4 ms·

The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount remove

by daenz 5y ago

The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount removed?

dragonwriter 5y ago
> The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount removed? Obviously, yes, they are worse off after the change.
- daenz 5y ago
  Ok, we disagree on the definition of harm is all. Our different philosophies flow from our different perspectives of that definition.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Ok, we disagree on the definition of harm is all. Yeah, I just don't get the “if I stab you, but you actually deserved it, you aren't actually harmed by it.” Whether or not that's how you view harm, that's not the understanding of harm that is operative in law. Justification is a separate consideration from harm there, even if you conflate them together.
    - daenz 5y ago
      >if I stab you Puncturing someone's body with an edged weapon is clearly harm, but thanks for totally misrepresenting my position as a last minute jab to an otherwise civil conversation.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Puncturing someone's body with an edged weapon is clearly harm So, now your position is that the rule that whether or not there is justification for an act which causes someone to be worse off than previously determines whether that change constitutes harm is only applicable to certain kinds of changes which make the subject worse off, not generally? Your concept of “harm” becomes less clear the more you say about it. But it remains the case that it's not the usually definition of harm, or the one applicable to whether it is acceptable, under the Constitution, for government to act in a certain way in response to the exercises of Constitutionally-guaranteed free expression.
        daenz 5y ago
        >is only applicable to certain kinds of changes which make the subject worse off Yes. It's not a difficult concept. Children often get upset about rules that are enforced on them, and feel "worse off." Doesn't mean it's harm. Context matters. The world isn't binary. Also, it's ok to just disagree, since it's clear we disagree on the definition of harm. No need to start constructing strawmen of my position.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Children often get upset about rules that are enforced on them, and feel "worse off." Doesn't mean it's harm. Are you saying that losing the benefit of the special district doesn't actually make Disney worse off, and that they are just an immature corporate child lacking the maturity to understand the benefit Daddy DeSantis and Mommy Leg are giving them by taking away their Reedy Creek sucker? Or is this a complete non-sequitur to distract from the fact that Disney would, in fact, be worse off after the change?
        daenz 4y ago
        It's not actually harm, yes, that's what I have been saying. For the 3rd time, we disagree on the definition of harm. No, that doesn't mean I think you should be allowed to stab people.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

by daenz 5y ago

The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount removed?

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount removed? Obviously, yes, they are worse off after the change.

daenz 5y ago
Ok, we disagree on the definition of harm is all. Our different philosophies flow from our different perspectives of that definition.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Ok, we disagree on the definition of harm is all. Yeah, I just don't get the “if I stab you, but you actually deserved it, you aren't actually harmed by it.” Whether or not that's how you view harm, that's not the understanding of harm that is operative in law. Justification is a separate consideration from harm there, even if you conflate them together.
  - daenz 5y ago
    >if I stab you Puncturing someone's body with an edged weapon is clearly harm, but thanks for totally misrepresenting my position as a last minute jab to an otherwise civil conversation.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Puncturing someone's body with an edged weapon is clearly harm So, now your position is that the rule that whether or not there is justification for an act which causes someone to be worse off than previously determines whether that change constitutes harm is only applicable to certain kinds of changes which make the subject worse off, not generally? Your concept of “harm” becomes less clear the more you say about it. But it remains the case that it's not the usually definition of harm, or the one applicable to whether it is acceptable, under the Constitution, for government to act in a certain way in response to the exercises of Constitutionally-guaranteed free expression.
      - daenz 5y ago
        >is only applicable to certain kinds of changes which make the subject worse off Yes. It's not a difficult concept. Children often get upset about rules that are enforced on them, and feel "worse off." Doesn't mean it's harm. Context matters. The world isn't binary. Also, it's ok to just disagree, since it's clear we disagree on the definition of harm. No need to start constructing strawmen of my position.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Children often get upset about rules that are enforced on them, and feel "worse off." Doesn't mean it's harm. Are you saying that losing the benefit of the special district doesn't actually make Disney worse off, and that they are just an immature corporate child lacking the maturity to understand the benefit Daddy DeSantis and Mommy Leg are giving them by taking away their Reedy Creek sucker? Or is this a complete non-sequitur to distract from the fact that Disney would, in fact, be worse off after the change?
        daenz 4y ago
        It's not actually harm, yes, that's what I have been saying. For the 3rd time, we disagree on the definition of harm. No, that doesn't mean I think you should be allowed to stab people.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]