5 ms·

Doesn't refusing support carry an implicit judgment that the activity they're undertaking is somehow morally inferior? Why is any lifestyle choice superior/infe

Doesn't refusing support carry an implicit judgment that the activity they're undertaking is somehow morally inferior? Why is any lifestyle choice superior/inferior to another? I'm not aware of any objective criteria that allow you to rank being a RAAM participant/heroin addict/workaholic/etc. in some sort of order, and draw a cutoff between what you would/wouldn't support. Perhaps you're aware of such criteria and I'm missing something? Otherwise it seems like you're just arbitrarily imposing your personal values system...

teaearlgraycold 4y ago
In this scenario I'm putting myself in the position of a support staff member. So in that scenario I would impose my personal beliefs on the riders that are harming themselves. Legally they should be able to do what they want. But I wouldn't want to get involved in supporting their behavior. There's a difference between withdrawing active support and providing active impedance. If you mean I'm imposing my beliefs on the support staff from the perspective of a keyboard warrior - you're also right. But I'm not actually stopping anyone from doing anything. Just stating my opinions. Basically if your actions cause me empathetic harm I will not involve myself in them.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  I'm curious where you'd draw the line. Would you work for Sevmash? How about Purdue? What about a small business that is supporting the owners addiction? More generally, how do you determine where you would and wouldn't work? Do you have a set of rules that I can use to determine the suitability of a given venture? Personally, I think responsibility for action terminates at the actor, and that economic transactions do not carry with them moral responsibility for the prior or future actions of the involved parties. You should be able to use those axioms to derive quite a lot actually. > empathetic harm I've not hear this before, can you elaborate? Surely if you don't believe that you know better for people then you have no reason to feel empathy that they're not asking for, right?
  - teaearlgraycold 4y ago
    It seems like you have a simple set of rules for determining what you will and won't do, and perhaps what is right and wrong. I don't so I can't play rhetoric with you on this one.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      I don't know if they're simple, but I do think everyone's ought to exist and be at least articulable if not consistent, otherwise how do we discuss anything? Edit: I'm surprised you would dissent to support some endeavor based on your own personal beliefs, but refuse to state or elaborate on the beliefs in question.

teaearlgraycold 4y ago

In this scenario I'm putting myself in the position of a support staff member. So in that scenario I would impose my personal beliefs on the riders that are harming themselves. Legally they should be able to do what they want. But I wouldn't want to get involved in supporting their behavior. There's a difference between withdrawing active support and providing active impedance. If you mean I'm imposing my beliefs on the support staff from the perspective of a keyboard warrior - you're also right. But I'm not actually stopping anyone from doing anything. Just stating my opinions. Basically if your actions cause me empathetic harm I will not involve myself in them.

thegrimmest 4y ago
I'm curious where you'd draw the line. Would you work for Sevmash? How about Purdue? What about a small business that is supporting the owners addiction? More generally, how do you determine where you would and wouldn't work? Do you have a set of rules that I can use to determine the suitability of a given venture? Personally, I think responsibility for action terminates at the actor, and that economic transactions do not carry with them moral responsibility for the prior or future actions of the involved parties. You should be able to use those axioms to derive quite a lot actually. > empathetic harm I've not hear this before, can you elaborate? Surely if you don't believe that you know better for people then you have no reason to feel empathy that they're not asking for, right?
- teaearlgraycold 4y ago
  It seems like you have a simple set of rules for determining what you will and won't do, and perhaps what is right and wrong. I don't so I can't play rhetoric with you on this one.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    I don't know if they're simple, but I do think everyone's ought to exist and be at least articulable if not consistent, otherwise how do we discuss anything? Edit: I'm surprised you would dissent to support some endeavor based on your own personal beliefs, but refuse to state or elaborate on the beliefs in question.