• Riskable@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Business aren’t moral entities and it should never be assumed that they will act as such. In fact, the basis by which one should assume a business will operate is on profits and profits alone.

    Therefore, if you want to make business behave in any sort of moral fashion their behavior must be regulated and businesses with a history of societal harm must be highly regulated.

    Based on these truths one must view with a highly skeptical eye anyone who wishes to broadly remove regulations without specificities as to which ones they want to remove and why the regulation is unnecessary. The belief that regulations are bad–generally speaking–is an inherently unethical and immoral position.

    • PsychedSy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah. So literally using police to force shit is just bros being bros. Hiring someone to paint your fence, oppression. Got it.

        • PsychedSy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just being reductionist doesn’t make it bad faith. I do appreciate your response and I’m sorry I just wasn’t into digging into weeds of justification.

          It doesn’t really do any good to go back and forth and call our views when we have wild deviations at a very basic level.

          • Emanresu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            What makes it bad faith is that you made no attempt to respond to what Riskable said, and instead said something silly to try and steal a win in the convo.

            If you agree police should exist, then you also agree that the government sets the rules about what they enforce. If someone paints my fence with some hyper toxic paint, then it should be illegal. Riskable was implying that businesses will reliably degrade quality and safety until the legal minimums and sometimes we need to put effort into regulating some basic standards.

            Now, on the other hand, conservatives are usually INCREASING regulations that the police follow, doing the closest things to genital checks and hauling people away to prison for having a now illegal abortion as bad examples.

            Conservatives say they want less regulation, when you guys are the ones in power maxing out regulations against existing in harmless ways… we just want toxic paint banned, or the real example… we don’t want a climate apocalypse, we want PFOA style chemicals banned and forced incineration of all odd chemicals, we want basic human and animal rights, we want the last ecosystems for natural non human life preserved… and conservatives just want the last checks and balances that protect us removed while adding ten times more regulation against people you hate and yourselves in the process.

            • PsychedSy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I was trying to get an idea of their ideas. I asked a simple question and got a huge response that just veered wild. I apologized for them putting in that effort.

              I’m not a conservative I just believe in individual rights. I mentioned it elsewhere, but there’s no coherent definition of conservative to be found. If you want to call a dude with pro-choice and trans stickers on his wallet conservative, you do you.

              • Emanresu@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m going to let you in on a secret mr ancap. Ancaps, conservatives, fascists, libertarians and nazis are all the same group. None of those types have looked into their own views. They all have contradictory silly rhetoric which boils down to “I say whatever i think wins me the conversation, because my view is correct because it’s my view”

                I’m an anarchist and am tired of ancaps pretending to be related to me by ideology. Oxymoronic

                • PsychedSy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s too bad. I tend to get on well with syndicalists and mutualists.

                  Sorry for the late and lackluster reply. My wrists feel like they have axes wedged through them. Hooray for RA.

                  • Emanresu@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No syndicalist or mutualist would agree with the pro-capitalist groups views about capitalism, only destruction of hierarchies such as capitalism and the state. What you said is the bog standard “i have black friends, i cant be racist”. This is what i mean by pro-capitalist group people being the same and using language just to score points. You’ve still not refuted anything in any meaningful way.

                    As for your RA, if you really have it then i hope it gets better, which is kinda why I’m an anarchist. Clearly capitalism wont allow the state to funnel resources into research in any meaningful scale to actually cure disease and only at best offer temporary relief. I guarantee capitalists know the causes and triggers of disease and if they sell a temporary relief they would also be spending money on increasing sales of the causes of your suffering.