4 ms·
Sure, conventions that create shelling points to enable coordination on roads are the same as preventing dogs from running around in parks -- the things dogs wa
by mjburgess 3y ago
Sure, conventions that create shelling points to enable coordination on roads are the same as preventing dogs from running around in parks -- the things dogs want to do by nature, in the nature-based parts of cities.
Perhaps it's my inclination against speciesism, and my seeing people much closer to dogs than not -- but I think the regulation of the behaviour of animals, against their natures, is a moral matter.
A convention around how to drive isnt.
As far as STDs go, again: no idiotic blanket rules, indeed. Morality occurs in the negotiation between people in particular circumstances.
Sometimes not wearing a condom is exactly what one should do -- if one wishes, one's partner wishes, and one thinks that this sort of intimate sex is more interesting -- and a core part of a life worth living.
I fear greatly the life painted by how regulated people "ought" be in these trivial matters: how they walk their dogs, how they have sex, and so on. This is very far away from a life which any human animal ought live. It's a life full of petty regulations on behaviour to create the illusion of a safe world.
An illusion which comes at an extremely heavy price: that of enjoying life. A cost I do not want to pay.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agowhat I'm hearing you say is that you believe young people should be engaged in unprotected sex. That has life-changing consequences, and yet here you are waxing on about the morality of placing a leash on a dog. Are you sure the issue isn't that you dislike people?
- mjburgess 3y agoThe issue is you're not hearing what i'm saying Imagine for a moment a person like you, with your impulse to constrain and regulate, was in charge of you Imagine they did not agree with how you should live your life What then, would you say to them? For any issue they wil have their data about marginal changes to safety You want to do X? why, 0.y% of times X happens, bad things happen! this is a universal feature of life, and so any idiot can appeal to it now what do you say to this overbearing regulator of your enjoyment? this person who denies you what you wish to do? i cannot imagine you are so naive to suppose that what you enjoy is unimpeachably safe i don't think you have anything to say rather i read this line of thinking as just moral hypocrisy: you allow yourself to enjoy whatever it is you enjoy, despite these marginal risks -- but when you get no enjoyment from it --- Ah! well then it can be banned