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
The free movement of people is a human right!
Note that capital is free to go whatever it wants to.
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.”
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.
having kids is a right that should be earned. full assessment and parenthood training course required.
congrats you just discovered progressive eugenics
People will say they hate eugenics but then just argue for the same concept under a different term. Anyone who agrees with this should read Eugenics and Other Evils by G.K. Chesterton, where he criticizes and refutes the idea of giving the state authority of who can have kids when.
- The illusion that we are “rational” has done more damage than good, and if we were to just embrace that emotions are not just real, but a stronger influence on people’s behaviour (and therefore reality) than any facts, we might start getting somewhere as a species.
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.
The purpose of an education is to learn how to think, not how to work.
A lot of universities are being treated as training centers for the world of work - and this is not ok.
I’m Vice President of a computer science club for my Community College and i feel this exact same issue. The people above me run it like it’s a training center for a job. There’s no aspect behind it besides business and business connections. It’s something i desperately wish i could change
Well, I got it right here in the name.
I will never be needlessly cruel or violent to a vulnerable individual. Most people do it at least three times a day.
Eating and using animals when there is a plant-based alternative is wrong and should not be done.
Ok so genuine question (and also my odd moral I guess?) why is eating a plant more moral than eating an animal? They’re both equally alive and subsequently equally dead. Sure plants don’t have a nervous system but they do react to harmful stimuli in a way somewhat analagous to a pain response. The only real difference appears to be that we can relate to animals more.
Would you say that cutting a carrot is equal to cut the throat of a cow?
Plants do not have a central nervous system or a brain so they are not able to feel pain or emotions. Animals can feel, dream, have friends, same as we do. Just not as complex.
they are not able to feel pain or emotions
you can’t prove that
Here is my prove: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8052213/
TL;DR: Abstract
Claims that plants have conscious experiences have increased in recent years and have received wide coverage, from the popular media to scientific journals. Such claims are misleading and have the potential to misdirect funding and governmental policy decisions. After defining basic, primary consciousness, we provide new arguments against 12 core claims made by the proponents of plant consciousness. Three important new conclusions of our study are (1) plants have not been shown to perform the proactive, anticipatory behaviors associated with consciousness, but only to sense and follow stimulus trails reactively; (2) electrophysiological signaling in plants serves immediate physiological functions rather than integrative-information processing as in nervous systems of animals, giving no indication of plant consciousness; (3) the controversial claim of classical Pavlovian learning in plants, even if correct, is irrelevant because this type of learning does not require consciousness. Finally, we present our own hypothesis, based on two logical assumptions, concerning which organisms possess consciousness. Our first assumption is that affective (emotional) consciousness is marked by an advanced capacity for operant learning about rewards and punishments. Our second assumption is that image-based conscious experience is marked by demonstrably mapped representations of the external environment within the body. Certain animals fit both of these criteria, but plants fit neither. We conclude that claims for plant consciousness are highly speculative and lack sound scientific support.
that’s not proof they aren’t conscious
“…plants have not been shown to perform the proactive, anticipatory behaviors associated with consciousness…”
We’ve been doing this for ages, actually we evolved eating meat.
We slaved colored people for ages. Woman had much less rights back in the days. We lived in caves for decades. Etc.
Just because we have been doing something for a very long time and it is socially accepted does not automatically make it right.
They are correct though, don’t vegans have to take suppliments to fill in on things missing from their diet? Maybe eating less meat can be a goal for humanity, but I think we still need some until lab/fake meat is yummy enough.
Edit: now i think of it, suppliments are available so maybe my comment doesnt matter.
If you are thinking about B-12, that is already artificially added to meat products too. So even people who eat meat aren’t getting it the “natural” way. Now there are available plant milks fortified with it which does the same thing.
Yes, vegans should monitor their health more closely to make sure nothing is missing, but it wouldn’t be particularly difficult to get everything you need from plant based sources.
And actual milk fortified with it.
Why?
Why not?
I’m genuinely asking. People approach this topic from different sides, and I want to understand.
Because I think it is wrong to kill an individual if it is not necessary. Calorie intake is not a legitimate reason if it can also be plant-based.
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.
The state must be abolished. In fact, all forms of hierarchy must be abolished.
Ukraine and Taiwan flags in name.
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.
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.
Should any critiques be levelled at fictional works, then? If a work has a character that’s an insensitive racial stereotype, am I allowed to criticize the character, not for being an offensive stereotype, but for being one-dimensional and poorly written? If so, why, exactly?
You’re allowed to criticize anything. The point is that some people are actively looking to forbid the existence of this or that on their personal whim.
The same way you’re free to ignore a piece of work you don’t care about, any author is free to ignore criticism of it. I’m just advocating not forbidding imaginary things, which is unfortunately a thing.
I have to agree IP is against nature but there’s not really any other way to route data over a network.
Fuck it, UDP all the way. Who cares if the data actually arrives?
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.
I think a lot of the liberal attacks were more of a “there’s a time and place, and this is neither” issue. The Genocide Joe posters were at their peak right as Trump (who straight up said he’d be worse about genocide than Joe was) was at the height of his campaign. The big difference was more about whether “perfect” should get in the way of “good enough.” Nobody thought Joe (and later Kamala) was the perfect candidate. But they thought it would be better than Trump.
If you live in a state that’s 100% guaranteed to go blue, then sure, abstain your vote in protest. After all, it won’t make a difference. But if you lived in a swing state, then abstaining was the same as saying “I don’t care who wins, even if it makes the genocide measurably worse in every way.” It’s cutting off your nose to spite your face, while also trying to claim moral superiority. Refusing to vote for a democrat because of the genocide was like handing a flamethrower to a compulsive arsonist, because the current administration didn’t do enough to support firefighters.
The end goal should have been to keep things from getting worse first, before you focus on hammering the genocide before the midterms. But apparently people on high horses don’t know how to play the long game.
The problem I’ve found is that liberals will say that “Now is not the right time” all the time and there never ends up being a right time to talk about it. It feels like a cycle of right before the election so can’t talk about, right after the election so can’t talk about since they haven’t had time to address it, then the midterms are coming up so can’t talk about it, then right after the midterms they don’t have the power to address it anymore so can’t talk about it, then the presidential election is coming back up again so can’t talk about it. There’s also the fact that more people pay attention during election seasons so talking about it then allows you to reach the most people. And at the end of the day all it would take to get these people on your side would be to oppose the genocide. It would have some impact but I would say the majority of voters who care about Israel enough to change their vote based on it were probably already voting Trump with how pro Israel he is, so you would be gaining many more voters than you lose.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have never yet engaged in a direct-action movement that was “well timed” according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “wait.” It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This “wait” has almost always meant “never.” It has been a tranquilizing thalidomide, relieving the emotional stress for a moment, only to give birth to an ill-formed infant of frustration. We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”
