fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2474 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2474 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

[Once Upon a Time]

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

07. [SPOILERS for NCIS]

__________________________________________________

08. [SPOILERS for Breaking Bad]

__________________________________________________

09. [SPOILERS for Dangan Ronpa]

__________________________________________________

10. [SPOILERS for Breaking Bad]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #353.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Hmm, I'll bite. This is all confusing me. What exactly are you asking OP to own up to? Making a hypothetical decision? Didn't they do that in the first post?

i mean without the unnecessary attempts at justifying the decision by claiming that it's ok because babies aren't even people anyway.

like honestly i don't see a HUGE problem with the decision itself; i personally would opt to save the baby if i could only save one, but only because the impact the baby's loss would have on the baby's family would be far greater than that of the puppy's family. and if it was my baby then obviously i'm picking the baby. but like... if i was miles away from anybody else besides the baby, and if both creatures had no family or ties to this world, i might hesitate, since there are a lot of consequences to either decision. who's keeping this baby, if i save it? obviously me, it would end up being my baby in this case, and idk if i'm up for caring for some random baby. that's a huge investment of time and resources that i'm not always willing to give.

ok that doesn't really matter my point here is that i don't care about op's decision itself. but if op's only reason for picking the puppy over the baby is because they don't think the baby is a person, that's kind of .. ??????? it just seems like an excuse to justify not giving a shit about the baby. if you don't care about random babies then whatever, like i don't get why op is trying to take away the baby's personhood to make it seem ok. a baby is a person so you're either ok with ditching that person for a puppy or you're not.

Reading back I think I see where it got lost, like...

OP gave the puppy example as an example side effect of their main issue which was being unable to relate to babies to begin with,

then you took it as OP purposely dehumanizing babies in order to rationalize choosing puppies,

except OP might have chosen kittens or piglets or anything else because the issue is that they can't relate to human babies to begin with, and given kittens vs puppies might have a tougher time?,

then OP tried to explaining why they can't relate and what stuff must be present for them to relate to things as persons, and you took it as arguing whether babies should be persons or not?

OP said like, "babies aren't relatable to me in the first place, so I will pick the puppy which I like more" and you read it like, "I picked the puppy I like then feel like I have to justify it by saying fuck it babies aren't people anyway"

I think.

It's 2 am and my brain is fried

it derailed once op said babies weren't people, because that wasn't me interpreting their comment, that was them straight up saying it .

and the issue is that babies are people. it's ok to not like babies or relate to them (i sure as heck don't) but you don't need to reduce them to something less than they are. it seemed like an attempt to escape judgment when it wasn't really necessary and kinda ended up backfiring, from the look of the thread

Hrmm.. like you say OP doesn't NEED to reduce them but I think what OP was getting at was thats how they naturally see babies anyway, as not-people, thats how it naturally is perceived for them always, they can't help it.

And they keep saying in other threads they expect people to be mad that they don't consider babies people and thats what people are doing so I don't think they're trying to escape anything so much as being like yeah they expected the judging? IDK

yeah and that's why i reminded them that babies are people

No, it was more like OP trying to articulate the way they relate (or fail to relate) to babies -- i.e., that they don't ping as "people" automatically in OP's head -- and you deciding that meant that OP wanted to oppress anyone who didn't meet certain criteria. That was where the derailment took place.

oppression never came into the discussion, your jump is awfully fallacious. op went from not identifying babies as people (which i do sometimes also, i stated as much) to directly implying that babies were not people. the two are very different; the former is an admitted subjectivity whereas the latter is making a far more objective claim.

[ SECRET POST #2474 ]

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread