5 ms·
You don't do it without; you then form separate tapestries and then have the oldest of human competitions to see which will dominate. Why is it a detrimental '
by plussed_reader 3y ago
You don't do it without; you then form separate tapestries and then have the oldest of human competitions to see which will dominate.
Why is it a detrimental 'rule' to exclude those that would punish someones nature capriciously with legislation and policy? Feels like the right path given the intolerance paradox.
- ETH_start 3y agoHumility demands that you consider the possibility that their motivation and even the net effect of the legislation that they support either directly or indirectly through their support for a particular candidate is not to punish anyone's nature.
- plussed_reader 3y agoHard to do when the cruelty is the point; I tend to reserve the short end of the stick for the capricious.
- ETH_start 3y agoThat cruelty is the point is an assumption. It's challenging, but I suggest giving your interlocutors the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith so that you can actually assess their arguments. Without assuming good intentions, it's impossible to effectively evaluate opposing points of view.