"You'd feel differently if it was your family member" isn't a valid take, amirite?

It's supposed to be illustrative, to make you pause and think, well, they're someone's family member, and consider that. If it doesn't work on you, it doesn't work on you.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

That's exactly why it's useless, it's an appeal to emotion. If you had to choose between your mother and 10 random strangers to die, most people would choose the 10 strangers even if it's obviously the morally worse option. So if you can't think objectively when it comes to your family, what's the point of the comparison?

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

So then it is valid to show the choice you'd obviously make. Basically apply this to abortion. Republicans say to ban them in all forms, even to the point where the mothers life is at risk. Until they get a daughter that's life would be ruined by the baby. Then suddenly an abortion is justified, and they'd be furious if disallowed because it's something that needs to get done. So the reasoning is that you then DON'T actually want it banned. It's asking you to apply the same reasoning and justifications you give only yourself and your family to others.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

It's emotional manipulation. Most people wouldn't snitch on a family member who commits murder, doesn't make it a valid argument to not snitch on murderers.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

You should snitch on the murderer to give peace to the victim's family because that's what you would want if your family member was the one murdered and you were the victim's family.

by Grimesoceane 3 weeks ago

But they wouldn't snitch on them if it was their family member, just following the train of logic

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

They should snitch on them even if it were a family member out of compassion for the victim's family members, because that's what they would want if they were the victim's family members. Using this logic still leads you to the ethical conclusion.

by Grimesoceane 3 weeks ago

It more often leads to the ethical or generous conclusion and you haven't yet procured a single case where it leads clearly to the unethical one.

by Grimesoceane 3 weeks ago

It's trying to get people to be empathetic.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

Through emotional manipulation…

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

It's not emotional manipulation, it's an appeal to your emotions. Trying to make something relatable so you can actually make the right decision isn't manipulation, it's an attempt to make you snap out of the tunnel vision. If that is manipulation then every interaction toye have can be classified as manipulation.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

How do you know? Most people don't have murderers as family members haha

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

Observation. How many parents have you seen defending their children who were literally witnessed committing crimes saying "he was a good boy, he wouldn't do something like this"?

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

Depends on the crime. I don't think it's bad to have a compassionate approach to our justice processes when applicable. You first example was too extreme and niche

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

A knee jerk reaction would be denial, it's a way for your mind to protect itself from a mental whiplash. If the denial and defence continues after a certain period, I'd consider it malicious or willful.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

I would MOST definitely snitch on a family member if they hurt someone.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

"Of course we would—" So it IS a valid take.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

Honestly it's hilarious how fast OP undermined themselves. I'm assuming what they really mean by "it's not a valid take" is that is was effectively used against them and caused cognitive dissonance

by YouCrafty6178 3 weeks ago

No it isn't, because I hold my close ones to a different standard; same for the behavior towards them. I would feel bad if my parents went broke (even if it's their fault), but I don't care if it's a random person. And I certainly don't want to help that random person after they gambled their money.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

That's exactly why it's a valid take.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

I wouldn't snitch on my mom if I found out she killed someone and had to cover it up. Does that make it a valid take that I shouldn't snitch on someone else murdering someone because I wouldn't rat out my mom?

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

What kinda gotcha do you think that is?.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

A pretty good one based on the fact that you had no other response to it. How good of a deflection did you think this was?

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

No that just makes you dumb . If it was in self defense no reason to hide it. But if it was cold blooded murder yea no. What about the family of the person she killed?.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

Then it's a mistake and better to own up to it now rather then get found out and much more trouble late.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

No it's not if you cover it up for your mom. "If" they find out is the key.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

Do you hear yourself?

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

They're justifying covering up murder. Incredible. Has to be a troll.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

It's not the hardest thing to wrap your head around that someone would protect their family no matter what, even if my mom killed someone and was at fault I would still help her cover it up because she's my mom

by Moist-Top-2764 3 weeks ago

Then you are a bad person. What about that person's loved one? The child that's all alone now?. The spouse that's disappeared.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

I didn't say it made me a good person, I said what I'd do to protect my family. I don't have a time machine I can't fix the situation all I can do is what I can do

by Moist-Top-2764 3 weeks ago

By this logic they should be thinking "would I snitch on them if it was my family member? Probably not"

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

If you didn't snitch on a murderer would assume you could easily murder someone too.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

I absolutely would turn in one of my family members if they murdered somebody for any reason other than self-defense or pure accident.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

Tell me you don't understand or have empathy without telling me…

by Glad-Maintenance 3 weeks ago

So you are saying its okay when people say "Well my family is an exception and they wouldn't suffer but everyone else should"? People say "You would feel different if it was your family" when someone is proposing some harmful vindictive side that would affect their family.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

Fundamental misunderstanding of the word "empathy." You're not experiencing empathy if your entire awareness of other people is how their existence interacts with and affects you.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

I disagree, we're supposed to be looking out for each other so if we practiced it more we'd make better decisions as a whole

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

I mean yeah I think that's true at times too, but I do think people can be quite illogical when it comes to their own loved ones

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

Exactly when its my family i'll come to emotional conclusions instead of logical ones. Should we put 10 mountain rescues personal at extreme danger to get someone off a mountain who is likely already dead? no. Oh its my kid who is lost? well now the answer is yes.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

So you're saying a more valid expression is "I would be fine being treated that way as no strangers should help me."

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

If something bad happened to certain family members, I'd throw a party! ...so yeah, definitely different, but not in the way they'd expect

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

Yeah, most people take it too far with that stuff. If my family member was hurt, obviously I'd want justice, but if my family member hurt someone, I'd defend them, that's just human nature.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

If my family member hurt someone, not in self defense and not for a reason like SAing their kid or something. Then no, I would not defend them at all. Even if it was my own child. I'd still love them but, just like anyone else, you deal with the consequences of your own actions.

by Hefty-Antelope-1647 3 weeks ago

Well aren't you a goody two-shoes

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

When it's your family, yes. Most people would help their family bury a body without asking if it was justified first.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

Empathy is reacting for other people the way you'd react if something happened to you. You just lack well developed empathy.

by malinda19 3 weeks ago

In most of the worlds judicial systems, we pick impartial parties to give a sentence, either a judge or a jury of randomly selected people, because the world can't function on the basis of deeply personal grievances. I agree with you.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

🙄🙄

by Trantowmaryjane 3 weeks ago

Also sometimes they wouldnt. Plenty of people dont

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

There are many societies whose cultures allow or encourage different sets of rules based on familial relations. But you probably wouldn't want to live in most of them.

by lucindaschmeler 3 weeks ago

Agree, ofcourse I can be more objective when my loved ones are not involved.

by Cronafloyd 3 weeks ago

Nimbyism in a nutshell.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

Empathy is putting yourself in their shoes and understanding their pov not yourself putting yourself in their shoes with your pov

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

Get over yourself, it's a take that is supposed to make you put yourself in their shoes and be more empathetic, if someone is saying that to you, you aren't considering the hard reality they are going through

by Douglasbradly 3 weeks ago

So you prefer no one that you're blood related to come to your aid if you're ever in trouble? Because by this logic, you're not their family. So they shouldn't care about you.

by Kreigermose 3 weeks ago

You're so close to the point

by Aware_Lengthiness 3 weeks ago

You are so close to understanding empathy.

by Anonymous 3 weeks ago

So that big paragraph just to say you have no empathy? Ok

by adalbertomuller 3 weeks ago