2 ms·

Again, see "reasonable people." If someone disagrees with me on, say, whether or not the USG should subsidize EV manufacturers, I wouldn't expect a 3rd party t

Again, see "reasonable people." If someone disagrees with me on, say, whether or not the USG should subsidize EV manufacturers, I wouldn't expect a 3rd party to call either side of that debate deserving of, well, anything. However, when someone holds an opinion that $GROUP is less deserving of x _due solely to their existence, not their choices,_ I expect that opinion to be questioned. Also, it's very possible to be wrong on the internet, be corrected, and become a better person without having your life ruined. I used to be somewhat of a troll. Not 4chan level, but I was definitely a crueler person than I was in real life. Someone once had the patience to engage me in questions, I realized what I was doing was harmful or at least not helpful, and I stopped the behavior.

Cyberdog 4y ago
It's still a matter of perspective, though. To use the Keffals issue as an example, the same way you see stopping people from criticizing and doxxing trans activists like Keffals as saving lives, many people, including many on KF, see stopping people from promoting normalization of transsexualism and encouraging minors to seek out HRT and surgery as saving lives. It's not okay for these people to stoop to illegal activity in their activism, but it's also not okay for your side to do it. Any justification you can make on your side is a justification they can make on their side. If you feel strongly emotional about this issue, I understand how that can be hard to accept, but it doesn't make it less true.
- sgarland 4y ago
  Disclaimer: I am in no way a philosopher, nor have I taken any classes on it. Obviously there is always a "but my beliefs" aspect, but I believe that these arguments can be ethically reduced to "do not harm others, unless in the defense of others." For example, murder is arguably ethically wrong. However, at least in most states in the U.S., you are allowed to murder someone if they are themselves attempting to murder you, or someone else. Taken further, if I was on a jury, and the defendant had murdered someone who had severely harmed their child - for instance, rape - I would have no qualms about finding them not guilty, even if the murder had occurred days or weeks after the first crime. I'm fully aware that this is illegal, but I don't consider it ethically wrong. If you're curious, I do consider the death penalty to be wrong, because I don't believe the state has the right to take life. Whether or not these two views are incongruous I don't know; it makes sense in my head. On a more relevant level, I believe that teenagers are able to determine things like "I am gay," or "I have gender dysphoria." I also understand that I am not a doctor, and defer to the American Medical Association, who has stated[0] that: > It is imperative that transgender minors be given the opportunity to explore their gender identity under the safe and supportive care of a physician. Given that, I assert that the beliefs KF members have espoused are the ones that are harmful, should not be encouraged, and should be actively discouraged. [0] https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-states-stop-interfering-health-care-transgender-children https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-sta...
  - salawat 4y ago
    You're sort of circling around Kant's Categorical Imperative, which is articulated as, act only in such a way that one would be willing to see enacted as a universal moral law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative When you let that percolate for a bit, you get to, "Treat others only in such a way as you yourself are alright with being treated. Your self-defense example resonates with this way of life, as the person seeking to do you harm has telegraphed they are fine with you reacting in kind. You cannot just murder anyone, as if no one is engaging in you, the idea is that one best should reciprocate only in kind. Most moral systems pre Kantian Categorical Imperative, are crippled by not being able to justify being moral as an end in and of itself just from the tenets within the system itself. I would not, under the categorical imperative, censure either group in this case, as I am not willing to accept mob justice as something I am comfortable being applicable to me. Both parties, however, have have demonstrated that they are willing to accept being treated in that manner through their actions, though Transwomen moreso at this point than the users of KF. KF has merely existed. Therefore, at this point, any follower of the Categorical Imperative can engage in mob/vigilante justice against either Transwomen/KF with clear conscience, as it has veen clearly evinced, that is how they wish to be dealt with, and this doesn't taint not engaging in mob justice/vigilantism against anyone else, as it is always the first mover that sets the level on which the interaction takes place. It's where the Golden Rule "Treat others as you would have them do unto you" stems from.

Cyberdog 4y ago

It's still a matter of perspective, though. To use the Keffals issue as an example, the same way you see stopping people from criticizing and doxxing trans activists like Keffals as saving lives, many people, including many on KF, see stopping people from promoting normalization of transsexualism and encouraging minors to seek out HRT and surgery as saving lives. It's not okay for these people to stoop to illegal activity in their activism, but it's also not okay for your side to do it. Any justification you can make on your side is a justification they can make on their side. If you feel strongly emotional about this issue, I understand how that can be hard to accept, but it doesn't make it less true.

sgarland 4y ago
Disclaimer: I am in no way a philosopher, nor have I taken any classes on it. Obviously there is always a "but my beliefs" aspect, but I believe that these arguments can be ethically reduced to "do not harm others, unless in the defense of others." For example, murder is arguably ethically wrong. However, at least in most states in the U.S., you are allowed to murder someone if they are themselves attempting to murder you, or someone else. Taken further, if I was on a jury, and the defendant had murdered someone who had severely harmed their child - for instance, rape - I would have no qualms about finding them not guilty, even if the murder had occurred days or weeks after the first crime. I'm fully aware that this is illegal, but I don't consider it ethically wrong. If you're curious, I do consider the death penalty to be wrong, because I don't believe the state has the right to take life. Whether or not these two views are incongruous I don't know; it makes sense in my head. On a more relevant level, I believe that teenagers are able to determine things like "I am gay," or "I have gender dysphoria." I also understand that I am not a doctor, and defer to the American Medical Association, who has stated[0] that: > It is imperative that transgender minors be given the opportunity to explore their gender identity under the safe and supportive care of a physician. Given that, I assert that the beliefs KF members have espoused are the ones that are harmful, should not be encouraged, and should be actively discouraged. [0] https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-states-stop-interfering-health-care-transgender-children https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-sta...
- salawat 4y ago
  You're sort of circling around Kant's Categorical Imperative, which is articulated as, act only in such a way that one would be willing to see enacted as a universal moral law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative When you let that percolate for a bit, you get to, "Treat others only in such a way as you yourself are alright with being treated. Your self-defense example resonates with this way of life, as the person seeking to do you harm has telegraphed they are fine with you reacting in kind. You cannot just murder anyone, as if no one is engaging in you, the idea is that one best should reciprocate only in kind. Most moral systems pre Kantian Categorical Imperative, are crippled by not being able to justify being moral as an end in and of itself just from the tenets within the system itself. I would not, under the categorical imperative, censure either group in this case, as I am not willing to accept mob justice as something I am comfortable being applicable to me. Both parties, however, have have demonstrated that they are willing to accept being treated in that manner through their actions, though Transwomen moreso at this point than the users of KF. KF has merely existed. Therefore, at this point, any follower of the Categorical Imperative can engage in mob/vigilante justice against either Transwomen/KF with clear conscience, as it has veen clearly evinced, that is how they wish to be dealt with, and this doesn't taint not engaging in mob justice/vigilantism against anyone else, as it is always the first mover that sets the level on which the interaction takes place. It's where the Golden Rule "Treat others as you would have them do unto you" stems from.