I think hurting children is wrong.
I think hurting children is wrong, and car pollution gives kids asthma, so we should ban cars.
Opinions on the internet
Submitted 3 weeks ago by Squorlple@lemmy.world to [deleted]
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f9b4eb25-9f11-476d-968d-94101d636670.jpeg
Comments
Genius@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
idunnololz@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I think hurting children is wrong.
I think hurting children is wrong, so children should be euthanized to ensure they experience as little pain as possible. /s
RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 3 weeks ago
“I am a socialist” vs “We need to round up anyone with glasses and kill them because they are bourgeoisie.”
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 weeks ago
That’s slander, he just hated nerds.
bennypr0fane@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
Yes. Socialism is killing people with glasses.
JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
It’s a reference to the Khmer Rouge Genocide. This included people being killed for wearing glasses, speaking a foreign language, or anything else which indicated they were an intellectual.
ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
What about sunglasses? It’s too bright outside of the basement, I need them to see!
Forester@pawb.social 3 weeks ago
Kulac detected
doug@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
The only thing tolerance cannot tolerate is intolerance…
…I think it is morally sound to remove someone from society if that someone is an intolerant, fascist, greedy bigot. What constitutes as “remove” is contingent on how intolerant, fascist, and greedy the subject has exhibited themselves to be.
…murder is OK, in some scenarios.
Aurix@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You misunderstand the point of this paradox. By default you become intolerant when you start “removing” people. it is explicitly not a justification for whatever action you claim moral superiority on.
Since almost every political decision will affect at least some fraction of society negatively (even if it would ethically be for the greater good), you can carelessly throw this around to eliminate any opponents for this arbitrary tolerance reason. The only way to make sure the “removal” is fair, as a society absolutely needs these tools to function, is to clearly outline the case when it needs to happen and bring the barrier such that those capable of improvement do not get ostracized into further radicalization. And that barrier needs to be significant.
You bring up “fascist”, at which line does it happen? Genocide execution, support, inaction, Swastika wearing, illegal membership, legal membership of ultra radical parties, support of conservative oligarchs? What is greedy? Robbery, theft, tax evasion, corruption, cheating with the girlfriend of a friend? What is bigotry? You get the idea.
Deme@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
It stops being a paradox if you treat tolerance as a contract between parties in a society, instead of a principle. They break that contract and thus are no longer covered by it.
ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
It isn’t a paradox, or it doesn’t have to be. It isn’t a seemingly false or untrue statement that belies a deeper meaning.
It is a definitional and logical conclusion that a concept cannot tolerate its anathema and inverse.
Chemically tolerance means the limit at which something begins to degrade or an organism has to/begins to adapt. This is at least what I interpret with what is being brought up with tolerance of intolerance: when adaptation or degradation is required, the limits of tolerance have been reached.
HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Turns out: morality is relative.
doug@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
I’ve never considered it a paradox, more of an irony.
…but yes I was oversimplifying for funsies. “Bash the fash” as they say.
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
This guy gets it!
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Murder is ok in self defense. Extrapolate as necessary.
doug@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
I know it’s been four days, but I just wanted to circle back to this and say this is great/I still’ve been thinking about it.
I just like how it brackets everything I said into two sentences. Love it.
ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s more like:
- “Besides finding it very important to follow the laws (regardless of what they mean or who they could benefit, but that’s what many people think means being moral), I don’t really believe in anything nor think about anything in depth, so I’m just gonna regurgitate the same propaganda you’ve been fed” -> 😁
- anything besides that -> 😠
arrakark@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Absolutely fucking agree.
Except when it comes to landlords. Somehow those are always bad.
RadicalEagle@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Never get into the details, that’s where the devil is.
Squorlple@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I should start just depicting my opinions as the Chad and other people’s opinions as the Soyjak and leaving it at that
ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Insert one shibboleth, like one bit of information critically wrong intentionally. Make lists of users who point it out for HR.
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Also the suggesting ways the world could be better that i haven’t already done. Which is basically calling me an asshole and giving me more work.
This is why i try to be the most dirtbaggy disingenuous asshole i can at all times; that’s me asking to be loved, and it genuinely works.