People declaring that it's okay to treat uncontacted people as children (which is what paternalism means) provide the strongest example of why compassionate contact is largely impossible- too many people refuse to look at these uncontacted people as fully human.
|
|
# ¿ Oct 10, 2015 03:45 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:11 |
Liberal_L33t posted:I know this is from many pages back but I just feel like reiterating that both of these are unmitigated bullshit, including the second point. It actually is wrong to treat people as subhuman even if they have mental disorders. Furthermore, I am drat sure I know a lot more than you do, so I can apparently dictate what it is you do, according to your own logic, because you're suffering from a mental illness because of your relative ignorance. You can start by blowing me, and if you use your teeth, I'll knock 'em all out. Get to sucking.
|
|
# ¿ Oct 12, 2015 06:21 |
rudatron posted:Not really. If you insist on that understanding, then all authority contains paternalism, and human beings have not yet advanced beyond that sort of stuff. There's no abstract difference between integrating tribal communes and ignoring sovereign citizen stuff - Any social system extends as far as it is able to enforce itself, and no further. The tangible problems of discrimination and disease are very serious, to the point where they're reason enough to scuttle attempts. But assuming you could work around both of them, it's not actually that immoral to integrate. Saying that it's impossible to have authority without treating someone as a child says a lot more about your life than anything else, and I hope things improve for you, rudatron.
|
|
# ¿ Oct 13, 2015 19:07 |