[ SECRET POST #3045 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3045 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 028 secrets from Secret Submission Post #435.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[ill_omened]

Absolute morality brah.

You're right the basis for that and how we achieve it becomes complicated, but the sole alternative is nihilism.

We could discuss the foundation for that morality, but you would find few people who would disagree with the standard of some functional version of utilitarianism and individual freedom, and by rejecting this standard it becomes impossible to hold any sort of moral conversation without first going into incredible depth on founding principles.

[(Anonymous)]

i'd say two things

first, while people might agree in principle on some functional moral code, there's clearly also huge and widespread disagreement on the practical implications of that, and so it behooves us to be more clear about what moral stances we're taking and to take these arguments seriously

second, i'm fine with it being a question of absolute morality! i'm down as fuck with that. but, again, stop fucking talking about tolerance and intolerance when what you really mean is that bigotry is intrinsically morally wrong.

[ill_omened]

Well no, because it's an expression of these two truths.

As difficult as conditional statements can be, it's a simple argument of if it is not harmful (within certain criteria) than tolerance states that it's okay.

The attempt to differentiate the two doesn't make any sort of substantial point.