Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

throwawaytrogsack t1_j4esaco wrote

Reply to comment by pickled_neggs in Uganda: Father of 102 children from 12 wives quits family expansion due to inflation by nimobo

Yes, I’ve been to countries outside of my own. Following road rules is, in my opinion, a perfect example of what I’m talking about and how behaviors can tear a society apart and make it unlivable or they can help keep a society livable and functional. I’m working in Poland right now. Polish drivers take following the road rules to an extreme (except for speeding for some reason). I spend most of my time in Ecuador where driving is extremely dangerous.

1

pickled_neggs t1_j4ettlj wrote

I believe you just implied that Ecuadorian society is unlivable and non-functioning then? Or that in each act of disobeying the official laws, any individual who participates in their cultural norms is immoral? Because you have been to other countries that, quite frankly, are the minority of places in the world, where people follow traffic laws to the letter?

Do you see how this follows from what you are saying?

1

throwawaytrogsack t1_j4euxcv wrote

I believe you really like to put words in my mouth, exaggerate my statements to illogical extremes, all for the sake of attempting to win a Reddit argument. My point is not that any one act of obeying the rules or sacrificing for the greater good is what holds society together, but the totality of many behaviors. What makes Copenhagen Copenhagen and Kabul Kabul?

1

pickled_neggs t1_j4exgqq wrote

I was careful to say “imply” and “follows from” so as to specifically avoid putting words in your mouth. I did not say that this is what you said, but that this is what it implies, or follows from your premises (explicitly or implicitly stated). I dont even know why you’re bringing up “to win a reddit argument” since we’re both communicating through the same medium for an exchange of ideas? Why is me responding to your thoughts on Reddit any different than you responding to mine?

If it isn’t clear, my philosophical problem was with you saying “we DO stop at red lights” [capitalized by me for emphasis] etc etc being included among these is that many people DON’T and it does not lead to tearing apart the fabric of society, which, uh, sounds like kind of a “exaggerating to logical extremes” to me.

Like I said though, it is my personal opinion that the whole “vaccine” requirement led to more division and harm in society than would have happened without such a mandate. We can argue and disagree about that (here on Reddit) certainly. But I’m also trying to point out the philosophical / logical problems with your argument that whatever ONE PERSON or ONE GROUP of people thinks is the thing that will better hold society together is therefore the right and moral thing to do, because they have determined as such.

Going back, I honestly dont know why people feel the need to make some personal attack about “just trying to win a Reddit argument.” We’re both human of course and thus feel the need for self-expression.

Edit: I also didn’t really follow your question about Kabul and Copenhagen if you’d be willing to expand. Was it cuz I brought of semantics of people mandating the jab being “criminal” being debatable on a semantic level? Or something else about those places in particular I didn’t catch? Or an old philosophical argument? Are you saying “potato-pohtahto” about “sacrifices that benefit society” and “that which is morally correct?” That one is another version of saying the other?

1

pickled_neggs t1_j4f1vie wrote

I’ll just assume you’re busy for now since we all have lives outside of this. I look forward to your response. Otherwise, I’ll take your lack of response to show that you recognize how shaky your arguments are, or that you’re not as good at “winning reddit arguments” as you thought you were. Your last two responses were very quick, so you seemed available.

1

throwawaytrogsack t1_j4f2h85 wrote

I not busy. I’m just losing interest in this conversation. You seem to need to believe you’re right and take it to a weird and annoying level.

1

pickled_neggs t1_j4f9whc wrote

Lmao I could tell. Not so easy when someone is able to address each of your points clearly, is it? Much easier to say Im “taking it to a weird level” than be able to meet my arguments isnt it 😂 It seems you’re used to communicating only with people who already agree with you. I see it as a weakness. An inability to formulate stronger arguments (or even worse, have bad inferences and beliefs). Or an inability to deal with the fact that others who have beliefs other than yours could be right. But it’s cool you can play like the “youre just weirdly trying to be right” guy for poking holes in your inferences.

1