6 ms·
The issue with "harm" here is that there is an objective definition, but that question is being framed as a subjective definition being made objective in an att
by sneakernets 8y ago
The issue with "harm" here is that there is an objective definition, but that question is being framed as a subjective definition being made objective in an attempt at a gotcha.
- benj111 8y ago(Assuming you're disagreeing with the parents framing rather than me) Perhaps, but as the guidelines state "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Fool me once, and all that, and at the end of the day I expect reasonable answers to my imperfect questions, its unfair not to offer the same to others.
- sneakernets 8y agoUnfortunately some people argue in bad faith without even knowing they do it.
- antidesitter 8y agoLike you did when you replied to my question.
- antidesitter 8y agoWhat's the "objective definition" you're referring to? And why do you claim my question is "being framed as a subjective definition being made objective"?
- sneakernets 8y agoObjective harm is visible damage backed by reality. Subjective harm is mostly puritan nonsense. Unless you make distinctions, I don't think this argument can continue.
- antidesitter 8y ago> Objective harm is visible damage backed by reality. What makes you think I was referring to anything else?