sga @ sga @lemmings.world

Alts (mostly for modding)

---

Read more

Posts

9

Comments

311

Joined

6 mo. ago

Moderating

---

sorry, i have not seen it, but that basically seems like giving up on the whole species, based on very little sampling. To which I would ask, who gave us that power, and if we have that power, should we keep that power?

sorry to be rude - but the question is not about violence. If violence is inescapable - then for whom is the violence justified - who gets to choose that. I went into more detail about this on someone else's reply, but it is the flexibility is what i am questioning

by stature, I meant in context of power sharing in the dynamics.

unless violence is necessary and matches the profundity of the situation

I also replied to someone else, but how do we know when violence is necessary? And how much?

how do we know we have exhausted all options? could it be our ignorance just getting the better of us?

sorry, I have not seen much horror (or hardly any).

morals ARE inherently flexible. If they weren’t, we would never learn anything or progress as a society or even as individuals.

I dont think so. Why would morality inhibit progress. Stale knowledge does prevent, but morals dont really change. By morals being flexible, I mean - "Killing is very bad, except in so and so situations, you have to".

but you absolutely have direct control over the actions you take to influence it and the way you adapt and react to it

someone else also mentioned this, but i dont agree with this either, there are situations where you are blinded, in such situations, knowledge is not free, and only a few control it, and I find them to be the wrong-doers. If someone uses gun to commit crime, then these blind people are essentially just weapons.

Morals can’t be absolute. Tolerance can’t be absolute. Everything is flexible and eternally changing. It’s scary and it’s complex but people have to come to terms with it.

I agree with the scary and complex part, but i still uncertain about morals.

I agree with you partially. I dont think bystanders should be judged in similar regard as the criminal. They may not know completely, or not in a position to fight.

I have always been a pacifist. I faced bullies too, and my solution was to simply accept there doings, and withstanding whatever they did. Beyond a limit, they would just stop, maybe they were not entertained enough with me. But I would never suggest any to do so, It has given me a lot of trauma. I am not a parent, but I get what you mean, i feel the same.

I agree mostly - but not with the most part in beginning. There are a lot of situations, where 2 parties involved are of not same stature - someone among them may not be in a position to prevent escalation

I never expected a binary answer.

You can have moral killing, and immoral pacifism.

when can be killing moral - how much evil (and of what kind) do you have to do to deserve that outcome. I can somewhat understand immoral pacifism, but is it immoral to take a stand in a non violent way.

Rigid adherence to a moral code could lead to immoral acts. Too much flexibility in morals leads to amoral behaviour.

I agree with the latter, but I dont know about the former - there can be 2 situations - either your morals were not refined enough to tackle the situation - or you did not act correctly according to those morals correctly

Every life is important, but not to the point where it overrides someone else’s rights.

I get this, and can understand it very easily. Great point. But a problem is still there - who should be put in the deciding situation. As a society - In most places we have judges - who are supposedly wise - but they are just as much human, and just as corruptible. There are juries, but still a small finite number, who may all be thinking incorrectly(For example - 12 Angry Men) Can a solution exist where we dont trust any person, but a system. I dont trust a machine predicting likeliness. I can get by with a mathematical framework - but who should be the one forming it ? Constitution is one such framework - and assuming it has mechanisms to update it self - then it should be fine, but do the the people updating it not get a lot of power, who are again corruptible.

it maybe, but i dont think so, most animals dont go out of their ways to breed with same species from far off, especially if the said species forms communities. I think the simpler logic is - boredom - the people you grow up watching everyday become the normal, and if someone new comes, you curiosity gets to it

Please add NSFW warnings. I am a grown adult, but still having such pics in public is awkward to say the least.

And obligatory - (insert I and whole train started to jerk vigorously copypasta)

the safety factor got me