|
|
|
|
|
|
by ameminator
1620 days ago
|
|
|
The purpose wasn't to ask questions but to point out that our society, and societies around the world, have been prone to behavior that we consider wrong or a mistake due to righteousness. This was to directly support the original article and to refute the OP comment that righteousness can only be a good thing. Maybe the style was a little rhetorical, but I do think the article has a point that we have to be wary of "righteous" behavior so that we can avoid doing something terrible. Of course, there probably are some (even many) useful points, as the original comment suggested. However, we do have to be conscious of the bad points to avoid going down a bad path. Of course, the last question on the unvaccinated was draw immediacy to our own society which spawned things like r/HermanCainAward which celebrates the death of the unvaccinated, and other attitudes against them. |
|
|
That's exactly why I called out your comment. It was loaded with questions, when your goal was to make a point. It's a nice rhetorical device in theory, but blows up in practice. I've taken courses in communications and read several books, and virtually all of them say not to ask questions if your goal is to make a point - especially on contentious issues. Just go directly to making your point/argument.
> and to refute the OP comment that righteousness can only be a good thing.
The OP never made such a claim. His comment is decently nuanced. I'm also familiar with Haidt's work, and OP's comment is inline with his work. Haidt also doesn't claim that righteousness can only be a good thing. Indeed, the book points out problems with righteousness, and I would assume the OP is aware of them.