pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 8 replies \ @LibertasBR 16 Jul \ parent \ on: When is freedom bad? AskSN
I think it needs a better definition of aggression so we don’t fall into the trap of thinking that even words hurt. In many of these hypothetical and poorly detailed situations, it would be enough if those responsible simply avoided those environments.
As for pollution, I agree it’s an aggression when someone pollutes a water stream, harming everyone who depends on it along its path, for example.
I think it needs a better definition of aggression
Okay!
As for pollution, I agree it’s an aggression when someone pollutes a water stream, harming everyone who depends on it along its path, for example.
Would the same go for polluting the air that people breathe or the land that people grow food on? If not, what's the distinction?
reply
A watercourse has a clearer path — if someone near the source pollutes it, they’re harming everyone downstream. Air pollution, on the other hand, is much smaller compared to the volume of oxygen we have. That’s how I see it, so we don’t end up labeling everything as aggression.
reply
reply
No, not at all. Otherwise, I'd be hypocritical in criticizing the aggression caused by inflation and plastic pollution, for example. Returning to my initial point, which is to avoid classifying everything as aggression. I believe aggression can be defined as an action against someone's physical integrity or property, as in the National Policy. It would be possible to delve deeper and consider whether air pollution falls under this category, perhaps.
In many of these hypothetical and poorly detailed situations
it becomes difficult because of this
reply
reply
Yes, we are. The only issue is how it’s framed. And even saying it like that sounds weird. I’m with you so I can try to understand too. If it’s proven that you’re suffering because of this, who are you going to blame? Farting animals? Gases from underground sources? Factories? Landfills? It’s not something objective.