Warning: Only the most depraved should give their souls up to this entire psychotic creation of a post. Only the most hardened kiwi-intellectuals should proceed.
By this logic the North should've left the slavery question up to the people down South who actually had a stake in it.
I like to cherry pick ideology based on individual needs. My argument for the methodology to solve one problem should not be used as the solution to another problem. Which is why I use a vacuum cleaner to clean my floor, but not my balls: which I clean with water and soap.
Point being that what you're advocating for is that "stakeholders" should be able to decide what to do with human lives that "impact their community" or however you want to phrase it. By this reasoning, if the 87% of the nation today that is not black decided that it was in their best interest as "stakeholders" to re-enslave the 13% black population, that would be totally cool beans and even the morally righteous thing to do. Same deal with the Taliban putting young girls into arranged marriages and etc. Who are we to judge? They're the "stakeholders" whose lives are directly affected, not us, after all.
This shit happens in third world countries, as you have stated, and throughout history as normal policy. To a lesser extent, this is happening in the west with the suppression of conservative viewpoints. There are so many political and social positions/problems with equally as many solutions. Some being more effective in some cases than others, and some better fitting to one culture than another. We may judge the Middle East, but we cannot force policy upon them if they don't want it. What if they succeeded in summoning Allah who then uses sand magic to enslave the West. Now the whole world practices underage arranged marriages, instead of them happening in just one part of the world. On the flip side, the war on terror and even Vietnam has taught us that they will fight tooth and nail for their way of life, and they view women in positions of power with the same hatred we view their treatment of young girls.
Practicing some form of reverence for the dead is nearly as universal among humans as norms against murder and stealing, AFAIK. I've never thought about what to do in the case of some kind of super autistic death struggle over exactly how the respects are to be paid, but if it's actually that big of a deal, then yeah sooner or later it would probably become clear that somebody is right and somebody is wrong, for whatever the reasons might be. In the real world, we can see that this specific issue hasn't polarized like that; people seem to agree it's fine to show respect to the dead in different ways, so long as respect is being shown.
First, you mention that: "practicing
some form of reverence for the dead": which means every culture has different rules for this. I have heard of societies (Spartans for example) that would just dump the dead in unmarked graves and only perform rituals for the elite. I have heard of small societies and colonial outposts that would eat the corpse of freshly dead people, especially if the winters are harsh. In times of crisis, like the bubonic plague, even religions communities would simply dump their dead outside while "garbage collection" trolleys would travel the streets picking up these bodies and burning them en masse.
Second, even crimes like murder and theft vary from country to country, as do the penalties of these crimes. Before I continue, just check out this insane American grown legal retardation:
Stealing a pack of gum from a American 7-11 nets you the cruel and unusual punishment of nothing, especially if you are black in liberal central, while in the Middle East, you may just lose a hand, if you're lucky. Also, some parts of America allow you to kill intruders on your property, other parts consider this murder. Some places even allow you to kill someone in town square, in broad daylight, who poses a threat to the safety of the public, and you don't even need to finish a police academy.
Violence and sex are inherently different subjects. You can tell because you wouldn't let let your kid watch hentai of Mario pounding Peach but you'd have no problem letting him watch Mario pound Peach in Smash Bros, because violence is just different by nature.
Most people even let their kids watch realistic violent films, I don't think they should, but there's a clear common knowledge and unspoken agreement that even letting little Johnny watch RoboCop's infamous brutality is far better than him stumbling upon a Playboy.
My family never had any problem with me watching either of the two. Though you do have a point because they never figured out that I like me some Peach and Daisy cannoli.
I don't see how communication is a particularly relevant subject.
Like the question of consent. Imagine if the doctor ultrasounds the mom's belly and receives the following communication from the fetus: "Oh please don't let me be born, my mom is 50 years old and does cocaine, my dad is an unemployed lazy bastard that abandoned his previous five families, I will probably get autism and be mistreated growing up and end up being the same loser as my parents, then I will die in my piss in some cheap ass motel after realizing my first whore was a tranny assassin."
From what I understand, you lean on the side of pro-life. But sometimes death is more merciful than living. I may be mistaken but if you believe that a fetus is life; and that living things, including the fetus, should have rights: why should the fetus not have a say in it's own birth, if it has the ability to do so.
How much effect is required exactly, and how do you measure this? More importantly, why does it even matter?
Each society should determine who is effected by the birth of the child, and by how much. It matters because imagine you are living in a society that treats fetus' as 100% living beings, and that the official position of your lawmakers is that everyone from the family to the community has a say in the birth of the child, meaning because the community is pro-life, the will of the community is that most fetus' should come to term. Now imagine if this society is taken over by a civilization of extreme feminists who have already conquered the rest of the world, and all fetuses on planet earth are now at the mercy of the mothers alone, some who have no respect for anyone but themselves. How would you feel if despite your stance regarding the sanctity of life, you no longer have a say in any fetus, even the fetus of your own child, and there is no place on this planet where you can go where you will find a group of people (outside of a resistance group) that will allow you to have any say in any fetus' life.
You realize a lot of people consider companies to be amoral and greedy, right? I'm not sure that's a way society should strive to become similar to.
Corporations as a construct might be amoral, but are only greedy because the people that run it are greedy. In a car full of gangsters, the car itself is not a gangster, it is a tool for the gangsters, but it can easily be a tool used by a group of police officers, or basically anyone. The purpose of corporations is to make decisions on a larger scale by people that have a stake in it. It might be my bias that I prefer organizations that get shit done, and I am not someone that can debate morality, as I hardly subscribe to such a notion, even if I understand and recognize it in others.
I'd disagree, the fetus has the most investment in the fetus. Then after that would be both parents equally, up until the life of the mother is in danger and an abortion is medically necessary.
Hence, my drug fueled example with being able to communicate with the fetus; then yes, both the parents should be the next stakeholders. However, I think the mom has slightly more stake, since it is her body and the physical challenges will be her alone, while the father will share the emotional and psychological challenges of the pregnancy with the mom equally. I am definitely not a feminist, I support the rights of fathers, and from an ideological standpoint I do agree that both the mom and dad should have an equal say, but I argue from a more detached point of view. Yes, if I was the father of the fetus in question (I think hell will freeze over before that happens) I would definitely want to have equal rights as the mother in this case. Also, consider the cases where the mother wants to birth the child, but the doctors determine that she will die if she does so, while the child will live. What if the father wants an abortion to save the mother, but the mother wants to die for her child, who should have a say?
Even if we were to go with that analogy, stakeholders are supposed to do what's in the best interest of the corporation, meaning not burning it down to the ground on a whim (or in the mother's case, blending her baby).
The right to life is sacred, and only under extraordinary circumstances should that right be revoked. Being an irresponsible slut is, I'm afraid, not included under that criteria.
The
Executives have to do what is best for the corporation,
not the shareholders. Even then, many Executives these days have no loyalty to their company, hence the existence of "golden parachutes". But shareholders are like jurors, they make important decisions for the company, but not all of them are Lawyers or MBAs, a lot of them are trust funders and average joes. I can buy up stock right this second. I could buy stock from a mega-corp and have the power and presence of a tiny gnat on the board of directors, but I still own part of the company. I just don't give a shit about that particular company, since chances are if I am someone who buys small shares in big companies, I am most likely someone who has a diversified portfolio and bought a little bit of stock from many megacorps, and I would lose like a few dollars if one corporation should fall. Or, I could buy the majority of the shares of some basement dweller's "corporation" I mean it is quite easy in some parts of the world to incorporate. Then I would make all the decisions in "basement dweller Inc", or overrule the other shareholders if there is anyone retarded enough to be minority shareholder of this kind of venture. But I am not a businessman, I am a terminally online self styled polymath, I can crash and burn the poor bastard's business by making retarded decisions, and then I may lose a bunch of money, But I will recover, the poor basement dweller will have to return to the drawing board, and I just move on to destroy the dreams of the next poor bastard.
I agree with the second point in theory, and I went on a rant at the beginning of this thread's life (my second point if I remember correctly) basically stating this, minus the "life is sacred" part. I personally don't believe in any higher power besides the "outer darkness" from which the Big Bang occurred, which will reverse in a process called the Big Crunch, thus the world will return to this "outer darkness".
Yes I am a retard for wasting your time with this last paragraph, but your second point cannot be argued for or against because this is something that can only be agreed or disagreed with.
Even if I were neutral on abortion I'd not find that to be a good way to handle abortion. I think that's just way too flimsy, a uniform set of rules and standards should apply broadly and equally, like in most other matters of law.
I have addressed this one earlier. You may enjoy the greatness of the society that has chosen to adhere to the principles and laws that you believe in. But you will suffer greatly in a society that cuts out fetuses, pisses on them, then tosses them in a large bonfire. Imagine if the latter case is a global position. You will be forced to assimilate or find a resistance group.
This is why I like the United States, despite me ranting about it occasionally. Most of the day to day laws are passed on the state level, the federal government manages big picture legal matters (with some specific exceptions). Which is why I like the US Supreme Court ruling on abortion. If you do not like California's fetus crematoriums, you and your family may easily move to Texas: which respects the sanctity of life. There are 50 states and 50 ways to address every issue in the US. Now look at Western Europe, and the disaster that is Canada (there is a mega thread here that shits on Canada). They are under firm Liberal control and I could write paragraph after paragraph about the horrors of those supposed "pillars of democracy".
I remember when my brother was a clump of cells. We were all happily awaiting an addition to the family, not taking turns punching my mother in the stomach as she chugged moonshine, all chanting "IT'S JUST A WORTHLESS CLUMP OF CELLS".
There are broken families, and there are many of them. I am glad to hear that your family was great, mine was good as well even if not perfect. I have read many accounts of broken families, but in my experience unless you live the horror, it is often hard to imagine it, even if you think its easy to. A lot of people talk about empathy but they are mistaken, they are actually feeling sympathy. True empathy requires us to feel the suffering of the victim for ourselves. Like with Western Europe, I can go on for miles talking about specific cases, but I will not waste your time any longer. Like I said my family was pretty good, so I am not the best internet retard to share this stuff with you.
