• TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Almost nobody is attached to their windows. Most people treat pets as family members.

    If people stealing pets to consume them is a huge problem, then it makes sense to ban the consumption of pets because the benefits of the law outweigh the drawbacks on a society. People who eat dogs ““ethically”” can easily move on to other animals, and the people who continue to consume stolen pets can be punished more harshly, causing fewer people to steal pets. That law would be a net win because the good it does for pet owners vastly outweighs the bad it does for dog consumers.

    • Natha@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why don’t you rob the richest people and share the money with the poorest? Or just ignore the interests of the minorities? Apparently, the good outweighs the bad based on your calculation.

      • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why don’t you rob the richest people and share the money with the poorest?

        We should. The opposite literally happens on a daily basis.

        Or just ignore the interests of the minorities?

        The US used to do that. It didn’t end well for anybody on multiple occasions. There’s a reason why US politics is so focused on civil rights, because the good outweighs the bad on a societal level.

        • Natha@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We should. The opposite literally happens on a daily basis.

          99% percent of people can be much richer if we share the 0.1% richest people. This never happened. Besides, do you believe Robin Hood is allowed by law in modern society?

          The US used to do that. It didn’t end well for anybody on multiple occasions. There’s a reason why US politics is so focused on civil rights, because the good outweighs the bad on a societal level.

          Do you think what China does to Uyghurs, and what Russia does to LGBT is justified? Apparently, they believe the good outweighs the bad, only at the cost of a few people.

          • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The CCP’s interests don’t always align with the wellbeing of Chinese people. The interests of Russia’s elite are even more divorced from the will of Russians.

            You’re bringing up counterexamples that I literally already refuted with previous examples. Slavery existed in the colonial US. The founding fathers put an end date on slavery because they knew it was a plague on society. People later on extended that date. Tensions rose until a civil war broke out. African Americans had more rights but weren’t equal. Unrest rose until lawmakers gave them more rights. Similar thing with women.

            Where in that paragraph do I state that genocide is good? Where do I support exploitation?

            • Natha@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Who determines whose interest is bigger? If you think you can determine that, how are you different from the CCP or the Russian elite? If you can’t, why do you say the interest of those who attach their feelings to a car, a window or a pig is not as important as those who attach their feelings to a dog?