4 ms·

Not sure what you are calling a "gotcha". You seem to be misunderstanding or misrepresenting my statements, I never called for them to solve world problems. I

Not sure what you are calling a "gotcha". You seem to be misunderstanding or misrepresenting my statements, I never called for them to solve world problems. I don't necessarily disagree with the premise, I simply ask for consistency of the idea. Implementation of it is another discussion.

zamadatix 2y ago
The "gotcha" is the surface level claim it's inconsistent because it follows borders (indirectly initally stated for diminutive effect). That's not inherently inconsistent in itself, I've attempted to explain why, and you've given no defense as to why it should always be inconsistent and how that explanation applies to other philosophies considered consistent. Disagreeing with an ideology comes down to more than parading a surface level claim to declare the entire idea misaligned. You have to dissect that idea, try to find ways to defend it, then cleanly counter those ideas. Throwing up a facetious one liner is the exact opposite of inspecting a philosophy and it's easy to misunderstand any set of morals that way. As another example of why it's poor form of logic: "He thinks it's okay to kill some people but not others, that must be unethical and misaligned - why does it matter who it is it should always apply equally! The morality is therefore inherently flawed unless this is corrected." when the actual moral was that there are only certain cases it makes moral sense to kill someone (with some justifications if you dive into it) like compassion for terminal illness. Instead of the surface level "gotcha" denial you would dive into what these reasons might be and why you disagree with them, not just blurt the surface disagreement. This tends to be a lot more discussive of the idea instead of immediately dismissive, even when you ultimately disagree with it.

4 ms·

Not sure what you are calling a "gotcha". You seem to be misunderstanding or misrepresenting my statements, I never called for them to solve world problems. I

by psychlops 2y ago

zamadatix 2y ago
The "gotcha" is the surface level claim it's inconsistent because it follows borders (indirectly initally stated for diminutive effect). That's not inherently inconsistent in itself, I've attempted to explain why, and you've given no defense as to why it should always be inconsistent and how that explanation applies to other philosophies considered consistent. Disagreeing with an ideology comes down to more than parading a surface level claim to declare the entire idea misaligned. You have to dissect that idea, try to find ways to defend it, then cleanly counter those ideas. Throwing up a facetious one liner is the exact opposite of inspecting a philosophy and it's easy to misunderstand any set of morals that way. As another example of why it's poor form of logic: "He thinks it's okay to kill some people but not others, that must be unethical and misaligned - why does it matter who it is it should always apply equally! The morality is therefore inherently flawed unless this is corrected." when the actual moral was that there are only certain cases it makes moral sense to kill someone (with some justifications if you dive into it) like compassion for terminal illness. Instead of the surface level "gotcha" denial you would dive into what these reasons might be and why you disagree with them, not just blurt the surface disagreement. This tends to be a lot more discussive of the idea instead of immediately dismissive, even when you ultimately disagree with it.