And just because it happens in nature or everything does it, that does not mean that it is 'okay' (not sure if that is even what you meant). However, I don't think that this must be true. Why couldn't something refuse to do so?
One of the traditional anti-animal-rights strawmen is to claim that all vegans/animal rights activists/etc want no harm whatever to be caused to any living organism by any human.
I've seen some resort to the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy by claiming that because animal rights activists typically harm plants, they are hypocrites (and therefore no one should listen to them).
not least because it is psychologically damaging to the torturer
What? If he finds it fun and enjoys it, then claiming that he's "evil" or that he "needs help" isn't going to change that (and I highly doubt that absolute morals exist in the first place).
you're raising a generation of individuals who are completely unable to cope without said devices.
What exactly do you mean? If people are unable to function without the devices, then the problem, I'd think, would be their education. Not their hobbies. It's difficult for me to imagine such a scenario in the first place.
Sitting in front of a monitor or TV all day long just turns you into a drone, at best.
Those are merely hobbies. If someone doesn't like interacting with others or doing anything else, then what are they to do? Their mindset isn't inherently or morally "wrong" (whatever that means). And I don't see how it turns anyone into a "drone," either. They might not have no "real life experience," as you say, but that doesn't mean that they are a "drone." What should their hobbies be? Something that you define as "helpful"?
if I took a simple gyroscope and tossed it to a typical kid, would they know what it was and how it worked?
Maybe.
Theory and books are one thing, but any employer will tell you that all of that is worthless compared to hands-on experience with the job in question.
Precisely. Which is why you needn't do sports, hunting, or anything of the like. They, at best, are merely tools to make it more fun (depending on if the person actually thinks it is fun). It can be done directly, as you said, and with no arbitrary "rules" or games at work. But, again, not everyone needs such information.
We have a generation coming up that are awesome at taking tests and working out problems on paper
I've noticed the opposite. Many people I've met don't seem to be able to do either.
and that means they really need a Computer Engineering/Software Engineering degree.
Not necessarily. Some people (though not all or many) can teach it to themselves through the use of various methods. And, despite this, they actually know what they're doing.
Physical skills of any kind, be it writing, playing sports, reading a book, or some hobby are important to learn as they set up your mind and body for the task of solving real-world problems as an adult.
I guess you do have to do something to learn how to solve problems (but I doubt that playing sports would be very good at teaching someone how to do that in the first place when they could do something like reading about problem solving directly or playing chess).
And it's so much easier to be distracted by it all than to actually spend the time doing things that matter.
"Things that matter"? No such thing exists. Things that matter to you may not matter to someone else. And, as far as I know, there is no magical entity that governs what is and isn't universally important.
Something awful is happening to the U.S. in the last decade as commercial media has grown, and it's having a real effect of diluting the skill sets of our newest generations at exactly the time when we're about to face the worst crisis in our nation's history.
I believe that most humans are idiots. I believe that it has always been this way. While hobbies, fads, technology, and the economy have changed, I believe not much else has. What someone's hobbies are is of none of my concern. If they want to learn how to solve problems, then they will do just that (and, again, I don't think that some random unrelated activity such as hunting or sports is going to help someone more than something like chess would). And who says that video games don't train people to solve problems?
Basic skills like camping, hunting, doing repairs, electronics
I didn't know those were basic skills. Camping and hunting are irrelevant to me. I like neither. And since these people are playing video games instead of doing these things, perhaps the same is true of them. And how are those important? I'd think that you would only need to learn how to camp or hunt if you wanted to do either of those things (the same could be said about the other things as well).
I think that says more about the people willing to throw away their own privacy because someone hacked websites on the internet than it does about Lulzsec.
I don't believe in absolute morals. I believe in opinions. If you somehow thought that my comment implied that I thought that she was morally wrong, then you may need to reread it. I only gave my opinion.
I think that this world is already overpopulated with arrogant humans as it is.
So you're not for forcing infertility on people via the water supply, but you are for forcing infertility on people by banning medical procedures used to fix them, correct?
No. Read it again. I said that if the world was overpopulated and we needed to lower the population for it to be sustainable (which we don't right now), I'd be in favor of making people have to have permission to have children. They could still get surgeries which allowed them to have children, but they couldn't actually have them.
It's certainly be a lot more cost-effective of a way to reduce the population to do so by injecting birth control into the water supply.
Except that I don't want to mess with the water supply for such a thing. I don't care about cost-effectiveness.
No, you misunderstand. It's overpopulated to me, specifically. I wouldn't mind there being less humans, even if it is sustainable. That's why I said "I think."
One more kid in the world doesn't change the situation much.
If the world were truly overpopulated, then yes it would. That is but one mentality that helps cause it.
Do you or do you not support banning such procedures because you think the planet is overpopulated? You supported a non-lifesaving procedure for the purpose of improving quality of life
If you read it, I never actually said anything about myself. But if you want to know, then yes, if it would improve the quality if life of society as a whole (or in the future), then yes. I wouldn't want to force infertility upon someone, but not allowing them to have kids is something that I would support if I believed that the situation called for it.
So it is your view that it's okay to override what is most important to someone
I don't see where my post said or implied that at all. I said that there is a difference. For instance, someone could be of the opinion that living people should be able to live but not be able to overpopulate the planet.
Why not just cut out a couple steps and dump birth control into the public water supply?
I'm not sure that's safe. However, if something out of our control happened that rendered most people unable to reproduce, I don't think I'd care too much (although I wouldn't want to force it upon them).
Except that blind people are currently alive and them gaining the ability to see will not increase the human population (which I believe is already too much). What's wrong with adoption, anyway? I mean, sure, she can have the opinion that having a real children is better (and she wouldn't necessarily be wrong), but what is the actual reason?
Slashdot Mirror
And yet, still, it isn't impossible to make that choice. You may die, but the choice was still made.
Any animals kills if it helps its own survival.
And just because it happens in nature or everything does it, that does not mean that it is 'okay' (not sure if that is even what you meant). However, I don't think that this must be true. Why couldn't something refuse to do so?
The question if this is okay is pointless.
To you, perhaps.
One of the traditional anti-animal-rights strawmen is to claim that all vegans/animal rights activists/etc want no harm whatever to be caused to any living organism by any human.
I've seen some resort to the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy by claiming that because animal rights activists typically harm plants, they are hypocrites (and therefore no one should listen to them).
not least because it is psychologically damaging to the torturer
What? If he finds it fun and enjoys it, then claiming that he's "evil" or that he "needs help" isn't going to change that (and I highly doubt that absolute morals exist in the first place).
In addition, the end does not justify the means.
That depends on who you ask.
you're raising a generation of individuals who are completely unable to cope without said devices.
What exactly do you mean? If people are unable to function without the devices, then the problem, I'd think, would be their education. Not their hobbies. It's difficult for me to imagine such a scenario in the first place.
Also:
Sitting in front of a monitor or TV all day long just turns you into a drone, at best.
Those are merely hobbies. If someone doesn't like interacting with others or doing anything else, then what are they to do? Their mindset isn't inherently or morally "wrong" (whatever that means). And I don't see how it turns anyone into a "drone," either. They might not have no "real life experience," as you say, but that doesn't mean that they are a "drone." What should their hobbies be? Something that you define as "helpful"?
or will be in ten years
Interesting. Can you prove this? I've always wanted the ability to see into the future.
A 12 year old who'd rather play than work, who would of thunk it!
Actually, I think that applies to most humans.
if I took a simple gyroscope and tossed it to a typical kid, would they know what it was and how it worked?
Maybe.
Theory and books are one thing, but any employer will tell you that all of that is worthless compared to hands-on experience with the job in question.
Precisely. Which is why you needn't do sports, hunting, or anything of the like. They, at best, are merely tools to make it more fun (depending on if the person actually thinks it is fun). It can be done directly, as you said, and with no arbitrary "rules" or games at work. But, again, not everyone needs such information.
We have a generation coming up that are awesome at taking tests and working out problems on paper
I've noticed the opposite. Many people I've met don't seem to be able to do either.
and that means they really need a Computer Engineering/Software Engineering degree.
Not necessarily. Some people (though not all or many) can teach it to themselves through the use of various methods. And, despite this, they actually know what they're doing.
It'll increase your problem solving abilities.
Physical skills of any kind, be it writing, playing sports, reading a book, or some hobby are important to learn as they set up your mind and body for the task of solving real-world problems as an adult.
I guess you do have to do something to learn how to solve problems (but I doubt that playing sports would be very good at teaching someone how to do that in the first place when they could do something like reading about problem solving directly or playing chess).
And it's so much easier to be distracted by it all than to actually spend the time doing things that matter.
"Things that matter"? No such thing exists. Things that matter to you may not matter to someone else. And, as far as I know, there is no magical entity that governs what is and isn't universally important.
Something awful is happening to the U.S. in the last decade as commercial media has grown, and it's having a real effect of diluting the skill sets of our newest generations at exactly the time when we're about to face the worst crisis in our nation's history.
I believe that most humans are idiots. I believe that it has always been this way. While hobbies, fads, technology, and the economy have changed, I believe not much else has. What someone's hobbies are is of none of my concern. If they want to learn how to solve problems, then they will do just that (and, again, I don't think that some random unrelated activity such as hunting or sports is going to help someone more than something like chess would). And who says that video games don't train people to solve problems?
Basic skills like camping, hunting, doing repairs, electronics
I didn't know those were basic skills. Camping and hunting are irrelevant to me. I like neither. And since these people are playing video games instead of doing these things, perhaps the same is true of them. And how are those important? I'd think that you would only need to learn how to camp or hunt if you wanted to do either of those things (the same could be said about the other things as well).
The study apparently shows that playing violent games makes you more violent
It shows that video games permanently make someone more violent (and not just having temporary aggressive thoughts)?
LulzSec is clearly on the wrong side of the line.
That depends on who you ask (because morals are likely to be subjective).
I think that says more about the people willing to throw away their own privacy because someone hacked websites on the internet than it does about Lulzsec.
Name one instance where the said ideology has ever been managed to be implemented, without the totalitarianism/fascism.
Which doesn't mean that it won't be or can't be.
Therefore, they can never be backed by anything and it's not possible for anyone to ever accept them.
And why would they care about that?
assumes some moral standing
I don't believe in absolute morals. I believe in opinions. If you somehow thought that my comment implied that I thought that she was morally wrong, then you may need to reread it. I only gave my opinion.
I think that this world is already overpopulated with arrogant humans as it is.
I do agree with this, though.
So you're not for forcing infertility on people via the water supply, but you are for forcing infertility on people by banning medical procedures used to fix them, correct?
No. Read it again. I said that if the world was overpopulated and we needed to lower the population for it to be sustainable (which we don't right now), I'd be in favor of making people have to have permission to have children. They could still get surgeries which allowed them to have children, but they couldn't actually have them.
It's certainly be a lot more cost-effective of a way to reduce the population to do so by injecting birth control into the water supply.
Except that I don't want to mess with the water supply for such a thing. I don't care about cost-effectiveness.
No it isn't.
No, you misunderstand. It's overpopulated to me, specifically. I wouldn't mind there being less humans, even if it is sustainable. That's why I said "I think."
One more kid in the world doesn't change the situation much.
If the world were truly overpopulated, then yes it would. That is but one mentality that helps cause it.
Do you or do you not support banning such procedures because you think the planet is overpopulated? You supported a non-lifesaving procedure for the purpose of improving quality of life
If you read it, I never actually said anything about myself. But if you want to know, then yes, if it would improve the quality if life of society as a whole (or in the future), then yes. I wouldn't want to force infertility upon someone, but not allowing them to have kids is something that I would support if I believed that the situation called for it.
So it is your view that it's okay to override what is most important to someone
I don't see where my post said or implied that at all. I said that there is a difference. For instance, someone could be of the opinion that living people should be able to live but not be able to overpopulate the planet.
Why not just cut out a couple steps and dump birth control into the public water supply?
I'm not sure that's safe. However, if something out of our control happened that rendered most people unable to reproduce, I don't think I'd care too much (although I wouldn't want to force it upon them).
To blind people. Fucking get a cane.
Except that blind people are currently alive and them gaining the ability to see will not increase the human population (which I believe is already too much). What's wrong with adoption, anyway? I mean, sure, she can have the opinion that having a real children is better (and she wouldn't necessarily be wrong), but what is the actual reason?
I'd say she should adopt a child. I think that this world is already overpopulated with humans as it is.