3 ms·

"If it doesn't hurt anyone else, e.g. I'm not robbing people for meth or ruining anyone else's lungs or raiding my kid's college fund, etc, I'm okay with it" "

"If it doesn't hurt anyone else, e.g. I'm not robbing people for meth or ruining anyone else's lungs or raiding my kid's college fund, etc, I'm okay with it" "foie gras are a few of the things that make it worth living" ... you know what they do to the duck to make your foie gras, right?

noduerme 3y ago
There are ethical ways to produce foie gras without force feeding. Anyway no, I don't think animals should suffer but this is beside the point about tobacco. It does line up nicely with my theory that a huge portion of the population enjoys feeling superior to others based on an off-the-rack set of identity politics masquerading as ethics, which hasn't changed much from the religiosity that preceded it.
- BobbyJo 3y ago
  > It does line up nicely with my theory that a huge portion of the population enjoys feeling superior to others based on an off-the-rack set of identity politics masquerading as ethics, which hasn't changed much from the religiosity that preceded it. Worrying about that makes you a victim of the same fallacy. You don't need to point out a vaguely defined group as bad or wrong. The same way "they" do it to look down on "you", that statement is "you" looking down on "them". In both cases, it's a moot observation.
  - noduerme 3y ago
    It's not a worry, that most people are trying to prove their moral superiority (religious or secular). It's what I take into account when I choose to forgive them. Nor is it moot. Choosing to overlook their zeal is a conscious decision, because I know they aren't thinking for themselves and it's not entirely their fault.
    - BobbyJo 3y ago
      On what basis do you believe any given person is "trying to prove their moral superiority" versus some other motivation? If it's because of some objective observation about that specific individual displayed over the course of the discussion, then your musings about some greater pattern or group are moot. If it's anything else, then you're the one not engaged in a good faith conversation.

noduerme 3y ago

There are ethical ways to produce foie gras without force feeding. Anyway no, I don't think animals should suffer but this is beside the point about tobacco. It does line up nicely with my theory that a huge portion of the population enjoys feeling superior to others based on an off-the-rack set of identity politics masquerading as ethics, which hasn't changed much from the religiosity that preceded it.

BobbyJo 3y ago
> It does line up nicely with my theory that a huge portion of the population enjoys feeling superior to others based on an off-the-rack set of identity politics masquerading as ethics, which hasn't changed much from the religiosity that preceded it. Worrying about that makes you a victim of the same fallacy. You don't need to point out a vaguely defined group as bad or wrong. The same way "they" do it to look down on "you", that statement is "you" looking down on "them". In both cases, it's a moot observation.
- noduerme 3y ago
  It's not a worry, that most people are trying to prove their moral superiority (religious or secular). It's what I take into account when I choose to forgive them. Nor is it moot. Choosing to overlook their zeal is a conscious decision, because I know they aren't thinking for themselves and it's not entirely their fault.
  - BobbyJo 3y ago
    On what basis do you believe any given person is "trying to prove their moral superiority" versus some other motivation? If it's because of some objective observation about that specific individual displayed over the course of the discussion, then your musings about some greater pattern or group are moot. If it's anything else, then you're the one not engaged in a good faith conversation.