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
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”.
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?
Unpopular Opinion: Kids are great? get off the stage
U should lurk more lemmy comments. Mfers here really are anti children
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think individualism has gone too far. We pander too much to each person’s individual rights, and not each person’s individual responsibilities. I’m not talking about human rights here, I’m not talking about labour rights or any of the genuinely important stuff.
I’m talking about the self important experiences of the individual. The idea that someone has the right to believe whatever they want without responsibility to those around them. The most obvious answer is anti-vaxxers that spread literal lies. Whatever about vaccine hesitancy when there is legitimate peer reviewed medical potential for harm, there are levels of hesitancy. But when it goes to the point of fabricating data and spreading lies that will ultimately only cause harm to society, then in that case I’m ok with those people having any free speech rights voided, including full legal culpability for the harm it causes, akin to medical terrorism.
Where established data shows that people are contributing harm to society, contradicting scientifically proven data, and a person deliberately continues to spread misinformation when they are informed that they are causing harm, then they clearly do not care for the protection of the community, they should have forego societal protections for themselves, rights to free speech, rights to own property, and where necessary incarceration. If you’re in a position of power/authority or have specific training in the field, then you should face exponentially greater legal consequences for this deliberate harm.
Many people may agree with the general principles of this sentiment but as a society we are not ready to have that conversation, because the first person to be locked up would trigger a mass protest not widespread agreement. All because we have permitted individualism to far overpower the importance of collectivism. Rights should not be absolute they should always be coupled to responsibilities. Even if that responsibility is simply not to cause deliberate harm to others.
And the idea that someone’s beliefs about reality are somehow important to uphold. That the person above believes they are not doing harm, despite being told otherwise, that this idea should hold any weight in court is wrong. People should be informed of their ignorance and measurable reality is the only true reality that should be taken into account . Just like ignorance of the law is not a defence, ignorance of reality should not be a defence.
If a person is spreading misinformation that causes harm, they should be served a legal notice that outlines that they have been “judged to have been causing harm to society by spreading information that is adjudicated as false and harmful by an sanctioned and independently operated committee, whose ruling has been further agreed upon by a plurality of specialist training bodies in the relevant field. The only entities who contradict this societally important and data derived ruling are those that mean harm to society or those without the relevant knowledge base to make any informed statements on the matter. As of this point you will be treated as the former now that you have been served notice that the information you are spreading is factually incorrect and harmful. If you continue to spread this misinformation you sacrifice a portion or all of your rights afforded to you by this society. Your assets can be seized, you may be incarcerated, and your access to any and all communication with other humans may be partially or entirely withheld. This is a measure to combat information terrorism.”
Civil liberties are a privilege not an inalienable right.
You might think this sounds dystopian but it’s my answer to your question. Obviously it needs baked in failsafes to stop a small few individuals from corrupting it for authoritatian abuse. But just because something could be hypothetically abused doesn’t make it a bad idea. You just need to insulate against the abuse.
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.
At which point you make such groups illegal and start investigating and prosecuting, officially and not.
Yeah, I know that won’t get us to a state of educated well-meaning humanity caring for all life. But I can’t deny seeing some assholes getting their own medicine will make me smile for some time
Nice, a clean descent into authoritharism and fascism.
fuck the slippery slope apparently
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.
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!
Animals don’t exist for us to use. They aren’t ours. Outside of survival scenarios, it’s wrong to eat animals or take things like milk or eggs from animals. It’s fucked up.
Extend that to plants and mineral resources, and you’ll be both fully moral and dead.
Plants and minerals aren’t conscious, don’t have feelings and sense of self.
That hasn’t been proven yet, and plants and trees do have sensations and awareness of others around them.
Also I don’t understand how you can reconcile your opinion about animals when they hunt each other, play with their preys, and are sometimes cannibalistic.
Why impose human concepts of ethics onto animals that survive based on instinct? Humans are omnivores, and in places where we have access to Lemmy, we also have access to things like grocery stores and farmers markets. We don’t need to eat animals to be healthy, nor do we need to eat any other animal products. We do so out of tradition, or familiarity, and then justify the horrible way we treat other life because we like the taste. Plant life having sensations isn’t equivalent to the sensations that we know that animals have, and the suffering we know farming animals causes. And rather frankly, eating animals requires growing more plants and killing more plants than just eating the plants.
So you have moved other animals into your circle of respect but not plants. You still draw a line somewhere.
And outside of that line, you chomp down with the crushers evolution has placed in your mouth
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?
It’s legal in many countries. You might want to check out how it plays out there in terms of human rights?
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.
Your view of god seems to be very much influenced by the Abrahamic religions.
You may not agree that it’s important for the deceased or their relatives to keep the body intact until it’s buried.
But there’s a point to be made that this simply isn’t your, or the state’s, or anyone else’s decision.
That only the deceased and their relatives have the right to decide that, no matter what their reasons are.Ultimately, you’re proposing that as soon as the brain stops functioning, the body of the person immediately becomes state property.
And that’s a hard point to make, since everything else they leave behind usually doesn’t, and all of our traditions surrounding death go against it.While I sort of understand your point our society already contradicts that. If a person were to die under suspicious circumstances, an autopsy would be performed regardless of the dead or any relative’s wishes, and that would violate the integrity of the body as much as an organ donation would. Therefore we as a society understand that there are limits to one’s personal beliefs.
I also disagree with the person you’re replying to, I think the system should be opt out with the following conditions:
- You must opt out yearly, on the 366th day since you last opted out you become an organ donor again
- You must not have opted out of it over the past 5 years before you’re allowed to undergo any surgery that would jeopardize the integrity of your body, including organ transplants but also blood transfusions and potentially also any foreign object such as pins or bone grafts.
- You cannot opt out if you have ever received an organ.
- Your body cannot be autopsied, embalmed or cremated, as all of those would also violate the body. This includes police investigations.
- Any family of anyone senile/old/incapacitated enough not to be able to keep renewing it (or the person himself if possible in a moment of lucidity) can be added into the permanent no donation list.
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 think that institutions should be respected.
It’s the number one problem in american politics right now, everything we are currently experiencing, is from people treating politics like a toy. Rather than an institution.
It’s so incredibly hard to state how critically important it is for the functioning of society, that the structures running our society, are respected.
deleted by creator
Yeah, the ATF for instance. Anyone knowledgeable about the ATF does not trust it, after Waco and Ruby Ridge
Anything is acceptable as a kink as long as you’re careful enough and enthusiastic enough!
