Message from @NativeInterface
Discord ID: 480299536359751691
there was no choice
lol it's a semantic paradox i think
this choice something sounds tribalistic
like pick a side
sounds infantile
neutrality is a side
is not
Now this is based on the asumption the individual is aware of the choices
you are asuming everybody in teh world is listenign to you
cant you make choices without being aware of them though?
like subconsciously
no
Now this is based on the assumption the user is 100% informed of them
which is a fallacy
When the user wil only have the info they are aware of at that point
if you raise one of your hands to scratch your nose, imo it's a choice even if you're not aware of it
thats like saying when you were born it was your choice
I dont see the tribalism in that alone. Choosing something does not make you tribal.
What makes it tribal is your reason for making a choice
Did you choose x because all your mates did the same
Or did you come to your own conclusion that x is better
forcing ppl to make a choice or be part of the proccess of a choice making with out their knowledge is tribalistic
you are talkign now out of power
Choosing to not choose is a choice. To choose not to, one has to be aware of the choice.
with those unetical line of thoghts you are giving people guilt or resposability of actions and choices they had ntohing to do with
tribalistic
Now thays a rather pointed accusation you are making no?
no
thats ethics
We are not talking about laws or crime here.
ethics is not that
I am saying that holding a neutral position on something is a side on its own.
the base of all judgment on a person it starts on the line of choices the person has done in his, her life
Or in other words you choose to withhold judgement until something changes you mind
yes
There is no harm in choosing
Or choosing not to choose
of course theres no harm but is unethical
and if applied in real life with out proper explanation will lead to unethical behaivour
for example senators and such