that first take: I've heard it before, i kinda understand the reasoning. but how should we accept immoral thoughts, and then specifically only condemn real action? if or when it happens, the damage has already been done. imagine putting 2 people in a room, one tied up and one with a weapon. if you don't interfere until sometime is killed, you won't change anything at all. you can stop people from claiming new victims, but nothing undoes the past
Well. If you are implying to condemn immoral thoughts without actions behind them because they *could* act on them can quickly lead to a very dangerous slippery slope. You know, the classical thought police kind of thing. Er that aside i know it sounds dumb to ask but is there a reason why would gun guy shoot tied up guy?
@doctorhealsgood5456 That argument is valid as well, it definitely comes down to the exact situation also it's not a stupid question lol, just pretend the gun guy has intent on hurting someone
that's a slipery slope, by that same logic we should ban all violent games and violent media in general, jesus, are we seriously forgetting all the nonsense that happened in the 90s? with puritans trying to ban videogames and trying to blame them for school shootings and violence overall? this is literally the same thing, fiction doesn't make you think "damn, i think zoophilia/pedophilia/murder/theft/etc is okay because i consumed some fictional content that had this sort of stuff in it!" those people who do bad things already had this disposition BEFORE they had any contact with the fictional content, not after, many psychologist have already studied this subject, many being people like patrick w. galbraith, casey lytle and lisa diamond, to name a few
I have to defend that fictional characters =/= real people on the basis of free artistic expression but i do agree it seems most of the louder defenders of it are the biggest weirdos 😅
I kinda agree with sir apologist, Emphasis on kinda. Scratch that, i don't agree at all. It IS IMMORAL but not WRONG as long as it's not acted on& or actually done.
The fires burn especially bright for them.
helppp the beef in the vicinity known as thou X is rather tempestuous
those posts physically made me go D:
Average twitter user
;-; now I have seen things (war flashback)
that first take:
I've heard it before, i kinda understand the reasoning. but how should we accept immoral thoughts, and then specifically only condemn real action? if or when it happens, the damage has already been done.
imagine putting 2 people in a room, one tied up and one with a weapon. if you don't interfere until sometime is killed, you won't change anything at all.
you can stop people from claiming new victims, but nothing undoes the past
Well. If you are implying to condemn immoral thoughts without actions behind them because they *could* act on them can quickly lead to a very dangerous slippery slope. You know, the classical thought police kind of thing.
Er that aside i know it sounds dumb to ask but is there a reason why would gun guy shoot tied up guy?
@doctorhealsgood5456 That argument is valid as well, it definitely comes down to the exact situation
also it's not a stupid question lol, just pretend the gun guy has intent on hurting someone
that's a slipery slope, by that same logic we should ban all violent games and violent media in general, jesus, are we seriously forgetting all the nonsense that happened in the 90s? with puritans trying to ban videogames and trying to blame them for school shootings and violence overall? this is literally the same thing, fiction doesn't make you think "damn, i think zoophilia/pedophilia/murder/theft/etc is okay because i consumed some fictional content that had this sort of stuff in it!"
those people who do bad things already had this disposition BEFORE they had any contact with the fictional content, not after, many psychologist have already studied this subject, many being people like patrick w. galbraith, casey lytle and lisa diamond, to name a few
@@OHGAS how did you even find this video lil bro
I have to defend that fictional characters =/= real people on the basis of free artistic expression but i do agree it seems most of the louder defenders of it are the biggest weirdos 😅
massively true
It's all fiction until they start calling the character their girlfriend LOL
I kinda agree with sir apologist,
Emphasis on kinda.
Scratch that, i don't agree at all.
It IS IMMORAL but not WRONG as long as it's not acted on& or actually done.
Respectable opinion but one look at their Twitter and it's evident why they got suspended 👽