Banana thread? Which thread do you mean by that?
maybe
3 Likes
Why is âbelgiumphrenicâ still a censored word?
Neither of those has drama though.
1 Like
Hmmm, so the movement for political discussions in TCF isnât completely deadâŚ
i wonder who reallly wants to bring chaos here.
i already saw how a politic discussion here would go like. with talking points much better than some reddit comment section, but still vewy bad.
2 Likes
Iâm gonna get ALL DELISTED GAMES!
Just kidding. I tried the trick for the delisted game but it wouldnât let me continue my purchase.
Update: I rewatched the video and I did it the wrong way. Iâm still not going to do it because I donât want to get banned.
1 Like
Fixed the link in this post (it was missing the actual thread id that is last part of the URL making the link not work at all).
3 Likes
Obviously thatâd be the ghost of futur3
Which month will the Deckard be announced?
- July
- August
- September
- October
- December
0
voters
New article:
Android on Deck/ard? Will we be able to use Deckard as a phone? Only time will tell.
1 Like
is running android on non ARM hardware just asking for trouble? I know cross-architecture stuff is getting good these days, but it doesnât sound pleasant to me. I have in fact tried getting android x86 in a virtual machine and it wasnât very functional, but maybe that was on me.
1 Like
Iâm not planning to cannibalise any baby. Iâm just comparing it with other crimes and ranking it low.
Original post
Hereâs a topic of discussion: Why is human life important? Why do we see them as things to care about rather than as a regular food? Why canât I buy some human meat on the store?
Its because of prions. Okay. But why canât I kill them for sports? I am legally allowed to hunt animals. The reason for it canât just be âhuman laws are created by humans for humansâ because that wouldnât be universal. That would allow an alien species to kill humans, citing a lack of ban in their own laws, and both sides would disapprove the other sides laws if applied to them.
So, what about this principle? : Humans shouldnât be killed because they donât want to be killed.
That sounds like a nice reason. We can pick anything, we just need to find ethical axioms that explain all our preconcieved judgements so that we donât make new ones every single time and get into the risk of contradicting previous ones.
But wouldnât that also make killing animals for their meat immoral? Actually, no. Animals donât seek to not die. They only avoid pain and try to achieve pleasure. And this ensures that they achieve their life goals, such as finding water, reproducing, etc.
But they donât try to avoid death. A human can notice that he will one day die, and decide to not consent to that. Other humans should respect that wish as much as they can. This is caused by the humans intelligence, which is created by evolution but it doesnât need to have the same goals as evolution. For example octopuses, after they mate, the female doesnât kill the male but the male still decides to die by refusing to eat.
Only a few species decide to reject death, such as humans, apes and elephants, and perform rituals such as placing some flowers on tombs. Only those species should be protected by the âthou shall not killâ clause but for all other species, killing them should be perfectly legal, provided that it is done in a way that does not cause pain to them. Because no species with a nervous system consents to pain, they avoid it. We should be morally obliged to insert anesthetics into every gazelle and release it into to the bloodstream with a remote control when it gets hunted by a lion so that it doesnât die in pain. In planets that are under our jurisdiction.
Here is the next question. Why donât we kill and eat human babies? Why am I not allowed to experience their tender meat in my mouth? Its because of prions. Okay. But still, why canât I kill them? âThey are humansâ isnât a valid response. You can eat your nails or accidentally drink your blood if you have a wound in your mouth. These are cells that carry human dna, but they arenât sacred or anything. They donât have a brain. If human organs could be grown inside other animals for transplant, and if they became as cheap as animal organs, some people would start eating those, just like how some people eat exotic birds.
Babies certainly can feel pain. But can we really call them humans? Do you have any memory from the time you were born? No. Therefore it wasnât you who exited your mama and was crying. It was something that would eventually become you, but that is irrelevant. Your fetus was also going to become you, is abortion an immoral thing? Nowadays, some states consider someone a person when their heart starts beating. By that logic, a person who has a heart pump should be considered legally dead. It makes no sense. Clearly, what makes us consider something as an individual isnât the meat. It is the fact that we can have a chat with it and empathize with it, a turing test so to speak. Therefore we should stop seeing stuff that are associated with that intelligence, such as those cute little eyes, innocent smiles and delicious thighs, as the thing that has the right to not be eaten. Come on guys, almost every animal you see has 4 limbs and very similar muscles, a cow has it, a chicken has it, a baby has it and you have it. But only you have the brains.
So what should be the turing test for babies? Well, there are two criteria that are commonly used for measuring the intelligence of non human species. These can be used for humans as well. These are the mirror test and the theory of mind. So for a human this corresponds to being 18 months old. If something understands the theory of mind, it understands that there are other minds out there just as him. Chatgpt 3.5 didnât pass this test but Chatgpt 4 passed it. The mirror test is done by placing something on someones face that they would be interested in and then showing them a mirror. If they try to touch the mirror, they fail the test but if they touch their own face, this means that they notice that they exist. When taken together, if you know that you exist and others exist, you can theoreticly see someone die, see yourself and notice that you are the same species, and understand that you will die as well. Being able to understand that you can die doesnât necessarily mean that you will start to not consent to it, but not wanting to die is common among adult humans, so we should assume the same thing for young humans as well. And I donât suggest everyone should be asked to think about death at an early age. When they start to have a capacity to understand it, they should start to be protected from death and they shouldnât be allowed to die until they prove that they want to die and this desire of theirs will not change if they keep living.
We should be allowed to kill babies that are younger than 18 months old just like how we can kill animals. And just like how when we kill a farmers cow, or dog for that matter, we arenât charged for murder, so too the parents of the babies should be able to sue as but only for property damage.
And as for cannibalism, you know now its the best time to do it, right? Noone does it, so noone has prions, and everyone is safe to eat.
When I told people in real life that it should be okay to kill babies, so far I received two responses. The first is âyeah, whateverâ and the second is that, we shouldnât kill babies not because there is something wrong with it (they didnât say that part), but because there is no reason to do so. We eat animals because we need it, but we canât consume our own species. They also said that killing animals not intended for consumption is immoral. This seems like a valid response. I didnât think of it at the time but there is a loophole to it. If we meet an alien species, we would be able to eat each othersâs babies, right? Problem solved. A valid reason to eat babies. Maybe in the future, moms will feed their kids alien eggs rather than milk because it will be more nutritional. And the babies in those eggs will try to climb out of our babies throats but they wonât be able to because they will have very weak snail like muscles that dissolve in water. And it will make a sound that sounds like crying babies. Not impossible.
Are you pro babies or anti babies?
- pro
- anti
- indifferent
0
voters
I should mention that not all cultures always liked babies. Some of them only saw them as people when they were given a name. Some of them ceremoniously killed the first born child. The Phonecians sacrificed their first son to the god Baal. Arabs and some Eskimos killed their daughters. And Spartans killed their weak or deformed babies, which makes sense because cousin marriage was common in Ancient Greece and half sibling marriage was legal. It is only the abrahamic religions that had an obsession with protecting human life. In Genesis 38, Onan the son of Judah is punished by god for spilling his sperm to the ground rather than planting it inside a female. Which is where it would survive? I mean, at least one of them would. If the timing is right.
Fralegendâs reply
From: fralegend015 via Thrive Community Forum community@revolutionarygamesstudio.com
Date: Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 5:45 PM
Subject: [Thrive Community Forum] [Not Thrive] THE NEW Miscellaneous Talk That Doesnât Deserve A New Thread Thread Thread (Part 2)
To: 50gensofficial@gmail.com
Itâs because of the right to bodily autonomy and also because the body still has a dignity after dying (as such even if they were to agree to being eaten it still would be immoral to do so.), this is also the reason why in the majority of cultures that practice cannibalism it is done so either ritualistically or as an act of aggression against another group.
You canât kill humans because of the right to bodily autonomy, other animals have less rights than humans because they donât have the intelligence of a human being, this is not arbitrary: rights exist to decrease the suffering and pain that a being is subject to (suffering and pain differ from each other in that pain is a physical function while suffering is a psychological function).
If a person consents to die that means they arenât in a mental state in which they are eligible to give consent (they might be drugged or influenced by a mental illness), this is unless they are in a scenario in which them dying would have a significant positive effect (like millions of people being saved), but actualizing such a scenario is immoral.
We can distinguish between three types of objects: objects that are not capable of feeling either pain or suffering, objects capable of feeling pain but not suffering and objects capable of feeling both pain and suffering.
Some objects, like rocks and bacteria, are objects not capable of feeling either pain or suffering so they donât have rights. Some animals, like clams, are objects capable of feeling pain but not suffering, as such they have certain rights.
Some animals, like the majority of vertebrates, are objects capable of feeling both pain and suffering, as such they have certain rights that are more than the ones of objects that are capable of feeling pain but not suffering.
The smarter a being is, the greater is the suffering it is capable of feeling, as such a sapient being has more rights than a non-sapient being; as such human rights would also apply to sapient aliens.
Human children are still human, as such the same reason for which eating a humans is immoral is still valid. Before you claim that children shouldnât be vaccinated unless they consent to it, when a person is deemed unable to make medical decisions on their own accord then the decision is left to someone that the person has assigned to make decisions for them in such a scenario, or in the absence of such, a family member; in the case children the person that makes the decision is their custodian.
A newborn baby is an object capable of feeling both pain and suffering, so they have certain rights, which are the same basic human rights that apply to adult humans since they are humans.
Sacrificing babies doesnât mean you donât like them. In fact, if a ritual specifically involves the sacrifice of a baby and canât be substituted by the sacrifice of an animal it means that they give babies a special importance.
Except he is punished because god specifically ordered him to impregnate his dead brotherâs wife and he didnât do so, not because he killed the sperm. So you should interpret things in their appropiate context instead of taking bible verses out of context.
Regardless, the idea that the human soul enters the body at conception is a pagan idea, not an abrahamic one.
Deathwakeâs reply
From: Deathwake via Thrive Community Forum community@revolutionarygamesstudio.com
Date: Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 6:24 PM
Subject: [Thrive Community Forum] [Not Thrive] THE NEW Miscellaneous Talk That Doesnât Deserve A New Thread Thread Thread (Part 2)
To: 50gensofficial@gmail.com
Please donât kill babies. Or eat people. It is actually because the laws are written by humans, for humans.
An alien very well could do that and it would be totally valid. The reason they wouldnât is because species cooperating at interstellar distances would require everyone to amend their laws to universalize them among kinder species. Humans donât kill each other because of tribalism. We are great at empathizing, and we notice that killing a child would make other humans very sad, even if it were very small, and in fact that the very small child might one day grow up and have a life. Abortion is different because they main people who value the baby, the parents, seem to want this, and thereâs zero continuity of self, rather than just very little. Thereâs nothing morally wrong with human meat either, just getting any of it. (And Orionâs but whatever.) Once artificially grown meat gets big human meat is a fun idea. Until then itâs horrific. Please donât kill babies.
1 Like
I have a feeling that hhyyrylainen will have stuff to say about this idea⌠No, I do not support this idea.
2 Likes
It is just post natal abortion
Lol, this is what wikipedia says
âAfter-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?â is a controversial article published by Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini. [âŚ] Very few philosophical publications, however, have evoked either more widespread attention, or emotionally more heated reactions, than this article has.
Iâll just say to stop this discussion now. I initially thought that this was some politics style discussion, but I now see that this is complete nonsense.
5 Likes
Hmmmm⌠looks like some people arenât satisfied with the current shape of ThriveâŚ
First we had calls for a new kind of slavery, now there are proposals for cannibalizing on babies⌠What is next to come?
I have a bunch. Mostly my thoughts on the geopolitical situation of the world and plushies. But i also have
Food that has cooled down is much better than hot, fresh food.
You are an horrible person
3 Likes