I would urge people to be careful how much we think disabled people (might) suffer. My mom is colorblind (she sees the whole world in shades of white or black), and her vision strength is 5% or lower. She is definitely disabled and receives a pension for not being able to work. Still, she managed to build up some form of existence: she managed to start an education and became a masseuse, and she gave birth to me and my brother. If my grandma would’ve known that my mom will not be able to live on her own, she maybe wouldn’t have proceeded with the pregnancy. Then I wouldn’t be here either.

My conclusion: what do you define by disability? If it is a chronic disease which means your child will be in pain their whole life, it is very different than having a child who isn’t able to “function” normally, but isn’t inherently in pain. Over my mom I met a lot of other disabled people, and most of them have built up an existence and lead a life. My mom wouldn’t agree that she is forced to suffer her whole life.

No one is forced to bear out a child. You are not morally responsible to bear out a child, in my opinion. But we shouldn’t assume we know how this person will grow and develop during their lives.

You just provided the science tech path for the Civilization games

Pure perfection, I love this meme with every bit of my soul

Okay, let me rephrase - for me it sounds that if people work together, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Aka, if I am one of the twenty who sit around and do nothing, stand up, I on my own probably won’t be able to block the policy. But if I stand up, there’s a good chance others will get up as well and do. Or maybe I’ll discover that after I stand up, there are three others of whom I haven’t suspected anything, but who now also oppose the policy. And thus by standing up, you also influence others. If that is successful (aka if you can stop the policy or not), you can only find out afterwards.

Is that right?

Then every single person who takes any action would make a difference in the world and change the situation, which obviousy isn’t true. Lots of people have tried rebelling and fighting against a regime, but failed. So this logic doesn’t apply in every case, does it?

I think the argument is kinda weak, because from my decision to do something (like construct a weapon) the other workers at the factories don’t change their opinion. For these kinds of events to happen, there must either already be a huge grudge in the workforce, so that you’re the “tipping point”, or you have to be as charismatic as a reborn Jesus and convince everyone to follow you. Both of these events seem implausible here. Thus, your decision to make or not make a weapon will not influence others, and the outcome won’t be significant.

However, I’d love to have your input on it. I think the question if for the judgment of an action it is important that it is significant (or not) is a fundamentally important one, so I’d really appreciate your response here :)

Very good criterias! I think OP posted a great question, and your philosophy seems to be a very interesting merge of a virtue-based approach (that A/B is always good/bad) and an utilitarian one. I like it at a lot :)

Ahhhh, that makes sense! Thank you, I got very confused - you clarified it a lot :)

Sorry, that’s now how I meant my original post - I just thought that I really like SPD already and was interested in what PD makes better/ what features SPD missed. I in no way wanted to say that PD was bad, just was excited to know what PD made better :)

SPD is already pretty good though, why is PD better?

Do the Fossify versions already have new features? I’ll still using Simple Mobile Tools from F-Droid, without ads, and am asking if it makes sense to download Fossify apps already

Ah, thanks. I remember reading something that public ones won’t accept you when you’re too old.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as you know you only need to have a health insurance. No one forces you to pick a certain one, public of private.

I understand. I think you raise an interesting thought… I get where the law is coming from, but it also makes sense that the way it is treated now makes it so that dogs who would live their entire life in captivity only suffer more.

Thank you for your insight - I appreciate it and will think about it.

Hmm, I get your point - I think you’re raising a compelling case.

I think, for me it comes down to the belief that only very, very few dogs are so aggressive and dangerous that no intervention will be able to change that. I (with great reluctance :) )agree that if a dog will never be able to get adopted, it is responsible to think if it would be more humane to euthasize him. But there are also far, far too many cases where dogs are killed because there just isn’t enough money or interest in them to give them special treatment and care so that they can e.g. trust humans again and not see them as danger.

I also agree, however, that it would probably be a good idea to implement limiting measures to the amount of dogs out there, so that the problem isn’t growing in scope - e.g. those you proposed. In the end though that can’t be the solution to the moral question “is it okay for us to kill dogs with whom we haven’t tried all in our power”, it can just be a supporting factor so that we can avoid making these decisions as much as possible.

Well, I will be honest with you - I’d gladly pay my part so that an animal doesn’t get killed. Of course no one be able to fix the issue alone (except Elob Musk and Bezos, probably), but I think that we as a society can do better than kill animals because we don’t have enough money to keep them alive in a humane manner.

I understand. I’m living in Germany, so our laws also probably differ as well - but is there a law which permits that if a dog e.g. doesn’t get adopted within a year, it may be euthasized? I thought that a “no killing” law is absolute and that an animal in a shelter never is allowed to be killed, no matter the circumstance.

Hi - I’m not the original commenter, but your text is very thoughtful and insightful. I appreciate you writing your comment, I think it cleared up at least a few of my misunderstandings in a very clear and understandable manner. Thank you for your post, internet stranger :)

Correct me if there is data suggesting otherwise, but I dusagree that the “not kill” laws are stupid - I think the problem is that shelters don’t have enough funding to care for all dogs. A law which protects animals from getting killed cannot, in my opinion, be a bad law - because every life, even that of a dog, is worth fighting for.