bartolomeo@suppo.fi to Memes@lemmy.ml · 2 years agoAll lives rulesuppo.fiimagemessage-square12fedilinkarrow-up17arrow-down15
arrow-up12arrow-down1imageAll lives rulesuppo.fibartolomeo@suppo.fi to Memes@lemmy.ml · 2 years agomessage-square12fedilink
minus-squareAwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2 years agoBoth sides are bad. Yes, one is considerably worse than the other, but that doesn’t make the alternative good, it just makes it better.
minus-squarePunnyName@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0arrow-down1·2 years agoGood is relative. And relatively speaking, one is definitely good compared to the other.
minus-squareAwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2 years agoIt’s not good of its own merit though, it’s only good compared to something worse. Neither party represents the interests of the average working class individual.
minus-squarePunnyName@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0arrow-down1·2 years agoLiterally nothing is “good of its own merit”. Because literally nothing is intrinsically “good”. “Good” is a subjective idea, not objectively measurable, so it will always be in reference to another, i.e. relative.
minus-squarePunnyName@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2 years agoBoth are consistent within the confines of the definition.
Both sides are bad. Yes, one is considerably worse than the other, but that doesn’t make the alternative good, it just makes it better.
Good is relative. And relatively speaking, one is definitely good compared to the other.
It’s not good of its own merit though, it’s only good compared to something worse. Neither party represents the interests of the average working class individual.
Literally nothing is “good of its own merit”. Because literally nothing is intrinsically “good”.
“Good” is a subjective idea, not objectively measurable, so it will always be in reference to another, i.e. relative.
Removed by mod
Both are consistent within the confines of the definition.