4 ms·

What an absurd take. Are you really so confused?

• Invictus0 4y ago
  Quite confused. Please explain.
  • strix_varius 4y ago
    Sure: > That it should be illegal to speak to people in public? The error here has nothing to do with people speaking to one another in public. Of all the strawmen you could choose for why people find fault with this behavior, that's the least realistic.
    • Invictus0 4y ago
      And yet neither you nor the other commented has explained their actual stance, so idk how you can accuse me of constructing a strawman when nothing substantive was articulated in the first place.
      • strix_varius 4y ago
        Literally just read the top few comments. This isn't that hard mate: > The reason this act breaks a moral boundary is that it subverts a principle of "ends" [1]. A genuine random act of kindness cannot occur if it's being filmed. Filming the act turns it into a virtue display. It also turns the subject into an object of utility, a means and not and end in themself. > She was actually being kind to him by doing him a favor, and then he basically ran away and stuck her with them. That's not kind at all, it's pushy and exploitative. As someone who doesn't usually like to accept gifts from random strangers, I'd be really put off and uncomfortable; and that's before taking into consideration the fact that it was filmed and put online for people to gawk at.
      • justin66 4y ago
        The way people ought to behave lies somewhere apart from the blatantly absurd comment of yours that I quoted upthread and the blatantly absurd straw man you attributed to me in reply.
        • Invictus0 4y ago