4 ms·

If you feel bad about something that does not mean others have a moral obligation to prevent your feeling bad from happening. If there is one thing we are sure

If you feel bad about something that does not mean others have a moral obligation to prevent your feeling bad from happening. If there is one thing we are sure about is that we "are" and if someone wants to stop "being" but someone else doesn't think he should because he will be sad then that selfish fuck should respect someone else's decision about himself and do what he can regarding fixing his own feelings. The only time this doesn't apply is with parents leaving kids because they forced their "being" onto them and there's no escaping.

whatshisface 7y ago
Isn't causing other people pain a pretty basic thing that you aren't supposed to do? If I went around delivering electric shocks to my friends, the best advice would be for me to stop, not for my friends to achieve a level of zen so high that pain didn't bother them.
- krick 7y ago
  > Isn't causing other people pain a pretty basic thing that you aren't supposed to do? Uh, obviously not? Seriously, this is absolutely self-inconsistent way to see things. No, it is not a "pretty basic thing" and the world isn't a friendly place, deal with it. People always cause pain to the others whether you like it or not. If I've been dating a girl for several years and still love her, but she does not love me anymore, she is causing me pain by breaking up with me. Quite likely more so, than a dear friend's death and pretty much for sure more that, say, a robbery. So what, she isn't supposed to break up with me now or what?
  - geggam 7y ago
    If only society as a collective thought this way perhaps we could remove the PC gone wild stuff and get back to unemotional laws. Big example is a hate crime. Making someones opinion or feelings criminal is insanity.
    - pmarreck 7y ago
      > Making someones opinion or feelings criminal is insanity You are right, but "hate crimes" are not just bad thoughts, they are bad thoughts brought through to action. It's one thing to rationally defend yourself from an attack and unintentionally kill the attacker, it's entirely another thing if you act on your toxic worldview based on bullshit and someone ends up harmed or worse. It's just too bad we don't apply this thinking to things like... oh, I don't know, religions that actively try to prevent their congregations from getting immunized.
      - homonculus1 7y ago
        "Hate crimes" in some countries also comprise expression of hate. Hate crimes can be a useful designation for research and social intervention, but prosecuting them more harshly is literally policing thought as a secondary offense and makes the population malleable to further authoritarianism. It's a bailey type of argument because criticizing it means you must be sympathetic to racists.
        paulmd 7y ago
        We punish "thought as a secondary offense" all the time. eg: involuntary manslaughter vs voluntary manslaughter vs third degree murder vs second degree murder vs first degree murder. Or more pointedly - terrorism is a different charge from murder, the difference being the "thought as a secondary offense" of intending to cause a political effect with your act of murder. Hate crimes are analogous to terrorism. They are an offense not just against an individual, but an entire class of individuals. They are intended to send a message (even if it's as simple as "I don't think you should be present in my society") and cause fear and intimidation. And as such it's perfectly fine to punish that differently from plain old "killed you for the paper in your wallet". Why do you feel it necessary to bring up how much you hate crime laws in a thread about CRISPR?
        paulmd 7y ago
        flagged for politics no reason to post about hate crimes on a thread about crispr

whatshisface 7y ago

Isn't causing other people pain a pretty basic thing that you aren't supposed to do? If I went around delivering electric shocks to my friends, the best advice would be for me to stop, not for my friends to achieve a level of zen so high that pain didn't bother them.

krick 7y ago
> Isn't causing other people pain a pretty basic thing that you aren't supposed to do? Uh, obviously not? Seriously, this is absolutely self-inconsistent way to see things. No, it is not a "pretty basic thing" and the world isn't a friendly place, deal with it. People always cause pain to the others whether you like it or not. If I've been dating a girl for several years and still love her, but she does not love me anymore, she is causing me pain by breaking up with me. Quite likely more so, than a dear friend's death and pretty much for sure more that, say, a robbery. So what, she isn't supposed to break up with me now or what?
- geggam 7y ago
  If only society as a collective thought this way perhaps we could remove the PC gone wild stuff and get back to unemotional laws. Big example is a hate crime. Making someones opinion or feelings criminal is insanity.
  - pmarreck 7y ago
    > Making someones opinion or feelings criminal is insanity You are right, but "hate crimes" are not just bad thoughts, they are bad thoughts brought through to action. It's one thing to rationally defend yourself from an attack and unintentionally kill the attacker, it's entirely another thing if you act on your toxic worldview based on bullshit and someone ends up harmed or worse. It's just too bad we don't apply this thinking to things like... oh, I don't know, religions that actively try to prevent their congregations from getting immunized.
    - homonculus1 7y ago
      "Hate crimes" in some countries also comprise expression of hate. Hate crimes can be a useful designation for research and social intervention, but prosecuting them more harshly is literally policing thought as a secondary offense and makes the population malleable to further authoritarianism. It's a bailey type of argument because criticizing it means you must be sympathetic to racists.
      - paulmd 7y ago
        We punish "thought as a secondary offense" all the time. eg: involuntary manslaughter vs voluntary manslaughter vs third degree murder vs second degree murder vs first degree murder. Or more pointedly - terrorism is a different charge from murder, the difference being the "thought as a secondary offense" of intending to cause a political effect with your act of murder. Hate crimes are analogous to terrorism. They are an offense not just against an individual, but an entire class of individuals. They are intended to send a message (even if it's as simple as "I don't think you should be present in my society") and cause fear and intimidation. And as such it's perfectly fine to punish that differently from plain old "killed you for the paper in your wallet". Why do you feel it necessary to bring up how much you hate crime laws in a thread about CRISPR?
      - paulmd 7y ago
        flagged for politics no reason to post about hate crimes on a thread about crispr