Conversation
Notices
-
@vriska Note, I'm not against universal healthcare, just that I don't think it can be called "freedom", not if that word is to have any consistent meaning at all. I do believe it's a reasonable concession to make despite it being against freedom.
-
@guizzy @vriska @georgia @welt @Moon doesn't the whole "freedom" thing include an "up to the point where you are hurting other people"? or is "not bothering to pull the trolley lever even when the other route has no bodies" included?"i'm free from having to care for your sickness" -> person's caregivers/loved people are stressed to early death, people die in pandemic, etc"i'm free from having to care for your mental illness" -> person's caregivers/loved people are stressed to early death, people are killed in a murder-suicide, etc
-
@Moon @georgia @vriska @welt I think slavery is a strong word, but calling positive rights/freedoms "rights" or "freedoms" is a bad faith rhetorical trick to avoid having to convince the population to support it for its inherent value. Instead of justifying why universal healthcare is worth collectively investing in, you can just go "it's a right!" to try and shut down the debate.
-
@georgia @welt @guizzy @vriska do people have to be forced to do stuff so you can exercise that freedom? then it's probably a more complicated social arrangement than freedom. alternatively it is a very simple social arrangement called slavery
-
@welt @Moon @guizzy @vriska freedom of, freedom from, it's semanticsi think everyone can agree that it fucking sucks that people die cause they're poor (often born into penury/abused/neglected/mentally ill) and yknow if if they don't die they don't deserve to suffer so
-
@Moon @guizzy @vriska it can be a positive right. Freedom is such a useless and poorly defined word that it's basically useless. Freedom can mean freedom from taxes, but also mean freedom from dying because you're too poor.
-
@guizzy @vriska universal health care is "a good idea" and probably "cheaper in the long run" but not "a right"
-
@Moon @vriska @georgia @welt @guizzy pointing out is that that kind of thinking, trying to draw things into "positive" and "negative" freedoms, is incoherent. when living within a social web every action or inaction has consequences for other people. choosing to buy product A over product B is a boon to slave labour in far-away-country etc, and even sitting down and starving to death is an inconvenience to someone who has to clean up after you. there's no distinction to be made
-
@shmibs @guizzy @georgia @vriska @welt I think until relatively recently in american thought you did not have an obligation to pull the lever. In some countries in Europe you're obligated to pull the lever.
-
@guizzy @vriska @georgia @welt @Moon an "inaction" is an action. the one who did it is everyone who saw the problem and actively chose not to fix itor else you could frame everything that way. "i didn't choose to hit you with the car! i chose not to turn away! i didn't choose to shoot you with an arrow! i chose not to keep holding the string!"am not saying that therefore "all people should do all the things all the time or else they're evil", just that figuring out where the lines should be is more complicated and comes down to personal or collective decisions, because there's no obvious distinction here to rely on
-
@shmibs @Moon @georgia @vriska @welt >person's caregivers/loved people are stressed to early death, people die in pandemic, etcBut who did this? Not relieving suffering does not equal causing suffering.I have to stress again I'm not against collectively investing in relieving suffering, I think it's a good portion of what we make governments for, but just that it can't be framed as a right or freedom. Not if those concepts are to have an internally consistent logic.
-
@Moon @vriska @georgia @welt @guizzy mmm, i know what you mean. that extreme doesn't follow either because helping others can hurt yourself etcjust when you have two extreme-view-havers fighting and they give the same justifications for their positions (mine is morally good and yours hurts people) then probably they're both wrong ????
-
@shmibs @guizzy @georgia @vriska @welt I don't actually disagree with you btw just that people fall really easily for a weaponized version of this argument.
-
@guizzy @vriska @georgia @welt @Moon that's assuming again that there's a distinction between "action" and "inaction"
-
@shmibs @Moon @georgia @vriska @welt These cases involve a large amount of energy being put in motion or held in potential, which is an example of those cases where natural freedoms were curtailed, by placing a burden of responsability on those engaging with them (once you start your car, you have a duty to drive safelu, once you nock an arrow, you have a duty that the arrow doesn't hit anyone). The law in most western jurisdictions do mark that there is an important distinction between this and purposeful action, preferring terms like "gross negligeance" or "manslaughter" in those cases.To say that one is causing harm to someone else by inaction, you have to show that this person has taken a prior action that gave them a burden of responsability to those others. Like nocking an arrow, starting a car engine or tying someone to train tracks.
an actual bear in a hazmat suit
バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
Infected Moomin
georgia
????️
All senooken JP Social content and data are available under the