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
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.
Mine: Kids are pretty great, actually. They are smarter than you think and can make sense of a lot of stuff you wouldnt expect them to. You should treat their thoughts and feelings with the same respect that you would give an adult.
If you look at the facts kids are leaning towards progress. Less underage sex, less drug and alcohol use, and women are more educated then ever. Boys are starting to lag though:/.
I don’t think “less underage sex” is a good thing. It means that humans remain in a state of childhood longer and longer. They’re achieving life milestones at later and later ages. I’m not gonna say when the correct time for everyone to start having sex is, but when I was in high school 15 or 16 was a lot more common than 18+
Is this an “I turned out fine” opinion, or is this based on something more concrete?
Do you actually think it’s a bad thing to have sex at 16 years old? I think it’s a bad thing that young people are so terrified of living their lives for so long
No, I never said that but it does show that this serious situation isn’t taken lightly.
What serious situation
If you dont think sex shouldn’t be taken lightly phew o boy.
That’s actually a crazy thing to say that we need more under age sex.
That being there are 2 types of people, the ones who cherish childhood and those that want to go up.
We need teenagers to start living their lives again, which it seems like they’re not. A lot of people under the age of ~24 are in a really poor state, developmentally
And mere sex is the way to do it? What about laws restricting social media from being as predatory and anxiety-/depression-contributing towards young people, as has been well-documented over the past, entire decade? As that other Lemmy user said, where is your scientific evidence that younger sex is the way beyond just your own opinion? Encouraging sex without solving the hypercapitalist issue is just pouring more gas on the dumpster fire, if anything.
Teenagers slept around because they were bored. Now they can learn coding and game. They are legitimately using less drugs. Drinking less and having sex left because they are busy developing skills for work and life.
This is so dystopian
Sex has nothing to do with emotional or mental maturity except with more education you are less likely to have casual sex. It has nothing to do with “becoming a man or woman”. Plenty of adults are extremely accomplished without getting sex involved. Sex is literally just an act of putting your genitals together. How does that make an adult from a child? It doesnt.
It literally does though
deleted by creator
I think Gen Z voters reversed the trend in many nations including Germany and the USA, at least the males have a strong conservative bias compared to Millennials.
Part of Gen Z and almost all the people my age I know are heavily conservative. It’s pretty isolating.
Unpopular Opinion: Kids are great? get off the stage
U should lurk more lemmy comments. Mfers here really are anti children
Kids are crazy smart of you don’t baby them their whole lives. Talk to them like responsible adults and (surprise!) they’ll learn to behave in responsible adult like ways.
Hey, thanks for this answer. I am under the impression that there is a lot of negative talk about having kids in the News/internet etc, which made me very anxious about the decision to have my own. And while I think that it’s important to vent about the difficulties of parenting, I sometimes miss people who voice the positive things about it.
You should definitely not feel bad about that. And please don’t let the doomers on this platform influence how you feel about your decisions. They have a very negative view on the world because they are terminally online, don’t go outside, don’t see all the wonderful things life has to offer just around the corner or down the street. I mean, times are tough, shit happens, that’s a fact. But kids actually are better at adapting to changing times than we are.
My kids bring me great joy. I share my hobbies with them and adopt theirs. Spending time with them is not a loss or hindrance. Having kids is not for everyone and that’s fine, but the negativity online it outright toxic.
That’s a mixed bag. They can be very smart, but they still don’t have the experience to properly contextualize many things.
Plus you can make them do a ton of chores for twenty bucks a week.
deleted by creator
I like to call them little adults in this context.
As in, they are adults, but still growing. If adult is the end game, we should treat them as such.
This doesn’t mean don’t protect them tho respective of where they are at, which is dynamic and surprising.
Kids aren’t dumb, but they are stupid.
They are still growing and cannot handle the full dose of reality yet.
I also apply this logic to animals. A lot of people, even some pet owners, are quite far divorced from our connection to animals, and don’t spend enough time with them. Even wild animals, they are far more intelligent, inquisitive, emotional, and communicative than most people give them credit for, and coexistance with them would actually be a wonderful thing. I’m not religious, I don’t say grace, and I eat meat… But anytime I eat an animal I try to at least be mindful and thankful for the animals sacrifice.
“Humans are the weakest of all creatures, so weak that other creatures are willing to give up their flesh that we may live. Humans are able to survive only though the exercise of rationality since they lack the abilities of other creatures to gain food through the use of fang and claw.”
Absolute free speech is overrated. You shouldn’t be able to just lie out your ass and call it news.
The fact that the only people who had any claim against Fox for telling the Big Lie was the fucking voting machine company over lost profits tells you everything you need to know about our country
While I’m tempted to agree, the big problem here is that if the government can decide that some speech is illegal, they can use that to silence people they don’t like.
Obviously the system we’ve got now in the US isn’t working, but we need to tread carefully when giving the government power to decide what is or isn’t the “right beliefs”.
Yeah, it’s like giving anyone who’s living somewhere illegally no due process. If they can deport people based on what they say is illegal and you have no way to fight that, then who’s to say that they aren’t going to call you illegal and deport you?
That is exactly what was on my mind when I wrote the comment.
It’s not perfect, sure, but we as a society should be capable of deciding that some things aren’t okay without giving the state carte blanche to censor as they see fit. If the system can be abused, then we ought to fix it, not forgo it entirely.
Plus, governments and companies already suppress or ban a bunch of speech, often in favor of the ruling class. I doubt outlawing harmful speech like parent comment suggests would be the straw that breaks democracy’s back.
Hard to be the breaking point when it’s already broken. But if it weren’t broken already… then I think it actually might.
What we could do is make “journalist” a protected profession. So just like you can’t call yourself a fiduciary unless you hold to a certain set of ethical guidelines, you wouldn’t be able to call yourself a journalist unless you agree not to lie (among other things). So if you forgo the title of journalist, you can say whatever you want (obviously the other laws still apply, so you still can’t slander or libel, and if spreading misinformation causes harm you can still be liable). But if you are calling yourself a journalist, you voluntarily assume a higher standard for what you are allowed to say.
I think that would avoid any first amendment issues. But I’m not a lawyer, so please don’t take my word for it 🤣
Nah,
If I walk up to you on the street and tell you to hand over your money or I’ll kill you, that’s enough to land me jail. Its maybe even enough for you to be justified in punching me in self defense, if you feared for your life and there was no other way you could ensure your safety.
But suddenly if I say I want to put a million people in a gas chamber that’s A-OK? Suddenly no one can punch back or else they’re “just as bad”? Suddenly the lines are super blurry and the slopes are super slippery and its absolutely impossible to tell what a threat of violence is.
Its a crime to say you’ll kill one person, its your right to say you’ll kill a million.
I understand and sympathize with your point, but unfortunately the law will never be that simple.
To use your example, you walking up to me and saying “hand over your money or I’ll kill you” is not justification to respond with lethal force per se. The missing element here is assault - in other words, I have to believe you both are able and intending to do me harm before I can respond with force. If no reasonable person would believe that what you said was actually a threat (like, for instance, if you were a five year old) then I’m still not justified in harming you in self defense.
Suddenly the lines are super blurry and the slopes are super slippery and its absolutely impossible to tell what a threat of violence is.
Yes. They are. And that was your first example, the one meant to be unequivocally black and white.
The problem here is fundamentally an epistemic one. The law is not a thinking, reasoning being. It is merely a system of procedures. The law does not know - it cannot know - the difference between right and wrong. It only knows what the rules are, and those rules may be wrong.
You might think that there is absolutely no reason to advocate for the mass murder of an entire group of people. And under 99.9% of circumstances, I would agree. But if the zombie apocalypse broke out, I might find myself in favor of killing all of the zombies - and legally, there’s no reason that wouldn’t be genocide.
The law doesn’t know whether zombies are people. It doesn’t know whether or not we are. Therefore, there must be some way to have discussions about the law that are above (or outside the scope of) the law. That’s what politics is, fundamentally: the discussion of the law that’s untouchable by the law. Even if we tried to make certain political stances illegal, we wouldn’t succeed, because that is one area in which the law is necessarily blind.
So we can’t curtail the first amendment.
We can’t execute Nazis.
But we could lynch them, as that would be a political act and not a legal one.
deleted by creator
People in the US often misunderstand what sorts of speech can be “free”. There’s plenty of restricted speech in the US - hate speech can intensify the sentencing on crimes, libel and slander are both punishable civilly, speech that directs or is likely to incite “imminent lawless action” (e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater - that is actually the legal reason for why you can’t do that if there isn’t a fire).
That doesn’t even begin to cover the sorts of speech that are heavily suppressed by the government and media but aren’t legally restricted - like how the media chooses not to cover large popular protests sometimes (famously, the antiwar protests around the invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan), or gives disproportional representation to counter protesters to give the illusion that both sides are equally popular, or how anti-capitalist stances are generally ignored or downplayed. Not illegal, but if you can’t really engage in those sorts of speech publicly, they may as well be.
Agreed, news needs to be held to a higher standard than it is now. There’s a whole list of journalist code of ethics that basically distils to be truthful, minimize harm, be independent, and be accountable.
*some example of minimize harm;
- don’t dig through a celebrities trash looking for condoms
- if there’s an accident you don’t show pictures of the dismembered victims
- don’t identify victims of abuse
- don’t claim an accusation as fact until proven (this why every news stations says “allegedly” all the time)
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.
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
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.
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.
The stock market should be illegal in all countries. Its basically a legalized gambling ponzii scheme.
Retirement also shouldn’t be tied to this type of system.
I believe antinatalism is a dire mistake, and the highest thing someone can aspire to be is a parent
Oooeh this is one is gonna piss off a lot of lemmings. This is one of those hard echo chamber topics that haunt Lemmy.
Also don’t mention religion, that will also twist a lot of panties on here
antinatalism is gross but I don’t think the highest aspiration is parenthood
antinatalism is gross
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.
Why?
Because I don’t think there’s a point to living without reproduction. Everything else is living a pointless life of minor hedonism and disappearing into oblivion at the end.
I don’t think doing so is immoral, just pointless
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:
- The men are men
- The women are men
- The children are FBI agents
So, you’ve internalized life’s universal purpose as your own. It’s not necessary or even noble. Life will take care of itself.
Because I don’t think there’s a point to living without reproduction.
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.
There’s a difference between a point and a meaning
This doesn’t help your argument.
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?
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.
Bringing a person into existence for your own entertainment is the ultimate form of pointless hedonism
There’s no point in living at all. Reproduction doesn’t change that.
So you believe that every person on the planet should be a parent? Is 7 billion people not enough for you?
No, we need more people. Developed countries are facing a demographic cliff that is very bad for us
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
imo u don’t necessarily have to be a parent, you can be a parental figure to a younger person, be a good role model and teach them well
Sure I don’t see why adoption ot being a godfather to someone shouldn’t count. I just think that anyone not engaged in raising children or making the world a better place for them is just using the world and giving nothing back
Just having a child is not enough, parents also need to be helping to make the world a better place.
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.
But I think that a healthy society includes a few child-free people.
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?
and the highest thing someone can aspire to be is 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.
How many kids do you have?
Donct ypu realize the end of the world is nigh, and also bad things happen that cause sadness, and therefore our species should stop procreating until nothing bad ever happens again?
To people’s credit for intellectual honesty, you also hear “asteroid impact now plz”.
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.
Lol you should work for an online ad agency.
deleted by creator
I agreed with this up until the ‘and’.
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.”
