This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
thrash · 31-35, M
thats all good and well
but what about instances where people expect others to accept their subjective boundaries as 'objective', lest i be objectively/legally harmed. such people cant cite 'respect personal boundaries' arguments-- that'd be pure hypocrisy: they impose upon my own boundaries and demand to accept them! but i only accept truth?? and they say accept their feelings or i am a villain???? after which they head out to burn teslas
but what about instances where people expect others to accept their subjective boundaries as 'objective', lest i be objectively/legally harmed. such people cant cite 'respect personal boundaries' arguments-- that'd be pure hypocrisy: they impose upon my own boundaries and demand to accept them! but i only accept truth?? and they say accept their feelings or i am a villain???? after which they head out to burn teslas
thrash · 31-35, M
@Miram also, i find it offensive that youd label my subjectivities as arbitrary and [invalid]. you dont even know what i think. and why they are valid.
i can only conclude that you subscribe to a philosophy that considers all philosophies as more or less arbitrary. like a soft version of nihlism or smth. which is understandable but too defeatist-esque for my taste.. you can indulge in defeatism if you like but dont expect me to partake: there are many things wrong with the world: there is an ideal way to live, and it isn’t achievable via "everyone's truth is valid, even if it isnt".
i can only conclude that you subscribe to a philosophy that considers all philosophies as more or less arbitrary. like a soft version of nihlism or smth. which is understandable but too defeatist-esque for my taste.. you can indulge in defeatism if you like but dont expect me to partake: there are many things wrong with the world: there is an ideal way to live, and it isn’t achievable via "everyone's truth is valid, even if it isnt".



