this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
551 points (94.2% liked)

Asklemmy

43948 readers
520 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it's actually pretty popular.

Do you have some that's really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SethranKada@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Sentience in humans begins at 4 years old (mental age). I don't consider humans younger than that to be people. I also firmly believe that you have to have some form of consciousness, self identity, and clear cognition to count as a person.

A human corpse is not a person, a brain-dead patient is not a person, and a human with severe mental disorder should not be held to the same standards as other people.

Similarly, anything that does have sentience is clearly also a person, and should be treated as such. Animals such as crows, parrots, octopi, dolphins, whales, and some monkeys and apes are demonstrably as or more intelligent than some human children. They should not be treated the way they are.

As a side note, I agree with that other guy. Polycules should be allowed to marry.

Also, names in this day and age are useless, at least official ones. We have computers, we already use government issued ID for everything, having a name just makes things confusing. Just use nicknames, either created by the person or by agreement from peers and allowed by the person. The concept of a parent forcing a name on their child is archaic and cruel.

And finally, real life security is horrifying. I expected things to be like in the movies, where you need a special skill or training to do those spy shit. But no. In comparison to real life, Google actually has good security and privacy. WTF people? Everytime I receive mail with my name and a description of what's inside just written on the box I cringe and go back to lurking online again.

[–] richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

having a name just makes things confusing.

Yeah, best to have a nice and orderly government-generated ID value, like "ALL80 AFAHSC NFF6".

Just use nicknames, either created by the person or by agreement from peers and allowed by the person.

You are describing a situation that creates infinitely more confusion. Your opinion is not "unpopular", is nonsensical.

The concept of a parent forcing a name on their child is archaic and cruel.

How do you want the person to be called? "Hey, you"?

But I agree that if parents apply to you a name that's ridiculous, strange, antisocial or likely to provoke social consequences, the person should be the ability to change it (legally) to something else.

[–] kozel@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also changing your name when you're adult should be normalized - just so, without ressons.

[–] richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 1 year ago

Without reasons? I don't agree with that. That would give con artists more tools to evade justice.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Amen! I’ve always said that a right to life requires an entity to be able to benefit emotionally from having that right.

In essence that means:

  • It knows it can die
  • It knows what a “right to life means”
  • It can recognize whether it has or doesn’t have a right to life

And an additional rule is: any entity that attains a right to life keeps that right until it dies even if it drops below the threshold cognitively. This is to prevent anxiety around the thought of losing one’s right to life when in a coma or asleep.

[–] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why even care whats a person and whats not? In the end everything is just complex Carbon compounds, Some minerals, some Amino acids, Hydrogen and Oxygen.

Why care? Also, what is Consciousness? Its not scientifically Measurable, and some even say its a concept and nothing provable, like the concept of a Multiverse.

[–] demystify@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

We should care for legal reasons. When you have an abortion, or when you're euthanizing a dementia patient, are you killing a person? If you are, there are ethical considerations.