I know what you were trying to do, and I understand your sentiment. However, ultimately, personal consistency doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, right? If I smoke cigarettes, I can still tell people not to smoke, right? My smoking doesn't undermine the science or the message. However, my concern is that this "KILL THE RICH" platitude has been so adopted by the online left that it's making us look, as a whole, like psychopaths; and, considering that, it's now beyond "individual consistency" and more in the territory of "stupid zeitgeist" that does more harm than good. Honestly, what I see right now is a bunch of LARPers that make the left look crazy, and I feel like, ultimately, that's harmful. The fact that I get so many downvotes is just kinda a reinforcement of this impression, as well. It's a sad time to be alive when widespread murder is the political chant, in any day/age... lest we become the monster, and all that. That's all.
nova_dragon
I respect life? sorry?
vegan, actually.
There's truth in both your response and the post you're replying to. The seller did take the time to list the relevant information right there on the sign, but he didn't have to adopt this "OK idiot" attitude when the potential buyer started asking questions; because, while the buyer may be an idiot, there are a lot of idiots in the world, and we should err on the side of empathy instead of judgment. In this scenario, the seller is basically doing the "like I said..." thing that everyone p. much everyone unanimously hates. So, when the buyer asked his dumb questions, the seller should have simply answered them---after all, what is the buyer trying to do, ultimately? He's trying to sell the product; he should not be trying to correct someone's mental handicap (however minor or severe), because, if he made that his goal, he'd need the patience of a literal saint and all the time in the universe.
This comic would have been just as effective--and less insulting--had they not included the explanation at the top; the graphic gets the point across just fine.
i saw this post and wondered to myself, "why all the down votes?" and, despite hating the reddit voting system in its entirety (imo, the number one source of conformity, dullness, and unnecessary-obsession in our online world; the whole thing really should be burned down with prejudice), i thought to myself, "the down votes are probably because this person seems to be more interested in building an audience than the art of writing."
but then! lo, i checked your profile and quickly realized that you're either a gamergate refugee with an inoperable 4chan-brain tumor, or you're a really bad troll (and i hate just dismissing people as "trolls" because it's too easy, but this is a special case); your sole work is a poorly supported anti-feminist critique of a female anime character posted in the feminism community (lol), with an opening line that is just oh so obvious bait: "As someone who believes in traditional gender roles and views women’s primary value in their appearance and domestic skills." which then goes on to just make blanket statements with no real conviction or supporting arguments. it's one thing to argue for traditional gender roles, it's another thing entirely to post stuff like: "Maomao, the protagonist, is portrayed as highly intelligent and skilled in medicine, a field traditionally dominated by men. This challenges the notion that women should focus on homemaking and child-rearing instead of pursuing intellectual or professional careers." like, OK, it does challenge the notion that women should focus on homemaking and child-rearing etc. but you fail to explain how this is a negative thing, which means either A) you're incapable of forming a coherent argument for your own beliefs, or B) you're trolling.
so, in conclusion: you are receiving so many down votes because you're either a troll or a bigot (or both).
"You can tell people not to smoke but you’d be a hypocrite then. If a hypocrite is telling you not to do something they’re doing - that’s worthless."
I couldn't disagree with the "worthless" thing more, even if I tried.
Yes, I would be a hypocrite, but calling someone a "hypocrite" is merely a personal attack on their character. Someone's character, ultimately, does not change the fact of the matter, which is that, in this case, smoking is harmful and you shouldn't smoke if you want to be in good health. The person telling you this being a hypocrite has no bearing on that whatsoever—it's intellectually fallacious to even suggest such a thing.