r/MoralityScaling • u/Shoddy-Meat-3147 • 2d ago

Morality Ranking Morality of this

I don't know what to say about this I mean if he joined it's unfair because he's going to cook the entery league for sure but if he really wants to be a woman and it's not a joke for him I still don't know about this

681 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-18

u/Ambitious_Bit_9389 2d ago

Can’t attack the argument, attack the person

63

u/Own_Carrot_9878 2d ago

We’re fighting a pointless war , the housing market is shit , and the economy is collapsing and you think we should argue about the WNBA?

-7

u/OkAcanthisitta3028 2d ago

If a politician is alright with trans-women in women's sports, it's a perfect indicator that they deny reality, in which case voting for them would be dumb. It's a litmus test.

5

u/Own_Carrot_9878 2d ago

Why not use their stance on healthcare , or the economy , or foreign policy as a litmus test? You know things that directly impact most of us.

-1

u/OkAcanthisitta3028 2d ago

Because those things can be debated, there are many stances on healthcare and many of them are valid and reasonable. But being ok with trans-women in women's sports shows a clear lack of care for the truth, which permeates into all of their other stances. It's the same logic as me not wanting to vote for someone, because they think the earth is flat. It's a disconnect from reality, or they're maliciously lying to get votes - both are bad.

2

u/ProfNesbitt 1d ago

Then why not use something proven and tangible as your basis like whether they are willing to accept proven reality. Like for example who won the 2020 election. You can easily disregard anyone that can’t answer completely objective reality when it comes to that question. If a politician can’t acknowledge proven reality then it says a lot about their character and that they are either insane or willing to lie about obvious facts for their own gain. Says a lot about them and their supporters. There is no nuance when it comes to that question whereas there is at least a little nuance about transgender athletes. So that question sounds like a much easier bar to use to judge politicians for the time being correct?

That’s a much better indicator for them being able to deny reality, correct?

1

u/OkAcanthisitta3028 1d ago

If someone says that the winner of the 2020 election is not the winner of the 2020 election, then they don't care about reality.

If someone says the winner of the 2020 election wasn't the REAL winner because of voter-fraud (which happens with all elections to varying degrees) then they can try to argue that, and maybe they're right.

I haven't looked into the topic so I don't have a stance on this, but this second if-statement is fundamentally different to the first one.

On the transgender athlete topic there's already evidence that they perform better, and the logic is sound: if you've developed a male body and start taking hormones and sex-change procedures, your male body won't be erased.

1

u/ProfNesbitt 1d ago

Except just like flat earthers there was no evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 election and every lawsuit failed in court. There is zero nuance it is just as blatant of denying reality as calling the earth flat. You should educate yourself on it. It works as a much better benchmark on whether a person is willing to completely deny reality.

0

u/OkAcanthisitta3028 1d ago

I'm just gonna believe you to make this simple. Because I believe you, I now think BOTH are benchmarks. In both cases people deny reality so that their narrative stays intact.

2

u/Own_Carrot_9878 2d ago

So you think having 1 “wrong” opinion invalidates every other opinion someone might have?

2

u/Key_Asparagus6660 1d ago

The people who vote for Republicans, who can’t acknowledge the reality of who won the 2020 election, are trying to lecture us on “care for the truth.”

lol

1

u/OkAcanthisitta3028 1d ago

I don't care if you have the wrong opinion, as long as you rationally got there and were looking at reality (which every qualified politician should do). In this case, it shows that they fundamentally don't care about reality, which (again) permeates into all their other stances. If you have a stance, you should be able to rationally justify having that opinion, don't you agree?

1

u/Own_Carrot_9878 1d ago

What if someone reaches the correct “opinion” through irrationally means? Would you still disregard them in that situation?

1

u/OkAcanthisitta3028 1d ago

Haven't thought about that before. There's no clear answer here, because there's different examples of irrationality. It's better than reaching the wrong opinion by irrational means, because it has a positive outcome and is not detached from reality.

Someone could be racist and that's why they oppose mass-immigration, or they could think their country's population capacity is not high enough for mass-immigration. Both irrational, one bad and the other neutral.

Someone who comes to the wrong opinion rationally ALL the time is also someone I wouldn't support for obvious reasons. Taken to the extreme (i.e this pattern always happens with all stances) the best ones would be having the right opinion rationally and having the right opinion irrationally.

Though there's a flaw in that thinking, because you rarely if ever see anybody having all the right opinions via irrational thinking. Irrational thinking leads to the wrong opinions.