2 ms·

Whoa. I didn’t expect you to say something this awful. Would you mind considering whether to edit that out? (If you’re wondering which part, re-read your comme

Whoa. I didn’t expect you to say something this awful. Would you mind considering whether to edit that out? (If you’re wondering which part, re-read your comment and imagine it was about your father.)

toomuchtodo 3y ago
My father dying would be no loss to the world either. It would be a loss to me, but only to me. These are inconvenient truths, regardless of the feelings you may have about them. You and I have experienced life differently. Regardless, I have edited my comment to err on the side of caution, thank you.
- sillysaurusx 3y ago
  I mean, that might be true, but you didn’t specify "to the world". Just that he might as well go die and nobody would care. I’m not trying to give you a hard time, I was just genuinely surprised.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Your opinion on the topic is going to be based on the aggregate harm you believe a human to have incurred, and has the potential to incur going forward. I understand we may strongly disagree on this topic. I do not miss when harmful people are gone. That is distinct from "something bad should happen to this person," which is very different and I would agree exceptionally distasteful.
    - sillysaurusx 3y ago
      All I meant was, even if someone genuinely believes the world would be better off if X person dies, bluntly stating that belief is generally not appropriate for fostering intellectual curiosity. It’s also a bit depressing. But I’m a fan of agreeing to disagree, so; agreed.
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        But I am intellectually curious (perhaps to a fault), and have arrived at this position from a curious place, first principles even. If someone is causing harm, and there are no mechanisms to box them in to not cause harm, what else are you to do besides wait for them to leave (and perhaps take a bit of solace that a harmful person no longer roams amongst us, inflicting harm on others without repercussions)? Genuine question from a high empathy human. As I said above and to reaffirm my position: It's definitely not "something bad should happen to this person," (not good, I don't support this at all, and have said it nowhere in this thread) but "at least eventually they won't be here to cause the harm they cause." I don't believe that idea to be in poor taste, but I am happy to be challenged on it. Kissinger comes to mind, picking from an extreme example for argument's sake. “I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." -- Clarence Darrow > It’s also a bit depressing. This is an understatement of current state. And yet, we go on. I hope this subthread has helped build context and explain my position with regards to the statement you took issue with (and that I removed out of an abundance of caution), which is not from a place of malice, but more pragmatic resignation.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

My father dying would be no loss to the world either. It would be a loss to me, but only to me. These are inconvenient truths, regardless of the feelings you may have about them. You and I have experienced life differently. Regardless, I have edited my comment to err on the side of caution, thank you.

sillysaurusx 3y ago
I mean, that might be true, but you didn’t specify "to the world". Just that he might as well go die and nobody would care. I’m not trying to give you a hard time, I was just genuinely surprised.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Your opinion on the topic is going to be based on the aggregate harm you believe a human to have incurred, and has the potential to incur going forward. I understand we may strongly disagree on this topic. I do not miss when harmful people are gone. That is distinct from "something bad should happen to this person," which is very different and I would agree exceptionally distasteful.
  - sillysaurusx 3y ago
    All I meant was, even if someone genuinely believes the world would be better off if X person dies, bluntly stating that belief is generally not appropriate for fostering intellectual curiosity. It’s also a bit depressing. But I’m a fan of agreeing to disagree, so; agreed.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      But I am intellectually curious (perhaps to a fault), and have arrived at this position from a curious place, first principles even. If someone is causing harm, and there are no mechanisms to box them in to not cause harm, what else are you to do besides wait for them to leave (and perhaps take a bit of solace that a harmful person no longer roams amongst us, inflicting harm on others without repercussions)? Genuine question from a high empathy human. As I said above and to reaffirm my position: It's definitely not "something bad should happen to this person," (not good, I don't support this at all, and have said it nowhere in this thread) but "at least eventually they won't be here to cause the harm they cause." I don't believe that idea to be in poor taste, but I am happy to be challenged on it. Kissinger comes to mind, picking from an extreme example for argument's sake. “I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." -- Clarence Darrow > It’s also a bit depressing. This is an understatement of current state. And yet, we go on. I hope this subthread has helped build context and explain my position with regards to the statement you took issue with (and that I removed out of an abundance of caution), which is not from a place of malice, but more pragmatic resignation.