|8 thoughts are lost.|
My breathing slowed as my legs flailed with little life and my arms merely floated. Against the infinite background of the sea, it seemed as if the shore floated away, but in truth, the ocean pulled me away. The world bothered me, or more specifically, humans angered me. So I set out to stretch a distance between me and every one of them until we made peace. The ocean chills me to the bone. Nobody knew my plan, and everyone on the beach overlooked me as I faded to a dot and beyond view. My weakness makes me tremble, and I tremble from voices in my head. “Give up,” I tell myself and repeatedly fail to hear. I wanted distance, and the ocean rewarded me with it. The waves lick at my chin, getting an early taste of me. “Count to ten and end it,” I command myself as I count thousands. My weakness controls me, unable to fight my pathetic will to fight to the end. “Salty,” I think, not knowing whether from tears or seawater, but either way, I sink into an immense thing far too great for me to overcome.
Ask me 3 questions, no more no less. Ask me anything you want. Then, I want you to go to your journal, copy and paste this allowing your friends (including myself) to ask you anything.
You can ask anonymously if you want.
(taken from v3g4n's journal)
Imagine that we have the technology to provide complete sensory immersion. You can walk into a room, sit down in a chair, and then wake up in a completely different world. Now, imagine that you wake up sitting in another chair like you sat in which has the same function in this other world.
In each respective world, the inhabitants tell you that the other world is fake. Think as if you have been doing this your entire life. You don't know what one you were born into, and all of them seem equally real to you. Events have realistic consequences; people are realistic; and nothing is logically inconsistent. The worlds are as real as possible to you, though it is possible that all are truly simulations.
You can travel between them, thinking of them all as real. You could visit one as real life and treat the others as entertainment. You could abandon the real one and choose to live in the fantasy which you prefer more.
What kind of world would you live in? Would you choose a more practical one, one filled with technological marvels, a simple life that you build yourself, one filled with amazing magic, or something completely different? Would you aim for what you think seems most practical, even if all of them are possible? Would you visit other worlds and people at all, and if so, would you treat them as a game or as a reality? If everything seemed real, would it matter to you if it were a simulation?
It is quite true that the truth can hurt, and sometimes, it can scar deeply. Where does one choose to draw the line between them? If you know that a person can be kept generally happy by keeping some opinion of their actions withheld from them, should it be kept from them? What if you know that they will sink into deep depression if it is told to them, but also that they will remain in bliss if it is hidden?
Is it really acceptable to do any amount of harm to them simply to give them the harsh and complete truth? How harshly brutal can you be? You could be as gentle as simply giving a hint of disinterest, in a middle position as simple as stating that you do not like something, or as cruel as describing every tiny element of it that conflicts with what you think and like. Should you be more honest with those you care about, which would provide them with truth but harm those who care about you most, or should you be more truthful with those you know less and can do less harm to?
If someone did not want to be around you, would you want them tell you why before they stop talking to you, or would you prefer that they give you a more casual or simple dismissal? If someone wanted you to stop acting a certain way, would you want them to describe every element of it that bothers them or would you prefer them to just say, "Don't do that around me?" They also could perhaps say, "Don't do that ever."
Would you want others to tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Would you be able to tell others the whole truth even if you knew it would hurt them greatly? Would you feel more obligated with those who you care about out of respect to tell them the truth, or would you feel a need to be more reserved to protect them from the harm of truth?
I am fortunate to have dictionary.com.
Exactly what kind of haircut says "moral, technological, anarchistic logician"? What kind of clothes should one wear, for that matter? What kind of manner should they act in? How casual should one be, and when is being too fashionable, casual, or comfortable harmful to one's image? Considering one's self as an example to others is unfortunate. It is hard enough trying to change the world, and it only gets harder when you have to take showers before people listen to you.
The best way to see is to cover your eyes.
It is unfortunate how quickly we forget the wisdom our ancestors have learned. Even more unfortunate is how easily we take away the freedom that our ancestors had earned. Many lives were lost bringing more freedom to this world. People glorify those who gave them their freedom to follow their own beliefs, then are so quick to take it from others. They choose the easiest battles to take away the freedoms which bother them, rather than appreciating what that same freedom gives to them.
It is a power struggle, the current majority trying to oppress the minorities. They will inevitably move on to new battles. They will abandon their previous allies and attempt to oppress them as they become the minority. People are too willing to ignore their own injustices, and because of that, they are subjected to injustice. You cannot expect to limit the rights of an isolated group which you do not care about and truly believe that it will not affect you. In our world, even those who you ally yourself with to enact such restrictions will not agree with you on all issues. Given the chance, they would be all too willing to take away your own rights.
We must accept differences to learn respect, and only through respect can we ever gain peace.
I have been thinking much about morals, and I decided I should write out my thoughts here. Specifically, I have been thinking about the moralities for human treatment of animals.
Firstly, it is important to make clear what morals are for. The intent of morals is to protect your own rights and freedoms. If you do not respect someone else's morals, you can not truly expect any one of them to respect your own. If you exploit someone out of your own desires, you can not expect any one to respect your desires to not be harmed, robbed, killed, or anything else.
Now, we must understand why we desire to not be harmed. It has nothing to do with how we dress, how we look, our size, or our shape. It does not have to do with our ability to process advanced math, our ability to abstract thoughts, or our imagination. The basis is also not our capacity for memories nor our usefulness to others. These things are all very obvious and self-evident. We do not desire not to be harmed because of how we appear, our abilities, or our memories. We desire to not be harmed because we think and we feel. We can suffer, and we do not desire to suffer.
The same is true for at least the animals that we are most familiar with. They think, and they feel. They can suffer, and they do not desire to suffer. The differences mentioned before are all that separate us and animals. If we can not respect their desire to not suffer, how can we expect our own desires to be respected? They may not do anything useful for us if we don't exploit them, but how would we feel if a superior race had no better use for us than exploitation and thusly justified it to themselves?
Even in the face of this, the typical response will be, "I don't care, I like the taste/products/rewards, and I'm going to keep doing it." If this were a justifiable reason, then it simply throws all morals away. If all they need to think is that it is rewarding and desirable for it to be justified, then anything can be justified. By the same reasoning, if it is pleasureful or otherwise desirable to kidnap, abuse, kill, rape, or torture a person, then it would be justified. Such a person can not possibly expect their own morals to be respected if they allow themselves to think that way. People only do things because they desire to. That reasoning would defend people doing anything, harming anyone, and that there should be no punishments.
Animal exploitation, for food, clothing, products, or any use, is not justifiable as moral, and the only defense is that we should not truly be moral. People who choose the second option argue that any harmful action taken against them is justifiable.
Thinking about it now, that would make either side accept animal exploitation being eliminated. The moral group can not justify it. The other group is without morals and exploitive, and they do not have a real justification for anything. This means they can not complain about their ability to exploit being taken away, as they that would have to argue that their desires should be respected. They can not take all of other's freedoms away and then expect their freedom to do that to be preserved.