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.
ITT: lots of morals that most people (here) agree with. Predictable.
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 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.
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.
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.
Your feelings are not facts. Being offended, doesn’t mean you’re in the right and the other person is in the wrong.
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.
On the corollary, someone’s feelings can be a very important factor in addressing a situation. If you are to operate purely on logic, that logic needs to take into account the psychology and feelings of others when making a decision to maximize your intended effect. Doing something that “needs to be done” but pissing everyone else off in the process might lead them to undo your work purely out of spite, even if you were correct in your initial assessment.
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.
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.
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?
What do you mean by IP?
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.
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.
Following the Rule of law seems to be my super-power
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
abolish the state
Abolish all states would be the much higher bar required.
right
If only.
I think it’s fair to say that, for a person to be consistent in their pacifism, they probably also need to adopt:
- Anarchism (because government lives by its capacity for violence.)
- Religious convictions of some kind.
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.
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.
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.
they hunt each other, play with their preys, and are sometimes cannibalistic.
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”.
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.
there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but that doesn’t mean that animal agriculture is okay
of course not. but it is probably ok, regardless of whether there is ethical consumption under capitalism
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
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´.
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?
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.
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).
