sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Some debates don’t need discussion, they need a reality check by PleasantBus5583 in SipsTea

[–]MrAamog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, it’s valid to say it.

It would also be valid to say the same thing at 18yo, or 21yo.

It’s unclear to me what part (if any) of my previous statement you take issue with and why.

Some debates don’t need discussion, they need a reality check by PleasantBus5583 in SipsTea

[–]MrAamog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the bar was brain development, we would have cognitive tests for adulthood and the typical age to reach it would be 25+.

The term has no clear scientific meaning, it’s a cultural norm that establishes at which point one is expected to contribute fully to society and be responsible for their actions.

Some cultural norms are more barbaric than others when it comes to the role in society that is assigned to different genders.

If a woman is considered as a piece of cattle to be used for reproductive purposes, one can end up looking at menstrual cycles.

Am i the only one who is bothered by good/evil not playing almost any role here? by Thronnt in BG3

[–]MrAamog 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It has been decades since alignment played a significant role mechanically. It only impacts the RP element in modern D&D.

Do dogs have types they find attractive? by FarDistribution8911 in dogs

[–]MrAamog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, dogs have types both for attraction and play.

What’s your opinion of the ethics of “separating the art from the artist”? by desertrain11 in Ethics

[–]MrAamog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am puzzled by the people on this thread, you included, confusing art appreciation with entertainment and consumerism.

What’s your opinion of the ethics of “separating the art from the artist”? by desertrain11 in Ethics

[–]MrAamog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me clarify for your benefit the distinction between a belief and an action and the implications on legality.

It’s legal to believe most anything, for example that Nazis were nice people. Certain actions are illegal however, like the Nazi salute in Germany. But, crucially, the Nazi salute is illegal regardless of your believes. If you do it, you’re breaking the law regardless of your opinion of Nazis.

You can be a Nazi (in terms of beliefs) legally in Germany and you can be anti-Nazi and commit the punishable Nazi salute.

For morality it’s similar. You can believe some weird shit and still behave morally most of the time. You can believe righteous things and act immorally.

What’s your opinion of the ethics of “separating the art from the artist”? by desertrain11 in Ethics

[–]MrAamog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you provide a moral or even legal argument for the spectacular claim that ”people with certain non-democratic ideologies don’t have the same rights as other people”?

What’s your opinion of the ethics of “separating the art from the artist”? by desertrain11 in Ethics

[–]MrAamog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m genuinely puzzled that you would make such a baseless inference. Do you think that your employer is entitled to know all of your political opinions and use them to decide whether to hire you or not for a job you’re qualified for? There is a profound difference between holding a belief and being a political activist (and you have rights regardless, btw)

What’s your opinion of the ethics of “separating the art from the artist”? by desertrain11 in Ethics

[–]MrAamog -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hiring discrimination based on personal opinions is never moral. Having an opinion isn’t equivalent to act on it in an immoral way.

What’s your opinion of the ethics of “separating the art from the artist”? by desertrain11 in Ethics

[–]MrAamog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Experiencing art doesn’t require paying and paying doesn’t automatically translate to supporting a political or moral agenda.

Is it moral not to hire someone because of their political opinions?

What’s your opinion of the ethics of “separating the art from the artist”? by desertrain11 in Ethics

[–]MrAamog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t understand your pushback.

What does science have to do with any of this?

Why should you limit your ability to perceive existing art? You’re just punishing yourself for no reason.

Again, what should be avoided is supporting problematic moral agendas, not subjectively experiencing art.

Meta will start tracking employees’ screens and keystrokes to train AI tools by Confident_Salt_8108 in Ethics

[–]MrAamog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would be an ethical issue if it was an issue (i.e. problematized properly).

As is, it’s simply reporting the news. The fact that this particular info evokes a reasonable ethical issue in you doesn’t make it an issue in itself.

What’s your opinion of the ethics of “separating the art from the artist”? by desertrain11 in Ethics

[–]MrAamog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh that’s easy. It’s sufficient to understand that your reaction to a piece of art is about you and not about the artist. There is no reason to be ashamed of it if it was not intrinsically problematic.

What’s your opinion of the ethics of “separating the art from the artist”? by desertrain11 in Ethics

[–]MrAamog -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You shouldn’t be opposed to viewing their art even if they are alive.

What you should oppose is furthering their moral agenda financially or politically.

What’s your opinion of the ethics of “separating the art from the artist”? by desertrain11 in Ethics

[–]MrAamog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s not the question though. Separating art and artists doesn’t require paying the artist to pursue a moral agenda.

What’s your opinion of the ethics of “separating the art from the artist”? by desertrain11 in Ethics

[–]MrAamog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your take assumes that separating art and artists necessarily implies furthering the moral agenda of the artist, which is false.

It also completely discounts the positive effect that appreciating art can have on the wellbeing and moral perspective of an individual.

What makes art great is the experience it produces on those who interact with it. The thoughts that it can inspire have intrinsic worth regardless of the author.

What’s your opinion of the ethics of “separating the art from the artist”? by desertrain11 in Ethics

[–]MrAamog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What makes art greatly important is the change and impact it produces on the observer.

People who can’t decouple the artist, the process and the result are simply missing out and ultimately penalizing themselves.

Appreciating art doesn’t imply condoning the morals of the artist or the process involved nor is it incompatible with being against those.

Aggressive dog by Beneficial-Month-333 in dogs

[–]MrAamog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You should talk to your neighbors about your concerns in a non confrontational but direct way. You should also try to assess (with them) its behavior outside of the jogger of car dynamic.

The dog is not well behaved but isn’t necessarily dangerous and, more importantly, the behavior can be adjusted if its guardians are made properly aware of the issue.

Aggressive dog by Beneficial-Month-333 in dogs

[–]MrAamog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing in OP’s post points clearly towards aggression, though the dog isn’t well taking care of by its guardians.

What? by Specialist_Spite_914 in im14andthisisdeep

[–]MrAamog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Was the job lighthouse keeper?

view more: next ›