Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.1K

If person X's ideas aren't mainstream, is X more likely to lie about his opinions?

I'd say yes, due to fear of shaming/persecution/exile/etc.

IF true, should this problem be corrected? Should people with "extreme" opinions feel more comfortable voicing these opinions?

If person X's ideas aren't mainstream, is X more likely to lie about his opinions? I'd say yes, due to fear of shaming/persecution/exile/etc. IF true, should this problem be corrected? Should people with "extreme" opinions feel more comfortable voicing these opinions?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (18).
[–] • 1 pt

So you are saying animals are amoral. They don't care if something is moral or not so why applied morals to decisions that affect them.

In the truest sense I am treating them the same way as I would treat anyone. If you go by the old adage "do unto others..." I see that animals do not make decisions with regards for any creature but them selves, therefore I will not base my decisions on any regards for them.

If animals want to join the rest of civilization and show a spark of regard for us, then I will change the way my decisions affect them. Until then meat is on the menu.

[–] • 2 pts

If the trait is "animals don't comprehend morality" apply that to a human.

If a retard doesn't comprehend morality is it okay to murder him?

Sorry if we've covered this before; can't keep track of who I'm arguing with

[–] • 1 pt

And yes I think eugenics should play a roll in how we as a species move forward. Mentally disabled people are a drain on society and should be euthanized.

[–] • 1 pt

Do they not comprehend morality or do they not care about morality

[–] • 1 pt

We'll do both.

Don't comprehend = retard

Do not care = psycho/sociopath. Assuming the -path isn't a threat to anyone. Minds his own business.

Okay to murder them?