CrucioIsMade4Muggles
CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja8w47k wrote
Hashes...so someone changes a single pixel and this system doesn't work.
Top notch work Meta. /s
CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja0flgs wrote
Reply to comment by Prophayne_ in The Supreme Court Actually Understands the Internet by rejs7
Congratulations. You just failed the tragedy of the commons. This is why individuals shouldn't be allowed to make decisions that impact entire societies.
CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja03ivh wrote
Reply to comment by 547610831 in The Supreme Court Actually Understands the Internet by rejs7
>If you abandon your principles as soon as its convenient then you don't actually have any principles.
And if your principles get people killed, then having principles is demonstrably not virtuous.
>Besides, wearing a mask wasn't going to kill anyone to begin with so your hypothetical is kinda useless.
It was going to deprive medical professionals of masks, which would lead to them getting sick and causing a shortage of healthcare professionals in the face of an unknown and deadly pandemic threat. Yes--it was going to. My hypothetical wasn't a hypothetical--it was an objective description of what was going to happen and what they avoided.
CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja02oqn wrote
Reply to comment by 547610831 in The Supreme Court Actually Understands the Internet by rejs7
My argument is that people who do things that can get people killed or worsen a public health crisis should be silenced.
You're arguing for the principle of freedom of speech, but the moment any principle causes more harm than good, that principle should be immediately abandoned. I care about human lives--you seem to care more about blind ideology. That is, by definition, evil.
CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja01ur1 wrote
Reply to comment by 547610831 in The Supreme Court Actually Understands the Internet by rejs7
Yes they lied--to avoid worsening the public health crisis. From the POV of the welfare of the population, their lie was the right decision.
Telling the truth is not always the right thing to do. If telling the truth gets more people killed than lying, then you lie--lying is morally obligatory when it saves lives.
CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja00xxw wrote
Reply to comment by 547610831 in The Supreme Court Actually Understands the Internet by rejs7
Telling people to ignore government advice in the middle of a health crisis should get you banned. The fact that the advice changed is irrelevant.
CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja00u8x wrote
Reply to comment by theannotator in The Supreme Court Actually Understands the Internet by rejs7
There is nothing wrong with banning people for saying things that are true. You can call me an asshole and I can ban you from my house party. Was it true? Yes--I'm an asshole. But it's also my house, so fuck off.
CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja92h9v wrote
Reply to comment by Gerzhus in Facebook and Instagram will help prevent the spread of teens' intimate photos by goki7
That's good to know. I'm still fairly skeptical. This seems like the literal least effort approach one could take and still claim they are doing something--to the point where I think they will have spent more money advertising their effort than they spent on developing the system itself.