3 ms·
> disagreeing would mean that once somebody does something against human rights, everything else they touch must be also bad by definition, thus depriving all f
by 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 agoIt 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.