Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Fniff]

War as it is now (A physical conflict against two nations using physical tools and skill) will become obsolete eventually. However, conflict in general? When conflict is obsolete, we'll be no longer human. However, it is possible for conflict to end, it'd just remove a large part of what makes us humans.

In your opinion, is conflict (Not just war: personal disagreements and arguments also count) an essential part of humanity?

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Yes. Humans are individuals, and individuals have different ideas about how, why, where to do things, and what to do. We have different hypotheses, different things are important to each of us. And there's generally not one absolutely right answer; and the variables that change what people think are so difficult to foresee that it's valuable to invite conflict to discover them and learn from them.

There's conflict even within the individual.

Don't agree with me? Congratulations, you support my point.

//
//

A: If a person produces a good product that you like and can afford, like some shoes, and there are no special strings attached to you buying the product (embarrassment, shipping, etc.), but the person is a really morally bad person who does morally bad things all the time, is it ok to take the product instead of paying for it?

B: What if it's intellectual property, like a downloaded copy of his music or a game he made? In this case you have not removed value from him, you have not taken a dollar from his pocket, but you have refused to pay the value that he hoped to get when you acquired a copy of the goods. Is that ok?

[Nerjin]

A: If a person produces a good product that you like and can afford, like some shoes, and there are no special strings attached to you buying the product (embarrassment, shipping, etc.), but the person is a really morally bad person who does morally bad things all the time, is it ok to take the product instead of paying for it?

B: What if it's intellectual property, like a downloaded copy of his music or a game he made? In this case you have not removed value from him, you have not taken a dollar from his pocket, but you have refused to pay the value that he hoped to get when you acquired a copy of the goods. Is that ok?

A: Absolutely not. Theft of a lawfully provided good or service is anti-thetical to a polite society. The other person's morality has no weight on whether or not you are morally justified in taking their property.

B: Still no. They put work into their product and you are robbing them of profit that might have been made from the work in question. While the product is still technically there you have robbed them of potential gain.

If you had 24 hours with which to do whatever you pleased with no consequences whatsoever how would you spend them?

[WillowLuman]

I would use it to discover the limits of every aspect of my life, so that I may act with less apprehension afterwards. Asking friends and family all the tough questions, doing things of questionable legality and asking the authorities afterwards. Do I get to remember these 24 hours?

[Nerjin]

Yes, though no one else does and once the day ends you go back to that morning. Say 11/21/2013 was the day you could act without consequence. Once 11/21/2013 was over [Whether by time or your death] the day starts back at 11/21/2013 with no one else remembering anything and you resuming your life as normal, only now you'd remember all the things you had done.

Does this change your answer at all?

[WillowLuman]

Nope, just asking for clarification. If you'd said "No", then I would have answered differently.

Can Fiction be said to exist inasmuch as everything else, since it does have effects on the "real" world, or would you leave it out of the strict definition of Reality?

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Fiction exists as much as Non-Fiction does. The information is arranged using matter or energy and can be observed like any other matter or energy. If I write on a piece of paper,

HugoLuman is a wonderful person

It doesn't matter whether that is true or not. It is there.

---

If you had a choice between not working and living in bare subsistence - leaky / drafty shelter without locks, bland boring food in barely adequate amounts, secondhand clothes with stains and holes in them, no electronics or communications, no vehicle besides mass transit -
Or working 8 hours a day at a job and living in decent conditions - a small basic apartment with electric heat and air conditioning, decent food and enough of it, basic new or barely-used clothes, a cheap non-smartphone, and the most basic used car for commuting -

And there were no other options! You're in a lower social class, more education doesn't help enough -

Which would you choose?

[ICBM pilot]

It doesn't matter because I would go insane after about 2 days due to lack of a computer.(this actually happened to me when I was in a mental hospital)

Why do most people attempt to have relationships instead of trying to suppress the desire to?

[sjm9876]

Spoiler: ninja'd (click to show/hide)

That very much depends. If I kept my friends, and they were free during the day, I would take the first. If I would have nothing to do during those 8 hours, I would take the second. Basically: If the free 8 hours give me more than the sacrificed comforts, then the first. What the individual would class as worth more is the decider here.

'It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all' - someone.
Personally, I think this is bullshit. But once you've been in a proper relationship it is better to love than to have loved and lost, in my experience. The first relationship inevitably comes about due to either instinct or peer pressure.

Is it more important to do the 'right' (from the perspective of your morals) thing or to do things the right way (equally from your perspective)?

[Hubris Incalculable]

Given the choice, I'd take the moral option, unless I could find a way of doing it right without compromising my morals. I don't like doing it wrong.

Is it better to purposefully hurt someone you hate than to accidentally hurt someone you love?

[WillowLuman]

At least, in the latter case, your intentions were good. To act in the former way changes your life in such a way that the latter is more likely to happen as well. It is also easier to make amends in the case of one you love.

Would you rather, by the end of your life, never have harmed anyone, or have harmed a great deal of people grievously but helped many of people immensely, too?

[RoseHeart]

If they were voluntarily harmed, knowing what good they'd do. And if it was legal.

if you woke up in a coffin, what freedoms would you be willing to give up to escape? You know someone else is in the same situation, and you have to outbid them. What you know that they don't is that no matter what they will be freed. You don't know the other person personally, it's just a random person.