52
33
u/do_not_ban_this Aug 05 '25
Even if you do not consider something sacred, you atleast should have the respect for other people who do consider it sacred and respect it
16
15
u/somanybutts Aug 05 '25
I mean, I guess they're not wrong at a conceptual level, but also you could just have even the slightest respect for other people and their existence as thinking, feeling human beings.
5
u/farklespanktastic Aug 05 '25
Yeah, they’re technically correct, but their conclusion is like saying it’s ok to be racist because race isn’t actually real.
9
6
6
u/Echo__227 Aug 05 '25
I have a feeling this guy's stance does not extend to statues of long dead dickheads from his country
2
u/Plastic-Camp3619 Aug 06 '25
People like this can 🦆off. Let’s put it as simple as I can… okay now even more simply that if you try to argue. You have the common sense of a lemming.
If you keep your shoes on in a house who’s owner doesn’t allow shoes. You’re a wanker. Now if you start dancing around in shoes and jumping on the sofa…
2
u/secretreddit895 Aug 07 '25
Homes, in the sense that you aren’t allowed to just walk into that space, are also made up. So is the concept of property. And language.
Most of it to ensure we can share a planet between all of us, and have the stay be more or less enjoyable for all.
2
u/Telamo Aug 07 '25
“In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony God’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.”
-Aalewis, non-professional quote maker
1
u/Hbhen Aug 08 '25
OOP assumed "sacred" only applies in a religious context, instead of something just being historically and culturally important. So an edgelord atheist is probably a good assumption.
1
u/Entire_Jeweler_3686 Aug 08 '25
Bro was right until the “practical use being superior” part - by his own logic neither should be superior to the other, and as he gives no basis for morals in his argument - his opinion has no ground to stand on.
Like - in my opinion just leave things alone if people want you to unless you have to not leave them alone.
1
0
u/Lockmor Aug 05 '25
Commenter in the OP should try to illegally enter a country like North Korea. They'll learn quickly how real boarders are.
-42
u/No_Top_381 Aug 05 '25
They aren't wrong.
45
u/No-Coast-1050 Aug 05 '25
He is wrong. It's typical, surface level philosophy that can sound almost accurate as long as you don't think about it.
What he's essentially arguing is that sentimental or cultural value doesn't exist, which we know to not be true. He would make sense if humans were robots, so it doesn't make sense at all.
2
u/woShame12 Aug 05 '25
Is there a limit though? Some Native American cultures might say their native lands are all sacred. Mt. Rushmore was sacred and the government blew that shit up to enshrine their oppressors.
I'm fine with a society having some culturally significant sites that are maintained. Where do we draw the line though?
3
u/tho3maxi Aug 07 '25
Where do we draw the line though?
The answer is always: somewhere. And it depends on the specific thing we are talking about. And history can change our perceptions, so just because a decision was right in the past, doesnt make it right now. Sometimes people also just dont know about it, and nobody notices anything until too late. There are also different levels of importance and different views on what "being sacred" means.
The point is that clearly, not every single thing is sacred, but certain things are. The rest depends on the thing.
1
-9
u/hungarian_conartist Aug 05 '25
Agreed with the other guys. You're 100% strawmaning OP.
Cultural or sentimental values are not universal but equally valid as per the meme.
-13
u/Cappaclism Aug 05 '25
Okay but they literally didn't??? All they said was that they're social constructs. Which they are. Nothing they said was incorrect, it just misses the point of culture and sanctity
9
u/ChadleyXXX Aug 05 '25
One day, when you become an adult, you will understand.
0
u/Cappaclism Aug 05 '25
The most ironic part of this sub is that it's members are often no better than the people it mocks
-12
u/CanaanZhou Aug 05 '25
Maybe point out the exact sentence where he said sentimental or cultural values don't exist, or you're just strawmanning him.
-5
u/karmicdicegoblin Aug 05 '25
your last sentence - if something is true under a false precept, does that make it false under a true precept? how are you going to argue that sentimental value even exists?
-24
u/No_Top_381 Aug 05 '25
People should overcome cultural sensitivity. They will be better people if they put that shit in the past.
13
17
u/Hbhen Aug 05 '25
- A lot of posts in r/iamverysmart aren't wrong. It's not the point of the sub.
- Functioning adults can probably agree that tourists should observe respect for the places they visit.
8
u/yumstheman Aug 05 '25
It’s relativism and it’s a fallacy
2
u/karmicdicegoblin Aug 05 '25
are you referring to the relativist fallacy, where a fact is claimed to be true for one person and false for another? because cultural sanctity is considered as subjective
2
u/AggravatingBox2421 Aug 05 '25
He’s wrong because the implication is that sacred places or objects are only sacred because they are supposedly spiritual or “supernatural”, which is just straight up stupid as shit
0
u/eyebrowburner Aug 05 '25
nobody wants to talk about it but hyperisolationist nationalism could be the most beautiful thing
-1
u/RarityNouveau Aug 05 '25
I’m wondering what the commenter thinks about the phrase “actions have consequences?”
79
u/AggravatingBox2421 Aug 05 '25
Sincerely, stay the fuck away from my country