|
|
|
|
|
by krick
2133 days ago
|
|
> It's not an interesting topic to argue about at the bar, it's my fucking life. You see, the problem is that pretty much every political topic is someone's life. It hardly would be worth discussing otherwise. Thinking that the topic that concerns you personally is somehow universally special among the others is despicable arrogance. Now, I suppose that you are thinking that it is easy for me to say all that stuff about same-sex marriage, because I don't care. And you are kinda right. But let me assure you that there are topics in which I am pretty heavily emotionally invested and have a very strong opinion on (I won't specify what it is to not escalate this even further). And that some people I work with, and even have pretty good friendly relationships with have not only argued against, but outright have hobbies that go directly against to what I think is right. So I'd rather wish some of these hobbies to be banned (or, let's rather say "legally restricted"), and I said that to these people on more than one occasion. We both are fine about that. People cannot agree on everything. (There is also stuff that is currently banned that I want to be legal. Just to make it more symmetric, so that you don't think it's something about wanting things to be banned that is special.) |
|
You can disagree about political issues if you have an alternative position - if I think we should have a robust social safety net and you think we should eliminate welfare because everyone should work, at least you've articulated an alternate position where people can still survive. You can want to privatize the post office and mail still gets delivered. The issue with arguing about people's human rights is that there is no alternative. You're just saying some class of people should have less than others with no remedy