4 ms·

If you worked where I do (on Earth) you will be judged for your gender,age,race,education,social standing, where you grew up, hygiene, personality, religion, et

by mrits 12y ago

If you worked where I do (on Earth) you will be judged for your gender,age,race,education,social standing, where you grew up, hygiene, personality, religion, etc...

sergiotapia 12y ago
But let's all focus on one part of this multifaceted situation.
- skj 12y ago
  Not sure if you're serious or sarcastic, but the fact that many problems exist is not a reason to avoid focusing on one of them :) if it were, nothing would ever get solved!
ncallaway 12y ago
I absolutely don't understand this argument. Person A says "X is happens and is bad". Person B responds "X happens, along with Y, Z, and W." What is the objective of the argument presented by person B? It doesn't refute or disagree with Person A in any way. Is the point to minimize or trivialize X because Y, Z, and W also happen? Does the presence of Y, Z, and W mean we shouldn't make progress on X?
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  To quote a tweet I read today: The only definition of Good vs Evil you really need: "Well that's just how the world is..." EVIL: "So there!" GOOD: "So let's change it" https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/574082344073629696 https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/574082344073629696
- the8472 12y ago
  > Is the point to minimize or trivialize X because Y, Z, and W also happen? It may simply acknowledge that some imperfection will always be present and the cost (not necessarily monetary) of changing that may outstrip the benefits. For example an extreme divide between the rich and the poor is an issue that many people dislike and would like to see addressed. But at the same time it's a necessary part of capitalism to let people accumulate some wealth. If you couldn't accumulate wealth there would be no incentive to provide better products or services than others. There would be no way of winning the game. Another example would be the freedom of speech. Defending free speech also means defending some levels of speech you find morally objectionable. Even hate speech to some point. The cost of preventing that hate speech would be payable in freedom. Similarly some low levels of discrimination will always exist, simply because preventing that would amount to mandating how people must think and how to make decisions. I.e. it would make discrimination a thoughtcrime. Of course the question is where to draw the line
- pavanky 12y ago
  If X, Y, Z and W are the symptoms of the same underlying issue, then we should be treating the underlying issue not the symptoms.

by mrits 12y ago

If you worked where I do (on Earth) you will be judged for your gender,age,race,education,social standing, where you grew up, hygiene, personality, religion, etc...

sergiotapia 12y ago

But let's all focus on one part of this multifaceted situation.

skj 12y ago
Not sure if you're serious or sarcastic, but the fact that many problems exist is not a reason to avoid focusing on one of them :) if it were, nothing would ever get solved!

ncallaway 12y ago

I absolutely don't understand this argument. Person A says "X is happens and is bad". Person B responds "X happens, along with Y, Z, and W." What is the objective of the argument presented by person B? It doesn't refute or disagree with Person A in any way. Is the point to minimize or trivialize X because Y, Z, and W also happen? Does the presence of Y, Z, and W mean we shouldn't make progress on X?

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
To quote a tweet I read today: The only definition of Good vs Evil you really need: "Well that's just how the world is..." EVIL: "So there!" GOOD: "So let's change it" https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/574082344073629696 https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/574082344073629696
the8472 12y ago
> Is the point to minimize or trivialize X because Y, Z, and W also happen? It may simply acknowledge that some imperfection will always be present and the cost (not necessarily monetary) of changing that may outstrip the benefits. For example an extreme divide between the rich and the poor is an issue that many people dislike and would like to see addressed. But at the same time it's a necessary part of capitalism to let people accumulate some wealth. If you couldn't accumulate wealth there would be no incentive to provide better products or services than others. There would be no way of winning the game. Another example would be the freedom of speech. Defending free speech also means defending some levels of speech you find morally objectionable. Even hate speech to some point. The cost of preventing that hate speech would be payable in freedom. Similarly some low levels of discrimination will always exist, simply because preventing that would amount to mandating how people must think and how to make decisions. I.e. it would make discrimination a thoughtcrime. Of course the question is where to draw the line
pavanky 12y ago
If X, Y, Z and W are the symptoms of the same underlying issue, then we should be treating the underlying issue not the symptoms.