dragonfucker

Drag ain't gonna do that, because it's not true, but drag is still gonna say living in a concentration camp is worse. Do you understand the concept of a bad thing being worse than another bad thing, or do you think all bad things are equally bad?

So you decided living in a fascist dictatorship is the same as neoliberal capitalism, to within a day's pay's margin of error?

Fiction is still important and getting it right is important. Look what happened when a bunch of gamers misunderstood the Matrix - they suddenly started bragging about taking estrogen pills as a euphemism for misogyny. It's weird!

Alex Jones deserves a metal. A lead, to be precise.

No, you don't get to live forever in hell. Jesus said the only way to live forever is to be forgiven for your sins.

And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.

Priests who say that sinners get to live forever in hell are lying. Drag isn't a christian, but drag knows Jesus didn't promise eternal life to sinners who don't repent. There's no such thing as eternal torture in the Bible. It was made up by lying priests to scare people who weren't afraid of nonexistence. According to the Bible, what awaits sinners is nonexistence; death. They only changed it to scare people who didn't mind dying.

What if gem gender is the type of gem? Like Pearl is a gender, Ruby is a gender... If gem is a species, then type, or "cut" is the biggest difference between them. If this is the case, then the disgust at fusions of different types can be explained as heterophobia. Gems only accept gay relationships, hetero sex is disgusting to them.

In 1937, it was 40 hours a week per household. Now it's 80 hours a week per household. The amount of work done by the average person has doubled for the same or less pay.

Drag chooses to kill those people because drag knows nothing about them. Drag just assume they're randos. And on average, people suck. Drag's friends are great people.

If drag knew more about the people, the equation would change. Drag finds it difficult to reason seriously about a scientist discovering a cure for cancer, since there's no such thing. There are hundreds of cancers. There's no one solution for all of them and there never will be. We'll need hundreds of cures for cancer, many of which we already use today.

If we went with a more realistic scenario, like "one of those people will be the leader of the USA's communist revolution", drag would be much more willing to kill drag's friends. Drag might also commit suicide about it, though, so maybe the numbers aspect is equal anyway. Would drag give drag's life and all drag's friends' lives away for a communist America? Probably, but drag would sure like some assurance it's going to be proper anarchist communism, and drag wants to know if another leader could have taken that place. Does drag even believe in the "great man" approach to history, or is there no such thing as such a leader? Is there nobody that important?

Drag's friends. Drag has at least ten friends probably, and drag's friends are at least 10% better than the average rando. They're mostly communists and queers. The world is better off with them in it than with some random people who are probably capitalists.

You pulling the trigger to switch the trolley to kill only the 1 person can and will have consequences on your own mental health.

That's called selfishness, and it's not generally considered a factor in ethics. At most, that changes the equation to 2 vs 5. Still easy.

unless you're a fucking psychopath, you're not gonna kill your newborn to save 5 strangers.

Then psychopaths are right and neurotypical people are wrong. The world would be better off if it had more psychopaths, as you describe them.

But you're wrong about psychopaths. See, what you're describing is limited empathy. You have more empathy for your baby than for five strangers, because of your limited point of view and inability to abstract the situation and see the bigger picture. A psychopath, according to pop psychology (psychopathy doesn't actually exist in serious psychology, but let's pretend it does) has no empathy. A psychopath doesn't care who dies. They probably save the baby because it's more socially acceptable and will make them look good. That's selfishness again.

If you want to know who saves the strangers, well that's someone who has empathy for both the baby and the strangers, and the wisdom to empathise equally with both. That kind of wisdom is extremely rare because natural selection doesn't favour it. It doesn't offer any advantage over the rest of the species to be that selfless. So you'd be most likely to find it in an extremely rare combination of autistic traits, or in a very enlightened Buddhist monk.

Please see the other comment drag wrote in this thread in reply to the earlier comment replying to drag, which drag wrote before seeing yours.

https://lemmy.ml/comment/14997510

That's not a matter of agency, that's still a matter of the goodness of the action. You constructed a version where more of the magic hot guys is bad, and made the valence negative again. So now one is better, and agency still isn't a factor.

What's actually interesting is the doctor version. Kill one healthy person and harvest their organs to save five people from death? That, at first glance, puts agency back in the equation. But drag still thinks the key isn't agency. It's power. In the trolley version, you have no power over who's on the other track. You didn't choose that person in particular to die, they just happened to be in the way. In the doctor version, either you or the boss chose a healthy person to die. You got to pick. You cannot take responsibility for picking. And you cannot support a system in which another person picks either. But when random chance picks who has to die, that's fine. There's no abuse of power in that one. Killing who you need to kill in order to save others isn't abusive power. Picking who dies, when you could have picked someone else, that's abuse.