21
submitted 1 week ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/usa@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago

You can either mitigate the inevitable damage

At some point we need to admit that harm reduction still means harm. At the very least, we shouldn't berate people for looking for alternatives when the options presented would both cause unnecessary damage.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago

We admit that the whole time, that's why we use the term "harm reduction" When one option would cause substantially more damage than the other, we should absolutely berate people for pushing totally ineffective alternatives that accomplish little other than increasing the probability of the worse option.

My heart goes out to those who want a no-evil option, believe me I'm one of them. But at some point we need to admit the alternative to lesser evil is greater evil.

this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
21 points (68.4% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7178 readers
490 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS