Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6181730" data-attributes="member: 8461">It'll start when the new computer I ordered arrives. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />For what it's worth, that's sort of the point of all this. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong (notwithstanding the insane individuals who do not), but comparatively few people seem to think through why certain things are right or wrong, and how they reach those determinations. I'm saying that in order to have a debate, it becomes necessary to examine those processes so as to better explain our thinking on the matter.Bear in mind that if one were to have a negative duty regarding not suppressing another's creative expression, then the above could be in conflict with it. Since the point of a tiered structure is to have the higher duty win out in the event of a conflict, that would likely mean that even with the above caveat, one could still come to the conclusion that they should carry products they don't personally approve of.As a note, this would seem to run afoul of the general guideline I mentioned in regards to specificity of action (since actions are what we're judging the morality of). Citing "something you think is immoral" in a framework set up to make the state of morality be the determination, rather than part of the qualifiers being judged, is somewhat counterproductive. I personally disagree with the requirement that something only be considered suppression if performed by a singular monopoly-holder, since that means that such actions, when performed in groups, are never considered to be suppressive (e.g. the case with Manhunt 2).I can intuit the question you're thinking of (at least I think I can), and the answer I can come to is that I wouldn't consider that to be an act of suppression because your personal space doesn't really constitute a venue for distribution in the first place. If your neighbor from across the street wants to paint your car with commercial logos for his new business start-up, you saying no isn't an act of suppression because he's not looking to use any sort of public medium to do so; he's looking to use an extension of yourself - saying that you don't want to be used in that manner is not suppressing someone else.</blockquote>

Verification