3 ms·
> it's not really about the morals at all but the economics of losing one's livelihood That's a false dichotomy. Just because the economic issue and cultural i
by chefandy 3y ago
> it's not really about the morals at all but the economics of losing one's livelihood
That's a false dichotomy. Just because the economic issue and cultural impact are separate doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive. If a mugger stopped taking people's money and instead just walked around making people afraid for their lives by intimidating them or beating them up, that would still be immoral.
- satvikpendem 3y agoIn your point of view it's immoral, not from everyone's, it seems. Either way, technology still arrives.
- chefandy 3y ago> Fundamentally, this shows me that it's not really about the morals at all but the economics of losing one's livelihood. Whether people consider it immoral has no bearing on whether or not the cultural and economic issues are mutually exclusive-- they're not. You can't say that the argument is only about the economic issue simply because there is an important economic argument. It just doesn't make sense.