their life's work to something like Project Gutenberg. They've ensured art and writing and understanding is reproduced for generations to come. Is that pointless?
There's no point in living at all. Reproduction doesn't change that.
Bringing a person into existence for your own entertainment is the ultimate form of pointless hedonism
So you believe that every person on the planet should be a parent? Is 7 billion people not enough for you?
I don't think more people is the answer. We're cancer on this planet.
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
antinatalism is gross but I don't think the highest aspiration is parenthood
Why so?
Yeah that part.
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.
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
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
Just having a child is not enough, parents also need to be helping to make the world a better place.
Well obviously if you're fully antinatalist you're basically working towards human extinction.
But I think that a healthy society includes a few child-free people. In fact, as someone without kids, I'd happily pay a much higher tax rate so that parents can stay home with their kids. I doubt I'd be a good parent anyways, and so I'd prefer to contribute to society in ways people with families can't.
Regardless of one's views on antinatalism, we absolutely need to acknowledge that not everyone is suitable for parenthood. I'm not suggesting that we (as a society) impose restrictions on it. Rather if someone self-selects for not having kids, people need to STFU and accept it rather than trying to shame or pressure them.
Thank you. I did not have kids for a number of reasons, and I can assure you the world would not be a better place if I had. But I do always enjoy people telling me my life is pointless, haha
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?
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.
I agreed with this up until the 'and'.
Lol you should work for an online ad agency.
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.
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.
How many kids do you have?
To people's credit for intellectual honesty, you also hear "asteroid impact now plz".
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.
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.
Copyright is bad and this includes AI breaking copyright laws. Unfortunately people are too emotionally driven to come to a rational position here.
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.
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.
People should be jailed for violating a DNR order.
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.
I was going to say "Copyright is theft" but I see that's basically OPs take, so I'll settle for 'same'.
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.
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
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 think peta is probably right to kill all those dogs. Better to be euthanized than to live in a kennel.
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.
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.
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:
Stealing bicycles undermines these goals and poisons the community.
Of course, we could easily scale this up to, say, almost all CEOs of megacorporations.
Well, I got it right here in the name.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
What about people with terminal, genuinely incurable diseases? I understand not letting people kill themselves just because they want to (since mental illness can compromise your objectivity there) but sometimes it's less about someone deciding if they're going to die, and more about how.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Full on empathy for all things. Sometimes it even bleeds into inanimate objects.
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.
I agree, internet protocol is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful
Zoos suck. Put those animals back where they belong. Or eat them.
The state must be abolished. In fact, all forms of hierarchy must be abolished.
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.
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.
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?
Based on opinion around here? Freedom of expression is good & doesn't need compromises beyond the harm principle.
Any kind of forced or mandated treatment for drug/alcohol users by law is wrong and punishing people for refusing treatment is also wrong.
Morels are hard to find.
Following the Rule of law seems to be my super-power
I will never be needlessly cruel or violent to a vulnerable individual. Most people do it at least three times a day.
Antinatalism: the belief that the creation of sentient life is morally wrong
Agree with you on IP and I agree it seems to be sadly a minority opinion.
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
Remember to sort by controversial!
You can take a penny, but you don't have to leave a penny.
How do I sort by Controversial in Summit? All I see is Hot, Top, New, and Old.
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.
I agree with OP's controversial opinion
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.
What do you mean by IP?
Anything is acceptable as a kink as long as you're careful enough and enthusiastic enough!
Abolition of the family's necessary
Jar Jar Binks was the best part of the Prequel Trilogy. Those movies would be unwatchable without a bit of comedy.
rights are not real, and convincing people they have them actually allows their sovereignty to be infringed.
So how would anyone benefit from their creativity? I certainly wouldn't invent anything if I knew some big company could just steal it.
I don't care about putting shopping carts in the coral, they deserve to be free range
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
Not disagreeing with you, but isn't your theory why we have nuclear bombs now?
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
Don't mess with other's private property
Don't kill people
It's that simple
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".
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.
drinking and driving isn't inherently more dangerous than just driving, and it's a skill you can practice.