4 ms·

> Your argument doesn't work at all for another, quite obvious, reason: If in, say, 2050, eating meat is widely seen as unacceptable, people who used to eat mea

> Your argument doesn't work at all for another, quite obvious, reason: If in, say, 2050, eating meat is widely seen as unacceptable, people who used to eat meat but now believed it to be wrong would be happy to say that. If you're a sensible adult who eats meat today, you have likely heard of the choice of being vegetarian and consciously rejected it. In other words, you won't apologize for it today (which is fine by me). Isn't it then hypocritical to only apologize and change your mind if and only if you're forced to by a majority opinion in the future? I think people in general care about internal consistency and would not apologize for such an opinion -- unless they profoundly believed they were mistaken in the past. In the same way, Brendan Eich (and most of us also) has been raised in a culture neutral or opposing the same-sex union. His opinion may be disliked by many of us, even considered immoral, but we should strive to educate him, debate him, not ostracize him, and definitely not oust him out of an unrelated profession.

nknighthb 13y ago
Sure, it would be hypocritical, and I wouldn't do it if I hadn't changed my mind. And people would be free to criticize and ostracize me for it. I might not like it, but that is a possible consequence of holding an unpopular opinion. In fact, if animal rights have so advanced by 2050 that eating meat is widely seen as wrong, I dearly hope I am criticized and ostracized if I refuse to change my mind. I'm already willing to entertain the thought that eating meat may be wrong. It seems unlikely that a majority (or even plurality) would reach that conclusion before I did. Whether or not that comes to pass, though, we are talking here about removing existing rights from beings recognized even by bigots as people now, and doing so in contravention of constitutional provisions that have forbidden just that for nearly 150 years. Edit: By the way, is your country one of the many in Europe that criminalizes holocaust denial? What would you say if Mozilla appointed a known Nazi sympathizer as CEO? Would you really think this reaction was "scary"? If not, why not?

nknighthb 13y ago

Sure, it would be hypocritical, and I wouldn't do it if I hadn't changed my mind. And people would be free to criticize and ostracize me for it. I might not like it, but that is a possible consequence of holding an unpopular opinion. In fact, if animal rights have so advanced by 2050 that eating meat is widely seen as wrong, I dearly hope I am criticized and ostracized if I refuse to change my mind. I'm already willing to entertain the thought that eating meat may be wrong. It seems unlikely that a majority (or even plurality) would reach that conclusion before I did. Whether or not that comes to pass, though, we are talking here about removing existing rights from beings recognized even by bigots as people now, and doing so in contravention of constitutional provisions that have forbidden just that for nearly 150 years. Edit: By the way, is your country one of the many in Europe that criminalizes holocaust denial? What would you say if Mozilla appointed a known Nazi sympathizer as CEO? Would you really think this reaction was "scary"? If not, why not?