5 ms·
The difference is that the people who stuck their neck out for racial equality, gay rights and women's rights were objectively right, but Brendan Eich is object
by SimHacker 12y ago
The difference is that the people who stuck their neck out for racial equality, gay rights and women's rights were objectively right, but Brendan Eich is objectively wrong. And that matters.
- thumbtackthief 12y agoWell, that's a matter of opinion (which I completely agree with!) but we can't say it's objective.
- ceautery 12y agoIf we can show that sexual orientation isn't a matter of choice, then we can say oppression of people based on it is objectively wrong.
- vbuterin 12y agoSpecies is not a matter of choice. And yet we're quite fine oppressing chickens.
- forgottenpass 12y agoI'm just fascinated that you've found objectivity in ethics.
- forgottenpass 12y agoobjectively right There is no such thing. I agree with them, and under various moral philosophies I could make convincing arguments that they're right, but you're off the rails. Or, if you've really found an objective measure of right and wrong that isn't based on a subjective positing of objectivity, you've upended an entire field of study, have a very rewarding future and are totally set for life. You'll just have to forgive us for not waiting with baited breath.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- bowerbird 12y ago"surprising" is one thing. but it's downright _scary_ how people get so _zealous_ once they firmly believe they are "objectively right". i don't know if i'm happy or sad this tendency has been adopted by the leftwingers. of course it will help them to battle the rightwingers (who always felt "righteous"), and let me be crystal clear i want the rightwing crushed, but i can't help but think that something has been lost. i'm unsure you can _beat_ intolerance _with_ intolerance. -bowerbird p.s. go ahead and downvote this; it will prove my point.