Seeking people who agree to not Harm others by OneGoodLaw in ads

[–]OneGoodLaw[S] 1 insightful - 1 funny1 insightful - 0 funny2 insightful - 1 funny -  (0 children)

Thank you for taking time to answer.

I define Harm as a [physical] action
one person performs upon another person without permission [or forgiveness]

  • Self defense is justifiable in context (acting party wrong, redefined).
  • Hurt feelings is not a result of Harm
    [insults in a foreign language is a good example:
    . any effort to be offended by what you may have misinterpreted.]

If you are okay with those points I would take this discussion private

New feature: Updated voting buttons by magnora7 in SaidIt

[–]OneGoodLaw 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (0 children)

Just curious about your choice:
[the ancient up-down paradigm was nauseating]

I have always regarded voting as best a 2-dimensional affair:
* like vs dislike [the thought]
* bury vs promote [the post]
unfortunately,
most people are not capable of separating 'agree' vs 'bury'

A post like this might be an example:
Fascism solves racism
You may agree or disagree (like+/-)
but the other question is whether the post was pointless. (bury +/-)

people usually regard what they like as what should be promoted.
But this is not always the case.


Posts about State killing is an example of where this goes wrong:

"Police/military kill multiple (innocent?) people."
The post merits being promoted,
but the core story is something few may "like"
[disagree this event should happen,
but it *merits being discussed]

Just curious as to how you settled on your choices.
Cheers