• rah@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    12 days ago

    your argument

    I haven’t made an argument.

    It’s so the future is one where your kids are happy instead of living as slaves in a dying world.

    The statement that I responded to was about all humans, regardless of whether they are parents. Your answer is limited to parents only. You haven’t answered why non-parents have a duty.

    • EightBitBlood@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      I haven’t made an argument.

      Then why are you saying I’m wrong? About what? What point are you defending if you never made one?

      These are not rhetorical questions.

      Playing pin the tail on your point isn’t a game others should be playing for you. Say what you’re thinking out loud, or it isn’t worth saying.

      Because this:

      Your answer is limited to parents only.

      Is completely wrong.

      My answer is limited to family. Children of which were the best example. However, any human can be your family. Adoption, Friendship, and close relationships all form the bonds that can make up a family. And helping better our families helps better their own environment which in turns helps others. No human relationship requires a biological componant for you to be in their family.

      So my answer is indeed for all humans.

      You’re either a troll or an edge lord that’s too young to understand their own Temu version of nihilism.

      Literally open any book on morality, read it, then ask yourself why humans are compelled to feel “right” about what they are doing.

      They want to feel that way because we are social animals who are biologically compelled to help each other. Which strengthens our communities, and therefore our lives in them. We even evolved to release dopamine in our brains when what we are doing for that community feels “right” aka morality.

      This works for all humans (except sociopaths.)

      Helping other humans literally makes you feel good, and improves the quality of the community you live in for a better future. The closer you feel to that community (family) the better you feel when helping them.

      There you go. All humans.

      And why we should treat each other well due to our basic biology (it makes you feel good) and improves of our own futures and that of our families.

      Looking forward to hearing about how this is still wrong when compared to the point you’ve never made.

      • rah@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        12 days ago

        why are you saying I’m wrong?

        I haven’t said that.

        this:

        Your answer is limited to parents only.

        Is completely wrong.

        You said “your kids”.

        Children of which were the best example. However, any human can be your family. Adoption, Friendship, …

        You didn’t say any of that. In fact, your comment didn’t contain the word “family” once. You’ve changed your tune.

        Regardless:

        and improves of our own futures and that of our families

        Why does one have a duty to improve one’s own future or the future of one’s family?

        • EightBitBlood@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          You didn’t say any of that.

          That’s what my second comment saying just that was for.

          You didn’t understand my original point (and still don’t).

          Which is why I made a second comment explaining that you can ctrl+F for “children” and replace it with “family” to better understand my point.

          The answer to your question can be found in multitudes of philosophy, ethics, and biology books. I encourage you to read them instead of trolling here for the sake of your own ego.

          Because this question of yours:

          Why does one have a duty to improve one’s own future or the future of one’s family?

          Has an obvious answer. One that you can reach by asking similarly obvious questions.

          “Why does one have a duty to eat?”

          Or breath?

          Or sleep?

          Survival. That’s why. Without eating, sleeping, or breathing you die. Without a community to help provide security for these things, you also die. (Unless you want to tell me humans aged 0-8 are expected to survive if yeeted into the wild? I sincerely doubt you would too despite being older)

          Survival is a BIOS level operating function of everything living.

          And the same point I first made along with everyone else that you will continue to ignore.

          So it’s not so much a “duty,” as a biological compulsion similar to being hungry. Making us all want to survive, and eventually thrive for a happy life. And the only way that happens is if we work to maintain or improve our environment. (Like eating when you’re hungry). Our own biology pushes us to do that through internal reward mechanisms that spiral out into a feedback loop of prosperity. Like when you body tells you something tastes good, and you want to share that taste with a friend.

          Your question implies an unsaid argument that is essentially the fast food equivalent of nihilism. That humans don’t matter, and our lives are meaningless.

          No offense, but you are either too young or too far up your own ass if you think you’re on to anything new with your question. It’s been answered hundreds of times throughout history by people far smarter than us, and I’m not going to hold your hand through understanding something you are clearing saying just because you want to feel special when saying it rather than learn an actual answer.

          If you want to feel that life is meaningless, go right ahead. But stop pretending that you can’t give it meaning yourself. I’ve given you the basic biological one, you’re gonna have to open a book if you want the rest.

          • rah@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 days ago

            it’s not so much a “duty,”

            All of:

            1. the statement in the posted article
            2. my question about that statement
            3. the response to my question
            4. my response which you originally replied to
            5. my question, which you quoted in the comment I’m replying to here

            were about duty.

            Whatever you’re talking about, it isn’t an answer to any of my questions because you’re not talking about duty.

            • EightBitBlood@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 days ago

              The definition of “duty” fits my point perfectly, unless you want to explain it how it doesn’t.

              • rah@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 days ago

                Firstly, you haven’t given a definition of “duty”.

                Secondly, you just said it’s not a duty, now you’re saying it is a duty. Please sort your shit out.

                • EightBitBlood@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 days ago

                  Second definition from Google / dictionary:

                  Duty - a task or action that someone is required to perform.

                  “the queen’s official duties”

                  Or in the way I used it:

                  The “human biological duties” we all have specifically required for human survival.

                  You brought up the importance of “duty” and how it’s something my point didn’t fit, but the responsibility of defining it was up to you. Yet you failed to provide a definition, just like you’ve failed to say literally anything this whole conversation.

                  I knew you’d fail to define “duty” which would allow me to provide it in turn and fully prove my point. Which I just did.

                  So now you’re fucked.

                  You’re clearly incapable of admitting fault, listening, or forming a coherent concept that isn’t just your opinion disguised as questions.

                  All you can do now is split hairs (look that one up yourself) so your next response will be to move the goalposts of your question somewhere else you feel you can still be right.

                  Lemme guess - another definition of duty? Maybe a weaker one you will claim you really meant, but clearly just failed to provide in the first place and now are just scrambling back to?

                  Or, you really are just a boring troll who gives zero fucks and will now say your question has nothing to do with duty after forgetting how hard you just really went in on that being the key part of the argument you never made.

                  There’s another option you could take: Your question has been answered in full.

                  Which is very much what a reasonable person would do at this point. But it’s pretty clear that’s not what this conversation is actually about for you anymore.

                  • rah@feddit.uk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 days ago

                    a task or action that someone is required to perform

                    This I can understand.

                    “human biological duties”

                    This, which you’ve made up, I don’t understand. It doesn’t make sense to me. “Biological duties” seems like a contradiction in terms. In fact it sounds ridiculous. And there’s no logical connection between the definition of “duty” you gave above and this undefined term “human biological duties” which you’ve introduced. If it’s in line with your previous expositions about family, then it is in fact distinct from the definition of “duty” you gave and incoherent.

                    Regardless, whatever it is you’re talking about doesn’t seem like what the authors of the article were talking about or what I was asking about. So again, consistently, it seems like we’re talking about different things. In fact it’s looking more and more like you’re just reaching and trying to shoe-horn the subject that you want to talk about into this discussion.