▲ 1206 ▼ rule away Rowling (piefed.cdn.blahaj.zone) submitted 1 year ago by dandelion@piefed.blahaj.zone to c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone 278 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] anachrohack@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) You have scope insensitivity. What's worse, one person being raped or one million transgender people being denied civil rights? A typical bigot is less harmful than a typical rapist, but JK Rowling is not a typical transphobe; she's many orders of magnitude worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] anachrohack@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) you seem like the kind of person who would let the trolley run over five people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] anachrohack@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) If you're going to be deontologist about it, I can understand why you'd think you don't need to multiply the scope of JK Rowling's impact. And I can understand why you're ok with letting the trolley kill 4 more people than it needs to. Your morality is self-consistent, merely anathema to me. So, yeah, "I just don't agree with you." But -- maybe you don't need to mock me as though my common and standard understanding of the trolley problem is somehow idiotic. "Lemmy.ml everyone! A place where they'd willingly choose to kill 1 person to save 5 others." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] anachrohack@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago I don't understand what this means. "Here are two people, I think one of them is worse because they are doing more harm." How is this even self-righteous? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) You have scope insensitivity. What's worse, one person being raped or one million transgender people being denied civil rights? A typical bigot is less harmful than a typical rapist, but JK Rowling is not a typical transphobe; she's many orders of magnitude worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] anachrohack@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) you seem like the kind of person who would let the trolley run over five people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] anachrohack@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) If you're going to be deontologist about it, I can understand why you'd think you don't need to multiply the scope of JK Rowling's impact. And I can understand why you're ok with letting the trolley kill 4 more people than it needs to. Your morality is self-consistent, merely anathema to me. So, yeah, "I just don't agree with you." But -- maybe you don't need to mock me as though my common and standard understanding of the trolley problem is somehow idiotic. "Lemmy.ml everyone! A place where they'd willingly choose to kill 1 person to save 5 others." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] anachrohack@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago I don't understand what this means. "Here are two people, I think one of them is worse because they are doing more harm." How is this even self-righteous? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] anachrohack@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) you seem like the kind of person who would let the trolley run over five people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] anachrohack@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) If you're going to be deontologist about it, I can understand why you'd think you don't need to multiply the scope of JK Rowling's impact. And I can understand why you're ok with letting the trolley kill 4 more people than it needs to. Your morality is self-consistent, merely anathema to me. So, yeah, "I just don't agree with you." But -- maybe you don't need to mock me as though my common and standard understanding of the trolley problem is somehow idiotic. "Lemmy.ml everyone! A place where they'd willingly choose to kill 1 person to save 5 others." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] anachrohack@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago I don't understand what this means. "Here are two people, I think one of them is worse because they are doing more harm." How is this even self-righteous? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) you seem like the kind of person who would let the trolley run over five people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] anachrohack@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) If you're going to be deontologist about it, I can understand why you'd think you don't need to multiply the scope of JK Rowling's impact. And I can understand why you're ok with letting the trolley kill 4 more people than it needs to. Your morality is self-consistent, merely anathema to me. So, yeah, "I just don't agree with you." But -- maybe you don't need to mock me as though my common and standard understanding of the trolley problem is somehow idiotic. "Lemmy.ml everyone! A place where they'd willingly choose to kill 1 person to save 5 others." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] anachrohack@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago I don't understand what this means. "Here are two people, I think one of them is worse because they are doing more harm." How is this even self-righteous? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] anachrohack@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) If you're going to be deontologist about it, I can understand why you'd think you don't need to multiply the scope of JK Rowling's impact. And I can understand why you're ok with letting the trolley kill 4 more people than it needs to. Your morality is self-consistent, merely anathema to me. So, yeah, "I just don't agree with you." But -- maybe you don't need to mock me as though my common and standard understanding of the trolley problem is somehow idiotic. "Lemmy.ml everyone! A place where they'd willingly choose to kill 1 person to save 5 others." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] anachrohack@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago I don't understand what this means. "Here are two people, I think one of them is worse because they are doing more harm." How is this even self-righteous? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) If you're going to be deontologist about it, I can understand why you'd think you don't need to multiply the scope of JK Rowling's impact. And I can understand why you're ok with letting the trolley kill 4 more people than it needs to. Your morality is self-consistent, merely anathema to me. So, yeah, "I just don't agree with you." But -- maybe you don't need to mock me as though my common and standard understanding of the trolley problem is somehow idiotic. "Lemmy.ml everyone! A place where they'd willingly choose to kill 1 person to save 5 others." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] anachrohack@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago I don't understand what this means. "Here are two people, I think one of them is worse because they are doing more harm." How is this even self-righteous? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] anachrohack@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago I don't understand what this means. "Here are two people, I think one of them is worse because they are doing more harm." How is this even self-righteous? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago I don't understand what this means. "Here are two people, I think one of them is worse because they are doing more harm." How is this even self-righteous? permalink fedilink source parent