193
submitted 11 months ago by RNAi@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] iridaniotter@hexbear.net 65 points 11 months ago

Inside of me there are two wolves - the personal responsibility neoliberal who is annoyed that people don't read the warnings and kill themselves, and the social responsibility communist that understands that it's ridiculous to expect everyone to make an informed decision before doing seemingly trivial things. The communist wolf is beating the shit out of the neoliberal one, don't worry.

[-] ThomasMuentzner@hexbear.net 25 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Hey this is not a conflict at all , "Personal responibility" is complettly compatible with communism ,.. have you ever heard of "the Wall " ? soviet-playful

[-] WithoutFurtherBelay@hexbear.net 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

actually the only reason that was justifiable was because the ruling class will only give up power by force

[-] ThomasMuentzner@hexbear.net 8 points 11 months ago

na

"obligation" - check out this word , its not big in Angloida Culture , but its important. there are certain "obligations" you have to fullfill .. and when you dont ... you lose "coverage" only the fullfillment of "obligation" comits the other party to fullfill its "obligation" as well. A Contract commits both Parties .. Dont break it.

[-] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 8 points 11 months ago

I disagree some obligations you are still bound by whatever the other party does. To give a microcosm argument if your wife cheats on you it's still wrong to beat her up.

Killing the romanovs was for the russians a sad necessity as otherwise they would have been weaponised and it was still a great wrong Nicholas and his wife less so but the kids that was actually wrong. It would have been far better to go the Puyi route or raise the children anonymously or something

[-] ThomasMuentzner@hexbear.net 3 points 11 months ago

"§ 241 Para. 1 BGB describes the performance obligations:

By virtue of the obligation, the creditor is entitled to demand performance from the debtor. The performance can also consist of an omission. "

in this case the Injured Party choose "omission" and you may have noticed , it worked very well , the Tsars have not violated any Obligation ever since.
soviet-playful

[-] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

that's the most German argument I've ever seen first off so congrats

German law is not morality. Your obligations are much deeper in truth than that law says

[-] ThomasMuentzner@hexbear.net 2 points 11 months ago

Your obligations are much deeper in truth than that law says

Exactly ! 👇

[-] SoyViking@hexbear.net 2 points 11 months ago

No! Not that kind of personal responsibility!

[-] privatized_sun@hexbear.net 7 points 11 months ago

wolf is beating the shit out of

wolf punching and kicking

this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
193 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13547 readers
736 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS