Can you be correct without being right? Can you be right

>>2354883
Typical leftist newspeak.

You are correct in saying gas chambers are an economical means of killing 6 million jews but that doesn't mean it is right to go through with the plan.

Which country was it again that ruled that truth is not an argument and you can basically be prosecuted for telling the truth? I can't remember if it was Canada or Sweden.

Sounds like a guide for people on the autistic spectrum about how to communicate.

>>2354899
This is idiotic because you're confusing the truthfulness of the statement with the morality of the action. Basically not even apples and oranges but apples and computer chips.

>>2354883
Boy A is worse at math then boy B Considerably so. That is correct but it isn't right that you give up on teaching him and divert all resources to boy b.

>>2354883
You can rationalise almost anything, you pick rational choices according to your feelings. So you can be rationally correct, but you can be wrong because it makes you feel like shit.

>>2354913
Correct and right can be applied to either actions or statements though.

>>2354883
Yes. What his saying is truncation.

Just because you are correct (making a proposition that is rational) it doesn't mean you are right (morrally, ethically, or pragmatically supposing the correct course of action).

File: 1442795012709.png (133KB, 599x340px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 599x340px

>>2354888

Are you people seriously debating a badly translated quote taken completely out of context? None of you have absolutely no clue to what this refers.

>>2354883
>Her anus is defenseless. It contracts every time I move, looking like a second reproductive opening

What philosophy was nasu describing here?

>>2355142
>didn't pick one of the lines that includes aquatic life or molusks
Man, what a prude.

>>2354883
It means that for libshits the truth is secondary or of no importance if it hurst their feelings.