>Bad news: you're not the brave thinker that you seem to think you are (in fact your "forbidden thought" is probably more common than the alternative that we're presenting!).
The forbidden-ess has nothing to do with the general popularity of the thought. (In other places of the world for example --and I'm not talking about misogynistic backwoods--, nobody gives a flying duck for the "alternative you're presenting").
It's forbidden in the context of a certain US population group, in the context of HN, etc.
>People aren't disagreeing with you because they think it's morally wrong to think the way you do, they disagree because they think you're wrong.
Only when it's a moral issue, those two options are not different at all. You can't just be wrong on a moral issue --we're not talking about measuring things here--, only morally wrong.
Anyway, most people "disagree" with me because they have been conditioned to disagree. Those same people would upvote me to the sky if it was the seventies, and probably for the same wrong reasons they downvote now, i.e no independent thinking.
The forbidden-ess has nothing to do with the general popularity of the thought. (In other places of the world for example --and I'm not talking about misogynistic backwoods--, nobody gives a flying duck for the "alternative you're presenting").
It's forbidden in the context of a certain US population group, in the context of HN, etc.
>People aren't disagreeing with you because they think it's morally wrong to think the way you do, they disagree because they think you're wrong.
Only when it's a moral issue, those two options are not different at all. You can't just be wrong on a moral issue --we're not talking about measuring things here--, only morally wrong.
Anyway, most people "disagree" with me because they have been conditioned to disagree. Those same people would upvote me to the sky if it was the seventies, and probably for the same wrong reasons they downvote now, i.e no independent thinking.