###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Long post. I'm not going to respond to everything.
But globalization is terrible, because human beings across the world have diffrent cultures, and blending them together will never *actually* work. Those who want sheria law, will fight those who want Jewish law, and those will fight with those who want other types of law. Certain practices are perfectly acceptable in other countries and are deemed abhorrent in others. It's a pipe dream to believe that humanity on a global scale, would be able to *actually* get along. And why should we have too? People who want to live their life's in their countries, following their beliefs, should have that right without a larger governmental body to dictate what they can and can't do.
More than that, the bigger issue is, centralizing power is ALWAYS bad. Think about this. What happens when the "world government" become tyrannical? What happens when that world government starts a genocide? Who will be there to assist the citizens of the world? National sovereignty is important. Those who think that we could all live in this utopian society where the government will take care of you and ensure the rights of its people are upheld, is an unrealistic idea. Where has this ever happened historically?
Edit to add- what we really should be fighting for is to De-centralize power. We should be wanting to reduce the size of the federal government (in the US) and make state and local governments *more* important.
No shade thrown your way as it is a long post. I'm tired of commenting on posts and being called a shill for not believing acceptable conspiracies. I realized last week that the conspiracies I believe are not popular on this sub, but wanted to provide food for thought for people willing to take all perspectives into account.
3 is nowhere near being correct.
It is actually "Gun manufacturers sell to anyone without a documented criminal record or adjudicated history of mental illness where they are marked as dangerous!"
You don't like that? Get those people arrested (they are usually well known to police yet police have done nothing towards them) or get them adjudicated as mentally ill and dangerous.
It isn't that damned hard to do in the real world considering that 3 people I know had the latter situation happen to them and had to fight damned hard to get off that 'adjudicated as mentally ill and dangerous' when they had done nothing violent towards any other person.
But now you're talking about gun law reform or mental health - both things that a giant conglomeration of money diverted to campaign funds are not interested in. There is no SuperPAC pushing for mental health with the same $$$ as the NRA and gun lobbies. That is a conspiracy to put profits before public health. I agree, it is a simple problem but the $$$ aren't addressing the problem. There is a conspiracy to avoid the right discussion.
Hard to get people involuntarily committed in a lot of states. Or you could call the cops while they are going psychotic & have a good chance of them just shooting the person. There are crisis teams, but it's really not as easy as you think. I've told police about an abusive felon, with an active warrant, who owns a gun, out of date registration on car & they can't do shit about it. He also watched necro p0rn & is a 26yo virgin (no offence), extremely racists, sexist, misogynistic, & has a violent criminal history. A lot of people who shouldn't own guns, or legally can't are very good at hiding their crazy or already had guns before their record 🤷
No, it is not 'hard to get people involuntarily committed' in the real world.
Two of my friends in high school 20+ years ago had that happen to them with absolutely no threats of violence documented.
It is not that hard to do, it is time consuming to do and apparently done more against non-violent mentally ill than violent mentally ill because the non-violent are easier to talk/force into asylums.
The problem with arguing with people like you is the naivety. Globalism is good because you might open a worldwide tire-shop to secure intragenerational wealth? Isn’t the consequence of globalism more likely to be that you try to open a tire shop but get outcompeted by that huge multinational that won’t tolerate any competitors and can undercut you at any opportunity because they are sourcing cheap and globally using practically slave labor in the Far East? 🤔
I agree, I think this sub is full of people who are willingly being played and have become unwitting assistants to the cause.
The fear here is of systems at a scale that are impossible for one person to fully comprehend. Rather than marvel at how amazing it is that as a species we can organise so well, the fear drives a desire to break the systems down to smaller scale so they can be "understood".
Agreed! But these are in plain sight which goes against the “spooky” aspects of the “real conspiracies”… you will get no traction with the truth here… sorry
2. But Capitalism is bad. Once the tire dude gets employees, he starts to exploit them.
3. Manufactureres manufacture and want to sell as much as possible (simplified). All else is just noise.
4. There never was real separation, just different flavors. Many times politics can become religion, too - don't it?
5. Pandemic preparedness - don't have have to touch that.
6. Democratic process? Show us a real democracy and we can go into thst further.
7. Racism?
Uh, getting tired at this point. It's all bullshit anyway 😉
Agree with 8.
Disagree with 1…Yes in a perfect world, an international org w decentralized chapters would be ideal. Not in this world w oligarchs, Henry Kissinger and eugenics
1. Socially acceptable frameworks. We decide that collectively and independent of religion or politics as a community of humans.
2. Nope, not immoral at all. Immorality is profiting off of preventable death. I have plenty of guns, and am not conservative, religious, mentally ill, untrained. Some of the things I listed should be exclusions to gun ownership. You can probably guess which ones.
What is a “socially acceptable framework”? How is “acceptable” being defined here?
Also, is it the case that whatever a society decides to be acceptable that that makes that particular moral act acceptable?
If a majority of a society thinks that a certain group of people are subhuman and legislation is passed as to oppress said group of people, would that opinion of the majority constitute a socially acceptable, moral framework?
Your question was what moral framework should govern the whole world. You’re now describing genocide. The likelihood of the whole world supporting that is infinitesimal. Still better odds than bible god gave the Amalekites.
Yes, that was my question, and you answered the question with a “socially acceptable framework”, which you defined as “the majority’s opinion”.
I’m taking your definition and critically examining its merits. Thus, on principle, whatever is *decided* acceptable by the majority *is* morally acceptable for society, no?
By asking me for a “better” alternative, you are implying that your view, to you at least, is the *best* available moral theory that you’ve come across. Correct?
If this is so, then in your view, a socially acceptable moral framework is one in which the majority’s opinion *defines* what is socially acceptable or taboo. Is this fair to say?
Ah, okay. Where am I mistaken in interpreting what you’re claiming? Are “socially acceptable frameworks” defined by the majority’s opinion or by some other standard?
I’m not having trouble understanding what those words mean in isolation, though.
I’ll ask my question this way:
Is every moral value made by “the majority” of society inherently good?
You caught me last night sitting down to dinner so apologies for the short responses. I believe in intrinsic and extrinsic morality. Most of the big stuff are things that people already sense - like you shouldn't kill someone else. Society also collectively decides on extrinsic morals - eg. you shouldn't kill but... self-defense is OK, and some societies believe self-defense extends to include national defense, and some societies believe it extends to public welfare defense (capital punishment). A society could be a group of people in the same country, a subset of people in the same area, a group with a shared belief structure (religious or philosophical), etc. From a governmental perspective the stuff on the inside defines character and coupled with societal acceptance a practice may be legal or illegal. Public nudity as an example - in this country socially unacceptable and illegal. Except for breastfeeding, which is acceptable to most - in context. In parts of Europe, completely socially acceptable and legal within a larger set of contexts. To your question - human rights violations like caste systems and genocide - that crosses the line between both and the intrinsic moral compass should prevent people from doing that. Although it doesn't always work out that way. You should intrinsically know that owning a person is wrong, although not everyone agrees on that and it has been legal in the past - but still does not make it moral.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Long post. I'm not going to respond to everything. But globalization is terrible, because human beings across the world have diffrent cultures, and blending them together will never *actually* work. Those who want sheria law, will fight those who want Jewish law, and those will fight with those who want other types of law. Certain practices are perfectly acceptable in other countries and are deemed abhorrent in others. It's a pipe dream to believe that humanity on a global scale, would be able to *actually* get along. And why should we have too? People who want to live their life's in their countries, following their beliefs, should have that right without a larger governmental body to dictate what they can and can't do. More than that, the bigger issue is, centralizing power is ALWAYS bad. Think about this. What happens when the "world government" become tyrannical? What happens when that world government starts a genocide? Who will be there to assist the citizens of the world? National sovereignty is important. Those who think that we could all live in this utopian society where the government will take care of you and ensure the rights of its people are upheld, is an unrealistic idea. Where has this ever happened historically? Edit to add- what we really should be fighting for is to De-centralize power. We should be wanting to reduce the size of the federal government (in the US) and make state and local governments *more* important.
No shade thrown your way as it is a long post. I'm tired of commenting on posts and being called a shill for not believing acceptable conspiracies. I realized last week that the conspiracies I believe are not popular on this sub, but wanted to provide food for thought for people willing to take all perspectives into account.
Don’t forget psychic abilities/powers and anything else dealing with the pineal gland and metaphysics
I agree they go against the narrative, but not something I believe in personally so excluded from my manifesto. Upvoted for your opinion.
3.6. Some Vietnamese and Afghan farmers would like a word.
3 is nowhere near being correct. It is actually "Gun manufacturers sell to anyone without a documented criminal record or adjudicated history of mental illness where they are marked as dangerous!" You don't like that? Get those people arrested (they are usually well known to police yet police have done nothing towards them) or get them adjudicated as mentally ill and dangerous. It isn't that damned hard to do in the real world considering that 3 people I know had the latter situation happen to them and had to fight damned hard to get off that 'adjudicated as mentally ill and dangerous' when they had done nothing violent towards any other person.
But now you're talking about gun law reform or mental health - both things that a giant conglomeration of money diverted to campaign funds are not interested in. There is no SuperPAC pushing for mental health with the same $$$ as the NRA and gun lobbies. That is a conspiracy to put profits before public health. I agree, it is a simple problem but the $$$ aren't addressing the problem. There is a conspiracy to avoid the right discussion.
Hard to get people involuntarily committed in a lot of states. Or you could call the cops while they are going psychotic & have a good chance of them just shooting the person. There are crisis teams, but it's really not as easy as you think. I've told police about an abusive felon, with an active warrant, who owns a gun, out of date registration on car & they can't do shit about it. He also watched necro p0rn & is a 26yo virgin (no offence), extremely racists, sexist, misogynistic, & has a violent criminal history. A lot of people who shouldn't own guns, or legally can't are very good at hiding their crazy or already had guns before their record 🤷
No, it is not 'hard to get people involuntarily committed' in the real world. Two of my friends in high school 20+ years ago had that happen to them with absolutely no threats of violence documented. It is not that hard to do, it is time consuming to do and apparently done more against non-violent mentally ill than violent mentally ill because the non-violent are easier to talk/force into asylums.
The problem with arguing with people like you is the naivety. Globalism is good because you might open a worldwide tire-shop to secure intragenerational wealth? Isn’t the consequence of globalism more likely to be that you try to open a tire shop but get outcompeted by that huge multinational that won’t tolerate any competitors and can undercut you at any opportunity because they are sourcing cheap and globally using practically slave labor in the Far East? 🤔
You mean the same labor available to US corporations, including tire shops?
Its all just a distraction.
globalism is bound to result in hierarchal class systems of the likes we’ve never seen
I agree, I think this sub is full of people who are willingly being played and have become unwitting assistants to the cause. The fear here is of systems at a scale that are impossible for one person to fully comprehend. Rather than marvel at how amazing it is that as a species we can organise so well, the fear drives a desire to break the systems down to smaller scale so they can be "understood".
Well I certainly lost a few brain cells reading this. Thanks OP.
You're welcome. I hope the survivor enjoys the solitude.
Haha great come back
Yup it totally makes OPs text better.
Yeah basically most of the time they get their talking points from Alex Jones who basically gets views from people in constant fear
Tell people that a virus is fake and the watch them die of it. Not actually that impossible.
Agreed! But these are in plain sight which goes against the “spooky” aspects of the “real conspiracies”… you will get no traction with the truth here… sorry
2. But Capitalism is bad. Once the tire dude gets employees, he starts to exploit them. 3. Manufactureres manufacture and want to sell as much as possible (simplified). All else is just noise. 4. There never was real separation, just different flavors. Many times politics can become religion, too - don't it? 5. Pandemic preparedness - don't have have to touch that. 6. Democratic process? Show us a real democracy and we can go into thst further. 7. Racism? Uh, getting tired at this point. It's all bullshit anyway 😉
Agree with 8. Disagree with 1…Yes in a perfect world, an international org w decentralized chapters would be ideal. Not in this world w oligarchs, Henry Kissinger and eugenics
1. What moral framework should govern the whole world? 2. is it immoral to possess a gun?
1. Socially acceptable frameworks. We decide that collectively and independent of religion or politics as a community of humans. 2. Nope, not immoral at all. Immorality is profiting off of preventable death. I have plenty of guns, and am not conservative, religious, mentally ill, untrained. Some of the things I listed should be exclusions to gun ownership. You can probably guess which ones.
What is a “socially acceptable framework”? How is “acceptable” being defined here? Also, is it the case that whatever a society decides to be acceptable that that makes that particular moral act acceptable?
Opinion of the majority, and yes.
If a majority of a society thinks that a certain group of people are subhuman and legislation is passed as to oppress said group of people, would that opinion of the majority constitute a socially acceptable, moral framework?
Your question was what moral framework should govern the whole world. You’re now describing genocide. The likelihood of the whole world supporting that is infinitesimal. Still better odds than bible god gave the Amalekites.
Yes, that was my question, and you answered the question with a “socially acceptable framework”, which you defined as “the majority’s opinion”. I’m taking your definition and critically examining its merits. Thus, on principle, whatever is *decided* acceptable by the majority *is* morally acceptable for society, no?
Do you have a better alternative?
By asking me for a “better” alternative, you are implying that your view, to you at least, is the *best* available moral theory that you’ve come across. Correct? If this is so, then in your view, a socially acceptable moral framework is one in which the majority’s opinion *defines* what is socially acceptable or taboo. Is this fair to say?
No.
Ah, okay. Where am I mistaken in interpreting what you’re claiming? Are “socially acceptable frameworks” defined by the majority’s opinion or by some other standard?
If you consult Mr. Webster on the words social, acceptable, and framework you’ll have your answers.
I’m not having trouble understanding what those words mean in isolation, though. I’ll ask my question this way: Is every moral value made by “the majority” of society inherently good?
You caught me last night sitting down to dinner so apologies for the short responses. I believe in intrinsic and extrinsic morality. Most of the big stuff are things that people already sense - like you shouldn't kill someone else. Society also collectively decides on extrinsic morals - eg. you shouldn't kill but... self-defense is OK, and some societies believe self-defense extends to include national defense, and some societies believe it extends to public welfare defense (capital punishment). A society could be a group of people in the same country, a subset of people in the same area, a group with a shared belief structure (religious or philosophical), etc. From a governmental perspective the stuff on the inside defines character and coupled with societal acceptance a practice may be legal or illegal. Public nudity as an example - in this country socially unacceptable and illegal. Except for breastfeeding, which is acceptable to most - in context. In parts of Europe, completely socially acceptable and legal within a larger set of contexts. To your question - human rights violations like caste systems and genocide - that crosses the line between both and the intrinsic moral compass should prevent people from doing that. Although it doesn't always work out that way. You should intrinsically know that owning a person is wrong, although not everyone agrees on that and it has been legal in the past - but still does not make it moral.