yet man is born into trouble as surely as the sparks fly upward
-
-
Replying to @danlistensto @chaosprime and
if you act upon a person and it causes them discomfort and they cry "harm! harm!" at you you might not have harmed them because people are not good at evaluating their own state or the consequences of actions done by or to themselves.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @chaosprime and
the mythical "enlightened being" can discern the difference between false claims of having been harmed vs authentic suffering due to real harm. real humans are perplexed and defeated when trying to make this discernment.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @chaosprime and
what us real folks have access to is a limited subset of phenomena that includes, at least partially, our own intentions and attempts to understand the consequences of actions made according to those intentions. mistakes are forgivable. malice is not.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @delysis and
intentional harm isn't the same thing as malice, or doctors would have to actually obey the terms of their Hippocratic oaths and not perform surgery
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @delysis and
surgery isn't harm, though it might produce pain
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @delysis and
strong disagree; saying that someone with their chest cavity cracked open has not been harmed is, to use the technical term, fuckin' goofy. it's purposive harm
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @danlistensto and
Uh, not if its saving their life! Hurt, sure, not harmed if it isn’t taking on infection and the doc puts everything back together correctly.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @delysis @danlistensto and
harm that's remedied isn't harm that hasn't taken place neither is harm that's better than the alternative. the doctor doesn't put your gangrenous hand back together at all
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @delysis and
defining surgery as non-harm just reduces "harm" to a tautology because it only occurs with malice, which is demonstrated by the existence of the harm. so your guru could never have harmed you because he has no malice in him
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
i'd rather my enlightened motherfuckers recognize when they're doing harm and make it something they're choosing to do on the basis of whatever reasons they find sufficient than excuse themselves from doing harm because they're so fucking nice, long story short
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.