Comment by simianwords
14 days ago
I show empathy which is why I’m happy that they have this job and can put food on their plate. You show fake empathy and fake concern by prioritising metaphysical needs.
14 days ago
I show empathy which is why I’m happy that they have this job and can put food on their plate. You show fake empathy and fake concern by prioritising metaphysical needs.
Again, vacuous. You deride as 'metaphysical' what is psychological. But the health and well-being of children too is a 'metaphysical' concern to the worker by this metric, and yet you call it up to support yourself? Your argument is empty, hypocritical: there can be no substance to calling the one metaphysical and the other physical, thereby dismissing all suffering.
If you're going to play the game you're playing, play it everywhere: their children don't matter, their suffering doesn't matter, they don't matter.
The core of your argument is merely that if it is possible to force someone to do something, it is right and proper. What a vile philosophy, to make what is detestable into that which is desirable.
At least have the grace to be ashamed and turn away, if you cannot stomach the taste but to replace it with deception.
My point is that material needs are more important to people under poverty than metaphysical like feeling bad about watching abusive videos.
You agree that this job is necessary to be done. You agree that this is the best option they have and they are better off with it. You would also do the same thing if you were in their position. You agree that this job exiting is overall beneficial for everyone involved.
Then what’s with the moral grandstanding? Yes it’s not ideal that someone has to do the job.
What point do you want to make other than virtue signalling?
Being able to force someone to do something is not justification for doing so. Further, it is ridiculous to try and label that as 'beneficial for everyone involved'. By the same token you can call outright slavery under threat of execution 'beneficial for everyone involved'. What tripe.
Repeatedly stating that it's 'better for them' because they have no choice is not the slam dunk you seem to think it is. The entire class of argument does not hold water; this line of reasoning will not convince me. It does not even slightly support your position.
I'd thank you to not put words in my mouth. You're wrong about them.
What point do I make other than virtue signaling? Mayhap read what you replied to, and you'll find it. But if you struggle still: your load-bearing use of 'metaphysical' is basically nonsense. I explained why already, why should I endlessly repeat myself?
1 reply →