• OBJECTION!
    link
    fedilink
    -74 hours ago

    Whether he’s responsible is one thing, but claiming that the doctor participated in giving him gangrene would be completely absurd.

    • capital
      link
      6
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      No. You’ve incorrectly identified what I implied the doctor has participated in. You’d like for me to have said the doc somehow gave the person gangrene but I didn’t and did not imply that.

      The doctor did however participate in letting a person die. He could have done otherwise but chose not to.

      You see, removing a limb is a harm and he just can’t bring himself to do it. He will sleep soundly knowing he did no harm.

      • OBJECTION!
        link
        fedilink
        -7
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        You said that I participated in “Bringing that to fruition” not in “letting that happen.”

        “Participating in letting something happen” is a very odd turn of phrase. The definition of participate (per google) is, “take part in an action or endeavour.” If what you’re doing is not taking part in an action, then you aren’t participating, by definition.

        If someone on the other side of the world starves to death, are you a participant in that?

        • capital
          link
          74 hours ago

          We’re comparing voting, which I can do, to helping someone I don’t know exists on the other side of the world?

          Thanks for the thread bud. Plenty here for people to see your thought process. It sucks by the way.

          • OBJECTION!
            link
            fedilink
            -74 hours ago

            There’s information about world hunger available on the web, I don’t see how choosing not to be informed about it absolves you of responsibility.

        • @Rhoeri
          link
          English
          54 hours ago

          For more smug ethics lessons. Press 1 or say: “Bore me to death.”