It's only logical
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
It's only logical
Then WHY THE FUCK AREN’T WE ACTING LIKE IT!!!!
Sir, I apologize for my inappropriate display of emotion. But seriously, I think almost everyone would agree with this statement if asked in a vacuum.
If asked in a vacuum, there’d be no audible answer.
Unless non-verbal communication was used and the participants could hold their breath long enough.
Listen here, you little shit.
JK, you are correct. I prefer punishingly steep progressive taxation over asphyxiation as a solution.
It’s an easy choice when the few or the one does not refer to oneself. However, when a person is asked to put the needs of everyone else above their own individual needs, it becomes a much more difficult conversation for any person to have.
What are you? A communist?
Stat Trek has always had Socialist Utopia vibes. And the new stuff on Paramount+ is undeniably woke...
The needs of the many cannot outweigh the human rights of the few.
And yet, the wants of the many often do.
Other way around: the wants of the few [rich assholes] outweighs the needs of the many, because humans are dumb selfish animals that worship capitalism.
The answer is yes, with the caveat that the many are not particularly good at figuring out what they need and that they often choose a sub-optimal solution to help a few people that there is some sort of emotional attachment to.
They're also really bad at understanding their biases in this scenario. They will often say "no" verbally but then make daily decisions that contradict that.
If three people all have different terminal medical conditions, which are currently making their state of life excruciating, and will kill them shortly, and there is one healthy person who can be killed and their organs repurposed to restore quality of life and stop the medical condition to all of those people then utilitarianism says it is moral to do that.
Any answer saying that it is wrong to do that shows there must be a factor beyond need in the determination.
There is a need by the population to be protected against being directly killed to help others.
That question becomes a lot murkier when it isn't a direct killing, such as the American healthcare system where poor people are just left to die so that doctors can be more quickly available to handle patients who can afford care. That happens daily, and plenty of people are totally okay with it.
If they are needs, then none can be compromised.
A person should always aim for harm reduction. If an unwinnable situation were to arise, harm reduction statistically would favor the many for most scenarios. From a causal perspective, sad as it is to say, the casualties were not going to live past the situation; from this cold but pragmatic perspective, even something as invaluable as a person’s life is unfortunately not “needed” per se.
Depends on who the "few" are. Marginalized folks trying to survive? Or the rich and powerful sucking a country dry?
No. Unfortunately, they don't. But, they SHOULD!
No Billy, we aren't killing black people. Stop that!
Majority Rule, yes, but also Minority Rights.
Unless you're talking about the 1% minority of wealth hoarders, then um...
Do whatever you have to do... 😏
🍾🔥🏠🔥💰🔥
Not anymore.
Judging by how many people wear clothes made by children in sweatshops, I'd say the wants of the many seem to outweigh the needs of the few.