TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,874
Ironically, this is a common sentiment that is often espoused by pro-lifers and just the general masses and it is cliché. However, I will emphasize that this goes both ways and people cannot simply pretend it only applies in situations that they find convenient. As far as the universe and nature itself is concerned, the concept of fairness (as well as unfairness) is irrelevant to it. Fairness is more of a human construct in order to make things equal more or less, and while life itself isn't fair (not an untrue statement by default, objectively speaking), the problem is that pro-lifers often like to pick and choose when it comes to when to apply the adage. In other words, they have no problem throwing that line out like it's candy when it comes to matters that don't matter to them, and instead, it used as a dismissal tactic to downplay or otherwise gloss over others' (that they don't like) grievances.
Ironically, when it comes to tragedies that they don't find acceptable, they (pro-lifers) would never use the line of "life is not fair". Instead, they put their efforts into rectifying the situation or whatever slight, injustice, or wrong that they see. They do this through social change, changing the institutions, petitions, assembly, and more. Oddly enough though, when it comes to other people's grievances that they don't deem important nor fits their interests, they will conveniently and very quickly, apply the line of "life isn't fair. Get over it."
Therefore, I believe that if they want to do that, then they have to accept the unfairness applies TO ALL OTHER situations, not just the situations that they find convenient. In other words, what they are doing is called intellectual dishonesty, or another way to put it, being disingenuous (aka 'picking and choosing'). In other words, they don't get to pick and choose when to apply it, either they apply it to all situations or none at all. By being selective in when they wish to apply it, they are being hypocritical. If they do so, then they lose the right1 to be upset at others who also say "life isn't fair. Get over it." towards their concerns and complaints.
Some examples include, but are not limited to injustices by double-standards, poor treatment of others, pointing out injustices of certain situations, and yet often, the cop-out (lazy response) is "life isn't fair. Get over it." or similar lines. It is not only dismissive and invalidating to the person hearing it, it also implies that one who says that is excusing (even if not explicitly doing so) the bad treatment or injustice while doing nothing about it to change it. What do I mean when they (the pro-lifers and assholes who use this cop-out statement) lose the right to complain? I don't mean it literally that they lose the right to complain (since it's freedom of speech), but they lose any legitimacy and credibility when they get upset at injustices or situations they themselves find to be unjust. Therefore, I think it would be better if society was a bit more compassionate and not recklessly use such rhetoric and expect no consequences or backlash from the people they marginalize.
What are your thoughts on this?
right1 = refers to their credibility, validity, and/or legitimacy.
Ironically, when it comes to tragedies that they don't find acceptable, they (pro-lifers) would never use the line of "life is not fair". Instead, they put their efforts into rectifying the situation or whatever slight, injustice, or wrong that they see. They do this through social change, changing the institutions, petitions, assembly, and more. Oddly enough though, when it comes to other people's grievances that they don't deem important nor fits their interests, they will conveniently and very quickly, apply the line of "life isn't fair. Get over it."
Therefore, I believe that if they want to do that, then they have to accept the unfairness applies TO ALL OTHER situations, not just the situations that they find convenient. In other words, what they are doing is called intellectual dishonesty, or another way to put it, being disingenuous (aka 'picking and choosing'). In other words, they don't get to pick and choose when to apply it, either they apply it to all situations or none at all. By being selective in when they wish to apply it, they are being hypocritical. If they do so, then they lose the right1 to be upset at others who also say "life isn't fair. Get over it." towards their concerns and complaints.
Some examples include, but are not limited to injustices by double-standards, poor treatment of others, pointing out injustices of certain situations, and yet often, the cop-out (lazy response) is "life isn't fair. Get over it." or similar lines. It is not only dismissive and invalidating to the person hearing it, it also implies that one who says that is excusing (even if not explicitly doing so) the bad treatment or injustice while doing nothing about it to change it. What do I mean when they (the pro-lifers and assholes who use this cop-out statement) lose the right to complain? I don't mean it literally that they lose the right to complain (since it's freedom of speech), but they lose any legitimacy and credibility when they get upset at injustices or situations they themselves find to be unjust. Therefore, I think it would be better if society was a bit more compassionate and not recklessly use such rhetoric and expect no consequences or backlash from the people they marginalize.
What are your thoughts on this?
right1 = refers to their credibility, validity, and/or legitimacy.
