Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
18hr ago
What are the personal problems that no-fault divorce is a political solution to? In the absence of such laws it is the state compelling you to stay in a relationship you'd rather end. Is thinking a legal arrangement is unjust a "personal" problem? Same for rape shield laws, which concern the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2d ago
Apologies, but this is a personal interest of mine. "Filibuster" commonly refers to two different rules of the Senate, with different implications.
The "talking filibuster" comes from Senate Rule XIX 1(a):
When a Senator desires to speak, he shall rise and address the Presiding Officer, and shall not proceed until he is recognized, and the Presiding Officer shall recognize the Senator who shall first address him. No Senator shall interrupt another Senator in debate without his consent, and to obtain such consent he shall first address the Presiding Officer, and no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.
Importantly, a talking filibuster can delay the business of the Senate no matter how large the majority of Senators that want to proceed.
The "filibuster" that blocks most legislation is not the threat of a "talking filibuster" but rather Senate Rule XXII. I am not going to quote the whole thing here (it's very long) but the short version is that to force the Senate to move to actually voting on passing a piece of legislation you need 3/5ths of Senators to agree to a motion to do so. Implementing a filibuster under this rule just means having two members present on the floor of the Senate and, like, move to adjourn over and over again. That motion would be privileged over any motion to vote on a bill and the only way to stop it being made would be it invoke cloture, which requires the 3/5ths vote threshold.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
22d ago
Maybe it is but morality does not require "never do a treason." The founding of America was substantially treason against the British crown and they were right to do that.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
23d ago
All things that are unethical share the trait of being unethical, as I have been consistent about. That does not entail that they share particular factual similarities, such as involving slavery. That was a leap you made.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
23d ago
What do you think moral legitimacy consists of? How would it be different from what I said?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
23d ago
Equating "I don't like X" and "X is unethical" seems like a skill issue on your part. There are plenty of things I don't like that are not unethical for people to do.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
23d ago
They are out of accordance with ethical principles, of course. Do you think returning fugitive slaves was the right thing to do?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
23d ago
They are both agents of the state, in the instant case. There are no shortage of other immoral groups it's morally obligatory to resist as well, of course.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
23d ago
They are both doing things that are immoral. I thought I was pretty clear?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
23d ago
They are comparable in that the state's actions are equivalent in their lack of moral legitimacy. I thought I was pretty clear about that.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
23d ago
I do not think all actions of the state which lack moral legitimacy are factually equivalent. Hope this clarifies things!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
23d ago
It was morally abhorrent to enslave people and to return them into slavery. Legitimacy does not consist in "whatever the state says is legitimate."
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
23d ago
Is it the peace that is the absence of tension or the peace that is the presence of justice?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
23d ago
Good. ICE officers have, in my mind, about as much legitimacy as federal officials enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act and it is every red-blooded Americans moral duty to resist them.
It was not. I encourage you to watch the video. At the point Field's car goes down the street passed the camera man he could simply have stopped, put it in reverse, and backed away from the crowd. You can tell this is possible because it's exactly what he does seconds later, after he has driven into the crowd.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
24d ago
You can watch the video on Wikipedia for yourself. He was driving into the crowd at speed well before he was surrounded. Also you're, uhh, not allowed to kill people who happen to be part of a crowd because different people who are part of the same crowd surrounded your car. It is in fact extremely key to Rittenhouse's case that the people he shot were people attacking him.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
28d ago
Relaying these remarks to mutual friends is probably wrong, depending on the nature of the remarks. You almost certainly can't accurately relay their beliefs in a way that the friend will feel properly heard. You will be making assumptions. Communication is terribly difficult to do well, especially when it's things we feel strongly about. It would be arrogant and irresponsible to think you could do this well enough to excuse it as not being idle gossip.
I don't see why any of these considerations are relevant. I am obliged to self-censor, to not relay a true thing that happened to me, out of an obligation to third parties? What if some of our mutual friends noticed and inquired why I was no longer friendly with A? Am I obliged to lie to them about why?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
28d ago
Ok, what are the things "mass society" is obliged to not do in response to a member's speech? How do the obligations on "mass society" differ from the obligations on any particular individual?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
29d ago
We should tabboo both "freedom of speech" and your proposed "Open Ideas." The contention in these debates is that we have an obligation to forebear from certain courses of action in response to certain speech acts by others. Almost all the discussion of interest is in: what actions? What speech acts? The First Amendment concerns certain actions and certain speech acts but once we go beyond it things rapidly become murky.
Imagine I have a friend A and one day A shared with me some opinion I consider repugnant. So much so it makes me rethink my friendship with A. I act cooler and more aloof in our interactions. I don't invite A to social events as I once would. Did I breach an obligation to A by these actions? Was I obliged to continue being A's friend? Does it depend on the details of what they said?
Go a step further. I accurately relay A's remark to other individuals who are mutual friends. They decide to end their friendship with A, similarly to me. Did our mutual friends have an obligation to remain friends with A? Did I have an obligation not to relate true information to my friends?
To the extent we may accurately portray A as being our feeling censored, that someone has breached a moral obligation, who did so and how did they do it?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
Maybe (probably?) I'm the weird one but it seems perfectly reasonable to kill oneself in this kind of situation. The alternative is most likely, minimally, a very long prison sentence. If not for the rest of one's life. Assuming the state itself doesn't decide to kill you (potentially after many such years in prison). It is not hard for me to imagine a quick death by suicide as preferable to a very slow death in prison.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
It's because federal agents are not very creative.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
Well UnopenedEnvilope specified it was the "Biden administration" that did it so I'd appreciate some clarification on what that refers to, given the "Biden administration", as the term is colloquially understood, didn't exist for another 3 months.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
(1) the Biden administration motivating multiple social media companies — ostensibly competitors — into all suspending the New York Post’s accounts on their platforms within short order of one another, in response to the Post publishing the Hunter Biden laptop story
Who was president when the NYP broke the Hunter Biden laptop story? Who was president when the accounts in question were suspended?
Maybe I'm confused. In your comment you referred to no-fault divorce as a political solution to a personal problem. My contention is that it is a political solution to a political problem. The circumstances under which one can exit marriage, and the details of marriage as a matter of law, being themselves political creations. Similarly rape shield laws. The rules of evidence for courts being political creations.
More options
Context Copy link