4 ms·
This is a position commonly referred to as "Social Darwinism." The same logic can get you to "drunk women out by themselves _have_ to be sexually assaulted" and
by User23 2y ago
This is a position commonly referred to as "Social Darwinism." The same logic can get you to "drunk women out by themselves _have_ to be sexually assaulted" and so on. No, it's not OK to victimize people just because they're vulnerable. It's an absolutely odious caricature of moral reasoning.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sneak 2y agoNot at all. Money represents resources, and it’s objectively better for society for resources to be in the hands of people who are not fools, instead of those who are.
- dwaltrip 2y agoYou sound foolish, I’m gonna need to take all your money. Don’t worry, I’m being objective.
- wisty 2y agoThe argument is that the objective test is whether you can actually convince anyone to hand over money.
- dwaltrip 2y agoNo, they are making a moral argument, and claiming their view is the objectively moral position. It’s “better for society” was the phrase.
- tedunangst 2y agoWe don't need to take money from the fools. They'll give it away.
- Yizahi 2y agoYou can get like minded people and go roleplay feudalism with guns somewhere else, please leave people with empathy out of it. PS: don't forget to document your inevitable failure, just like every libertarian "non-fools" community previously.
- seattle_spring 2y agoI disagree with the comparison. A "drunk woman out by themselves" is, at the end of the day, just a person exercising their right to exist. A stock-market gambler, on the other hand, is literally betting on the bad decisions of whoever is on the other side of their trades. It's a predatory position to be in, and deserves a whole lot less sympathy.
- bluGill 2y agoThat same logic says the rapist is betting on stupid women.