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
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.
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?
Unavoidable pain and suffering, sure. This is about contrived, otherwise unnecessary suffering to "prove a point" or pay it forward in a negative way.
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+
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
That's a mixed bag. They can be very smart, but they still don't have the experience to properly contextualize many things.
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.
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.
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.
Plus you can make them do a ton of chores for twenty bucks a week.
Ah yes, the lovely child labor.
/s
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 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.
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".
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.
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;
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.
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.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. A house is to live in. It's a place to live, not a financial instrument. They are only inherently worth some amount that aligns with wages in a given location.
So, like my first house cost a year of the median wage in my city; it was a wreck, so let's say two years of pay was the average house. I think my mom's house was around that too, but now they are more like 5x the median pay, that makes no sense because they are the same thing - a place to live.
Housing can either be affordable or a good investment. I should be affordable, but unfortunately it would seem that society has chosen the latter.
I completely agree. However, homeowners typically vote more in local elections.
Hell, I had an argument with someone who didn't support a fucking hospital expansion in town because they were worried about the impact of the expansion on their housing price.
I agree but what you’re talking about is not liking Capitalism since it has to do with why housing is an investment.
Most capitalism hatred is actually referring to this I think: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism
Stopping corruption and making sure our laws are not loopholed by rich ppl or even just not enforced for the rich would make the world a lot better.
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.
Agreed. The idea that you owe people your life is pretty nuts. At the end of the day, you can be robbed of everything, including your life. But it's the one thing you're not allowed to end. In a perfect world I do think that people who are suicidal should both:
(a) have to discuss their suicide with a trained professional. What does this look like? Idk. But probably along the lines of "are you capable of healing / can we heal what is causing these thoughts or no?"
(b) be able to get professional euthanasia. No pain, someone to be there with them through the process. Not just a sterile room where you go to die, but a place you are going to leave your pain behind and move on
If there is an afterlife, hopefully they find peace there.
Anybody who says you owe it to other people to be alive does not understand how to talk to somebody with suicidal ideation. That is not constructive and any therapist would scream at you for that. So you’re not wrong, but that also isn’t was people who want to stop suicides are using as an argument in any meaningful number.
The dominant reason for trying to stop people from killing themselves is that, especially in a fit of passion, they may regret it later and it can’t be undone. It’s as simple as that.
The data bears this out, we have decades of research showing that people who survive suicide attempts most often immediately regretted it when they attempted and thought they were successful.
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.
I think there's a difference between not calling someone an idiot and tolerating their bad ideas and actions though. I agree people need to be stopped, and not tolerated, but when the only answer is insulting them with various names like idiot or nazi, all that ends up happening is they keep their toxic and destructive ideas hidden from the public, and then band with others labelled idiot and nazi, until they feel comfortable in a group to express their rhetoric without fear.
we’ve gone too far over on the “tolerate all people and their views”
Criticism isn't intolerance. Confused about freedom of speech?
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?
Full marks for unpopular (at least everywhere but here).
Counter-moral: any community has the right to decide its own membership.
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.
Dangerous people can be stopped from hurting others without locking them in cages or treating them poorly.
I'm actually very curious about this one!
How should mass-murderers be handled then, in order to keep the public safe? I think we can all agree that mass-murder is bad, so how can the public be kept safe if a mass-murderer is allowed to roam free? How do you prevent someone from doing the same horrific acts multiple times if not locking them away from the general public?
Replace prisons with compassionate psychiatric hospitals with the purpose of rehabilitating violent criminals who are a danger to the public. People who are not rehabilitatable would still be locked up for the rest of their lives, but they would be treated as humanely as possible. In this case though locking them up wouldn't be punishment, but rather harm reduction.
shunning is awesome.
don't know if you should shun someone? face or hand brands are pretty effective. and it doesn't need to be inhumane. numbing agents, pain killers, and after care can be provided.
A genuinely unpopular one and I agree with you!
With a partial caveat on your last claim, which seems a bit shaky. Sometimes it's genuinely necessary to lock people up in order to protect society. Not very often, but sometimes (and that not mean treating them poorly).
IMO there's also a case for using prison as symbolic justice. A month here, 2 weeks there, to send a firm message about what's acceptable in society. But the rule should be community service, not prison.
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."
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.
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.
By the same argument, there shouldn't be a straight community, with institutions and laws and religion that assume it to be the default, the tabula rasa of humanity.
Really, you're just arguing against the fact we exist within a historical context. You can try and cut it away - except! Oops! In doing so, you just added yet more history to the pile!
Well I'm not really arguing against anything, the question was what moral do I hold that I don't think most people agree with.
By the same argument, there shouldn't be a straight community
Yes, that's basically what I said. I would prefer we live in a world where sexual orientation is no more prevalent a feature to define someone than their hair color. I wish there didn't need to be laws for or against gay marriage, or rights for specific types of people over others. But this is reality and not a hopeful fantasy, so again I understand the the need for the LGBTQ community, and laws to protect and represent the people part of it. But at the same time, I personally don't think anyone should be celebrated (or mocked) for being part of it.
I honestly agree 100%. I support all my LGBTIQ+ people, but in an ideal world I really shouldn't need to. My support is purely there because there are people who actively want to hurt them, and for no other reason. Part of me worries that some of this support can come across as special treatment
Similarly, I wish people would stop bringing stuff like their sexuality/gender up without prompt, it just comes off as... self-centred, I guess? Bonus points if it's in their twitter handle
That being said, probably my best online friend was a trans girl (mtf). None of our conversations revolved around them being trans, we just played games and laughed together. Good times
I actually have a friend like that as well. We played a lot of games and participated in roleplay communities together. I didn't even know she was trans until one of her friends brought it up for some reason. My reaction was just kind, "Oh, neat, anyway."
I have a different friend who I knew before her transition who is a lot more vocal about such a thing, and while I do respect her decisions she definitely wears it as a badge of honor. A few months ago we were playing Minecraft with some of her friends, and I didn't know any of them.
One of them (to me) had a feminine name and a feminine voice, so when I was talking to my friend, I asked "Hey where did Zoey (example name) go? I need to give her some iron." And my friend immediately cut me off to correct me that he was a he, and that he was trans, with a very angry tone to her voice. I understand misgendering may be a problem... but how was I supposed to know? We're faceless voices across the internet, I know referring to everyone as they/them is 'safer', but that's a little ridiculous to me (Especially because I've met some people who -don't- want to be referred to with gender neutral pronouns)
I know that might sound hypocritical, that I don't think people should introduce themselves as trans or anything else, and that I shouldn't be villified for making an innocent misassumption. Having my cake and eating it too.
I would assume the goal of transitioning is for people to believe you are what you say you are, without the label of trans. I'd never have guessed that my rp friend was trans, and similarly if my friend had not told me their friend was trans, I would have just assumed he was a feminine guy, and not a trans man.
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 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.
Are you saying there shouldn't be one because it's a strange thing, or are you saying there shouldn't be one because we shouldn't need one?
They're saying that there shouldn't be one because we shouldn't need one.
All spectrum of existence and life is valid equally. No discrimination due to no prosecution occurring across the spectrum and therefore no aspect of the range is special. When none is special, then there is no reason to center an identity around it BECAUSE it's accepted by society.
As a thought experiment, imagine if we discriminated based on height and based an entire identity on introducing yourself as a "#mountain queen👸" or something
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.
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.
That is a controversial one, but my response also will be.
In that case, would it be better if someone were to gamble all their money and lose it all while they are still alive, rather than to pass it down to their children? Would someone die more peacefully knowing they gambled all their money away, rather than leaving it to their children, leaving their children's lives uncertain? Is passing down a home to stay for their children really such a bad thing, rather than forcing them to fend for themselves in a horribly inequitable world where people are often unable to afford housing?
Personally, I don't think making everyone have nothing or the equivalent of nothing is the solution to wealth inequality, I don't think that solves poverty.
Also, how much inheritance should be allowed? None? $250? $2,500? $25,000? $250,000? $2,500,000?
What about a rich relative leaving money to their disabled cousin who was on lifelong disability, is a significant lump sum inheritance of half a million dollars for said disabled cousin still bad? Does it become bad if said cousin instead weren't disabled in this example?
I'm not so sure it's as simple as all inheritance of money is bad.
How about we collect the potential inheritance of everyone that passes and then divide it equally to everyone who became 18 that year. Or it goes to a government fund that pays for a 30k bonus to everyone turning 18 (or 25, etc).
I am seeing this myself. I grew up in a Munich suburb and everyone was growing up in houses except my migrant ass and the other migrant asses, we were in rented apartments. Then, when we became young adults, guess who didn't have to pay for rent, who was rather worryless about their housing situation long term? Because everyone knew they would inherit the houses that were surging in value and are now between one and several million euros worth.
Now I am getting older and am friends with refugees. You want to tell me that the daughter of the guy who worked himself off after leaving Afghanistan at age 15, learning German but only managing to get a salesman apprenticeship, deserves nothing as inheritance? Because this is what it is going to be. His parents have worked their asses off raising 9 kids in a small home, they had no money but they gave it all.
We are all in our very early 30s and we can already extrapolate how differently our financial situations, our security nets, and our children's security nets will be. And we are lucky living in a social democracy.
I guess I just feel like the playing field should be a lot more even at the start. So if you have above whatever the threshold is when you die, all to taxes and all those into a pot sort of like social security, to go to every kid not just your kid. I don't know what the line would be, and do know that in this world, rich people would still find some loophole to financially advantage their kids, I just find it immoral.
If the world worked so that everyone could leave a windfall then that would be a different world. In this world yes I think it's bad, the results have been bad, and yeah I know that's an unpopular stance.
I don't think my mom owed me what she made with her life. It's not mine, I didn't earn it. I didn't have to support her, she spent her money and not more. That's fine.
The disabled cousin might not need the windfall if we didn't let people hoard so much. I'm just not sure how it's morally acceptable for those who have rich generous relatives to have a life so different from someone who doesn't, though.
We should make inheritance less powerful but also make it easier to build up your own financial security and have better social safety nets.
Generational wealth is in opposition to the idea of equality and egalitarianism.
Basically every economist and economy-philosopher agrees with this. Inheritance tax is by far the most effective tax out there.
I literally just argued the opposite with my FiL. I think property should be illegal to inherit. If you have multiple children, you usually end up with a disagreement on what to do with it and how to split it up. It allows the consolidation of property for wealthy families.
I think a lot of resistance to this is most people want their kids to be comfortable, and it's a lot harder to make sure that everyone is comfortable than just making sure what you have can be transformed into keeping your kids in a good spot.
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.
Violence against oil company shareholders is justified defense of yourself and others. Starting with a face slap for small-time diversified 401k oil investors.
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.
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.
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?
I agree with the first one. Everyone should be able to love any adult in any way shape or form they want with consent of all involved parties.
But the the relatives one runs into issues with abuse and clear voluntary consent. Grooming is an actual thing, and a much bigger potential risk if the groomer is raising you from your infancy. I would add the caveat if you really want to make it acceptable, it should only be allowed between people of the same generation, and only when they're well into adulthood.
I believe it is immoral to own more than one house.
Nobody gets their second until everyone's had their first.
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.
Oh I wholeheartedly agree with this.
Veganism should be based around the fact that there's no reasonable or meaningful distinction between animals and humans. We should reject animal suffering for exactly the same reasons we seek to end human suffering.
I didn't even know Temu sold cocaine.
That kind of blew my mind.
Is there a high percentage of vegans using cocaine? Genuine question here. I do completely agree with you, though.
As a vegan, this is actually why I quit using cocaine lol
Yeah I avoid chocolate as well for that reason (at least the non fair trade/rainforest alliance, those certifications still have issues but at least they're an improvement). Coconut products made in Thailand are also typically pretty bad. Unfortunately at the end of the day it's basically impossible to not consume anything that exploits people or non-human animals at some point down the chain but I do try and avoid the most egregious ones I know about at least.
Absolutely.
Pretty sure almost every legit vegan is anti-capitalist.
And while "there's no ethical consumption under capitalism", people try to improve. I think that excluding the murder of animals is one of the easiest and most obvious ways to do so.
I also doubt that vegans are heavily representing for Temu and cocaine or exploitative products in general. Most likely they're more aware of these issues than the average chud. Definite straw man there.
Damn that is enlightening.
We've humanised ourselves to the point that we forgot we were animals, and to the point that it's a bad thing!
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.
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.
Freedom of religion is important and religions shouldnt receive special treatment
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.
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?
ITT: lots of morals that most people (here) agree with. Predictable.
That unfortunately ends up being the dynamics of these kinds of posts. I usually try to upvote only with what I believe is an actual unpopular opinion for the sake of the question.
Yeah, I was scrolling and scrolling and could barely find a comment that most people wouldn’t agree with.
I support assisted dying and the right for people with terminal illness or in pain to end their lives.
But the idea that we shouldn't intervene if someone young and in good physical health wants to die just doesn't sit right with me. Like, if someone told me they were going to end their life and I didn't do something to try and stop it, I don't think I'd ever be able to sleep at night.
I strongly believe that you can still live a fulfilling life even if you suffer from poor mental health issues.
Feel free to disagree, but that's just me.
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.
I agree, I think assisted suicide should only be available for people who are dying already
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.
Lets shun bad people but also let the children play, they don't have to be robots in public, unless they are the bratty type kids that are mean. But also idk, everything within reason i guess.
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.
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.
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
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.