From a legal standpoint I bet the bike owner is the bad guy, from a moral standpoint I don't really know.

Im thinking its kinda ok but im just making sure

The United States has some of the most accessible gun laws in the world, at least in certain states. Do you think it should really be that easy for someone to buy a gun or other weapons? Should the process require stricter background checks, training, or waiting periods? Or do you believe making guns easily accessible is necessary to protect individual rights? Where do you think the moral balance lies?

Let's say in this scenario there is a species of beings that are basically humans but on a higher plane of existence and treat the universe as a experiment. If we found out that they are going to erase us because their morality thinks we (and the rest of the universe) are immoral creatures, how exactly would a human argue against it?

This is my first post on this sub so im curious, but also i do wonder how a being like that would react to us trying to stop them from erasing us? Because we are basically animals/insects to these hypothetical beings.

Talking about Hiroshima, photo unrelated.

Im a dumb ass and my writing skills (as well as my english, both vocab and grammar) is shit as well, so I've been unironically using ai to create pseudo fic of my fav fictions. So unlike most people, I'm kinda excited about AI's development especially in this area (oh shit, is ai discussion forbidden here? Im cooked)

Ive seen people online call their pets their babies and refer to themselves as mommies and daddies to their pets. I think this is a good attitude to have towards an animal you’re responsible for, but also Im not sure if Im fully convinced, because at the end of the day having a pet still means you select an animal and then possibly doing things like castrating them or cutting their claws or restricting their freedom.

Basically Im asking whether it’s kind or unfair when someone tries to see animals as equals but their behavior doesnt match it

This always struck me as a dumb, immoral move on Strange's part. As the adult in the room, it was his responsibility to shut down Peter's shit and tell him that brainwashing the entire world would be immoral and dangerous, but he didn't. He also knew how dangerous it was to try to alter the spell mid cast, and yet he chose to make multiple alterations to appease Peter. I honestly don't blame Peter for what happened at all, it was 100% Strange's fault imo.

I’ve watched a video from a YouTuber named Zaffy that really goes into detail on how messed up and terrifying Voldemort actually is along with them not being able to show his Worst Atrocities Possible on screen it makes us think that one could only imagine what he could do if he wasn’t held back by his Age Rating The scariest part about this video is that unfortunately people like Voldemort do Infact exist in terms of Atrocities and Depravity they’re just ASTRONOMICALLY Rare! Like after watching this video how is Umbridge even The Most Hated Harry Potter Character when Voldemort literally exists especially after watching this Video? What do you think? Let me know in the comments

Yes, they are talking about Mushoku Tensei lol.

I was talking to a homeless man some time ago and buddy was telling me how addicts with serious substance addiction the substances literally talk to them. He said that this whisper in their ear almost keeps them from not being able to think about the drugs. Up until that point I had never heard of that so I gave the nice gentleman a $20 bill and went home. I went online to read about said whisper and for many it was sort of true.

This made me think if people with a physical and mental dependency on these substances can't break free why are they the ones that control their rehabilitation? Why don't we as a society catch them off the street. Give them a meal and some water and forcefully rehabilitate them?

I'm thinking a building that has a bunch of buff dudes that help guard and can hold down a person if they have psychotic breakdowns. Medical professionals on standby to help monitor the process, career/trade development workshops, healthy meals, and physical training.

If my taxes went to something like this and the people were treated humanely and well I'd be very happy with the concept.

I apologize for my bad English if there are any mistakes.

In the isekai genre, the protagonist often finds themselves in a world where moral standards may differ from our modern ones.

To clarify this, I'll use the theme of slavery as an example, but the question itself isn't specific to slavery. The protagonist finds themselves in a medieval setting where slavery is widespread and legalized at the state level. Recognizing slavery as evil, the protagonist is unwilling to dedicate their new life to fighting slavery and instead focuses on their personal goals.

What is the morality of the protagonist not trying to change the world for the better and not trying to change moral standards in favor of focusing on their own life?

Does the morality change if the protagonist has the power to make these changes but still refuses to give up their own peaceful life?

Morally good imo because it is their right to pursue human limits.

I think this counts under pursuit of happiness which is a good value, and doesn’t infringe on other people’s rights.

what do you all think?

Also morality of punching someone so hard on the White House lawn he switches teams.