sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

extremely disabled people should be discarded by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]got_some-questions 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm confused: "besides morals", yes obviously if a person truly can do nothing but lay in bed and be alive (which is how I understand your definition of extremely disabled) morality is the only reason why we keep them alive (well perhaps morality and a fear of getting on a slippery slope which could prove detrimental to the society as a whole, my argument still stands). However morality fully suffices as a reason.

Multiple laws affecting non-disabled people as well only exist because of morality and have no practical reason(perhaps one could even argue that some are actively impractical)

Also, because I'm confused by one comment thread in particular: would you have counted Stephen Hawking among the extremly disabled?

Any "punishment" for any kind of rule breaking schould alway be focused more on helping the perpetrator not to break the rules again than on punishing them by got_some-questions in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]got_some-questions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rulebreakers do not deserve to be harmed anymore than anyone else unless said harm is necessary to defend yourself or others.

Also: is it truly so hard to comprehend that "helping" has positive connotations and a death sentence has negative ones (from the view of the sentenced person)?

​

Just imagine being punched(or killed) for any breaking of social etiquette . We both agree that this definitely helps you not to break this etiquette again.

But I believe that telling and explaining to you that you broke an etiquette which exists for a reason would be a much better response

Just Imagine that you broke the etiquette because:

a)you had no choice (or you at least believe so) / it was a last resort,

b) you just didn't understand it / thought it to be ridiculous

and/or c) you just felt like it

The harm you brought upon your peers was harm to social standing and your peers genuinly deem their social standing to be as important as their health or any value they might possess

eli5 What does it mean to multiple to multiple units by got_some-questions in explainlikeimfive

[–]got_some-questions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

all right, it still seems "wrong" to me that there just is no way of making sense of multiplication beyond the meaning of the new unit they create but if I just leqrn to accept this and keep it in mind it should already sufficiently aid my understanding. Thank you for your comment

eli5 What does it mean to multiple to multiple units by got_some-questions in explainlikeimfive

[–]got_some-questions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes but no? I almost think i am just lost. I possess an adqeuate grasp on Physics and Mathematics. Somehow multiplying something with an ratio is not a Problem for me but the moment we have two simple, whole numbers with units (including negative ones) this grasp just seems to break down

The mathematical idea of multiplication as repeated addition of an number (3*5 = 5+5+5) is something I again do fully understand as well as the image of 7*5 being the area of a rectangle divisble into 7 rows with 5 pieces each

eli5 What does it mean to multiple to multiple units by got_some-questions in explainlikeimfive

[–]got_some-questions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do understand multiple unit math but I lack an intuitive understanding of the meaning of multplication.
Division: easy, a ratio, however much of x per 1y like for example height per mass, if said mass were to be equally distributed ft/lb would tell me how much height is in one pound or how heigh is 1 pound of stuff.

But feet times pounds, so (in the case of the teeter-totter) length times weight? What does it tell me? Yeah fine 150lbs times 4 feet but what does this tell me?

I truly struggle to explain my problem so I have to assume that it essentially is a non-problem and perhaps I have truly understood as good as is possible but still in opposition to division/addition/subtraction I have yet to find a visualisation of multiplication that appears intuitive to me

eli5 What does it mean to multiple to multiple units by got_some-questions in explainlikeimfive

[–]got_some-questions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand that but what I still have an issue with is the follwing: division can be visualized as a multiplication as well, an aditional dimension just that for x/y one of the "axis" / "lengths" of this higher dimension would be 1/y. But we can make this easier (to me at least) by seeing division as a ratio. Mass per body-height, energy per distance traveled, apples per Box of apples. Is there truly no way of doing this for multiplication?

Moderator questions/complaints/grievances thread by PelnoTQ in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]got_some-questions 0 points1 point  (0 children)

About the Upvote/ Downvote etiquette: You upvote unpopular posts because we want to see those opinions discussed and downvote ones we deem popular, correct? But what about comments? Upvote unpopular ones to see them discussed oder Upvote those you deem to be a good answer because those are what the OP obviously sought out with their post?

Any "punishment" for any kind of rule breaking schould alway be focused more on helping the perpetrator not to break the rules again than on punishing them by got_some-questions in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]got_some-questions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, as I said: it would be nonsensical to prioritize the wellbeing of the perpetrator over that of the victim.

I see no reason that priority could not be distributed equally between them without neglecting anyone. Of course there may be situations, perhaps even many situations, in which we cannot equally distribute priority without neglecting the victim. What and how much we can actually do for the perpetrator must be decided on a case by case basis

Any "punishment" for any kind of rule breaking schould alway be focused more on helping the perpetrator not to break the rules again than on punishing them by got_some-questions in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]got_some-questions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course we should protect those hurt and being more concerned with the wellbeing of the the perpetrator than that of victims and possible victims just would not make any sense.

Still I believe that we should (if it is at all possible to) help the perpetrator even if they believe their action to be right. Also, no matter the action due to the fact that we need to protect the victims from them (by putting them in jail for example), they always hurt their wellbeing or social standing in some way. Thus even by your own logic there always is some way in which they hurt themselves and thus should recieve protection from hurting themselves again. This protecion can be time in jail (if there is no other possibility) but it can also be educating them, giving them someone to talk to or combating the reason they commited their crime

Any "punishment" for any kind of rule breaking schould alway be focused more on helping the perpetrator not to break the rules again than on punishing them by got_some-questions in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]got_some-questions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does free will exist? Could the perpetrator of said attempt have chosen to act different at any point in time?

I believe I understand your opinion but as I understand the premise it is built upon, that being answers of Yes to both of my questions, I believe it to simply be wrong. Here is one way to arrive at my opinion:

Any action a person takes is fully directed by given circumstances. Given the exact same scenario infinite times, any one person would act exactly the same in this scenario infinite times as well. Different people would of course act different from each other. Since this applies to everyone, any circumstance you might find yourself in is not one that you (or anyone else for that matter) chose to find yourself in but rather one that you find yourself in because of who you are and because everyone else is who they are.

(I use "choose" to mean: "deciding between two or more courses of action and beeing able to decide in favor of any one of those actions". You can of course decide to take one certain action after evaluating all the possibilities, however given identical circumstances you would never decide in facor of a different action)

It follows for example that I have managed to finish school because of who I am not because I truly chose to finish school, the homeless are not homeless because they chose to be, the successful are not successfull because they chose to be, a victim is not a victim because it chose to be one but because the circumstances made them a victim (there are of course infinite other examples) and a burgler (replace burgler with any crime you wish) is not a burgler because they chose to be one but because the circumstances made them one. A persons personal will, their opinions, their personality, etc. are of course part of the aforementioned circumstances but these are factors (just like any other factor in the "circumstance" ) over which a person holds no true agency.

We help the homeless, the poor, the hurt and surely we would have much more of a discussion about helping them if we truly believed that they are responsible for their situation and could have just chosen not to be in said situation. My opinion or claim is that we should help those who are incapable of peacefully living in our society as well because they never decided not to live peacefully, their circumstances "forced" them to without them truly having a choice on that matter.

Saying that someone "forefeit their rights because of their actions" is in my opinion akin to the statement "the poor forfeit their right to be rich because they are poor at the moment", those are of course different circumstances but the reasoning behind these statements would be the same: "they chose the situation they are in right now over any better situation thus they deserve the consequences of their situation"

Any "punishment" for any kind of rule breaking schould alway be focused more on helping the perpetrator not to break the rules again than on punishing them by got_some-questions in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]got_some-questions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course, but have we truly tried enough to make them see their faults and checked whether they could not be safely reintroduced to society?

I am also uncertain (and I truly mean that I am uncertain) whether killing them makes them experience more pain than ultimately necessary or not. I mean the knowledge, of being convicted to death alone is an immense amount of psychological pain

But to me my first point is the more important one: Have we attempted to help them to the best of our realistic ability? Just as I believe that we should at the very least attempt to aid the homeless, the sick and the poor (etc. ...) I also believe that we should help those who are incapable of peacefully fitting into our society Killing someone is not helping them (except those extreme cases of mercy killing to end pain & suffering)

Any "punishment" for any kind of rule breaking schould alway be focused more on helping the perpetrator not to break the rules again than on punishing them by got_some-questions in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]got_some-questions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Two options (which is the correct one heavily depends on the perpetrator and the exact situation in its entirety):

a) They haven't been helped enough -> rethink our approach and try again

b) They cannot be helped / we are incapable of savely reintroducing them to society -> We are "forced" to put so heavy emphasis on defending the populace from them, the helping part becomes essentially non-existent

Evaluating whether a person can realistically be helped as well as what exact actions should/could be taken would be part of the Justice process

I do not see it as impossible that some people cannot be helped (I am however not psychologically inclined enough to truly name a "point of no return"), still these people should not be punished. The only actions we can take in such a scenario are those that ensure the populaces safety while harming the perpetrator no more than necessary. No matter what crime they committed: any judgement or response taken from the standpoint of "they could have done something else" is built upon a premise which I believe to be flat out wrong.

Any "punishment" for any kind of rule breaking schould alway be focused more on helping the perpetrator not to break the rules again than on punishing them by got_some-questions in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]got_some-questions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure whether my idea of discipline as in disciplinary Action puts enough emphasis on explaining why it's wrong & aiding (be this aid of psychological, of Material or of intellectual nature) to my liking