i think my longtime pal bachman is really onto something here.
just because something is universal does not mean it is not a rights abuse or a tyrannical abuse of power. yet somehow, humans seem to overlook it when it is.
“all nightclubs are closed” seems OK while “all gay nightclubs are closed” would have people in the streets protesting? why? what functionally is the difference?
objectively, the former is worse than the latter as it closes more clubs and abrogates more rights. in both cases, all the gay clubs are closed.
so what’s the claim, that universality of oppression somehow makes it OK so long as we do not single groups out? because that’s an easy claim to render absurd by just using different groupings.
“slavery is fine so long as anyone can enslave anyone regardless of race, gender, or tribe.” it’s perfectly egalitarian. does this suit anyone’s notions of ethics and rights? does this “equal treatment” excuse the underlying action? how about “to avoid the wrath of god and a blight upon our harvests, sex out of wedlock is punishable by death for ALL people”?
“slavery is fine so long as anyone can enslave anyone regardless of race, gender, or tribe.” it’s perfectly egalitarian. does this suit anyone’s notions of ethics and rights? does this “equal treatment” excuse the underlying action?
how about “to avoid the wrath of god and a blight upon our harvests, sex out of wedlock is punishable by death for ALL people”?
i’m doubting very much that most are getting on board with this, so why then if you find the closure of gay clubs or jewish houses of worship to be an unacceptable practice because it’s oppressive to a group do you then find the exact same oppression OK if we just apply it to more people?
what sort of absurdist utilitarian inversion is this?
it’s the literal equivalent of arguing that while punching one person is the face is evil, punching everyone in the face is fine if you think you have a good reason.
this gets all the more dangerous if people are convinced that their reasons are valid and noble and it’s awfully easy to fall into the trap of supporting an abuse just because you happened to want to do it anyway.
“all jews must wear masks in public” would set most people off. but, if this is oppressive, then why is it not so if “all people must wear masks in public”? how is masking different to “all people must wear a crucifix in public”? (the objective data shows that the 2 will accomplish about the same in stopping covid)
give this some thought because this egalitarian fallacy is ingrained into a lot of human thinking and it has done massive harm.
if it’s evil to let kids in private school attend class while keeping public school closed, are you seriously going to claim that the evil lies in the unequal treatment and not the prohibition of education and that it could be somehow improved by reducing education yet further?
will you seriously argue that that which is evil when worked upon a group is suddenly good when worked upon a larger one?
so perhaps, to render the base ethics more visible, ask yourself, when faced with each new imposition and limitation “what if this were done to just blacks/jews/women/gays/ny yankees fans/intersectional grouping of your choice?” would that seem oppressive?
if so, why is it not then oppressive when invoked universally? oppression is not oppression if you spread it around? slavery is fine so long as any can enslave any?
wake up and smell that which is being shoveled here before we are all completely buried in it.
universality is not justice. that which would oppress one, oppresses all.
After millennia of civilization and spiritual triumph Humanity, bored with death as the ultimate universality, decided to try stupidity for size.
Thank you for continuing to be the voice of reason crying in the wilderness. Another absurd justification of injustice it's the "it's only temporary" clause. Nowadays, this can easily be dismissed by quoting "15 days to flatten the curve," but even without the fact that temporary government restrictions seem to always extend well past their expiry date, the temporary clause is no justification.
If I told a police officer who pulled me over for speeding that I was only temporarily speeding, would I still get a ticket? If a rapist told the judge he was only abusing his victims temporarily, is he still guilty? If you answered yes to any of these, then why would you allow the government to abuse people because the abuses are supposed to be for a limited time only? Not ok now; not ok ever.
I agree whole heartedly. One thing I don't understand (and am contacting a family member about) is that there doesn't seem to be an issue with "vaccine passports" in Israel? I mean doesn't get even a chill up their back and liken it to the yellow star?
"liberty and justice for all"
Racial justice is not justice. Gender justice is not justice. Social justice is not justice. NB Forrest justice is no different than Biden justice.
Chauvin got no justice.
As usual, brilliant, insightful, correct, but ultimately meaningless. You confirm and persuade the rational and sane, but the megalomaniacs imposing the madness are not and will not be moved. The real challenge is how to bring about an end to the madness when those in power have no interest in rational persuasion and refuse to loosen their grip.
It's all about "equity". I.e., as long as everyone is oppressed equally, then the oppression is fine.
Whole heartedly agree... the inmates are running the asylum...
You had me all the way until you brought up Yankees fans. ;)
Right on, hermano.
While I completely agree, the usual answer on this would be - virus is infective.
Thank you, brings clarity; will use this in conversations going forward.