|
FAO: Drug Users | MESSAGE: Please boycott foreign drugs or overdose already. Thanks! (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
CORe version: If you do drugs, please see the traffic routes in the map above. Other people may be dying so you can get high and, if that's the case, I warmly ask you to end yourself before you do any further damage. Oh, and I ing hate you for that :gsmile: |
You probably should stop buying computers and smart phones then because the Tantalum in them comes mostly from central African countries with human rights abuses and civil wars that make the bad things that happen in Mexico look like a school yard punch up. Then the material gets shipped to China where its refined and processed into the final components under what is essentially indentured serf labour in corporate compounds, because you don't want to pay three to four times more than if it was made to any semblance of ethical standards.
Your sneakers are probably made by child labourers in Asia that have to work instead of going to school and getting an education, you should probably stop buying them as well.
But you probably wont. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
You probably should stop buying computers and smart phones then because the Tantalum in them comes mostly from central African countries with human rights abuses and civil wars that make the bad things that happen in Mexico look like a school yard punch up. Then the material gets shipped to China where its refined and processed into the final components under what is essentially indentured serf labour in corporate compounds, because you don't want to pay three to four times more than if it was made to any semblance of ethical standards.
Your sneakers are probably made by child labourers in Asia that have to work instead of going to school and getting an education, you should probably stop buying them as well.
But you probably wont. |
1st world selective problems in other words. |
|
|
| Tangil |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
This is like vegetarians arguing that them eating less meat is preventing less cattle from being slaughtered. |
I disagree. If everyone stopped eating meat there would be far less cattle bing slaughtered. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
, what did i miss here!?! Lilith smacking down green consumerists = win!
| quote: | Originally posted by -FSP-
Morality is not subjective. Look at this: People have needs and this is an objective fact. People have a need not to get shot. It doesn't matter what one's subjective thoughts on the matter are.
And me being a meat eater doesn't make me any less of an . |
morality is entirely subjective: Everyone has different needs, they come into conflict all the ing time.
If morality wasn't subjective nobody would argue and there wouldn't be multiple world views.
People have a need to not get shot, yes, but the people on the other end of the gun clearly believe they have a need to shoot, or they wouldn't. IF morality wasn't entirely subjective this situation wouldn't even arise. |
|
|
| -FSP- |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
, what did i miss here!?! Lilith smacking down green consumerists = win!
morality is entirely subjective: Everyone has different needs, they come into conflict all the ing time.
If morality wasn't subjective nobody would argue and there wouldn't be multiple world views.
People have a need to not get shot, yes, but the people on the other end of the gun clearly believe they have a need to shoot, or they wouldn't. IF morality wasn't entirely subjective this situation wouldn't even arise. |
So there exists a fat ass who loves burgers out there who is apathetic towards their health out there . That person needs to go to the gym and eat healthy. And when I say "need" I don't mean it in an emotion sense. Plants need water, and that's an objective fact. People need not to get shot, and that's an objective fact. You ought to feed your hungry plants, and you ought to not shoot people. All living things have that particular need like that plant. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
You probably should stop buying computers and smart phones then because the Tantalum in them comes mostly from central African countries with human rights abuses and civil wars that make the bad things that happen in Mexico look like a school yard punch up. Then the material gets shipped to China where its refined and processed into the final components under what is essentially indentured serf labour in corporate compounds, because you don't want to pay three to four times more than if it was made to any semblance of ethical standards.
Your sneakers are probably made by child labourers in Asia that have to work instead of going to school and getting an education, you should probably stop buying them as well.
But you probably wont. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I'm well aware of the problems of capitalism in general and I can only do so much. |
|
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by -FSP-
So there exists a fat ass who loves burgers out there who is apathetic towards their health out there . That person needs to go to the gym and eat healthy. And when I say "need" I don't mean it in an emotion sense. Plants need water, and that's an objective fact. People need not to get shot, and that's an objective fact. You ought to feed your hungry plants, and you ought to not shoot people. All living things have that particular need like that plant. |
LOL so eating unhealthily is imorral?!?! there are so many questionable assumptions your making.
they nearly all come from you assuming there is a 'right' way to act. We all have beliefs (subjective) about what is right and wrong, but you're claiming yours are right for EVERYBODY. This is common in extremism, and is extremely idiotic and annoying.
in particular you are assuming (somehow) that people have a FINITE lifespan. People need to eat yes, but its their right to eat whatever the they want. People don't NEED to eat healthy or go to the gym. That's 100% your OPINION, and based on no fact other than your own warped, selfish view. If there was a 'normal' lifespan for people: If we knew exactly how long we were going to live, and knew everything about our futures, you might be correct in assuming people 'should' act in a way which is certain to give them the best chance at reaching their potential. As it stands no such thing exists. We could be killed by and elephant which escaped the zoo tomorrow for all any of us know. You can decide the gym and healthy eating is right for you, but its stupid to say its 'right' for everyone, when everyone lives differently and has different needs.
People have the moral responsibility to make their own choices. That's what free will is, and without free will there IS no morality (since without it you can't act any way other than how you're acting right now).
Again, you ought not to shoot people in some situations. You failed to answer my point about considering the gun holder in your own scenario.
Is all killing unjustified? Is war never justified? What if the person is shooting the Other in self defence? Don't go making claims about morality when you havn't even thought about it.
a plant needs water. Sure. Doesn't mean its anybody, except the plant's responsibility to provide for it. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| Well technically if you eat unhealthily and know that in the long run it will almost certainly cause a financial and emotional burden on society and your family, one could argue that it is immoral to willingly put yourself in that position when you could so easily not. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
Well technically if you eat unhealthily and know that in the long run it will almost certainly cause a financial and emotional burden on society and your family, one could argue that it is immoral to willingly put yourself in that position when you could so easily not. |
sure, but make that argument, in a plausible way.
eating unhealthily isn't a solid item- It doesn't mean anything. I eat extremely unhealthily compared to normal standards, don't go to the gym, and am underweight. Eating unhealthily and going to the gym mean different things for different individuals. We have the freedom to choose our own lifestyle, because only we CAN choose a lifestyle suited to our individual, specific needs.
You could say eat healthily relative to your needs and i wouldn't necessarily disagree, but i would say that you imposing your views of health on people who have (occasionally) drastically different dietary needs than you is a bit dangerous- I try to follow dietary guides, but it doesn't mean it will make ME (as a freakish person) healthy.
simplified: some people handle different things differently: Healthy doesn't mean anything, except to the individual.
it IS people's moral responsibility to look after themselves, but that means you should not tell them what to do, and let them get on with it! :p |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
You probably should stop buying computers and smart phones then because the Tantalum in them comes mostly from central African countries with human rights abuses and civil wars that make the bad things that happen in Mexico look like a school yard punch up. Then the material gets shipped to China where its refined and processed into the final components under what is essentially indentured serf labour in corporate compounds, because you don't want to pay three to four times more than if it was made to any semblance of ethical standards.
Your sneakers are probably made by child labourers in Asia that have to work instead of going to school and getting an education, you should probably stop buying them as well.
But you probably wont. |
Like I told Hal, I can only do so much, and that doesn't stop me from trying. As for the Chinese sweatshops...
I know the Brazilian government is much more responsible regarding labour rights. I do what I can :)
| quote: | Originally posted by Penalba
Dude, you got your totally backwards. Do you think if there was no demand, there would be no deaths? |
No, I think that if there was no demand, these organisations would be much weaker. Of course crime would still be a problem, but it's hard to tackle criminality when criminals have money enough to acquire rocket launchers.
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
As much as I tend to enjoy your posts Lira, I have to wholeheartedly disagree with this one. This is like vegetarians arguing that them eating less meat is preventing less cattle from being slaughtered. The demand will always be there, so it's kind of irrelevant who is being killed (I know that sounds bad) on the route that the drugs get trafficked into the US or anywhere else. |
Actually, it does matter: because economical conditions differ from country to country, a situation that can be easily tackled by the American government can be fatal to the Mexican police, for example.
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Furthermore, morality is completely subjective, so it's near impossible to say anyone is doing anything morally wrong by doing anything at all. |
There is a subjective dimension to morality, but you can't infer from that that there are no moral standards. Just because you don't think killing babies isn't immoral, that doesn't mean killing babies is moral and you can get away with it (morally speaking). Moral psychology has become an interesting and developing field in the last couple of decades, and moral nihilism (which is what you seem to be getting at here) is just a logical possibility, but unless your name is Arbiter, it isn't an actual possibility :p |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
There is a subjective dimension to morality, but you can't infer from that that there are no moral standards. Just because you don't think killing babies isn't immoral, that doesn't mean killing babies is moral and you can get away with it (morally speaking). Moral psychology has become an interesting and developing field in the last couple of decades, and moral nihilism (which is what you seem to be getting at here) is just a logical possibility, but unless your name is Arbiter, it isn't an actual possibility :p |
There doesn't have to be a right for something to be wrong though- That's the main misunderstanding.
There is no objective wrong, and there is no objective right. You can't say there's one and not the other (which most soft-subjectivists do)... I'm not sure if you were saying this, but worth clarifying anyway
Nihilism is the impossibility of any morality at all. Subjectivity suggests that morality exists, but is relative to individuals, and more commonly, groups. This is what he was saying, and I've been saying.
there is morality, its just that everyone has a different idea of what it is. Claiming there is ONE morality, which defines right and wrong and is devoid of person and context is dumb.
this doesn't really relate to the larger discussion, i think i'm just starting to warm up for going back to uni at the end of the month :toothless |
|
|
|
|
