6 ms·

It is contradictory and any mental gymnastics to prove otherwise are just moot. You are either against the government/politicians/bureaucrats/democratic majorit

by bilvar 4y ago

It is contradictory and any mental gymnastics to prove otherwise are just moot. You are either against the government/politicians/bureaucrats/democratic majority dictating what you can do with your body and your private healthcare data or you are not. Everything else is just trying to convince (yourself mostly) that using authoritarian power to dictate to society what YOU like or YOUR ideological preferences is ok because "You are advocating for good things".

corrral 4y ago
> It is contradictory It's not. You're comparing apples and oranges and declaring that you've spotted a "gotcha" that doesn't exist. > any mental gymnastics to prove otherwise are just moot. Glad to see you're open to considering that you might simply be wrong.
- bilvar 4y ago
  Nope, same thing. Both sides want to use government to impose rules on other people's bodies and both are afraid the government will have a free lunch on harvesting data and target individuals through them. If you think one is justified and the other is not is the differentiating factor, its your own ideological/religious bias talking.
  - corrral 4y ago
    I think given your (evident—correct me if I'm wrong) view on how political positions must be supported in order not to be invalidated by contradiction, you're going to find a lot of "contradictions" everywhere, and little agreement that you're helping anything with those discoveries. We're at the inevitable stage of this extended HN discussion of politics where I recommend a thorough reading of book I of Plato's Republic. In particular the attempt to nail down a definition of justice. TL;DR simple, set principles tend to run into trouble when confronted with circumstances and outcomes. You have to take those into account rather than blindly following moral guidelines, or you'll have a bad time. "Government surveillance is bad"—OK, what about criminal investigations? National security? Both ripe for abuse but—can we actually just ditch those tools on principle and be OK? Probably not, so... they're good when they're good, and bad when they're bad, and we can't make a sweeping pronouncement that covers all those cases. No contradiction, just messy reality. "Killing people must be illegal"—but self defense and war? "OK smartass, murder should be illegal" well sure if you use a word that means "bad killing" of course it's going to encompass the kinds of killing you think are bad—you've conceded the point! "Government dictating what you can do with your body is bad"—the draft? Polio vaccination requirements for school kids? I'm for those while being against, say, forced sterilization. Somewhere in between is the point at which I can start to apply the principle that "government dictating what you do with your body is bad" Strictly principle-based approaches to policy do not hold up. There's always a "but..." and never admitting nuance, exceptions, et c., does not work. Setting principles aside when the in-actual-fact cost/benefit ratio gets sufficiently wonky isn't (necessarily!) hypocrisy. This is frustrating if you want ethics and political philosophy to look like math, but that's simply not how things are. It's frustrating if you take the statement "my body, my choice" to be 100% iron-clad absolute intended by the speaker to apply to every circumstance forever—but it's not, because, again, this ain't math, it's human communication, and you must not take it that way unless you're trying to misunderstand someone. Any coherent and satisfying-in-practice approach to policy is going to have a lot of judgement calls going on. If we lay out the circumstances, scope, and cost/benefit of these policies, it's plain you're not even close to comparing like to like. The source of contradiction is entirely your own atypical and unworkable approach, not the stances of your opponents.
    - bilvar 4y ago
      No wonder you mention Plato, as he employs the exact same tortured logic to justify how his brand of authoritarianism is good, as the authoritarians of his choice will enact “good things”. In all the examples, you’re drawing the line on the things “you like” when determining if authoritarian policy is good or bad, which indeed makes you a hypocrite.

by bilvar 4y ago

corrral 4y ago

> It is contradictory It's not. You're comparing apples and oranges and declaring that you've spotted a "gotcha" that doesn't exist. > any mental gymnastics to prove otherwise are just moot. Glad to see you're open to considering that you might simply be wrong.

bilvar 4y ago
Nope, same thing. Both sides want to use government to impose rules on other people's bodies and both are afraid the government will have a free lunch on harvesting data and target individuals through them. If you think one is justified and the other is not is the differentiating factor, its your own ideological/religious bias talking.
- corrral 4y ago
  I think given your (evident—correct me if I'm wrong) view on how political positions must be supported in order not to be invalidated by contradiction, you're going to find a lot of "contradictions" everywhere, and little agreement that you're helping anything with those discoveries. We're at the inevitable stage of this extended HN discussion of politics where I recommend a thorough reading of book I of Plato's Republic. In particular the attempt to nail down a definition of justice. TL;DR simple, set principles tend to run into trouble when confronted with circumstances and outcomes. You have to take those into account rather than blindly following moral guidelines, or you'll have a bad time. "Government surveillance is bad"—OK, what about criminal investigations? National security? Both ripe for abuse but—can we actually just ditch those tools on principle and be OK? Probably not, so... they're good when they're good, and bad when they're bad, and we can't make a sweeping pronouncement that covers all those cases. No contradiction, just messy reality. "Killing people must be illegal"—but self defense and war? "OK smartass, murder should be illegal" well sure if you use a word that means "bad killing" of course it's going to encompass the kinds of killing you think are bad—you've conceded the point! "Government dictating what you can do with your body is bad"—the draft? Polio vaccination requirements for school kids? I'm for those while being against, say, forced sterilization. Somewhere in between is the point at which I can start to apply the principle that "government dictating what you do with your body is bad" Strictly principle-based approaches to policy do not hold up. There's always a "but..." and never admitting nuance, exceptions, et c., does not work. Setting principles aside when the in-actual-fact cost/benefit ratio gets sufficiently wonky isn't (necessarily!) hypocrisy. This is frustrating if you want ethics and political philosophy to look like math, but that's simply not how things are. It's frustrating if you take the statement "my body, my choice" to be 100% iron-clad absolute intended by the speaker to apply to every circumstance forever—but it's not, because, again, this ain't math, it's human communication, and you must not take it that way unless you're trying to misunderstand someone. Any coherent and satisfying-in-practice approach to policy is going to have a lot of judgement calls going on. If we lay out the circumstances, scope, and cost/benefit of these policies, it's plain you're not even close to comparing like to like. The source of contradiction is entirely your own atypical and unworkable approach, not the stances of your opponents.
  - bilvar 4y ago
    No wonder you mention Plato, as he employs the exact same tortured logic to justify how his brand of authoritarianism is good, as the authoritarians of his choice will enact “good things”. In all the examples, you’re drawing the line on the things “you like” when determining if authoritarian policy is good or bad, which indeed makes you a hypocrite.