|
People often respond altruistically in the wake of a crisis or tragedy with no clear selfish angle, even if removed from the situation. I would guess that altruism is just as hard coded into our biology as selfishness is, and that maybe there's some kind of evolutionary benefit to not always being a shithead.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
Pineapple is good on pizza. Pineapple is good on ham. Ham is good on pizza. Pineapple AND ham on pizza is loving disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Toadvine posted:Actually people are afflicted with consciousness and thus varying levels of empathy. We behave selfishly when we're removed from the consequences of our actions. we can't comprehend our actions beyond our face
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Nobody wants to save the whales or frogs or whatever because they think the environment will be sad if we don't. People do get emotional about it because while it may not meet your bar for being "sentient" it is still life and preserving it when possible is a worthwhile thing. Plus, better safe than sorry. The planet's ecosystem is incredibly complex, and we are only starting to scratch the surface of how different speices interact. Remove enough blocks from a Jenga tower and it will collapse, and half the fun of the game is not knowing which block will bring it down. Secondly, what if the insignificant insect we wipe out to make way for an opencast mine turns out to be the source of the next generation of antibiotics? Thirdly, the year 2286 will be a lot easier to deal with if we don't have to resort to time travel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:People aren't inherently one thing or another but rather are animated by their genetic predispositions combined with their external circumstances because the world isn't a zero sum binary dumbfest for babies Well, yeah. That doesn't mean ethics aren't important.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Grevling posted:Well, yeah. That doesn't mean ethics aren't important. :roflbarf:
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
I knew I was different. I thought that I might be gay or something because I couldn't identify with any of the guys at all. None of them liked art or music. They just wanted to fight and get laid. It was many years ago but it gave me this real hatred for the average American macho male.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Donald Trump is a lovely human being and an embarrassment but he was the only hope of changing the status quo of American society and government, for good or bad. People were so hopeless and downtrodden that changing the status quo was more important than the very likely possibility of it going bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Poly people should be broadly accepted by society and allowed to marry in their triad or throuple or metamour or whatever so that hopefully they'll be less annoying to everyone else. It probably won't work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
chumbler posted:Poly people should be broadly accepted by society and allowed to marry in their triad or throuple or metamour or whatever so that hopefully they'll be less annoying to everyone else. It probably won't work. I'm sure divorce lawyers would love this idea - at least one guaranteed divorce per "marriage" most likely within the first year or two, probably a double or more divorce. They could charge even more than normal since it would be a lot more complex to split things up after the divorce. At least, that would be true if poly people had money to pay their lawyer fees, which is pretty unlikely given the type of person that typically turns to that kind of lifestyle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
chumbler posted:Poly people should be broadly accepted by society and allowed to marry in their triad or throuple or metamour or whatever so that hopefully they'll be less annoying to everyone else. It probably won't work. taxes are the problem, they don't really want to be formally married if it means losing their single with kids tax status and welfare
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
chumbler posted:Poly people should be broadly accepted by society and allowed to marry in their triad or throuple or metamour or whatever so that hopefully they'll be less annoying to everyone else. It probably won't work. I think we should allow any form or combination of marriage as long as it pisses off old white people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Nolan Arenado posted:I think we should allow any form or combination of marriage as long as it pisses off old white people. As long as they're humans, adults, of sound mind, and consenting, sure. Hell, maybe even allow inanimate objects. I'm even being kinda serious. Don't allow people to claim heteronormative marriage as some special privileged class. chumbler fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
chumbler posted:Hell, maybe even allow inanimate objects. I dont see the harm
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
chumbler posted:As long as they're humans, adults, of sound mind, and consenting, sure. wtf so I can't marry a dragon? you're a bigot
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
For sure allow inanimate objects. Can you imagine how enraged people would be when they see folks marrying their anime pillows or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Making new babies is morally wrong. There are already too many existing people and there half a million kids in America alone that need adopting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Grevling posted:Well, yeah. That doesn't mean ethics aren't important. read ethics as ethnics first
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:Making new babies is morally wrong. There are already too many existing people and there half a million kids in America alone that need adopting. It's not really as long as you take care of it properly. Adopting isn't always as easy as popping by the baby store and picking out the best one. It's already hard enough for parents who want to adopt to get through the process, if you started forcing people to adopt instead of having their own kids it would be even worse. If you want to save the world from overpopulation it's the older people that need to be culled, not new babies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
After a certain age old people should have their brains extracted and plugged into the matrix to live forever in a virtual utopia and their avatars can be whatever they want. Is that a good enough compromise for the boomers to gently caress off and leave us alone forever?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
We should have agent smiths hunting down the ones that try to vote
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:It's not really as long as you take care of it properly. Adopting isn't always as easy as popping by the baby store and picking out the best one. It's already hard enough for parents who want to adopt to get through the process, if you started forcing people to adopt instead of having their own kids it would be even worse. Old people already exist. Theoretical new babies don't already exist. Instead of "kill olds" perhaps "not make as many new people" is a better choice?!?!?!? Also the difficulty of Adoption is a hollow argument. Raising a productive member of society for 2+ decades in difficult. This isn't "going to the baby store", it's raising a human being and providing care and respect for the sanctity of life. The median values for adoption are 2-3 months of preprocessing, 3 years waiting for a healthy caucasian infant (much quicker for kids with health complications, or kids that aren't white), and $30,000. In the total investment of everything that goes into raising a human being, those are insignificant figures. JIZZ DENOUEMENT fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
also adopting is trivial unless you care about color/nationality/age/etc. then you're just being picky
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Yes but telling people they aren't allowed to have babies anymore until whatever arbitrary population level is reached would not go over much better than going around exterminating old people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Yes but telling people they aren't allowed to have babies anymore until whatever arbitrary population level is reached would not go over much better than going around exterminating old people. Okay? I said it's ethically wrong to make new humans when existing humans need good families. You responded: yeah I eat rear end posted:It's not really as long as you take care of it properly. Adopting isn't always as easy as popping by the baby store and picking out the best one. It's already hard enough for parents who want to adopt to get through the process, if you started forcing people to adopt instead of having their own kids it would be even worse. First bold: Creating new babies when existing babies exist would still be unethical Second bold: Nonsensical. The process would get streamlined if there was an uptick in demand. Until the point where the demand of parents who want to adopt kids greatly exceed the supply of kids that need a good home. Which is the entire goal. Third bold: Killing people is worse than slowing down the creation of new people
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
I would like to get rid of the homophobes, sexists, and racists in our forums. I know they're out there and it really bothers me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
i like that posted:I would like to get rid of the homophobes, sexists, and racists in our forums. I know they're out there and it really bothers me. Hmm... we need some kind of solution
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:Okay? You're ignoring the fact that new babies come with a clean slate, and as unfortunate as it is many adopted kids, especially the ones that have been in the system for a while, come with a lot of baggage. Yes if there was more demand they wouldn't stay in as long eventually, but it's still a problem. Whether you think it's stupid or not, a lot of people want "their" kid, not just "a" kid and no matter how many examples you show them of adoptive families treating the kids as their own and having great relationships will never budge. The point is it's a very simplistic "solution" to just say "just adopt instead of have your own kid" and it will never happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Nobody is gonna adopt when they can create a new version of themselves and live vicariously through it's achievements until their own use to society fully evaporates and they are forgotten. I mean this aint rocket science.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:You're ignoring the fact that new babies come with a clean slate, and as unfortunate as it is many adopted kids, especially the ones that have been in the system for a while, come with a lot of baggage. Yes if there was more demand they wouldn't stay in as long eventually, but it's still a problem. Whether you think it's stupid or not, a lot of people want "their" kid, not just "a" kid and no matter how many examples you show them of adoptive families treating the kids as their own and having great relationships will never budge. The point is it's objectively true that creating a new human instead of adopting an existing human is unethical. If you want to get into an argument about the realities of policy implementation then we can do that. But my original point that it is unethical, is without question, true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
With the amount of perfectly healthy babies going spare for adoption, I see no reason why euthanasia shouldn't be encouraged in the case of severe mental disability from birth. Requiring parents to care for and support a child who will require 24/7 care for its natural life and will never be able to function properly in human society has the potential to blight their lives permanently. Plus, they are faced with the worry of who will care for a child who will quite possibly outlive them once they are gone. On a purely materialistic basis, such an individual will not only be a nett drain on society's resources, but will render at least one parent nonproductive as a 24/7 carer as well. Better to let the parents grieve, get on with their lives, and try again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:The point is it's objectively true that creating a new human instead of adopting an existing human is unethical. Holy cow 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Does "objectively" mean objectively, or "I have already decided that my opinion is irrefutable fact"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
So this is the most unfitting thread to post this but Toadvine seems like a real jerk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
fruit on the bottom posted:Does "objectively" mean objectively, or "I have already decided that my opinion is irrefutable fact"? It means "I am a wide eyed 20 something learning about things for the first time" (so the latter then)
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Not very controversial for an internet forum but i think that generally anything that upsets bitter old men is probably actually good and beneficial and i use this as the barometer of my opinions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
fruit on the bottom posted:Does "objectively" mean objectively, or "I have already decided that my opinion is irrefutable fact"? It means "objectively". There is a [parental unit]. The composition can be whatever; 2 Dads, 2 Moms, 1 of each, single parent, whatever. The defining traits of the [parental unit] is that they: a) want to provide for child/ren and b) have the capacity to provide for child/ren. The parental unit decides they are going to add 1 child to their family. They have two options: 1. Create a new human 2. Adopt a child that needs a good home For each additional child the [parental unit] wants to add to their family, they are presented with the same 2 options. Because at the current time the parental unit is going to add a single child to their family, these are mutually exclusive options. The opportunity cost of creating a new human is condemning a child to stay in the childcare system instead of providing them a loving home. This is objectively unethical. If you don't agree then you either don't understand objectivity or have a seriously hosed up set of ethics. And this doesn't even touch on the environmental impacts of overpopulation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:It means "I am a wide eyed 20 something learning about things for the first time" You're dumb. Also probably ugly with bad breath. Your previous response to my ethics position is "many people do this and like doing this". Which has no bearing on whether or not something is ethical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:It means "objectively". I wish you'd go back in time and show this to your parents so this post would never be made.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
theres literally nothing wrong with kink shaming
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 00:35
|
|