3 ms·

> Their opposition is an existential one. To abandon their position would be to condemn millions more to die. I know this is how they like to frame it but we d

by voisin 4y ago

> Their opposition is an existential one. To abandon their position would be to condemn millions more to die. I know this is how they like to frame it but we don’t see them feeling the same existential angst about things like wearing a mask to prevent the spread of a viral disease around people who might be immune compromised and die as a result. Then it becomes “the government has no right over my body”. It is exhausting how contradictory conservative positions are.

cudgy 4y ago
Left wing has contradictory positions as well, in fact most people do, especially when their position is being defined by those that oppose their position.
- voisin 4y ago
  Could you give some examples?
  - rayiner 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - kaba0 4y ago
      So, 911 was just a bunch of people as well? Because that’s less than the amount of people who died every single day at the height of COVID.
      - rayiner 4y ago
        9/11 was deliberate killing.
        kaba0 4y ago
        The same way not wearing a fking mask/vaccinating oneself is, when we live in a society with many people whose immune system is weakened.
        rayiner 4y ago
        Doing something that statistically increases risk to others is not deliberate killing. See: every philosophy book.
        kaba0 4y ago
        Shooting someone statistically increases their risk of death. Where is the cutoff line?
  - RestlessMind 4y ago
    Caring for poor but not building houses for them (eg. SF). In similar vein, caring for environment but then use environment protection laws to prevent any housing, thus forcing hours of commute (and hence environment destruction) on the society. Poverty trap and idiotic structuring of welfare programs, such that obtaining a job would result in massive marginal tax hike and thus disincentivizes poors to get a job and climb economic ladder. Caring for minorities and diversity but ignoring Asians from that analysis (or worse, treating Asians as Whites / White-adjacents).
rayiner 4y ago
There is no contradiction here. Both liberals and conservatives recognize that direct action that kills someone is worse than failing to take a precaution that results in a statistically increased risk to others. Speeding is less bad than drunk driving, which is less bad than intentional running someone over with a car. It’s entirely consistent for conservatives to say that the government should be able to ban you from killing a fetus, while also saying that the government shouldn’t be able to make you take a precaution to reduce a contagious disease. The difference between liberals and conservatives turns on how they view the morality of the direct and deliberate act of killing a fetus. Conservatives think it’s closer to killing a person, while liberals think it’s closer to killing a bug. Neither position is inconsistent.

by voisin 4y ago

cudgy 4y ago

Left wing has contradictory positions as well, in fact most people do, especially when their position is being defined by those that oppose their position.

voisin 4y ago
Could you give some examples?
- rayiner 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - kaba0 4y ago
    So, 911 was just a bunch of people as well? Because that’s less than the amount of people who died every single day at the height of COVID.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      9/11 was deliberate killing.
      - kaba0 4y ago
        The same way not wearing a fking mask/vaccinating oneself is, when we live in a society with many people whose immune system is weakened.
        rayiner 4y ago
        Doing something that statistically increases risk to others is not deliberate killing. See: every philosophy book.
        kaba0 4y ago
        Shooting someone statistically increases their risk of death. Where is the cutoff line?
- RestlessMind 4y ago
  Caring for poor but not building houses for them (eg. SF). In similar vein, caring for environment but then use environment protection laws to prevent any housing, thus forcing hours of commute (and hence environment destruction) on the society. Poverty trap and idiotic structuring of welfare programs, such that obtaining a job would result in massive marginal tax hike and thus disincentivizes poors to get a job and climb economic ladder. Caring for minorities and diversity but ignoring Asians from that analysis (or worse, treating Asians as Whites / White-adjacents).

rayiner 4y ago

There is no contradiction here. Both liberals and conservatives recognize that direct action that kills someone is worse than failing to take a precaution that results in a statistically increased risk to others. Speeding is less bad than drunk driving, which is less bad than intentional running someone over with a car. It’s entirely consistent for conservatives to say that the government should be able to ban you from killing a fetus, while also saying that the government shouldn’t be able to make you take a precaution to reduce a contagious disease. The difference between liberals and conservatives turns on how they view the morality of the direct and deliberate act of killing a fetus. Conservatives think it’s closer to killing a person, while liberals think it’s closer to killing a bug. Neither position is inconsistent.