56
If there were only three laws, which should they be?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
56 points (93.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43685 readers
2239 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Do to others as you would have done to you
Do to others as they would do to others
Nothing should be forbidden if it harms no one
1st and 2nd contradict.
Say, 2nd, if someone harms others, then I should harm him/her, right?
But then, 1st, I wouldn't wanna harm myself, so...
LIMBO
treat someone the way you would want to be treated; if that person is a rabid idiot that spews things like "death penalty now" , then make an exception since they don't deserve good treatement; they deserve what they would do to other people, it's ok to make an exception for these people.
I think harm needs to be clearly defined.