I’ve brought up the namecalling and insults recently with you. I won’t bring it up again.
If a shop that will sell food to a starving person will only sell at least the regular price, is that oppression?
The thing is, that is what oppression refers to, using it in another manner is just a misuse of the word in my opinion. From what I can tell, you are defending some set of social obligations, and those who do not uphold these obligations are thereby “oppressors” which is oddly similar various conservative arguments.
So, then you agree not selling at a lower price or not giving it away entirely is “oppression.” Boycotting a business is “oppression,” and ostracism is “oppression.” And you are merely repeating your assertion, again, not doing anything isn’t exacerbating in any sense, by definition to exacerbate a condition is to make it more severe, time and only time is making a starving mans condition more severe by the very fact that I haven’t contributed at all, whatsoever, in any way. To say otherwise would seemingly stretch the title of “oppressor” over everyone who acts in the same manner as the store owner, as they all did the same thing. Further, I hardly see what difference awareness makes in being “oppressive,” its either oppression or it isn’t, unless particular mentally/emotionally handicapped simply cannot be “oppressors,” of course we’d need to re-define oppression to make that the case.
I never disagreed, I just never made such an error, you made the error by using the term oppression outside of the context of rights. We’ve simply hit an impasse over the term, as oppression does mean to have ones rights violated, as I said earlier, you have simply misused the term oppression.
Its not oppression, its “oppression.”
I take his lack of response as confirmation to my questions. It seems that his anarcho-communist definition of “oppression” is any refusal to give anything to anyone.
He could just be busy. “Anarcho-communist” seems ridiculous at any rate.
Nonsense. No one has any obligation to sell anyone anything.
OK. I can accept that.
Seriously, I wasn’t nitpicking. I’m serious about nature being the cause, and you still haven’t named anything that isn’t caused by nature…
No matter how often you make this assertion, it’s still plain wrong. You are starving. I don’t give/sell you food. You are not worse off. You are exactly where you were before I refused you food. You are homeless. I don’t give/rent/sell you a place to stay. You are not worse off. Your situation is exactly the same. No matter how many times you repeat it, it’s wrong. Your situation is not exaserbated.
For a while, I thought we were just talking past each other, and not understanding one another. I understand you perfectly now. You somehow think the motive of an action can oppress or otherwise harm another. Take your starving example:
- You are starving.
- You meet me.
- I give you no food.
- You are still starving.
Now, there can be a number of reasons why I didn’t give you food.
- I’m just getting by myself and have none to spare.
- I don’t like you personally.
- I don’t like your ethnicity/profession/accent/style of dress/etc..
In all cases, you are still being starved by nature, and received no food from me. I fail to see why one or some of these have made you worse off, but not the other(s).
EDIT: meaningful grammar fix
Agreed.
“If you, as an individual, choose not to share, sell, or help a homeless person, then you are a thieve and/or coercer & should be guilty & ashamed of yourself”, which is what I gathered from “it’s the decision to not sell the homeless person a home or to sell the starving person food because they belong to identity group X that is oppressive”.
I’m sorry, but this seems absurd, paternalistic, & childish, not to mention a huge jump in conclusions.
What about context?
One homeless guy may be a constant, complete drunkard, while another may be an otherwise responsible guy going through rough times that would be a far more worthwhile investment of an individual’s time, money & efforts in helping than the previously mentioned drunkard.
Let’s not get into how can an individual really determine this all on the spot in a manner of few seconds of meeting a homeless guy on the street (which you probably can’t).
There’s too many circumstances to use package deal nonsense such as “if you act as individual, and choose not to help other individuals, you are automatically an oppressor”.
You might as all classify all individualists who choose accordingly as oppressors, & further fan the flames of in-fighting among libertarians.
I don’t think I’m entirely out of line by viewing this as a bit communist / collectivist & objecting accordingly as an individualist.
You can argue that boycotting dissidents is formally in line with the NAP all you want.
But the point being made is a different one : boycotting people for absurd reasons is morally wrong. No self-respecting libertarian would argue that a ‘community’ of narrow minded bigots is doing nothing wrong when boycotting people for arbitrary reasons.
Really ? When the whole discussion is about collectivists, that is, racists, boycotting individuals because they just feel like it ?
i can boycott people that wear shoes and although its absurd its not morally wrong.
No. The point being made is that it is “oppression”.
It is morally wrong for a ‘community’ of people to boycott dissidents.
You equate something as innocuous as shoe wearing to something like racism [^o)]
non-NAP violating racism. a simple cognitive error at worst
I wouldn’t call it oppression but I still object to it.
if more and more people boycotted shoewearers the scales would not be tipped from morally permissable to morally wrong.
Yet, I’m objecting to the assumption that somehow, all individuals have some sort of positive obligation to help other individuals out, lest they are automatically oppressors.
If one is an individualist, wouldn’t this be a contradiction?
I’m pretty sure it isn’t racist" to boycott others based on emotional whims, which is what I gathered from “boycotting individuals because they just feel like it ?”.
Besides, wouldn’t a racist boycott others based on their race alone? If one does it on emotional whims, this makes a personal emotional, not necessarily racist.
Otherwise, we might as well call anyone remotely overtly sensitive in their reasoning and logic a racist, it seems.
As a matter of fact it is a cognitive error. And based on that error different morally wrong things can happen. So, “at worst” may mean ‘shunnings’ ‘lynchings’ ‘wars’ ‘etc’.