this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
181 points (92.5% liked)

World News

38548 readers
1965 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


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
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/17423369

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You are getting dangerously close to violating civility rules.

For correctly pointing out that your argument is entirely without limits? Civility is when someone doesn't say something that makes you think about your deeply held positions, and the less you have to think, the more civil it is.

You do not get to tell me it is my duty to send my child to die in a war any more than you get to tell me that it’s my duty to sacrifice my child to appease the volcano god no matter what moral argument you are making.

Cute, that you equate stopping genocide with superstition. Funny enough, the very example you use, the historical 'sacrifice your child to the gods' ALSO goes against your claim of doing quite literally anything for your child being the irrepressible urge of billions of years of evolution that you can't help instead of a very modern phenomenon.

And you also do not get to call anyone here evil. You have been here long enough to know that.

Oh, I don't get to have opinions on morality, now? I'm sorry. Please forgive me for judging anyone as evil. I'll remember to say nice things about the Nazis next time too. After all, they were just preserving a future for their children. I mean, what if their children had the risk of going hungry and dying in the future? Isn't cleansing the land of foreigners to preserve plentiful estates for them worth removing that risk?

I’m sorry that you think I’m evil, but that does not give you the right to call me or anyone else evil.

So now I can't call anyone evil. Wow. I'll remember that the next time I'm discussing genocide.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You can get as angry at me as you like, but no, you do not get to call people names. This is stated in the sidebar.

Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!

But you are welcome to think I am an evil person. However, since we seem to be in agreement on virtually every other issue, that should probably be cause for you to reflect on your own positions.

An evil person can't only be evil on one position after all, and you wouldn't want to fall for a confirmation bias.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You can get as angry at me as you like, but no, you do not get to call people names. This is stated in the sidebar.

Here's what I said

If your argument isn’t that saving your child under these circumstances is moral, what you’re saying then, is that you recognize full well that what you’re proposing, since it is seemingly entirely without limits, is unforgivably evil, but you’re 100% okay with it anyway and have no interest in examining or questioning it.

Is saying that an argument or position is evil now unacceptable, so long as someone holds that position or argument?

An evil person can’t only be evil on one position after all,

Fucking what

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

I am not going to argue with you over two different comment chains. Please pick one.