Comment on Finally an explanation

Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

  A system of fair rules does not always lead to fair outcomes, if the rules don’t accommodate the asymmetry in capacity, motivation, resources, etc.

  source

  • grepe@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    also, you cannot be tolerant to intolerant people. any system of beliefs like that is doomed. this is what is happening now.

    source

    • plyth@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      cannot be tolerant to intolerant

      Unless you are in a secure position and have the means to help them overcome their insecurities.

      source

      • grepe@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I’m not talking about insecure people. I’m talking about power hungry maniacs that use them.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• wpb@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Blatant flaw in this: I don’t want to murder anyone. I don’t want to rape anyone. I don’t want to be racist to anyone (though I acknowledge I am). And the moment I would do something like that to anyone, I would be a murderer or a rapist, and that’s a shitty thing to be. So no thanks.

  source

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s just an endless line of good intentioned rapists.

    source
  • NekoKoneko@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Yeah, also, I’d like my moral reasoning to have evolved past Hammurabi.

    source
  • ghen@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

    source

    • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I understand what that is supposed to mean, but it makes no sense. I have never taken anybody’s eyeball so if that was the law of the land, I would feel pretty safe. Eventually, everyone going around taking eyeballs would have no eyes and they would be much less likely to be able to take more, at least without some assistance I imagine.

      Plenty of places have a “death for a death” law where if you kill someone you can be put to death. I’m against the death penalty personally, but that has never really been of personal concern to me since I don’t go around murdering.

      If you take something from someone, should they not be able to take it back from you? If you steal $1000, do I just have to sit there? I should be entitled to take $1000 back. If anything, I should also potentially be entitled to more.

      While for an eye is not my preference, it was used to make people as whole as possible and was considered an improvement at the time.

      source

      • Ajen@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I understand what that is supposed to mean

        It seems like your understanding is different from other people’s.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • plyth@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

      Exactly not. An eye for an eye ended the custom of escalating feuds. If only one eye can be taken in revenge, then all other eyes stay healthy.

      It only continues if a taken eye is seen as unjust which leads to a chain of mutually unjustly taken eyes. But that’s a slow process so the elders may figure something out while it happens.

      source
• jamesrandysghost@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Tolerance paradox in action!

  source

  • BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I remember being told it makes more sense when you realize it’s a part of the social contract. Breaching it prevents you from taking part in it.

    source

    • Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Indeed. If one side breaks the contract, the other isn’t bound by it anymore.

      source
  • Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The tolerance paradox does not exist. See BeardedSquidwards comment.

    source

    • wpb@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I don’t see it. How does a society tolerating the intolerant not enable them to be intolerant, even if you believe in social contract theory?

      source
    • jamesrandysghost@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I think you need to re-read the comment…

      source
• Folstar@lemmus.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” -Gandhi

  source

  • Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    So should we just tolerate the intolerant? Cause that’s going to end well. We’d still have half a planet with stabbed eyes while they go scot free.

    source

    • Folstar@lemmus.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It turns out there are more than zero options between “do nothing” and “become what you hate”. Many in fact.

      source
  • explodicle@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s a nice quote but doesn’t really make sense. The eye for the second eye is the first eye, there’s only two eyes involved, not a nonsensical endless chain of eyes. This concept of justice predates the quote.

    source
• TheStaffmaster@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  There’s a line in The Republic that states something to the effect of “You cannot persuade someone who doesn’t want to listen” at that point firing their own venom back at them is justified.

  source
• blarghly@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Edgy 14 year old logic

  source