4 ms·

I'm going to somewhat sarcastically link to a dril tweet here. https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312?lang=en https://twitter.com/dril/status/47326

by lghh 5y ago

I'm going to somewhat sarcastically link to a dril tweet here. https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312?lang=en https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312?lang=en For those that don't want to go to twitter: `the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"` I don't want to add a ton of exposition to this, but I also don't want this to be a reddit-level comment where I just link to something and bounce so I will add that clearly someone doing something because it is moral and just like hampering the collection of abortion bounties is better than someone doing something immoral and unjust like hampering access to abortions. It isn't about what I agree and disagree with, it's about what's actually right and wrong.

junon 5y ago
In prehistoric days, killing another man to protect your own food was "right". The Aztecs had no problem sacrificing people, and many sought it out (it's theorized) given that it guaranteed you a place next to the sun and thus in paradise, eternally drunk. Extremists even today believe in a paradise-after-death if they sacrifice themselves for god. To a lesser extent, self-flagellation (whipping oneself for religious purposes) is still prevalent in many cultures and sects of e.g. Christianity/Catholocism today. "Right" and "wrong" change over time, and with culture. Thus they are subjective - there is no objective "right" and "wrong". In this sense, your last sentence relates two identical things - what you might agree with and disagree with are your own perception of "right" and "wrong". It's a somewhat flawed and (in my opinion) dangerous way of thinking about social interaction and morality. --- E: Because I know this will be mis-interpreted, let me be clear: the website in question is, in my opinion, abhorrent - but I think it's dangerous to celebrate a large company taking it down on the grounds of morality. I understand it was taken down as it specifically violated a pre-existing clause in their ToS which makes it make sense in this case. But to say that this is a great thing and we should do this for people that are "wrong" is beginning down a path that nobody really wants.
- lghh 5y ago
  The dril tweet applies nearly equally to your response as it did when I first linked it. You're incorrect about right and wrong changing over time. Even with that information though, it doesn't matter for what I said to still be correct both CURRENTLY (which fits your incorrect ideas of morality) and more broadly.
  - junon 5y ago
    > You're incorrect about right and wrong changing over time Care to elaborate?
grecy 5y ago
Taking away another human beings right to make decisions about their own body is a bad thing. Always has been, and always will.

by lghh 5y ago

junon 5y ago

In prehistoric days, killing another man to protect your own food was "right". The Aztecs had no problem sacrificing people, and many sought it out (it's theorized) given that it guaranteed you a place next to the sun and thus in paradise, eternally drunk. Extremists even today believe in a paradise-after-death if they sacrifice themselves for god. To a lesser extent, self-flagellation (whipping oneself for religious purposes) is still prevalent in many cultures and sects of e.g. Christianity/Catholocism today. "Right" and "wrong" change over time, and with culture. Thus they are subjective - there is no objective "right" and "wrong". In this sense, your last sentence relates two identical things - what you might agree with and disagree with are your own perception of "right" and "wrong". It's a somewhat flawed and (in my opinion) dangerous way of thinking about social interaction and morality. --- E: Because I know this will be mis-interpreted, let me be clear: the website in question is, in my opinion, abhorrent - but I think it's dangerous to celebrate a large company taking it down on the grounds of morality. I understand it was taken down as it specifically violated a pre-existing clause in their ToS which makes it make sense in this case. But to say that this is a great thing and we should do this for people that are "wrong" is beginning down a path that nobody really wants.

lghh 5y ago
The dril tweet applies nearly equally to your response as it did when I first linked it. You're incorrect about right and wrong changing over time. Even with that information though, it doesn't matter for what I said to still be correct both CURRENTLY (which fits your incorrect ideas of morality) and more broadly.
- junon 5y ago
  > You're incorrect about right and wrong changing over time Care to elaborate?

grecy 5y ago

Taking away another human beings right to make decisions about their own body is a bad thing. Always has been, and always will.