this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
297 points (97.1% liked)

World News

38956 readers
1524 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

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

What about windows? Should we ban that as they are easy for thieves to break?

Whether you have more personal attachment to a car, a pet or anything else is a completely personal thing, everyone should have their choice.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Almost nobody is attached to their windows. Most people treat pets as family members.

If people stealing pets to consume them is a huge problem, then it makes sense to ban the consumption of pets because the benefits of the law outweigh the drawbacks on a society. People who eat dogs ""ethically"" can easily move on to other animals, and the people who continue to consume stolen pets can be punished more harshly, causing fewer people to steal pets. That law would be a net win because the good it does for pet owners vastly outweighs the bad it does for dog consumers.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why don't you rob the richest people and share the money with the poorest? Or just ignore the interests of the minorities? Apparently, the good outweighs the bad based on your calculation.

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

Why don't you rob the richest people and share the money with the poorest?

We should. The opposite literally happens on a daily basis.

Or just ignore the interests of the minorities?

The US used to do that. It didn't end well for anybody on multiple occasions. There's a reason why US politics is so focused on civil rights, because the good outweighs the bad on a societal level.

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

We should. The opposite literally happens on a daily basis.

99% percent of people can be much richer if we share the 0.1% richest people. This never happened. Besides, do you believe Robin Hood is allowed by law in modern society?

The US used to do that. It didn't end well for anybody on multiple occasions. There's a reason why US politics is so focused on civil rights, because the good outweighs the bad on a societal level.

Do you think what China does to Uyghurs, and what Russia does to LGBT is justified? Apparently, they believe the good outweighs the bad, only at the cost of a few people.

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

The CCP's interests don't always align with the wellbeing of Chinese people. The interests of Russia's elite are even more divorced from the will of Russians.

You're bringing up counterexamples that I literally already refuted with previous examples. Slavery existed in the colonial US. The founding fathers put an end date on slavery because they knew it was a plague on society. People later on extended that date. Tensions rose until a civil war broke out. African Americans had more rights but weren't equal. Unrest rose until lawmakers gave them more rights. Similar thing with women.

Where in that paragraph do I state that genocide is good? Where do I support exploitation?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Who determines whose interest is bigger? If you think you can determine that, how are you different from the CCP or the Russian elite? If you can't, why do you say the interest of those who attach their feelings to a car, a window or a pig is not as important as those who attach their feelings to a dog?