Every human is an egoist. You too.
Everything you’ve ever done was for your own purpose. Everything we do, we do it cause it makes or will make US happy. Even if a person is kind to others, they are because it makes THEM happy. Even ascetics do what they do, because in their mind it will grand THEM happiness in the future.
So realize that you and everyone around you do what they do, because it makes THEM happy and live you life so it will make YOU happy
I guess, but this just kind of redefines how most people think of egoism/selfishness/altruism etc. Where does it lead? If making people happy is selfish, and making people happy is ‘good’, does that mean any selfish act is ‘good’? Does it really take away from ‘good’ acts if the performer derives happiness from them?
Nah, being happy that others are happy isn’t egotism, it’s being a functional social creature. Making a charitable decision at your own expense is a good thing, and feeling good about the decision or being congratulated by someone else does not negate that.
If we’re talking about Lemmy rather than wider society then;
Inb4; I’m broadly in support of trans people and trans rights/equality but I think there are three small snagging issues
That people who identify as a women but who went through puberty as a male shouldn’t be competing in women’s sports. I think it’s a basic issue of fairness and that it ultimately disincentives people born female from entering a career in sports competitions.
That there is a serious debate to be had about trans people in women’s changing rooms. I know it is a very nuanced and sensitive topic and I don’t pretend that I have the answer, but I don’t think it is as simple as “I identify as X so I’ll use X changing room”. I’d like to make it clear that I don’t think this is a “sneaky perv” issue but rather a debate about spaces that should possibly be reserved for people born as female.
That no permanent changes should be made to the bodies of children. If you’re not old enough to get a tattoo, piercing, drink, smoke etc. Then you’re not old enough to make an extremely important decision that will effect you for the rest of your life.
Because we can debate all-day about what is a man or a women or non-binary and gender roles etc. But I would say debating what is a male or female is much easier and simply comes down to genetics.
Edit: imagine getting down voted for saying XX chromosomes are female and XY is male haha, I guess we’re just ignoring the science of genetics now
I think all sports aren’t equal in this. The rules for MMA would surely be different than the rules for curling or chess. The people who control sports organizations usually have a life dedicated to their sport, and are in a much better place to make a call about it than congress or randos on the internet. This matter should be handled by them. The fact that anyone without skin in the game cares about this at all is a losing battle.
If sex doesn’t matter in curling or chess, then why are there different competitions for men and women in curling and why do women get their own titles in chess?
I do understand the sentiment of what you’re saying, but it’s not the reality we live in.
The “people who control sports organizations” only made separate leagues for women because some mens’ feelings get hurt when they lose to women.
There’s no other point to segregating sports by gender, just straight white cis dudes getting bent out of shape by any challenge to their supposed superiority.
I can’t speak to curling, but in chess the womens’ leagues are there to get women involved. There are no biological advantages at play. This is a 2000 year old game they were excluded from playing until 100 years ago. So someone could put forth a good argument that it’s more about gender than physical sex.
Drinking, driving, smoking, voting, consent, ability to enter contracts including marriage, joining the military:
Raise it all to 25 and be done with it. At 25 you’re an adult, before that your body and brain are still developing.
Thinking people in their late teenage years and young adults aren’t mature enough to do some of those things is just a big tell of how bad we educate them rather than their brain not being “developed”.
Consent is the most obvious example, teenagers are gonna have a sexual life no matter what you want them to do. Removing consent just remove yourself from the responsibility of educating them and entice them to stay hidden.
Driving is also just necessary to anyone working, again being safe just need to be taught, plenty of adults are just as immature and stupid.
The same can be said for drinking or smoking, prevention is so much more effective than restrictions.
However, for voting or joining the army that’s when i agree. Because the system is built to prey on them, making sure they stay uneducated and vulnerable. So only then does having restrictions make sens to keep them safe.
I don’t follow your argument about sex ed and consent.
Sex ed should start as soon as kids can talk, to keep it from being stigmatized and to prevent predation. There is no need to wait until a child reaches sexual maturity for that; in fact, at that point it is too late.
As to driving, most people shouldn’t be driving, period. We are, in general, not good at it. Leave it to the professionals.
I agree, the sooner the better.
Sex ed is what makes children mature enough to have sex once they reach the age of doing it.
But what’s the point of raising the age of consent?
My point is there isn’t any if sex ed is done well, it only makes sex more taboo.
Conversely, if you want to raise it, maybe it’s because sex ed wasn’t done properly, making teens not able to be mature enough for an activity they are gonna do anyway.
For driving, I would agree in general we aren’t good at driving, but changing our means of transport isn’t easy, despite being the best solution. That wasn’t really the topic though…
Interesting, but don’t you think it would cause issues as well?
We all develop differently and many are mature before 25 while I’ve ceetainly met people who are not even in their thirties. Do you have any research to support 25 being a more fitting age than 18?
Also: if you cannot enter contracts you cannot work. Do you really think everybody should not be able to hold a job until they reach 25?
I worked long before I could legally enter contracts. Only one of my jobs has had an employment contract.
I agree with your point that many reach maturity before 25 or even 18, however I don’t think enabling those fortunate few is worth stripping the protections of minority from the rest.
I’m sure you did, but that is not a good thing. At least where I’m from, a contract is a must have. It states everything related to your job, including tasks, vacation time and salary. Without it you have fewer (or none) legs to stand on should your employer be an ass.
You wouldn’t buy a house without signing the paperwork proving it’s yours and you should not work without a signed contract.
I’m no neuroscientist so I can’t in good faith comment on our development, so I’m only arguing against the contract signing part.
If you want someone learn something like driving well, you teach it to them when they’re developing, not after.
And for the love of all that is holy, please do not give even more political power to old people
I tend to agree, but I would set the age lower. A person can graduate high school at 18, get a 4-year degree, and still be 3 years away from “adulthood” by your definition. There are plenty of professionals in the first 3 years of their career who are contributing members of society. Shouldn’t they be able to drive to work, sign a rental contract, etc? I’ve been in my career for over 20 years, and I have always worked with young people who may be lacking experience but are still productive employees. I think you’d be cutting out a significant portion of the workforce by excluding those in early adulthood.
I think you’d be cutting out a significant portion of the workforce by excluding those in early adulthood.
I’m guessing their position is very much “oh they still need to work and pay taxes…and they shouldn’t expect any more support than they currently have in order to do so…but they need to figure out how to manage it all without driving, and they should be disenfranchised as well”.
Don’t speak for me, thanks.
My position is “let kids be kids” or maybe more like “let students be students”. We expect a college degree for most jobs these days, so if it’s a requirement let’s, as a society, act like it and prioritize their potential for growth while they have it.
If I can’t vote until I’m 25 then I don’t want to be paying tax until I’m 25.
No taxation without representation.
Also, for many areas, a vehicle is a necessity of adult life.
If you’re not letting kids drive at 16, then for that *almost-*decade until they’re 25 you’d better provide free transportation as well.
Since that’s not about to happen, leave it as it is.
Any higher on marriage would be antinatalist, but I’m willing to go higher on driving for sure.
The bear would eat women alive while they simp for an actual killer.
Imagine criticising someone for using a word despite it having been in the vernacular for years.
In whose vernacular? I’ve never heard it spoken in person, just seen it on posts by some of the worst people online.
The point of that meme as I took it is to illustrate the uncertainty women face when it comes to the intentions of (strange) men. The bear, an actual killer, at least is predictable. Not a criticism of your hot take btw, just sharing my thoughts on this meme.
Usa obsession with keeping the 2nd amendment is doing more harm than good. Your obsession with possession of fire arms in general generates problems that I don’t see in other countries, starting for the school shootings…
But no "muh rights, I must gun down anyone invading my home, we do things the muricah way here yeewah, Bald eagle screech! 🦅
Yes but we also avoid problems that other countries with gun bans have, such as massacres of civilians by military and police.
It’s sort of a balancing act you see.
such as massacres of civilians by military and police
massacres by police
USA
Who’s gonna tell them?
Oh you must be thinking of the time they shot a student 70 years ago. No, I’m referring to events rightly called “massacres”. Not a trigger happy riot officer killing someone. I’m talking lining 20 people at a time up next to a ditch and shooting them all in the backs of the heads.
Im talking about massacres. Killing events where 20 is a rounding error.
Now I get it. Your teachers may have failed to teach you about human history. But we live in the age of informaron. You can look this stuff up.
We haven’t had what Myanmar had recently.
Order of operations is important. Yes, if we got rid of all the guns then gun violence would stop being a problem. There’s a whole discussion that could be had about sensible gun regulations that is beyond the scope of this comment. Reform on the matter is necessary.
However, that ‘order of operations’ thing I mentioned: I’ll give up my guns when the fascists give up theirs, and not a day earlier.
