To kill anyone is possibly defined as cruel. Here the point is when you hunt someone, or something, how to call your action? Well, as Quocalimar said, if you are hunting for fun, it is definitely cruel, but, if you hunt for living, it is another matter of facts.
I have a special and effective suggestion in order to remove acne from your body. And, trust me, it works. It works because is 100% natural. In short, waiting. Just wait a couple of months, or years, and you will see acne slowly disappearing from your body, leaving behind itself a beautiful soft skin.
Should we save them? Is this a question? It should not, since we are the major responsible for this possible extinction. As we were for all those species extinct during the 20th century up to now, such as some tigers. Come on, it sounds pretty much like if we were thieves and, after having robbed some gold from a house, we asked ourselves if we should bring the gold back.
"Cancer is a disease everyone can get."
And?
"And starvation usually occurs to people in third world countries."
Ah, ok, but then, what?
"Starvation is due to hunger. We have a cure for hunger."
Yeah, of course we have. And i see you cure starving people everyday, right? What do you say about that?
"What makes you think that the same people trying to cure cancer are the ones who should be ending starvation?"
Probably the fact that the only ones who can HELP poor people ending their starvation are us, the rich ones, and, by chance, the same ones who are searching the cure for cancer.
"Cancer is a disease. Starvation is not."
Ok, congratulation! But let me tell you that most probably the reason why you chose cancer is that you have definitely more probabilities to get it than people living in third world countries. If you were one of those billion starving people, you would probably think it different. And there is more: you are starving and you know the cure for your problem is food; you see people living in cities, some miles away from you, eating all day long, everyday, all the year long. Cancer is still more important?
I disagree simply because nowadays it turns to be kinda hard for anyone to find some moral value to share or to learn by. As Nietzsche prophesied at the end of the nineteenth century, all the values have disappeared. We are living nihilism. Today's and new generations will grow up and live under a nihilistic regime, which has not dictators. This is kinda worse than the problem you have just questioned.
To me, existing means living automatically: short, existing occurs when a robot would do anything different at our place. Living, on the contrary, means reaching the uniqueness in life, the top, where Reason walks at your side, and creativity leads the way. It means not to be happy: in fact, it is not a difference between happiness and sadness. It is more a difference between reason and cleverness. In truth, the more you are clever the less you are alive. Think about that.
It is your right, yes, but you have to ask yourself "Why do i feel the necessity to do that?", or rather "Is marriage really something to fight for?". If you asked yourself such questions, you would realize that all the certainties, such as the fact that you really want to be married, are just illusions and, occasionally, superstitions. Moreover, the fact that you definitely want to be married in church, since church is what it is, is just a nonsense. You have to be more clever than the church, not a stupid rat which wants the cheese and, in order to get it, spends his all life by trying to enter the trap.
I would feel more represented if a voice named "It's all about America's degeneration" was a possibility. Indeed, America has started this war, America wanted to give the Jews a country, and it was America that did all that ignoring that Palestinians had been living those lands for a long time. The truth is that, if America should look itself reflected into the mirror, the mirror would immediately break up. It is responsible of war in half the countries of the world, and the funniest thing is that she is still calling for democracy and freedom, and their president was given a Nobel prize for peace: LOL. Americans: wake up!
Starvation is a disease which hits mostly poor people... Cancer is a wealthy people disease, since it usually occurs to people when old. So I'd choose starvation, because, even if it is a quicker problem to solve, it still exists, since we are a lot more occupied in searching for cancer cures than solving such a "stupid" problem as starvation is.
Of course they do. The little entrepreneur, who has slowly disappeared, was replaced by those big corporations whose aim is profit. The problem is that they make you believe that the interest of corporation and the interest of men coincide, when they are not the same thing.
As I said somewhere else, beauty is surely important, but the aesthetic issue is just a little part of all those different types of beauty that are not aesthetic. Unfortunately, our society is more and more leading us to believe that the only beauty is the aesthetic one, and the only one that counts. By this process, people divide themselves in two parts: those who believe that, and those who strongly think "inner beauty" to be definitely more important. The point is that both of the two parts are wrong, since there are billions of other types of beauty which are dying: how to learn them (yes, you have to learn them)? Do read books, good books.
Guys, just like it does not exist something entirely white or entirely black, the point here is not a bipolar ism of billions of dollars or euros on one side, and on the other side the sickest poorness of all time. Money does not buy happiness, but it is also true that nowadays if you haven't got money enough to eat then you get automatically socially and then physically killed. So we all can say "Noo, money does not buy happiness" since we all have a computer to spend our time with, we have a house to warmly sleep in, etc. You would change your mind if you were house-less. Trust me. Nevertheless, I do also think that a life like Henry David Thoreau's one, would not be so bad: the problem is that if today you go living through the forests, after 5 minutes you get picked up by the police and brought to the jail.
I disagree not because I think two people having the same sex cannot hang out and adopt children, but for another reason: since marriage is an invention of the church, and since the church does not recognize these formal unions, then if two people of the same sex keep wanting to be married is just stupidity, from the part of the two people mentioned above. It's like if I gave a party establishing that none without smoking can enter and join my party. I know it's a ridiculous and nonsense idea, but I decided it. If you do not agree, just don't join my party. But if you really care to join it, there are rules, old fashioned and stupid rules, but since there are they have to be obeyed. If you really want marriage to be opened to homosexual people, then you first have to change the ideology this deplorable institution, namely the church, has.
Wanna really hear God speaking? Just take your car, better your bycicle, and ride to the closest park or forest to your house, then, when a bird will sing, or a wolf willl howl, you will know God's voice. God is nature, and we are definitely kill him.
Humanity, as Fromm and others like him considered it, is slowly disappearing: it is when you make your whole life depending on something technological, when you think that good and bad are really the only two categories by which judging the world and men's behavior, it is when you lock yourselves up in your house, it is when you buy a gun to protect yourselves from the "enemy", it is when you pass your days in front of the screen pretending that life and debate are really possible when two people are talking via Internet. I'm surely missing something, though.
No, not really. What you describe here is what happens in local realities, like Sicily, probably. The problem is that the election system, almost in every country of the Western World, is just a mask under which oligarchies can persecute ruling their affairs.
Warlin said a lot of correct and sharable things: firstly, Russia and China were and are not the effective result of the appliance of the ideology of communism. Just read something about Erich Fromm concerning communism and Russia; secondly, if we are not so blind and ignorant, we have to admit that almost everything we can do in life, such as writing on the Internet, is possible since we all have money and a job, or, at least, our parents have. I have to disagree, though. The idea that what we have is still better than what we would have being under a communist regime, a real communist regime, is wrong: how can you say that if you have never personally witnessed a real communist regime? By reading some of Jack London's epic novels, The iron heel, The people of the abyss, you can witness what Capitalism is, the real face of Capitalism, which is TVs, computers, fashion as well as dead skinned and boned bodies lying on the floor near a mine, in silence. We are living under a capitalistic regime, which probable resembles more a masked dictatorship, we have TVs, we hang out with girlfriends, we attend universities but what the hell happens just a few thousand miles far from here? (I'm Italian) Entire peoples are dying, mining out some fucking material that we use to build I-Phones and I-pads, in spite of Steve Jobs' wonderful speeches. Jaspers, in 1945, after the 2 WW said that they, being German, had a metaphysic guilt: Why they lived and the other died? Today, we can and must answer ourselves pretty much the same thing: Why can we daily and easily eat, drink, hang out while peoples simply born in another parts of the World cannot? Socialism may be the answer, but then how can we accept our hypocrite reality? Thank for your consideration.
This question does not make any sense: it is pretty like to ask whether a man would better to be a man or rather a chicken! The point is that a soldier, who really desires to be one, has already taken a decision: chicken! So he might think of what he does, morally speaking, but this wont change what he is: chicken. Far from a man, that's the truth. Just hint at what Einstein himself said about soldiers.
