4 ms·

If somebody things he knows better, he shouldn't be allowed to push his views on others from his position of power. All public policies should be subject to pub

If somebody things he knows better, he shouldn't be allowed to push his views on others from his position of power. All public policies should be subject to public scrutiny. Nobody has any right to dictate other people's lives. For his view to be even considered, he should be required to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that whatever he is against is actually harmful. And after that, only after that, should the voting whether this finding should influence public policy begin. People should be allowed to harm themselves when they are informed about the consequences. Similarly, society should be allowed to harm itself because not everything has to be a race to the bottom of productivity and strength. Do abortions lower the birth rate and are more populous societies stronger? Even _if_ the answers are yes to both, I don't see why any society should optimize this metric to the extreme. And theological arguments quickly fall apart in the first step of proving harm.

kelseyfrog 1y ago
> Nobody has any right to dictate other people's lives. The pragmatics of activism prove contrary to this ideal. The reality is that this is a failed argument and it will continue to fail regardless of how often it's repeated. I hate to say it, but the only way to counter is to win at the activism game rather than complain about the rules.
- martin-t 1y ago
  Nothing failed. People always did things they had no right to, as long as they were allowed to do them.
Saline9515 1y ago
Your propositions are contradictory. If "society" decides to harm itself, and I'm part of it, I'll have to suffer from the choices taken by others.
- martin-t 1y ago
  Are you, personally, harmed by someone having an abortion? Are you, personally, harmed by someone watching porn? Maybe it makes society as a whole weaker compared to other societies but that doesn't mean your society actually loses anything. Countries have nuclear weapons and multi-national defense pacts now. Just because China has several times the population of the US and could win a conventional war, doesn't mean it's gonna invade. We don't live in tribes of a few hundred people who are constantly on the brink of starvation and/or genocide anymore. But many people are still governed by instincts from that environment.
  - Saline9515 1y ago
    The issues you are talking about are not "society-wide" issues requiring compliance of others. A better example would be to consider that pre-op transgender people, namely MtF, can share the same spaces that were reserved to biological women. For instance in sport. If I'm a woman and now I have to compete with a biological man in MMA because society chose that it's the new normal, yes, I'm going to suffer from it. If society decides that it's fair to feed Tiktok to toddlers who end up having their neurons fried, I'm going to suffer from it as well when they grew up as they won't be able to do their job well. If society decides that it's fair to allow CSAM everywhere, I guess that a few children are going to suffer as it becomes mainstream. We don't live in a vacuum.
    - martin-t 1y ago
      I agree with the trans example because 1) it's a great example of one individual being allowed to do something that directly harms another individual; 2) it's fairly easy to prove that someone who grew up with male bone and muscle structure does not suddenly get the female structure because of a reassignment surgery or hormones. I am all for letting people do what they want with their bodies but their freedom stops at interacting with other people's bodies. I cannot agree with the toddlers example: 1) it's possible it does some damage but as I said, to even consider it, we need proof; 2) even if they are bad at life, it doesn't automatically harm another individual - don't hire incompetents and they won't harm your business. They might harm society in general but society does not IMO have any right to force people to optimize for society's goals. The balance might change if this was true and happened on such a scale that society measurably declined but then I am still of the opinion that we should have mechanisms how a group of people should be able to get together separate themselves from others. We have no right to force the Amish to start using modern tech, even if a few more able bodies would probably be beneficial on some scale. Similarly, if the majority feed TikTok to their toddlers and a minority does not, they should be able and allowed to form their own society with its own rules, as long as everyone participates willingly.

kelseyfrog 1y ago

> Nobody has any right to dictate other people's lives. The pragmatics of activism prove contrary to this ideal. The reality is that this is a failed argument and it will continue to fail regardless of how often it's repeated. I hate to say it, but the only way to counter is to win at the activism game rather than complain about the rules.

martin-t 1y ago
Nothing failed. People always did things they had no right to, as long as they were allowed to do them.

Saline9515 1y ago

Your propositions are contradictory. If "society" decides to harm itself, and I'm part of it, I'll have to suffer from the choices taken by others.

martin-t 1y ago
Are you, personally, harmed by someone having an abortion? Are you, personally, harmed by someone watching porn? Maybe it makes society as a whole weaker compared to other societies but that doesn't mean your society actually loses anything. Countries have nuclear weapons and multi-national defense pacts now. Just because China has several times the population of the US and could win a conventional war, doesn't mean it's gonna invade. We don't live in tribes of a few hundred people who are constantly on the brink of starvation and/or genocide anymore. But many people are still governed by instincts from that environment.
- Saline9515 1y ago
  The issues you are talking about are not "society-wide" issues requiring compliance of others. A better example would be to consider that pre-op transgender people, namely MtF, can share the same spaces that were reserved to biological women. For instance in sport. If I'm a woman and now I have to compete with a biological man in MMA because society chose that it's the new normal, yes, I'm going to suffer from it. If society decides that it's fair to feed Tiktok to toddlers who end up having their neurons fried, I'm going to suffer from it as well when they grew up as they won't be able to do their job well. If society decides that it's fair to allow CSAM everywhere, I guess that a few children are going to suffer as it becomes mainstream. We don't live in a vacuum.
  - martin-t 1y ago
    I agree with the trans example because 1) it's a great example of one individual being allowed to do something that directly harms another individual; 2) it's fairly easy to prove that someone who grew up with male bone and muscle structure does not suddenly get the female structure because of a reassignment surgery or hormones. I am all for letting people do what they want with their bodies but their freedom stops at interacting with other people's bodies. I cannot agree with the toddlers example: 1) it's possible it does some damage but as I said, to even consider it, we need proof; 2) even if they are bad at life, it doesn't automatically harm another individual - don't hire incompetents and they won't harm your business. They might harm society in general but society does not IMO have any right to force people to optimize for society's goals. The balance might change if this was true and happened on such a scale that society measurably declined but then I am still of the opinion that we should have mechanisms how a group of people should be able to get together separate themselves from others. We have no right to force the Amish to start using modern tech, even if a few more able bodies would probably be beneficial on some scale. Similarly, if the majority feed TikTok to their toddlers and a minority does not, they should be able and allowed to form their own society with its own rules, as long as everyone participates willingly.