2 ms·

This is exactly what I said in my comment (the part in parenthesis), but not phrased against the impersonal policies but against the people who happen to put fo

This is exactly what I said in my comment (the part in parenthesis), but not phrased against the impersonal policies but against the people who happen to put forward awful things along with policies that would be otherwise good. I think you don't really disagree, because disagreeing would mean that once somebody does something against human rights, everything else they touch must be also bad by definition, thus depriving all future generations of the possibility of doing something good just because they accidentally mentioned it? When it's claimed that Mussolini made run trains on time (which it's very likely a myth, but it doesn't matter for this argument), does it mean that having trains that run on time is a bad idea that can no longer be pursued least we associate ourselves with fascism? That would clearly be silly.

trs8080 5y ago
> disagreeing would mean that once somebody does something against human rights, everything else they touch must be also bad by definition, thus depriving all future generations of the possibility of doing something good just because they accidentally mentioned it what on earth is this argument? to simplify this for you: if you deprive a subset of your population human rights and freedoms and allow a different subset to benefit from that injustice, it isn't a net good - it's supremacist.
- ithkuil 5y ago
  It seems you're intentionally misunderstanding me. Let me try again: Mr X invents the lightbulb, then kills his wife. I'm not saying Mr X invention of the lightbulb excuses him for having commited murder; I'm saying that the ligthbulb is a good invention despite the person who invented it and that other people can keep using it (while the inventor rots in jail). This is an intentionally silly example because nobody sane will cancel a useful invention because of where it came from, but when we're talking about social policies they are often inextricably tainted by who proposed them and embraced them. You're free to say "I don't care about this subtle point you're making because I'm so concerned about this freak depriving people of human rights that we don't have time to talk about this crap you're talking about". Fair enough. What I don't accept is that you're insinuating that I'm defending this kind of behaviour just because I'm making point you're not interested in.

trs8080 5y ago

> disagreeing would mean that once somebody does something against human rights, everything else they touch must be also bad by definition, thus depriving all future generations of the possibility of doing something good just because they accidentally mentioned it what on earth is this argument? to simplify this for you: if you deprive a subset of your population human rights and freedoms and allow a different subset to benefit from that injustice, it isn't a net good - it's supremacist.

ithkuil 5y ago
It seems you're intentionally misunderstanding me. Let me try again: Mr X invents the lightbulb, then kills his wife. I'm not saying Mr X invention of the lightbulb excuses him for having commited murder; I'm saying that the ligthbulb is a good invention despite the person who invented it and that other people can keep using it (while the inventor rots in jail). This is an intentionally silly example because nobody sane will cancel a useful invention because of where it came from, but when we're talking about social policies they are often inextricably tainted by who proposed them and embraced them. You're free to say "I don't care about this subtle point you're making because I'm so concerned about this freak depriving people of human rights that we don't have time to talk about this crap you're talking about". Fair enough. What I don't accept is that you're insinuating that I'm defending this kind of behaviour just because I'm making point you're not interested in.