• 6 Posts
  • 570 Comments
Joined 1 年前
cake
Cake day: 2024年12月4日

help-circle




  • I view that aspect, the motive, as being added specifically to provide a reason for those who haven’t acquired empathy yet, Such as many children. If you simply say ‘don’t bully people for being different’ the immediate rebuttal will be ‘why not?’, and if you don’t give some concrete answer, then the lesson will potentially not stick.

    These tenets of kindness and goodwill are most powerful and propagateable when concrete, calculated explanations can be provided on top of reasons which rely on empathy, because empathy works for some, but when empathy is lacking logic must suffice.









  • JayDee@lemmy.sdf.orgtoLemmy ShitpostRadon
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    22 天前

    The whole concept is more akin to whether or not you are working directly with the material fruits of your labor, or if you’re some secondary or tertiary job to the actual work being done.

    Basically, their view is that if you are not directly making the product or apart of the physical logistics for that product, then you’re in a bullshit job. I would not say I agree with the philosophy myself, but i kind of get it. ‘I farm Corn’, ‘I Truck frozen food’, and ‘I catch fish’, do exist in a very different realm from ‘I manage a team of QA specialists’, ‘I am an Advertisement Consultant’, and ‘I contribute to my company’s server backend codebase’.

    Also, yeah, the 3-word rule of thumb sucks.






  • JayDee@lemmy.sdf.orgtoComic Strips*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 个月前

    You’re carrying out a similar fallacy by claiming use of the term in its original field is illigitimate in this argument. On top of that, right on the wikipedia page for Eusociality, it states that biologists such as E.O. Wilson have previously argued that humans are weakly eusocial, weakening your whole argument in the first place.

    The concept of humans as super-organisms is explored in both sociology and biology, and i’d argue that that means humans fit the bill. Whatever no-true-Scotsman version you’ve been gate keeping with doesn’t even fully agree with the field you’re supposedly arguing on the behalf of.


  • I see you’re point, I was a bit hasty when saying there’s no good reason to make an exception.

    I still do not agree with the argument that ‘Ants are a superorganism, so it’s not really a genocide’. For humans it’s a genocide, because we’re trying to describe a social crime within humanity. For everything else, extermination is communicating the same thing, but generically.