You act like the only other argument is “fuck 2 million people, I want to be rich” and that’s not the case. Representing other arguments as anything but “I don’t think this method minimizes suffering” is absurd.
-
Cool, I'm sorry you don't like my tone but hiding behind that to refuse to have the conversation of actual cost-benefit argument isn't exactly persuading me I was wrong to be angry at people advancing this argument right now
"nature" was an aggressive and perhaps unfair word to use. How about "confront the thing they're actually advocating"?
-
-
That’s certainly a friendlier tone. It would be fair to mention the severity of the life and death scale. I still think it’s a strawman. All serious arguments are about reducing the scale of the suffering.
-
Yes, both sides are using those words and I think most of them even mean it. But one side is talking about numbers of people who will die based on epidemiologist assessments and the other side, as far as I have seen, is not
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.