I saw a post of someone having a fictional crush (which was really just admiration) on a 12 year old whilst being 16. Although that scenario is completely fine, this had me wondering:

What’s the morality of a 25 or older aged individual having a crush on a fictional teenager? I’m not talking about simple admiration or just ‘finding them cute’, I’m talking about straight up obsession, in the weird way. Complete fantasization in a sense. They think about that character nearly every day, consume every piece of media that character is from, and even goes as far as to purchase merchandise of that character to feel ‘closer to him/her’….and yes, even doing ‘suggestive’ things while thinking of that character (if you catch my drift).

How moral is it? Can it just be summed down to ‘Well it’s fiction so who cares’ or can it be raised to ‘Dude you’re actually disgusting and you need help’?

• The Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3): God commands King Saul through the prophet Samuel to attack the Amalekites. The explicit text in 1 Samuel 15:3 states: "Now go and strike Amalek and completely destroy everything that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant...". [1, 2]
• The Midianites (Numbers 31): Following a conflict, Moses rebukes his military officers for sparing women and children. In Numbers 31:17, he commands them to "kill every male among the little ones". [1, 2, 3]
• The Conquest of Canaan (Deuteronomy 20 / Joshua): For cities within the Promised Land, the standard warfare law outlined in Deuteronomy required complete destruction (herem or "the ban"), leaving nothing alive that breathes, to prevent Israel from adopting pagan practices.

Throughout history, there have been times when scientific evidence and religious teachings have come into direct conflict. Imagine this happens again on a major moral issue that affects millions of people.

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that one course of action will produce the best outcomes based on evidence, experimentation, and decades of research.

Meanwhile, the majority of religious leaders argue that the same course of action is morally wrong because it contradicts their faith, traditions, or sacred texts.

Assume both sides are acting in good faith and genuinely believe they're doing what's best for humanity.

If society can only choose one path, should it prioritize scientific consensus or religious authority?

The event of God killing Uzzah for touching the Ark of the Covenant is primarily recorded in two identical passages: 2 Samuel 6:6-7 and 1 Chronicles 13:9-10.

In the verses, Uzzah reaches out to steady the Ark when the oxen stumble, and God strikes him dead on the spot. While Uzzah's intentions may have appeared helpful, the act directly violated God's explicit commands outlined in the Torah. Specifically, in Numbers 4:15, God warned that the Kohathites (a clan of Levites) were to carry the holy items with poles, but must never touch them directly or they would die.

This is just meant to be a satirical post making fun of some of the posts I’ve been seeing on this sub as of late. Sorry to the mods in advanced if this is like the 12th time you have seen a post like this on this sub already, I completely understand why it gets taken down if that’s the case.

This is a genuine question, by the way. I know that this sub is all about shitposting and stuff nowadays, but I want to raise an actual moral question.

I didnt know this but apparently there an invasive species, so would it be moral to kill them humanely at a large scale. I mean there not any different from other invasive species other then there really cute. I wouldnt really care to kill them though personally because there meat wouldnt be good but it just had me thinking.

Animal Abuse

Assault

Bestiality

Blackmailing

Bribery

Burglary

Cannibalism

Child Abuse

Death Threats

Destruction Of Someone's Home

Doxing

Drugging Someone

Environmental Destruction

Experiments On Humans

Framing Others

Gaslighting

Human Trafficking

Kidnapping

Mind-Control

Murder

Mutilation (Alive)

Mutilation (Corpse)

Necrophilia

Pedophilia

Physical Torture

Psychological Torture

Rape

Revenge Porn

Robbery

Scamming

Slavery

Violent Threats

34)Incest

33)Slander

Country A has a population of 8,000,000 people. Of those 8 million, 1 million are of a specific minority group labeled as AM.

Country A has a civil war over political ideologies. During this war, Country A splits into Country A1 and Country A2. Country A2 decides to exterminate the AM, due to many AM siding with Country A1.

Country 3 is debating on whether or not to intervene on Country A1’s side and capitalize spreading their own ideology- which includes stopping the genocide of AM.

Is it more moral for Country 3 to…

1.) Intervene, causing a larger death toll (4m).

or…

2.) Stay out of it, causing a much smaller death toll (1.5m), but watching an entire ethnic group be wiped out?

(I know Bleach is a lot different than the other shows listed but it does sexualize almost all of its female characters)

Rich dude regularly donates thousands to charity but it doesn't affect his lifestyle in any way (he inherited the wealth)

Poor dude has never donated money (wants to) but can't even feed himself regularly (he's not lazy and works very hard but due to circumstances he just can't get a stable income)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2977086.stm

linked article from 2003

I was talking to someone who tried to argue that Halal slaughter was an example of a ”humane” slaughter in antiquity.

I personally don’t believe the moral necessity to slaughter animals humanely even exists.

but I’m asking where does halal and kosher slaughter scale to people who do believe humane slaughter is a moral necessity.

my personal view (irrelevant to the post question):

I think the method of death just makes humans feel better.

I also think this ideology came because humans are distanced from where our food comes from and the very nature of being human

Genocide as in the complete (or attempted) erasure of a group of people for a specific value/belief/identity.