It doesn’t have to make sense to others, but if the thing that makes you happy is harmful to others, like eating your own child (which is an… interesting? choice to illustrate this specific point. E: and as pointed out bellow, a deliberate one), others absolutely do have a right and even responsibility to stop you.
(go vegan)
I think in this case it is more apt to realize that the artist painted this on the wall of his dining room in his house where he never had any visitors. The definition of “happiness” in this context would have to be a tad…malleable though.
Although he initially decorated the rooms of the house with more inspiring images, in time he painted over them all with the intensely haunting pictures known today as the Black Paintings. Created without commission for private display, these paintings may reflect the artist’s state of mind late in a life that witnessed the violence of war and terror stoked by the Spanish Inquisition.
I hate to do this, but I gotta.
What about religion? There are atheists who don’t understand why people seek religion, but the basis of believing in God is not harmful to others. So why the anti-theism in so many subs here?
To take this even further, you say others have a responsibility to stop you from harming/killing your child. To extend this further, this can be taken to say that others have a responsibility to prevent aborting a healthy fetus.
To take your last point even further, others have a responsibility to prevent you from sterilizing yourself. To take it even further, they have a responsibility to force you to reproduce as long as you have the potential.
A fetus is not a child.
Cant believe this descended into this rabbit hole, but justify to me why the hell it wouldn’t count as a human life
A body having a pulse is not what matters.
Cancer cells are also genetically human and also alive.
If it isn’t sentient, its life is irrelevant.
If it isn’t sapient, furthermore, it does not matter as much as the sapients its existence imminently effects.
A fetus is neither.
A baby, once capable of surviving without parasitically siphoning off the body of a host through a direct persistent flesh attachment, is either sentient or shall imminently be if left to its own devices
(Whereas a fetus without a host, when left to its own devices, shall imminently be dead and never to attain sentience nor sapience)
Those are where the lines are drawn.
I’ve not seen many neonates capable of surviving without external intervention. Yes, there is more involvement that an umbilical cord, but left to its own devices, a neonate will not survive.
it meets the definition on the minutes to hours basis.
a fully grown sapient human with experience and valuable expertise who is otherwise ready and able to immediately benefit their community, if “left to their own devices” naked on the surface of the moon, will also die in moments. However, with the use of equipment, with the ability to depend on machinery to survive instead of the active blood supply of another sapient being, such a human can survive.
similarly, a neonate can survive with the aid of equipment without burdening a single exclusive host.
Agreed, a neonate can certainly survive longer than a fetus without support.
I’ve been told that about sterilization as well by people. So while you present it at a theoretical argument, I’ve seen it as a lm real argument used in legitimate conversation.
You don’t hate to do this, you literally feed off of it.
Fuck off, anti-choicer.Interesting that you’ve assumed my stance based on my comment. I never said I was anti-abortion.
Jesus Christ you’re insufferable. And I wonder why people don’t want to be religious these days.
You also assume I’m religious.
Generally only religious people are uneducated enough to be anti-choicers.
The anti-theism is in reaction to the terrible shit justified by religion.
Edit: posted early on accident.
Edit 2: I personally believe people’s morals shouldn’t require unprovable belief in the afterlife to work. Religious people often argue that religion is necessary for morality, but an agnostic approach is the only one people should live by.
If you sincerely believe you can be denied eternal life by going against God’s will, keeping others from committing sin is a rational, moral thing to do. You’re saving them by outlawing homosexuality or other similar shit. However, there’s no evidence that God even exists, let alone what he wants you to do or that he can grant eternal life. Therfore, we should make sure our morality works without the existence of higher powers we have no way of detecting.
Belief in things that don’t affect our material world can make behaviors that cause great harm seem rational. There are amazing people with strong faith, and terrible people with none at all. I just recognize that our common ethical principles cannot be determined by unfalsifiable ideas. Laws shouldn’t be guided by religion.
Saturn’s face always looked very unhappy to me in this picture, like, he is deeply in anguish about what he’s doing. How can anyone see anything other than horror and sadness in those eyes?
Mostly yes, but with some imagination he could also have the expression of someone being caught mid act, and kind of having a scared/awkward ‘ow fuck, what do I do now’ look.
It could also represent a sort of bewildered frenzy where he’s just overwhelmed by compulsion.
Or possibly the moment where he realized something slipped down his windpipe.
Its fear. He does not particularly want to eat his children, but he fears the curse of succession. Any child of his is an immediate and grave threat to his dominion.
That painting makes a lot of sense when you consider that Goya was loosing his mind while painting it.
Not sure about the happy part. But yeah, the message is a good one.
Is ir a good message? Some people have a lot of joy in molesting people in church. That doesn’t make much sense to me, but if it makes them happy.
Counterpoint, liking children
Couterpoint to eating human bodies?
Parents: I don’t think so
I don’t know what it is about this painting, but it’s always caught my interest.
Nerdwriter (on YouTube) has a good essay on this series of paintings. I like a lot of his art videos.
I truly truly want to understand this.
I cannot understand what motivates this post.
I’m obsessed with typewriters and I do not give a fuck if it makes sense to anyone else.
Honestly.
So I simply don’t understand why anyone cares if something that makes them happy makes sense to anyone.
What is this preoccupation?
Truly.
Example: I’m pretty certain even this question will not make sense to some people. That’s not on me. It’s on them.
But for the author of the meme and for the people that this query makes sense to: why?
Why this meme.
Is it saying that if I am an ancient and eternal god and it makes me happy to eat my children, it is permissible for me to eat my children?
Because regardless of how happy it makes you to eat your children, it’s not okay.
And clearly I get that the idea here is not the promotion of children eating, but I have zero idea what it is promoting, supporting, or critiquing. Consider me out of the loop. What does this mean, and more importantly, why?
This meme makes me happy…
Will you help me understand it?
This meme was made by me to make fun of a motivational quote by taking it literal to the point of absurdity.
It’s okay, OP, it makes me happy too.
Wait! I’m the intended audience. Thank you.
How do the folks you are satirizing receive it?
