4 ms·

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. What do you mean "an either or decision here"?

aspenmayer 1y ago
I think what they're saying, is that, for there to be logical consistency within the concept of states' rights, that it should be both, or neither, in the context of the original statement: > that states should be allowed to regulate AI, but should not be allowed to regulate health? To rephrase this: States should be allowed to regulate both AI and health, or neither. This is not my argument, but I do intend it to be a good faith interpretation of what I think OP had in mind. Either/or is a somewhat confusing phrasing due the way it causes sentences to become hard to follow, and because it can refer to two different concepts. I think most of the time and in this case, either/or refers to exclusive or, but it can also refer to logical disjunction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Either%2For https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Either%2For However, it's possible that they meant logical disjunction, in the sense that the GOP doesn't think that states' rights to regulate AI and health should be an either/or distinction simply in order to not be hypocritical, because the GOP sees no problem with legislation and lawfare to achieve the goals of the GOP; the GOP will use arguments that may be lacking ideological justification or consistency out of pragmatism. The ends don't justify the means in this GOP reading, but rather, the means are the ends: states' rights as a concept can be a means to a particular end legally or legislatively, and an end unto itself as a way to preserve bastion states of GOP rule and jurisprudence during periods of non-GOP federal power. So when you said "I think a lot of other people are hypocritical in the opposite direction" did you mean that Democrats focus too much on ideological justification and consistency instead of being pragmatic, or that their ideological focus on justification and consistency leads them to "play by the rules" against a pragmatic GOP opponent that isn't themselves bound by such notions?
- Thorrez 1y ago
  Wow this thread is confusing lol. >So when you said "I think a lot of other people are hypocritical in the opposite direction" did you mean that Democrats focus too much on ideological justification and consistency instead of being pragmatic, or that their ideological focus on justification and consistency leads them to "play by the rules" against a pragmatic GOP opponent that isn't themselves bound by such notions? Neither. When I said that sentence, I was replying to mixologist. I thought mixologist was saying that it's inconsistent for the GOP to promote states rights for women's regulation health but not for AI regulation. I was saying that if that's an inconsistency, then there's a similar inconsistency (but in the opposite direction) with people who promote states rights for AI regulation but not for women's health regulation, and I thought that was the position mixologist held. Maybe I misunderstood what mixologist was saying. If mixologist was saying something else, then my comment doesn't make much sense.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    > Neither. > When I said that sentence, I was replying to mixologist. I thought mixologist was saying that it's inconsistent for the GOP to promote states rights for women's regulation health but not for AI regulation. But if the GOP just wants to win and doesn’t care about hypocrisy or ideological consistency then this doesn’t matter, as I alluded to. Your point might have responded to mixologist but not to me. Thanks for clarifying your point, though.

I think what they're saying, is that, for there to be logical consistency within the concept of states' rights, that it should be both, or neither, in the context of the original statement: > that states should be allowed to regulate AI, but should not be allowed to regulate health? To rephrase this: States should be allowed to regulate both AI and health, or neither. This is not my argument, but I do intend it to be a good faith interpretation of what I think OP had in mind. Either/or is a somewhat confusing phrasing due the way it causes sentences to become hard to follow, and because it can refer to two different concepts. I think most of the time and in this case, either/or refers to exclusive or, but it can also refer to logical disjunction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Either%2For https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Either%2For However, it's possible that they meant logical disjunction, in the sense that the GOP doesn't think that states' rights to regulate AI and health should be an either/or distinction simply in order to not be hypocritical, because the GOP sees no problem with legislation and lawfare to achieve the goals of the GOP; the GOP will use arguments that may be lacking ideological justification or consistency out of pragmatism. The ends don't justify the means in this GOP reading, but rather, the means are the ends: states' rights as a concept can be a means to a particular end legally or legislatively, and an end unto itself as a way to preserve bastion states of GOP rule and jurisprudence during periods of non-GOP federal power. So when you said "I think a lot of other people are hypocritical in the opposite direction" did you mean that Democrats focus too much on ideological justification and consistency instead of being pragmatic, or that their ideological focus on justification and consistency leads them to "play by the rules" against a pragmatic GOP opponent that isn't themselves bound by such notions?

Thorrez 1y ago
Wow this thread is confusing lol. >So when you said "I think a lot of other people are hypocritical in the opposite direction" did you mean that Democrats focus too much on ideological justification and consistency instead of being pragmatic, or that their ideological focus on justification and consistency leads them to "play by the rules" against a pragmatic GOP opponent that isn't themselves bound by such notions? Neither. When I said that sentence, I was replying to mixologist. I thought mixologist was saying that it's inconsistent for the GOP to promote states rights for women's regulation health but not for AI regulation. I was saying that if that's an inconsistency, then there's a similar inconsistency (but in the opposite direction) with people who promote states rights for AI regulation but not for women's health regulation, and I thought that was the position mixologist held. Maybe I misunderstood what mixologist was saying. If mixologist was saying something else, then my comment doesn't make much sense.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  > Neither. > When I said that sentence, I was replying to mixologist. I thought mixologist was saying that it's inconsistent for the GOP to promote states rights for women's regulation health but not for AI regulation. But if the GOP just wants to win and doesn’t care about hypocrisy or ideological consistency then this doesn’t matter, as I alluded to. Your point might have responded to mixologist but not to me. Thanks for clarifying your point, though.