297
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by amon@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world

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

(page 6) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Against IP as in if I spend my life creating something you'd be ok with a big company just stealing it and steam rolling me?

[-] amon@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Yes, but without IP you can take anything the big company makes for anything you want to do with it.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[-] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Agree with you on IP and I agree it seems to be sadly a minority opinion.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 5 points 2 months ago

I think one of the more controversial ones I have is that I don't tend to be in favor of things like MAID or voluntary euthanasia. I understand why people are for it, but I don't like the idea of killing someone over something that is ultimately in their head, like pain or a person's desires, and the way I tend to evaluate the value of life has something of a floor (that is to say, I do not really believe that there is such a thing as a "fate worse than death" so to speak, because I believe that death is the least functional state a person can have and anything above that implies at least some functioning even if that state is still highly undesirable).

[-] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 months ago

What about people with terminal, genuinely incurable diseases? I understand not letting people kill themselves just because they want to (since mental illness can compromise your objectivity there) but sometimes it's less about someone deciding if they're going to die, and more about how.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] meowgenau@programming.dev 5 points 2 months ago

I do not really believe that there is such a thing as a "fate worse than death"

What about unimaginable suffering before one's certain death? Would this not qualify as a worse fate than death?

I don't really have a strong opinion on this topic, but one example comes to mind that shows that many people don't act according to your maxime. Have you ever seen those battlefield suicides that are filmed by the drones in Ukraine? I'm not going to link them here, but they are plentyful. So, so many soldiers, many of them wounded, decide to take their own life to avoid going through an experience that they probably view as worse than death. I just think it's interesting and worth considering.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I would have agreed with you when I was younger, but now that I'm older I think I changed my mind, I'm not so sure it's fair to make people suffer with late-stage terminal diseases where their whole life is reduced to suffering.

(that is to say, I do not really believe that there is such a thing as a “fate worse than death” so to speak, because I believe that death is the least functional state a person can have and anything above that implies at least some functioning even if that state is still highly undesirable)

Is constant, unending suffering where you are in a state of constant unimaginable and untreatable pain a state worth living, though? Should people have to live that way, just because death is "worse"?

Everything is in someone's head. Without consciousness, we are nothing, so saying something is "in someone's head" is the wrong way of putting it.

Have you ever heard about functional neurologic disorder? Just because symptoms are psychosomatic does not mean they are not actual symptoms.

[-] nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 months ago

I am of the complete opposite opinion. Not letting people decide if they want to live or not is the ultimate restriction of personal freedom. I think there should be some kind of process for euthanasia for practical reasons cause most people will eventually feel they want to keep on living, but for those who don’t there should be a right to die.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[-] gregs_gumption@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Waldelfe@feddit.org 5 points 2 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Misseuse@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] JayleneSlide@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Summary death to bicycle thieves, and anyone else actively wrecking the world. I am averse to the death penalty in most cases, but bicycle thieves are actively wrecking their communities. Someone rides a bike because they:

  • Have no other option
  • Are trying to improve their health
  • Are living car-free or car-lite
  • Are trying to enjoy the locals with active transportation OR
  • Are complying with a court-ordered driving suspension

Stealing bicycles undermines these goals and poisons the community.

Of course, we could easily scale this up to, say, almost all CEOs of megacorporations.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
297 points (95.4% liked)

Ask Lemmy

32370 readers
793 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS