|
|
|
|
|
|
by foldr
1907 days ago
|
|
|
> No, I don't think they should be left to freeze to death Of course you don’t. But the OP would see this as a tricky ethical dilemma about balancing ‘mercy’ and ‘justice’. Or at least they should, if they’re not just selectively targeting groups of people that they don’t like. > If you delve into what has been written by radicals, you find all kinds of crazy shit You could say this about any group of people. No-one on this thread has defended any of these ‘radical’ ideas, and people have unprotected sex because they’re horny, not because Focault (who 99% of them have never heard of) told them to. So why are you even bringing any of this stuff up? It’s just muddying the waters. > Yet, though I know this thinking is not actually representative, it is often enough loudly defended No, deliberately giving people STDs is not an action that’s often loudly defended. |
|
|
The action is not loudly defended, but the philosophy is. It's like when people from another part of the political landscape recommend "Industrial Society and its Future" but demur about the letter bombs.
> So why are you even bringing any of this stuff up? It’s just muddying the waters.
I was trying to explain the reaction. But, yeah, it's a waste of time. So here I stop.