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 purpose of an education is to learn how to think, not how to work.
A lot of universities are being treated as training centers for the world of work - and this is not ok.
I’m Vice President of a computer science club for my Community College and i feel this exact same issue. The people above me run it like it’s a training center for a job. There’s no aspect behind it besides business and business connections. It’s something i desperately wish i could change
It’s a sad world. I keep meaning to run a code club for my students (thinking we just work through lazy devs’ shmup tutorial together), but I keep getting sidetracked by trying to deal with department politics -_-
I’d kill to be able to help teach my peers just once. Department politics have been a blight on clubs though
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.
Everything is fair in fiction. No matter how sensitive or dark a topic is, fictional settings are the only place where anything should be allowed.
This does not mean that attacking/defaming people is ok, just that “I don’t like this” or “this is insensitive” should never be brought up against the existence of a work of fiction.
I’m not sure if “most” people would disagree with that, but there are too many that believe that fiction should be ruled by (subjective) morale and laws, while I believe it should be the place where anything goes.
I think there’s a huge chasm between “I don’t like this” and “This should not exist”. The former is perfectly reasonable.
Exactly my point. It’s a good thing that we can make stuff that some people dislike freely. The only other option is to never, ever, do anything, as you’ll always find people that are against anything;
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.
The problem I see is in popular works of fiction, the scenarios seem too specific. Racism, rape, torture, whatever… they all start to come off as weird sorts of validation, wish fulfillment, or cheap shock content. Instead of satisfying a role in the plot, it subtracts from the immersion because you’re wondering if the author is into vore or whatever.
I think it’s good to have an outlet for these sorts of things. I just think it’s less about freedom of expression and more and audience reach, i.e., they didn’t get dark because it limits the demographic.
There are people outright advocating that some topic (of their choosing) should not even exist in fiction form. I’m referring to these.
One is free to like or dislike any work of fiction, no matter how (subjectively) good or bad it is. One is also free to ignore it, as it will have exactly zero impact on you in that case. Once one starts to forbid the existence of something that have no bearing on them, on the principle of “they don’t like it”, that’s a problem.
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.
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.
A stronger argument IMO is that those types of crimes are premeditated, calculated and committed by those who have many other options. So deterrents are likely to actually work against them.
Not that I agree with you. But there’s an argument to be made for using deterrents where they are likely to work. Rather than against the desperate or impulsive.
The death penalty is just legal murder, and, by the very nature of bestowing that privilege onto some power structure, creates a perverse incentive. Now whoever controls the legal system gets to decide who is worthy of living and who is worthy of dying simply by deciding what counts as a “white collar crime”
That kind of power is resented by those worthy of wielding it, and coveted by those who would abuse it. The perfect recipe for despotism.
there should be no death penalty.
The free movement of people is a human right!
Note that capital is free to go whatever it wants to.
Say communism without saying communism… Ok, give me your clothing because I need it for work… You said it… It’s capital for production means
Why are you using so many ellipses?
hunting an fishing when a man needs to feed their family is is fine no matter where you are. A person has a right to survive and eat without being molested by the police and greedy judges… A person with no money is still a person.
…and at no other time.
People don’t choose to be pedophiles. We shouldn’t hate them just for existing.
People choose to abuse children, and that should be strongly punished and I think the majority agrees with me on that.
But a non-offending pedophile is someone with a disability and should be treated as such.
I see where you are coming from, and have thought about this before when there was a group of people near where i live who were doing a sort of vigilante mob tracking down suspected pedophiles and terrorising them.
It just made me consider that they might be attacking people with a mental disorder who could/should be treated.
But just to speak to what you said, if they are non-offending, are you talking about the ones that dont physically assault children? Because the ones who are viewing and distributing csam are still harming children. Maybe not directly, but its like supply and demand, isn’t it? People make it if people want it.
I think perhaps even the violent ones should be treated for a mental disorder. Maybe punsihed too, but if you draw parallels to other violent crime, many argue other criminals should be rehabilitated. Should this extend to pedophiles too?
The more i type, the more nuanced this becomes in my head. Perhaps that in and of itself is evidence that despite the obvious knee-jerk reaction to probably one of the most heinous things a person can do. Perhaps there is just more to this than anyone is brave enough to admit. (I say brave because anyone that sees you defending a pedophile automatically accuses you of being a pedophile, which is a fucking pathetic leap to make)
Having said all of that. If anyone ever did anything like that to my kids, i would rip their fucking heads off.
But just to speak to what you said, if they are non-offending, are you talking about the ones that dont physically assault children? Because the ones who are viewing and distributing csam are still harming children. Maybe not directly, but its like supply and demand, isn’t it? People make it if people want it.
I intentionally left that vague because of the nuance you mentioned. I think most people agree that physical assault of a child is heinous. Consumption of CP is more of a difficult gray area.
Sure it is. A lot of people would agree that viewing drawings or AI generated CP is a victimless crime.
Or for another example, two under-18s taking nude pics and sending them to each other. Technically illegal, but morally? Probably not bad.
It isn’t?
Sure, consumption means creating demand, but it’s not directly harmful for the child. There is definitely much more wiggle room than when talking about straight up abuse or creating material.
I’d be inclined to agree that pedophiles should not get access to CSAM, and even just owning some should be an offense. I am open to discussion with professionals though, if they say it will be helpful and deliver a good argument, I’d be open to change my opinion. Which makes this a grey area IMO
If it’s pornography of an unwilling subject, surely the distribution and consumption is harmful to the subject, as it’s a violation of their privacy and integrity.
If someone had put secret cameras in your bedroom, would you be completely cool with them selling the pictures online?
What if you were abused, let’s say threatened with a weapon and forced to undress in front of a camera, a traumatic experience for sure. Afterwards you learn that the film is being traded between people who get off on this stuff. Would that really not feel like a further violation?
Would you really be unaffected by the knowledge that for the rest of your life, at any time, there could be creeps getting off on your abuse?
Pedophilia is a paraphilia, and unlike sexuality, it can changed, but needs the willingness of the pedophile.
Is there research showing that? My impression was that short of chemical castration it’s almost impossible to remove.
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.
Jar Jar Binks was the best part of the Prequel Trilogy. Those movies would be unwatchable without a bit of comedy.
I don’t think a shitty taste in movies is a moral value.
I will never be needlessly cruel or violent to a vulnerable individual. Most people do it at least three times a day.
Zoos suck. Put those animals back where they belong. Or eat them.
Zoos are good if they serve as sanctuaries for animals. Otherwise I agree with you.
Zoos in The Netherlands are pretty great, with lots of room and props/shelter for the animals, but have you been to Japan? Man they’re atrocious, it makes me sad. Just concrete boxes with a window and maybe a branch for them to sit on
Never been to Japan, but I came from San Diego, which has, apparently, one of the best zoos in the world. And while they do take good care of the animals (I guess…) it’s a drag to see a fkn polar bear in San Diego.
Well, I got it right here in the name.
Circumcision is multilation
What if it’s done with consent, to an adult?
I mean, it definitionally is. Even if you use a less charged synonym like “body modification of a major part”.
The normative/moral take would be that all genital mutilation is bad.
The big thing is just not comparing it to female circumcision. Both are fucked up, but female circumcision is done explicitly to destroy sexual function. It’s rare for male circumcision to go so wrong that all sexual function is lost, but that’s the goal of female circumcision.
Male circumcision started in the usa explicitly to stop boys from masturbating. With Dr Kellogg’s goal a world of numb sex. All the health reason were either just the healthy effects of no masturbating or made after the fact.
And that not the oldest we have writings from the early Muslim world wwre someone wrote that we do so baby associates pain with his genitals. Amd thats not the oldest record explaining male cicr as an anti sex anti pleasure.
I think that’s starting to come around, no?
Anywhere with a major Jewish or Muslim population is going to struggle with that one.
And the usa
