Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
Never said it's implied. But i laid out why it's EASIER for that implication to be true than for every other moral system.
Given i get no moral, personal, inner identitarian benefit from lying about reality... it's easier for me than for almost anyone else to see reality as it is.
Which destruction of "trans rights"? and what are "trans rights"? which rights do trans people have that non-trans people don't have? and why should they have any at all to begin with?
We’ve been over this and I don’t want to retread this ground with someone who thinks that there is no right to healthcare. Rick does so there’s less of a gap there to have to bridge.
Suffice to say, removing healthcare coverage from trans people and the attempts to ban even adult trans healthcare are an attack on trans rights.
We’ve been over this and I don’t want to retread this ground with someone who thinks that there is no right to healthcare. Rick does so there’s less of a gap there to have to bridge.
Suffice to say, removing healthcare coverage from trans people and the attempts to ban even adult trans healthcare are an attack on trans rights.
There is no constitutional right to healthcare in the USA, it's incredible to claim otherwise. So it's not a right. It's absurd to say so. I really don't believe rickroll, who raged against the state paying for "trans healthcare" of inmates, would agree with you that a right to healthcare exists.
Not that trans issue have anything to do with healthcare to being with. So EVEN IF a right to healthcare existed, trans "care" wouldn't be necessarily covered by it. Same as breast implants wouldn't automatically.
I am not sure i saw any attempt to BAN ADULT TRANS CARE. If there was any, i would oppose that with force. I think you are mixing "refusing to pay a single dollar of public money or to mandate coverage by insurances" with "banning". The former isn't the latter.
I will always defend the right of people to pay THEIR OWN ****ING MONEY to have others mutilate them. That's freedom, that's not the government business to deal with. But lolololol at the idea the public would ever had to pay anything for that.
why? i don't want any ****ing centralized power to begin with. In my model of society there is no option to give "emergency powers" to whomever EXACTLY because it always end with a palpatine.There is never any emergency that justifies to run the worst possible risk for society which is centralization of power in the wrong on. In my model of society you accept whatever external
It’s a reference to the scene where Palpatine tries to influence Anakin to the dark side.
https://youtu.be/05dT34hGRdg?si=fdQsMrYw...
Again it's semantics i guess.My worldview is that , for example, local minwage increases aren't disastrous in their effects. Worldview meaning that i have seen the data correctly analyzed by smart people who i have the tools to understand aren't lying about it, and detrimental effects are small.That's a picture of reality, of how things are.My values are that localities should
that’s an empirical claim about the ontology of moral claims. the consequentialist will often claim there is a real thing we are measuring that is true regardless of our personal values, and that raising or lowering whatever value they are measuring just is what is moral.
how they motivate that isn’t the question for me, but if we consider a worldview to just be the set of epistemic claims that you affirm to be true, then clearly the epistemology of morality should fall under that, especially if the moral naturalists are correct.
so you can’t just say “I don’t value that” if they are correct, which means any time you start talking about values and think you can separate that from epistemology, I think something weird is happening.
There is no constitutional right to healthcare in the USA, it's incredible to claim otherwise. So it's not a right. It's absurd to say so. I really don't believe rickroll, who raged against the state paying for "trans healthcare" of inmates, would agree with you that a right to healthcare exists.Not that trans issue have anything to do with healthcare to being with. So EVEN IF
When people say that there is a right to healthcare, they aren't necessarily referring to a current constitutional right.
There is no constitutional right to healthcare in the USA, it's incredible to claim otherwise. So it's not a right. It's absurd to say so. I really don't believe rickroll, who raged against the state paying for "trans healthcare" of inmates, would agree with you that a right to healthcare exists.Not that trans issue have anything to do with healthcare to being with. So EVEN IF
Way to miss the point entirely to talk about a separate issue
It’s a reference to the scene where Palpatine tries to influence Anakin to the dark side.https://youtu.be/05dT34hGRdg?si=fdQsMrYw...that’s an empirical claim about the ontology of moral claims. the consequentialist will often claim there is a real thing we are measuring that is true regardless of our personal values, and that raising or lowering whatever value they are mea
Ok so we can agree that for CONSEQUENTIALISTS, their worldview will indeed affect their values. Agreed.
I was jst reasoning as i am , not a consequentialist (*i know very well freedom is a disaster for many people*) , so FOR ME , it's possible to have a worldview which is completly detached from my values.
When people say that there is a right to healthcare, they aren't necessarily referring to a current constitutional right.
Well then they just abuse words.
Something is either a constitutional right or it isn't.
If it isn't, it is at most something you "would like to" be guaranteed to people. Calling it a right is a mephistophelic attempt to construe it as a legal approach.
And abusing words like this makes it so that when *actual rights* are in jeopardy, you can't catalize the necessary effort to defend them, because you vilified the word before , like the "calling at wolf" tale.
So people who use "right" outside of the specific, unique meaning of constitutionally guaranteed right are destroying society, making it harder to defend actual rights.
Ok so we can agree that for CONSEQUENTIALISTS, their worldview will indeed affect their values. Agreed.
I was jst reasoning as i am , not a consequentialist (*i know very well freedom is a disaster for many people*) , so FOR ME , it's possible to have a worldview which is completly detached from my values.
Yeah but presumably you aren’t making judgments about the moral status of rights divorced from your knowledge claims. I mean it wouldn’t make much sense to say “I believe in freedom but I am completely unaware of its ontological status and am uninterested in it” and also say you’re not making a knowledge claims (agnosticism about the ontological status of freedom).
Well then they just abuse words.Something is either a constitutional right or it isn't.If it isn't, it is at most something you "would like to" be guaranteed to people. Calling it a right is a mephistophelic attempt to construe it as a legal approach.And abusing words like this makes it so that when *actual rights* are in jeopardy, you can't catalize the necessary effort to def
constitutional rights are not the only type of rights so your first premise while trivially true doesn’t motivate the rest of your argument.
What does this mean? i detest japanese cartoon aesthetics so i have 0 knowledge of the stuff. I though anime meant like those cartoons like kiki or whatever
Anime means Japanese animated cartoons in general. Hentai specifically means Japanese cartoon porn, whether in comic-book or animated form.
Well then they just abuse words.Something is either a constitutional right or it isn't.If it isn't, it is at most something you "would like to" be guaranteed to people. Calling it a right is a mephistophelic attempt to construe it as a legal approach.And abusing words like this makes it so that when *actual rights* are in jeopardy, you can't catalize the necessary effort to def
The concept of natural rights has existed for hundreds of years (and arguably stretches back to antiquity).
The concept of natural rights has existed for hundreds of years (and arguably stretches back to antiquity).
And the idea is liberal, modern democracies enshrined all of them in their constitutions.
And "trans rights" certainly never existed for hundreds of years and never stretched back to anquity right?
So which prominent natural right considered real for centuries by many people isn't currently enshrined by the american federal constitution, and case law over it?
you said "trans rights are getting destructed". I say wtf? which rights? you said healthcare. I answered that. Now you write "i miss the point". Wtf again?
You miss the point because you are talking about constitutional rights. We’re obviously not talking about constitutional rights so it’s a red herring. I’m not going to put a bunch of effort into an unrelated rabbit hole.
And the idea is liberal, modern democracies enshrined all of them in their constitutions.
And "trans rights" certainly never existed for hundreds of years and never stretched back to anquity right?
So which prominent natural right considered real for centuries by many people isn't currently enshrined by the american federal constitution, and case law over it?
Right to privacy.
And many state constitutions have more rights contained in them than the federal constitution, so obviously the federal constitution doesn’t encompass all rights. In fact that was a big fight at the time of the framing of the constitution.
You miss the point because you are talking about constitutional rights. We’re obviously not talking about constitutional rights so it’s a red herring. I’m not going to put a bunch of effort into an unrelated rabbit hole.
So you aren't talking about natural rights either , correct? so which rights
Right to privacy.
And many state constitutions have more rights contained in them than the federal constitution, so obviously the federal constitution doesn’t encompass all rights. In fact that was a big fight at the time of the framing of the constitution.
Might be true. Although the warrant need for searches is a pretty strong (if rough) protection for privacy. And ofc privacy doesn't mean a right of abortion, there is no penumbra.
The federal constitution doesn't encompass all possible rights you can come up with, of course it doesn't. But we were talking natural rights.
If some state constitutions decide to add positive rights (natural rights are all negatives, protection from state violence) that another big cake there, but not a natural right issue.
anyway if the idea is to amend the constitution to add a right to privacy like the swiss constitution has (or stricter), you have my vote/signature (Which is worthless as i am not an american citizen).
Also body autonomy.
But any right to privacy will allow for exceptions for law enforcement so in reality, it won't ever be an actual right. A right exists when it's a clear cut thing that the state can't do to you, no exceptions, full stop. That's a right.
Everything else is hours of billable work for lawyers, and just a sudoku for legislators to write the proper law to disregard that "right". If you allow ANY exception, the right doesn't in fact exist as a real protection. Because laws will be written referring to that exception allowing abuses of that right.
Kids have a right to be gay privately but no longer have a right to be trans privately. That’s the most explicit reduction of trans rights but there are a large amount of reduced implied rights
