3 ms·

Actually no, allow me to give you another example: Most folk on HN would agree that discriminating on race is a no-no. But that is exactly what our constructs

Actually no, allow me to give you another example: Most folk on HN would agree that discriminating on race is a no-no. But that is exactly what our constructs called nation-states do at their borders (Go ahead an try travelling as a Swiss national and then again as a Sudanese). I think this is reprehensible and I suspect others will one day too. Right now - its not even discussed. Hence 'acceptable to the norms of the times'. And here's the rub: not only am I considered a naive quack on this issue, but it would be quickly pointed out when a nation state with strict border visa requirements told of another state for doing the same. You need to work through your assumptions more.

johnisgood 7y ago
I am not entirely sure, but I believe what you are referring to is double standard, and/or being inconsistent. Is this correct? If so, then I agree that - unfortunately - it happens a lot. If X does A, it is fine, but if Y does A, then it is not fine. Yes, I know, this happens, but this does not make A any less wrong if one is consistent about it.
- pinkfoot 7y ago
  It loses its authority when X is never called to stop doing A.
gtirloni 7y ago
You're starting to make less sense the more you reply, sorry. > Most folk on HN would agree that discriminating on race is a no-no. But that is exactly what our constructs called nation-states do at their borders And? The point is that people are not their government. They disagree with what they govt is doing and speak out. What's your point exactly? Again, your bad actions are not justified by the bad actions of others. I think you need to work through your logic, otherwise, you might end up justifying murder because.. well... people do it, right?
- pinkfoot 7y ago
  >> And? The point is that people are not their government. Out of curiosity - I don't spend much time in the developed world - do you REALLY believe this? The mere possession of 3,800 nuclear weapons over the better part of a century and despite the commitments in the NNPT - means that ultimately the developed world will hold the citizens of other countries responsible for the actions of their governments. The cognitive dissonance is astonishing.

johnisgood 7y ago

I am not entirely sure, but I believe what you are referring to is double standard, and/or being inconsistent. Is this correct? If so, then I agree that - unfortunately - it happens a lot. If X does A, it is fine, but if Y does A, then it is not fine. Yes, I know, this happens, but this does not make A any less wrong if one is consistent about it.

pinkfoot 7y ago
It loses its authority when X is never called to stop doing A.

gtirloni 7y ago

You're starting to make less sense the more you reply, sorry. > Most folk on HN would agree that discriminating on race is a no-no. But that is exactly what our constructs called nation-states do at their borders And? The point is that people are not their government. They disagree with what they govt is doing and speak out. What's your point exactly? Again, your bad actions are not justified by the bad actions of others. I think you need to work through your logic, otherwise, you might end up justifying murder because.. well... people do it, right?

pinkfoot 7y ago
>> And? The point is that people are not their government. Out of curiosity - I don't spend much time in the developed world - do you REALLY believe this? The mere possession of 3,800 nuclear weapons over the better part of a century and despite the commitments in the NNPT - means that ultimately the developed world will hold the citizens of other countries responsible for the actions of their governments. The cognitive dissonance is astonishing.