Over the last week, the guide has surged to become the 5th-most-accessed book on Project Gutenberg, an open source repository of free and public domain ebooks. It is also the fifth most popular ebook on the site over the last 30 days, having been accessed nearly 60,000 times over the last month (just behind Romeo and Juliet).
Direct link to the book (without the backref):
You are completely missing my point. Firstly, just because I consider something acceptable doesn’t mean I think that it’s okay. It’s more that If action or inaction on a problem causes the same amount of suffering and death, then I believe that action with the hope of a good resolution is the better course.
Let me phrase it in terms of the trolley problem. Just because I would calculate to take the least shitty course of action does not mean I’m uncaring of the outcome. I would simply be forced to play the hand that I’m dealt. And like I said, the problem of US healthcare is not mine to fix. So I can only speculate on what I might do without having to face the potential reality of action.
So what about you? Would you choose action causing harm to stop it later, or inaction and do nothing to mitigate the present harm?
There’s no course of action available in which people won’t suffer and die. In an ideal world that would not be so, but we must face reality however shit it may be.
Sure sounds like you consider it acceptable to me, especially since you admit it won’t affect you at all:
So basically this entire time you’ve been expecting other people to make sacrifices that you won’t have to make. Which is pretty shitty.
I’m not expecting anything, I’m talking entirely theoretically. I’m not asking anyone to do anything, I’m speculating on what I would do in that situation.
If I’m in a situation where I’m solving the trolley problem by equation, which track I’m on is not a factor. Or to put it as simple as I can. If I had to be one of those who die, it would not change my thoughts on what would be acceptable.
This entire time, you have been defending someone who says there should be a general strike where everyone walks off their job regardless if kids starve or are taken away from them for neglect and regardless of whether or not kids die.
And suddenly you aren’t expecting anything?
Have you read anything the person you have been defending has written? Including the part where they say naming imaginary people as spies is dangerous?
Ah, I see where the miscommunication happened. Only my first response was a defence of them, and only as far as the comment you were responding to. Their opinions are theirs and mine are mine.
I don’t think a general strike is a remotely plausible possibility, it simply requires more labour organisation and willingness endure hardship than what currently exists. Me going into hypotheticals and theoreticals is based on this. You’re right that If it were somehow we’re to happen, the suffering would be immense and I don’t know of any remotely realistic goal that it could achieve that would justify it. There’s a lot wrong with society but I don’t see how bringinging it all to a stop would do much to help.
The main point I initially tried to make(but got very sidetracked from) is that just because someone is advocating for a course of action that causes harm in persuit of a goal, it doesn’t mean they are ignorant or uncaring of the harm. But rather that they believe that the end justifies the means.
Sorry for the confusion.
That’s fine. It happens.