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
2mo 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
2mo 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
2mo 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
2mo 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
2mo 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
2mo 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
2mo 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
2mo 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
2mo 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
3mo 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
3mo ago
It's because federal agents are not very creative.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo 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
3mo 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?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
I do not disagree with the idea people can be different degrees of bad.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
What is the alternative? If one is not a moral relativist this position is something of a necessity.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
Kirk recognized the political expediencies necessary to have the reach he does. No one doubted he was a savvy operator.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
Sure. People in the past often had pretty values, I think. I reserve judgement about whether any of their deaths was "sad" but I think lionizing them as moral paragons would be bad.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
Do you think anyone unwilling to say that God made a mistake in the Book of Leviticus is a bad person, undeserving of sympathy if they are murdered?
Yea. I think if you believe it is a moral imperative to stone gay people to death you are a bad person.
And as I asked above, do you think such Jews and Christians therefore and necessarily want to go out and stone homosexuals?
I am sure there are practical reasons (they will go to jail) they don't want to.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
I do not expect everyone to agree with me from the jump, as this thread illustrates. It is a progressive argument. Once we agree there are some cases where it's appropriate we can haggle over the line.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
What do you mean by "observant"? I suspect lots of people who conceive of themselves as observant pick and choose what part of their holy book they endorse. Does that make them not "observant"? In Kirk's case specifically, he is the one who brought up not believing in stoning gay people as an example of hypocrisy.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
Can you point me to where I justify him being shot? I think Kirk was a shitty person who doesn't deserve to be posthumously lionized and I have made no secret of that. That doesn't mean he deserved to be murdered!
They are both doing things that are immoral. I thought I was pretty clear?
More options
Context Copy link