I think it must be fairly normal to wonder things like this. Once I saw a video of a man standing on a busy sidewalk offering passersby the opportunity to shoot a staple gun into his bare chest for a dollar or so. It was immediately fascinating. The proposition was so direct: pay money to inflict pain. And people were taking him up on it!
Interesting, sort of in the same way that this Twitter guy’s question is interesting. The same way other moral thought experiments like “the trolley problem” are interesting.
What do you think about the parallel I was trying to draw between the video I mentioned and this guy’s question about paying for rape? I thought the reason that someone’s interest could be caught by the video is similar in nature to the reasons someone might wonder “is it okay to pay to hurt someone”? And that train of thought leads naturally enough to “Well how much harm is permissible for what amount of money?” which leads naturally enough to imagining specific circumstances.
And those trains of thought are similar to the thought behind people’s ancient musings about other tricky question of morality like the trolley problem. It’s not peak philosophy it’s just ordinary human thought. You shouldn’t be so afraid or repulsed by it or whatever.
The question reads like a sexual fantasy, to be clear. It doesn’t read like a normal innocent question. It reads like he thinks a LOT about how he can rape kids and get away with it socially, hence the poll. It does not read innocently. It is entirely too specific.
You’re probably right about this specific dude’s motivations for posing the question, but I think I am right that this type of thought is entirely normal and even common to have. You are right about the dismissiveness too, sorry.
Just chiming in to say I think you’re right in that these types of thought experiments pop into people’s heads pretty regularly, albeit with way less “trying to justify a creepy sex fantasy” intent like the public poll post seems to have.
Though I have to question why it was public in the first place. I don’t know who the poster is or if it’s their real name, but what if it’s less “projection” and more “morbid curiosity” in seeing just how many people would answer yes to this heinous question? There is some merit in gauging reactions to this from a social psychology point of view (even if this is an non-scientific example).
Follow-up thought. Without morbid thought experiments, how do people create horror stories and gritty crime dramas like L&O:SVU when a story has no particular real life basis? I’m not sure it’s wholly possible in a fictional novel or show. There’s a reason people eat crime dramas up; it’s fascinating and horrifying to see how far a real and fictionalized human will go in various circumstances.
In a way, it’s a manifestation of the “call of the void” situation, where an intrusive thought (what if I jump off this bridge right now? what happens if I yank the steering wheel driving 50mph? spook a herd of grazing horses? slap grandpa upside the head? while out hunting??) so I think its purpose is more to keep you aware of harzards in whatever the situation may be. Avoidance through sudden acknowledgement of the risk.
Again, I don’t recognize this person or know any background, but maybe they posed the question as a wacky means of self-preservation on a broader level? As if the poller thought, “How many of my viewers would prostitute out their child if given the most forgiving, financially advantageous, and seemingly consensual circumstances?” to figure out how worried they should be about a certain percentage of their friends, neighbors, and/or followers. Avoidance through asking weird questions publicly.
Edit: Holy ship I managed to write a whole novel on my thought experiment about thought experiments ahhahh.
The train of thought that youtube story leads me to is not ‘how much harm is permissible’ but ‘why are humans such vile creatures?’. Does everbody just love the thought of hurting others? Is this normal? Why the fuck would anyone want to staple some guys chest?
Lol no. If this was something I thought was said in “good faith,” then it would be fine to discuss. However, I don’t think it was said in good faith and I think the person was being intentionally disgusting. It’s not ordinary human thought. But thanks for being so dismissive.
“How we discovered science” this is such a stupid statement. Nonsensical.
It was a woman. Who figured out we could drink other animal milks first, by watching a calf drink it. She probably needed it for a human baby. A lot of stuff that doesn’t make sense to men makes sense to women.
And it is a weird and boring question in the OP. He wants to rape a girl for money. Gee, that’s never been asked before. What a deep philospher.
It was a woman. Who figured out we could drink other animal milks first, by watching a calf drink it. She probably needed it for a human baby. A lot of stuff that doesn’t make sense to men makes sense to women.
that seems plausible. I would imagine this happened on pretty early in human history, but it would have to be late enough that we had somewhat domesticated animals.
And it is a weird and boring question in the OP. He wants to rape a girl for money.
it’s certainly weird, but so are a lot of questions, and it’s boring, but then again, when are questions ever exciting lol.
As for philosophy, the single most intriguing question that has ever been asked is quite literally “what is the meaning of life”
You got way too hung on their example. The point was science is tinkering and following weird curiosities but with extra steps. Virtually every major innovation in the last century (for most of civilisation I would argue) has been a result of indirect tinkering, or benefitted from a completely unrelated field.
You were in such a rush to defend their point, you missed mine. Which is that pseudoscience and pseudointellectualism look exactly like this - made up bullshit based in nothing. I’m not “too hung up” on their examples - that’s exactly how I’m showing their nonsense. Get some intellectual hygiene. Question things. Demand proof and exactitudes. THAT is the basis of real critical thought and scientific reasoning.
Sure, curiosity can lead to scientific advancements. Or it can lead to conspiracies. It depends on what it’s being based on.
Advancements are made in the cognitive mortar between the bricks of knowledge we have. If those bricks aren’t made of anything substantial, the mortar won’t save it either. Gotta have a basis in something solid. That’s why we take measurements and data.
I don’t look to create unnecessary consternation but for an outcast community this place sure can be super hostile to ‘against the grain’ opinions. I don’t want adulation but an explanation to go with the downvote parade would be nice sometimes.
Not even talking about political or ethical subjects, take OP above you as an example.
it’s typical for online communities such as this, it’s worse in some places, better in others, depends on the community and the instance. And how much of a pain in the ass you are.
“Hey should the rich and wealthy be able to rape children as long as they pay them afterwards?”
What a weird fucking question to ask.
I think it must be fairly normal to wonder things like this. Once I saw a video of a man standing on a busy sidewalk offering passersby the opportunity to shoot a staple gun into his bare chest for a dollar or so. It was immediately fascinating. The proposition was so direct: pay money to inflict pain. And people were taking him up on it!
Interesting, sort of in the same way that this Twitter guy’s question is interesting. The same way other moral thought experiments like “the trolley problem” are interesting.
No. What? “Is it moral if I rape a girl for money” is not peak philosophy. It’s not even a new idea. Holy fuck. You give philosophy a bad name.
What do you think about the parallel I was trying to draw between the video I mentioned and this guy’s question about paying for rape? I thought the reason that someone’s interest could be caught by the video is similar in nature to the reasons someone might wonder “is it okay to pay to hurt someone”? And that train of thought leads naturally enough to “Well how much harm is permissible for what amount of money?” which leads naturally enough to imagining specific circumstances.
And those trains of thought are similar to the thought behind people’s ancient musings about other tricky question of morality like the trolley problem. It’s not peak philosophy it’s just ordinary human thought. You shouldn’t be so afraid or repulsed by it or whatever.
The question reads like a sexual fantasy, to be clear. It doesn’t read like a normal innocent question. It reads like he thinks a LOT about how he can rape kids and get away with it socially, hence the poll. It does not read innocently. It is entirely too specific.
You’re probably right about this specific dude’s motivations for posing the question, but I think I am right that this type of thought is entirely normal and even common to have. You are right about the dismissiveness too, sorry.
Just chiming in to say I think you’re right in that these types of thought experiments pop into people’s heads pretty regularly, albeit with way less “trying to justify a creepy sex fantasy” intent like the public poll post seems to have.
Though I have to question why it was public in the first place. I don’t know who the poster is or if it’s their real name, but what if it’s less “projection” and more “morbid curiosity” in seeing just how many people would answer yes to this heinous question? There is some merit in gauging reactions to this from a social psychology point of view (even if this is an non-scientific example).
Follow-up thought. Without morbid thought experiments, how do people create horror stories and gritty crime dramas like L&O:SVU when a story has no particular real life basis? I’m not sure it’s wholly possible in a fictional novel or show. There’s a reason people eat crime dramas up; it’s fascinating and horrifying to see how far a real and fictionalized human will go in various circumstances.
In a way, it’s a manifestation of the “call of the void” situation, where an intrusive thought (what if I jump off this bridge right now? what happens if I yank the steering wheel driving 50mph? spook a herd of grazing horses? slap grandpa upside the head? while out hunting??) so I think its purpose is more to keep you aware of harzards in whatever the situation may be. Avoidance through sudden acknowledgement of the risk.
Again, I don’t recognize this person or know any background, but maybe they posed the question as a wacky means of self-preservation on a broader level? As if the poller thought, “How many of my viewers would prostitute out their child if given the most forgiving, financially advantageous, and seemingly consensual circumstances?” to figure out how worried they should be about a certain percentage of their friends, neighbors, and/or followers. Avoidance through asking weird questions publicly.
Edit: Holy ship I managed to write a whole novel on my thought experiment about thought experiments ahhahh.
The train of thought that youtube story leads me to is not ‘how much harm is permissible’ but ‘why are humans such vile creatures?’. Does everbody just love the thought of hurting others? Is this normal? Why the fuck would anyone want to staple some guys chest?
Lol no. If this was something I thought was said in “good faith,” then it would be fine to discuss. However, I don’t think it was said in good faith and I think the person was being intentionally disgusting. It’s not ordinary human thought. But thanks for being so dismissive.
Like you weren’t?
Where? Disagreement isn’t dismissiveness.
i think there is something to be said about the value of money, there is ALWAYS an amount of money people are willing to be paid to do something.
wait until you figured out how we discovered science
or better yet, if you’re more of a normie, who figured out you can drink cow milk first.
“How we discovered science” this is such a stupid statement. Nonsensical.
It was a woman. Who figured out we could drink other animal milks first, by watching a calf drink it. She probably needed it for a human baby. A lot of stuff that doesn’t make sense to men makes sense to women.
And it is a weird and boring question in the OP. He wants to rape a girl for money. Gee, that’s never been asked before. What a deep philospher.
that seems plausible. I would imagine this happened on pretty early in human history, but it would have to be late enough that we had somewhat domesticated animals.
it’s certainly weird, but so are a lot of questions, and it’s boring, but then again, when are questions ever exciting lol.
As for philosophy, the single most intriguing question that has ever been asked is quite literally “what is the meaning of life”
You got way too hung on their example. The point was science is tinkering and following weird curiosities but with extra steps. Virtually every major innovation in the last century (for most of civilisation I would argue) has been a result of indirect tinkering, or benefitted from a completely unrelated field.
You were in such a rush to defend their point, you missed mine. Which is that pseudoscience and pseudointellectualism look exactly like this - made up bullshit based in nothing. I’m not “too hung up” on their examples - that’s exactly how I’m showing their nonsense. Get some intellectual hygiene. Question things. Demand proof and exactitudes. THAT is the basis of real critical thought and scientific reasoning.
Sure, curiosity can lead to scientific advancements. Or it can lead to conspiracies. It depends on what it’s being based on.
Advancements are made in the cognitive mortar between the bricks of knowledge we have. If those bricks aren’t made of anything substantial, the mortar won’t save it either. Gotta have a basis in something solid. That’s why we take measurements and data.
Haha Lemmy hates to hear this, good luck.
yeah, i do a bit of lolcowing on lemmy from time to time, same as i did on reddit.
It’s fun. Would recommend people stop caring about the shit they read/write on the internet, its mostly bullshit anyway.
I don’t look to create unnecessary consternation but for an outcast community this place sure can be super hostile to ‘against the grain’ opinions. I don’t want adulation but an explanation to go with the downvote parade would be nice sometimes.
Not even talking about political or ethical subjects, take OP above you as an example.
it’s typical for online communities such as this, it’s worse in some places, better in others, depends on the community and the instance. And how much of a pain in the ass you are.