7 ms·

You know what the US also had in the 1800s? Slaves. Doesn’t justify for anyone else legalizing slaves in this day and age. That’s why whataboutism is a fallacy.

You know what the US also had in the 1800s? Slaves. Doesn’t justify for anyone else legalizing slaves in this day and age. That’s why whataboutism is a fallacy. Past history is not a moral argument.

saiya-jin 4y ago
> Past history is not a moral argument. Sure it isn't if it doesn't suit you, very convenient. Yet we live in very world completely and utterly in pure 100% mathematical way defined by only our past. All the crap happened/happening/will happen in middle east and africa? Consequence primarily of european colonialism. Sure we can argue that enough time has passed, entire generations. Yet the places are as fucked up as ever, I would argue even more so. Or you can explain this to germans who as a nation are still traumatized by what their ancestors did in WWII (shows how decent the core/soul of that nation is... imagine russians in similar situation, they would just blatantly lie about it and imprison/disappear anybody saying differently, like ie Katyn massacre). Past is a moral argument, like it or not. It isn't a tool to justify anything and I am not commenting on current topic of intellectual theft (which is a rather pointless tea time effort) but ignoring it won't you any good since you won't be able to grok why people or nations behave as they do.
- syntaxing 4y ago
  Not sure how I’m deciding certain standpoints when it’s convenient for me. There’s a big difference on acknowledging the past as a understanding of where we are today compared to justifying your actions of today morally based on the past decisions of others. The difference is this, “People in our past did some really shitty things, we acknowledge it, and it put us in our current position” vs “Someone in the past did shitty stuff, so it’s totally cool for me to be equally shitty”. Once again, your argument is textbook whatsboutism. Why it’s a fallacy is because all your examples is trying to deflect your moral deficiencies on the basis of others. The conversation should be steered to on the morality of IP theft. Not whether others have done it or not.
  - chillacy 4y ago
    I’m curious what you consider a legitimate moral conversation to look like. When I hear that I think “philosophy before 1800s” where you can appeal to moral absolutes via God (yet still end up in unsolved debates. It seems even harder today.
- buttersbrian 4y ago
  Basically every culture has had genocidal endeavors. Does this mean we can justify genocide currently, or in the future? Me thinks not. Do you want to act morally now, or use some past action as an excuse to not do the right thing?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

saiya-jin 4y ago

> Past history is not a moral argument. Sure it isn't if it doesn't suit you, very convenient. Yet we live in very world completely and utterly in pure 100% mathematical way defined by only our past. All the crap happened/happening/will happen in middle east and africa? Consequence primarily of european colonialism. Sure we can argue that enough time has passed, entire generations. Yet the places are as fucked up as ever, I would argue even more so. Or you can explain this to germans who as a nation are still traumatized by what their ancestors did in WWII (shows how decent the core/soul of that nation is... imagine russians in similar situation, they would just blatantly lie about it and imprison/disappear anybody saying differently, like ie Katyn massacre). Past is a moral argument, like it or not. It isn't a tool to justify anything and I am not commenting on current topic of intellectual theft (which is a rather pointless tea time effort) but ignoring it won't you any good since you won't be able to grok why people or nations behave as they do.

syntaxing 4y ago
Not sure how I’m deciding certain standpoints when it’s convenient for me. There’s a big difference on acknowledging the past as a understanding of where we are today compared to justifying your actions of today morally based on the past decisions of others. The difference is this, “People in our past did some really shitty things, we acknowledge it, and it put us in our current position” vs “Someone in the past did shitty stuff, so it’s totally cool for me to be equally shitty”. Once again, your argument is textbook whatsboutism. Why it’s a fallacy is because all your examples is trying to deflect your moral deficiencies on the basis of others. The conversation should be steered to on the morality of IP theft. Not whether others have done it or not.
- chillacy 4y ago
  I’m curious what you consider a legitimate moral conversation to look like. When I hear that I think “philosophy before 1800s” where you can appeal to moral absolutes via God (yet still end up in unsolved debates. It seems even harder today.
buttersbrian 4y ago
Basically every culture has had genocidal endeavors. Does this mean we can justify genocide currently, or in the future? Me thinks not. Do you want to act morally now, or use some past action as an excuse to not do the right thing?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]