fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #6145 ]

[ SECRET POST #6145 ]

⌈ Secret Post #6145 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 05 secrets from Secret Submission Post #878.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 2 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

how stupid it is to argue that because abortion isn't always wrong, rape and genocide also aren't always wrong.

Like, part of why abortion isn't always wrong is due to the existence of rape. If rape is sometimes right, then that means that it might sometimes be wrong to have an abortion after you've been raped. How the fuck do you adjudicate that?

I think you're getting caught up with the idea that right and wrong are binary. It's not, it's a spectrum. Some things are never "right" but they're the best option and we don't treat it like it's wrong. Example: It's wrong to steal, but if someone put explosives on you and forced you to rob a bank, no one will think badly of you for bank robbery, even though you were the one to do the action of robbing a bank. You won't get charged for it, either, because we understand that the threat of death is exculpatory. There are degrees of rightness and wrongness. Context matters.

AYRT

In what real world context is it understandable to wipe out an entire race of people?

AYRT

Remember that tribe of uncontacted people who attack anyone who came to their island? Imagine that they decided to take over a village on the mainland or something, and people fought back and all the islanders ended up dead. That's a(n accidental) genocide, and it would be in literal self-defense.

Also, there are no races of people. Humanity is one race.

You should probably look up the definition of genocide and understand what it means before you start debates about it.

I know what the definition of genocide is and I'm sure that the all important intention will really matter to an entire culture being wiped out.

AYRT

That's an implausible hypothetical, though, which is part of the point: the only way to carve out an exception for genocide is to imagine scenarios that will never happen in the real world.

It's also worth noting that every group that commits genocide tells themselves they're doing it to defend their people. They believe it's in self-defense, which points to an inherent danger in making that the line between acceptable and unacceptable genocide.

Also, there are no races of people. Humanity is one race.

"What we imagine to be real is real in its consequences."

Yes, on the genetic level, there aren't enough differences between us to say that there are truly separate races. That doesn't change the fact that we organize ourselves into groups with different physical features and backgrounds, some of which we call races, others that we call ethnicities. It certainly doesn't make racism suddenly vanish.

OK, look. You're the one who wanted to "wrap your head around" arguing that a horrible act is not always wrong. There are no absolutes in the human mind. Things we never thought someone would do are regularly done now that there are 8+ billion of us. The point is that there will always be a way where the horrible thing that is "always wrong" will occasionally be the best choice of a situation. We have some weird-assed serial killers out there, and weird shit happens all the time. Moral absolutism does not work in the real world, cause it's freaky as shit out here.

I don't give a shit about some quote. Calling groups of humans "races" is some KKK shit. Genocides are about killing peoples and cultures, not races.

Re: I'm still trying to wrap my head around

(Anonymous) - 2023-11-03 17:55 (UTC) - Expand

Two of those are hurting another human. One isn't.

Who is making this claim?

AYRT

PhD in Ethics Anon made it awhile back, and I can't get it out of my head. They said that, if you hold that genocide and rape are always wrong, it will lead to you holding that actions such as abortion are always wrong. That doesn't make any fucking sense! The fact that I'm pro-choice doesn't necessitate that I think there are times when rape is acceptable!

Rape and genocide are never right. Because they have specific definitions, and words mean things. You start misleading people with bullshit, then you get people who believe that raping people or committing genocide is okay, or that something that isn't rape/genocide in the least somehow falls under the definition of rape/genocide.

Abortion is not up for debate, and certainly not "moral" ones.

Have anyone ever told you that you are exhausting person? If not, I am telling you now, it's for greater good.

Also abortion is only wrong when person undergoing is pressured into it. There is nothing morally wrong about woman not having a child

Some people even on the pro-choice side do argue though that very late term abortions due to obvious features that would lead to the child being majorly disabled IS wrong though because it would be basically eugenics. So even with some pro-choice people, the right of a woman to not having a child is conditional.

You can be pro-choice and think abortion (all of it or only if you do it for certain reasons) is wrong. What you can't do is be pro-choice and want to make it illegal. Being pro-choice also generally means being pro- not needing to justify why you want the abortion, so nobody should be able to know whether the sought abortion is due to ableism or for "good" reasons.

But the comment above was about whether or not it was wrong. Not if it should be illegal. There are two conversations here - the morality of it and the legality of it. The two can overlap but don't necessarily have to.

Some of morals sometimes can contradict each other. I am fighting for legal rights because I find morally that person doing what they want with their own body trumps my own (and anyone's) feeling about reasons.

AYRT
Yes, as a pro-choice person I can disagree with a choice. But it doesn't mean I have a power and SHOULD have a power to stop people from doing with their bodies what they think is right.

But that wasn't the point. The point was the morality of whether or not abortion is wrong and on that, some people disagree depending on the situation.

Morals. Have. Fucking. Shades. No moral is absolute

Re: I'm still trying to wrap my head around

(Anonymous) - 2023-11-03 16:24 (UTC) - Expand

Re: I'm still trying to wrap my head around

(Anonymous) - 2023-11-03 17:05 (UTC) - Expand

Nah, that's an anti-choice strawman and fallacy. "Pro-choicers support eugenics because they think it's better for babies with defects to be aborted." This was literally what I was taught in Catholic school, albeit to give the school some credit, it was a softer version that didn't mention eugenics specifically, but did present the pro-choice stance as only being about sparing children from living with disabilities, and the argument against it being that being born with a disability is better than not having the chance to be born. They didn't say anything at all about the argument for the right not to give birth simply because you don't want a child at all; it was all about the child for them on both sides and not the pregnancy.

It's not a strawman considering I personally know several people who are very much pro-choice but draw the line at situations they consider eugenics. I'm from Germany. We have a History with that.

AYRT

I'm not really sure what you mean about me being an exhausting person.

Nayrt
Pretty sure ayrt assumed you're the same person who started the other thread and won't shut up about the topic.

Yup, I did. And I am like 90% sure of it

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only