Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Your perspective is entirely based on Western views of autonomy and social utility. Diminishing other cultural perspectives on the sanctity of the human body doesn't make you enlightened, you're legit just ignorant.
You should post the perspective you actually agree with so people can discuss its merits here.
My perspective is that forcing people to become organ donors feeds into a narrative that humans as physical entities are only significant in terms of the value they create (in this case, value manifests as the possible transplantable organs). This is a fundamentally Western perspective, informed by economic theories that promote the valuation of all tangible assets without considering exogenous variables that could adversely effect "value", or otherwise writing them off as costs.
I'm opposed to your perspective because it creates the precedent for Westerners to continue rationalizing the dehumanization of people under the safety umbrella of good capitalist business practices. As I said earlier, I believe your argument lacks validity outside of a Western context.
I am lost at your comment. Seems like a word salad in which you say absolutely nothing of substance.
What does being an organ donor have to do with capitalism, or with the western society? And what does it have to do with "humans as physical entities in terms of the value they create"? What are you talking about?
What???
If you can't understand, then you're proving my point.
That's quite the clever tactic. Just throw together a "salad" of an argument — so incoherent and lacking in logic that no one can make sense of it. Then say, "if you can't understand it, you're proving my point." Win? Somehow?
To be fair you haven't even offered anything I can respond to; you're just flailing.
Sure, that's fine. To each their own. Not the first time I've heard that prioritizing the living over the dead is ignorant.
I don't see a need to be passive aggressive just because a stranger doesn't agree with you. More the point: it's only ignorant if you think you we live in a vacuum
No, it's actually the truth. You can't imagine how many people share the sentiment that corpses > living people. I wasn't being disingenuous, I've heard it so many times.
It's a free world, you believe what you believe.
Edit: not sure what you mean with living in a vacuum? What I believe is that it's a binary choice. You either choose to potentially help someone by being a donor or you don't.