That's a harmful way of thinking. That's the kind of rationale that shames fat people for leaving food from single-sized meals because somebody far away lacks it, for example.
The GP saving water would have no impact at all on the people that miss it. It's not a "do your small part", it's simply no part at all.
I wouldn't say it is harmful (just like that). If you do you would have to apply the same to all tradition as repeating things regardless of whether you know the benefits of it.
In the past, tradition was one of ways to pass knowledge. There was no youtube or google available and people were generally were not able to read or attend classes.
Even today you teach your kids certain things they just have to do before they can have knowledge of why. For example brush their teeth.
Even then, repeating things like that is still one of the ways we cope with complexity of the world around you.
I am certain you are probably repeating some instructions from somebody on how to do something just because there is no time in the world for you to evaluate every single simple thing and decision.
On the other hand if somebody starts writing about it and discuss with other people, I expect them to put at least a little bit of effort into thinking about it if you are equipped for it (or shut up if you are not).
Repeating mindlessly on the Internet things you learned from somebody else is one way the world is broken today.
Like I said, it’s less “do your small part” and more “act in such a way that there would be good outcomes if everyone acted that way.” It’s basically the exact same reason to be polite in tiny interactions with strangers even though there would be no consequences if you were rude. If you disagree that there’s any virtue in acting in such a way because of the apparent lack of direct positive outcomes then that’s fine, but my point is simply that this is a common view about basic morality.
I would also add that being rude and not agreeing with somebody's statements are separate things.
For some reason people conflate the two and then it is difficult to have a civil discussion on the Internet.
Don't agree with somebody's response? Don't try to shift the discussion to something else like the particular choice of words and whether you "feel" it was rude. If you can't or are not willing to discuss the actual arguments it is better to stay silent.
Comments
That's a harmful way of thinking. That's the kind of rationale that shames fat people for leaving food from single-sized meals because somebody far away lacks it, for example.
The GP saving water would have no impact at all on the people that miss it. It's not a "do your small part", it's simply no part at all.
I wouldn't say it is harmful (just like that). If you do you would have to apply the same to all tradition as repeating things regardless of whether you know the benefits of it.
In the past, tradition was one of ways to pass knowledge. There was no youtube or google available and people were generally were not able to read or attend classes.
Even today you teach your kids certain things they just have to do before they can have knowledge of why. For example brush their teeth.
Even then, repeating things like that is still one of the ways we cope with complexity of the world around you.
I am certain you are probably repeating some instructions from somebody on how to do something just because there is no time in the world for you to evaluate every single simple thing and decision.
On the other hand if somebody starts writing about it and discuss with other people, I expect them to put at least a little bit of effort into thinking about it if you are equipped for it (or shut up if you are not).
Repeating mindlessly on the Internet things you learned from somebody else is one way the world is broken today.
Like I said, it’s less “do your small part” and more “act in such a way that there would be good outcomes if everyone acted that way.” It’s basically the exact same reason to be polite in tiny interactions with strangers even though there would be no consequences if you were rude. If you disagree that there’s any virtue in acting in such a way because of the apparent lack of direct positive outcomes then that’s fine, but my point is simply that this is a common view about basic morality.
Of course there would be consequences if you were rude. Just not to you.
I would also add that being rude and not agreeing with somebody's statements are separate things.
For some reason people conflate the two and then it is difficult to have a civil discussion on the Internet.
Don't agree with somebody's response? Don't try to shift the discussion to something else like the particular choice of words and whether you "feel" it was rude. If you can't or are not willing to discuss the actual arguments it is better to stay silent.