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!
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.
It’s not pain and suffering that you admire its perseverance. You can have one without the other.
Perseverance against what if not pain?
The fact that this is your reply goes to show you need to learn more.
Sorry, I’m not into S&M play.
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.
Maybe, maybe not. My thought for the comment was “tried to help, didn’t work, off you go and experience as is”.
Because not everyone learns the same way, so we can’t apply a fix-all universal method. Some kids, adults even, don’t get it until they experience it themselves.
What that “it” is changes from person to person and every time we think “why don’t they just understand”, maybe it’s that they can’t understand and need a different way of learning “it”. Which sometimes is painful.
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?
Misguided pride or PTSD perhaps?
Ah yes, the “poverty builds character” argument that’s often used to justify poverty.
Nah mate, it’s the “rich ppl need to experience poverty in order to empathize” argument.
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
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.
My mam has a union jack she flies outside her house. I always say “do you forget what country you live in?” To her all the time about 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.
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
Plus, they are %99 less likely to get hit by a car or eaten by a coyote.
also they just live longer.
outdoor cats average…what…5 years? Indoor cats can get to 20. a lucky few even more.
That cats should remain indoors.
In my experience, humans do tend to prefer this policy but cats do not. Consequently, outdoor cats tend to be cats that are particularly good at getting outside in defiance of their owners’ interests - either by physical escape or social manipulation.
Are the cats wanting to be outside, or are they just wanting to be away from you?
Cause I’ve never had a cat that wanted to be outside. Sit in a window and watch the world, yes, but as soon as you give them the ability they ran and hid.
I have a take on this that I think no one will have fun with:
In my opinion there is no moral way to keep a cat as a pet.
Allowing cats to roam as they desire results in the aforementioned ecological damage. The opposite - keeping cats locked in a few thousand feet at best for twenty-odd years of life - is cruel.
As someone who was raised in the woods with outdoor cats and couldn’t imagine keeping them inside - even though we lost two as I grew up - it’s a circle I just can’t square. So I figure that if and when I get cats, I’ll dodge the question and adopt some older cats who were already raised inside and couldn’t be trusted to go outside safely anyway.
Genocide is bad.
It’s promoted by hegemony throughout my culture. Both “parties” support genocide almost completely. If I even ask for a non-genocidal candidate, I’m attacked by libs. It’s a disgusting society.
I believe it is immoral to own more than one house.
Want to know something fun about US parents??
Patents don’t really protect new inventions. They give people a right to sue for financial damages and there is no criminal force of law (this is a generalization and I am not a lawyer). So courts don’t really go “hey, stop using invention ABC, someone else has a patent on it.” They just say “hey, that other guy invented it first, give him some money.”
Patents (not other forms of IP) are made to be wildly public so people can invent things on top of previous inventions.
Does it always work like that? No. But it’s one facet of US federal law that I find interesting, and a little bit hopeful.
People should be jailed for violating a DNR order.
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.”
If you’re a juror and you vote guilty, knowing that the person you’re voting guilty for will be executed, if they are later found not guilty, your head should be next on the chopping block.
I am fundamentally against the death penalty. It is not a power the government should ever have.
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.
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.
The free movement of people is a human right!
Note that capital is free to go whatever it wants to.
Circumcision is multilation
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.
I think that’s starting to come around, no?
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.
