Show more

@dielan
Valid points. Our instance doesnt block except in extreme cases. But we do silence more liberally.

@robcolbert

@chris Well they are an entity, it is very similar, but not right to say its the same thing.

Personally im ok with corporate personhood. It draws a proper line.

@chris Keywrod there being some. They are less than a person but like a person. Again this is usually called an Entity. A prime example being that corperations cant vote.

@robcolbert
My instance is an alliance of admins. If you violate our instances wishes youll know, I cant speak for the group.

As for from me. I will wait and see before I judge a new instances character. I will be cautious considering the bad reputation as im sure many will. But I will wait and judge for myself...

@dielan

@loke They are not legal persons they are legal entities. Similar but different. For example they cant vote, and lack many fundamental rights such as that.

Though if you think corporations have too much rights, that could be fair. I'd need specific examples to express an opinion there.

Yea but you said things like "Corporations are not people. Stop it."

This is confusing to me, I have never heard anyone say a Cooperation was a person. Which makes me think you're responding to something very specific someone said?

I mean i guess I'm asking, which group do you think are making the claims you are addressing? If it is everyone reading it, well you've got most of us wrong I'd imagine.

@Toum@niu.moe If I may provide a counter example to that then.

Assume there is a person that has no friends or family, he is a loner. You kill him instantly in his sleep, so he never suffers dying or experiences unhappiness himself.

Would that be ethically justified then since there is no unhappiness generated from the act?

@Toum@niu.moe can you elaborate on what makes it a "bad influence"?

@mngrif If I want to kill someone and am denied that is a violation of my will then too. Works both ways.

@klez I had considered that, but then what about the case of someone who is a hermit, and has no friends? Those guys are fine to kill then?

My personal answer is that you must look at the happiness/suffering across all of time, with the intention of maximizing the area under the happiness curve to be technical.

So by that logic killing someone who has no friends would be wrong because you are depriving them of the future happiness they would have had if they were alive, presumably. However if that person is suffering and we know he will suffer for the rest of their lives it therefore would actually be more ethical to kill them.

So when I use that logic it seems to work well for all ethical situations I've considered. But I still want to hear other people's take.

So I'd be really curious to hear everyones take on this question of ethics...

Why is it wrong to kill someone?

I think we can all agree it is wrong (at least most of the time). But why, what about the act makes it wrong?

If the answer is suffering then is it right if it is done without causing suffering? Even if it is against someones will?

I have my own answer to this question but I really want to hear everyone else's.

#MastodonTips

If you're looking for people on #Mastodon who share your interests, try searching for a related hashtag like:

#books or #movies or #games or #scifi or #cats

in the search bar.

Add tags to your own posts to help people interested in the same things find you. :)

#Tips #Mastotips

Lol, I was just talking about this yesterday. This is too perfect. The hyperbole to the point of disrespect from Americans is getting sad.

What is it, Space-Lassie? Has Timmy fallen down the gravity well?

@sozialwelten
That makes sense. But is this also just an off topic comment or does it connect back to the greater point in some way?

@mundauf

Show more
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.