this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
1699 points (100.0% liked)

196

16509 readers
3046 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (12 children)

If there's absolutely nothing I can do to convince you, it isn't a logical argument you're going with. It's a philosophical or emotional one. Logical evidence based arguments would change if compelling contrary evidence was provided.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (11 children)

You haven't provided contrary evidence.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (10 children)

I'm asking what that contrary evidence would look like for you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The problem with telling you is that it helps you fake the evidence. I have to assume that once I tell you, everything you give that looks like that evidence must be assumed to be faked.

Evidence can exist, but human beings are too dishonest to present it. Human beings cannot be trusted - and humanity's history of dishonesty is all the proof I need for that. I will never trust human beings, as a moral compunction.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

So no one can tell or show you anything to change your mind? Then we're back to where we started with a philosophical or a moral position rather than a logical one.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

Thanks for doing what you are doing. I know someone is reading this comment chain and you are helping them out indirectly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Then it's a moral one. It's morally wrong to give human beings an inch - especially when it's practically guaranteed that they use that inch to abuse someone else.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

humanity's history of dishonesty is all the proof I need for that.

Also, history books and discussion is more about grand state actors and conquests, not the everyday kindness and selflessness. It's usually the norm, so not noteworthy to history.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bullshit. What a weak argument. The entire goddamned point is that your fucking "kindness" is so ineffective it can't achieve anything.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But you wouldn't learn that from history books.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes you would - that's what history is - the record of human failure.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But they don't tell you much about human success where countries don't go to war and genocides don't happen. So you can't compare effectively.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

You seem to be defining "success" as nothing happening which... is the opposite of how I'd define it.

"Success" is when you achieve gaining more power over an entity - whether that entity is a country, a business, or one's own life.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)