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

  • balderdash@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is a bit meta, but I believe morality is objective. Actions have objective moral worth; epistemological disagreements about how we know the moral value of an action are irrelevant to the objectivity of goodness/badness itself.

  • traches@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    That capitalism is good. There is no economic system more efficient at progress

    It’s government that’s the failure. It’s Governments responsibility to shape the markets so capitalism benefits society and they have failed miserably

  • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • phanto@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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!

  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

          • silly goose meekah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            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

            • kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              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?