Conversation
Notices
-
It's pretty weird we pretend consistency is some virtue.
>everybody would save a loved one over a stranger
>we're fine eating pigs, but not dogs
>you can be naked in a shower, but not on a bus
It's actually extremely useful that we can make special exceptions for behaviors without having to justify why.
Inconsistency is a feature, not a bug.
-
@Type_Other There are a few lolbert autists who try to be totally consistent with that, but in practice at least some of their takes end horribly if put into practice.
-
I keep thinking back to this because it's actually pretty freeing to realize nobody cares about consistency.
>"So what if some people might regret injuring themselves with tranny surgery? What an adult does to his body is his own business. You can't just go policing everyone's personal safety!"
>t. Guy who's never taken issue with helmet laws
It's just so obvious now that we don't start with principles and build moral opinions up from there. If we did, the "People can do whatever they want with their own bodies" principle would've been tripped as soon as they learned about other legal forms of paternalism.
That doesn't happen, though. Nobody who shouts slogans like that is ever holding up signs opposing seat belt laws. We instead take a stance first, then only search for consistency later, maybe, after a contradiction has been publicly pointed out.
Logical consistency is a peacock's tail. It looks fancy when you can afford it, but its only use is to show off. When you drop the notion it has any function besides that for either you or your opponent, you can cut through so much.
>"You want to do X, but not also Y? What makes them different?"
>"So people can ruin their lives with ice cream, but not heroin?"
When someone puts the burden on you to explain some consistent principle that lines up all scenarios, simply call out their bullshit; they are playing dumb by pretending they can't see what any reasonable person easily could.
I'm viewing the world differently now.