4 ms·
Those that are deemed inalienable.
by mcbutterbunz 6mo ago
Those that are deemed inalienable.
- 0x3f 6mo agoPlease enumerate these inaliable basic freedoms that I should not be able to deal in.
- ceejayoz 6mo agoThe US will not permit you to sign yourself into slavery, as an example.
- 0x3f 6mo agoOnly for a very narrow definition of slavery. Arguably constructing society such that it costs so much to just exist (for example, by artificially restricting housing supply) and thus you have to work is not all that different to slavery. I would say the dollar is but company scrip with better PR.
- ceejayoz 6mo ago> Only for a very narrow definition of slavery. Good. We have "enumerate[d] [at least one] inaliable basic [freedom] that I should not be able to deal in".
- 0x3f 6mo agoWell now you're equivocating. We've established one that you can't deal in in a specific country. _Should_ is quite a different question. You can't establish should by establishing is.
- ceejayoz 6mo agoDon't hurt your back moving those goalposts. Lift with hips.
- 0x3f 6mo agoAmerica = literally the whole world and everyone in it so QED inalienable rights exist Well I wouldn't call it a strong argument... Nonetheless the goalposts were never shifted. The question was always 'should'. So I'm very confused by your confusion.
- ceejayoz 6mo agoWhat proof, exactly, would you accept for "should"? Should is an opinion. You're welcome to feel "slavery should be legal". I'm welcome to (and should) think you're insane for holding that opinion.
- 0x3f 6mo ago> Should is an opinion. Well that would seem to make the rights in question not particularly inalienable. In fact if we're talking about the US slavery _is_ legal in certain contexts. So it's definitely not inalienable. Only in the context of voluntary agreements between private citizens.
- ceejayoz 6mo ago> Well that would seem to make the rights in question not particularly inalienable. You should read up on what "inalienable rights" are about. Even the first couple of paragraphs on Wikipedia will suffice. They get violated all the time and need constant protecting.
- 0x3f 6mo agoYou're taking a strangely ethnocentric view here. I don't take the founding fathers' writings as a form of scripture. Those are but bare assertions.
- ceejayoz 6mo agoYou're taking a strangely US-centric view here. This has nothing to do with the founding fathers. The Ancient Greeks talked about natural law. The UN passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 193 countries have ratified at least parts of it. Again, I beg you to at least read a paragraph or two off Wikipedia.
- mcbutterbunz 6mo agoIf you'd like to research basic freedoms, I would suggest starting here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights
- 0x3f 6mo agoIt's very boring for you not to actually commit to anything specific, so that you don't have to defend it.
- mcbutterbunz 6mo agoThere's a basic list on that page. There are many LLMs out there that you can discuss this with if you want to waste your own time. I'm not going to waste any more time with this thread. You have an attitude that says "Debate me but you'll never convince me". If you'd like to learn something, there are many resources on the internet available to you.
- malfist 6mo agoI'm glad we're all here under the goal of making non-boring statements for 0x3f
- 0x3f 6mo agoWe're all essentially here under the goal of making non-boring statements for each other, yes. That is the general purpose of an online forum.
- SauntSolaire 6mo agoFreedom of speech is far from inalienable. Non-disclosure agreements are most relevant, but every country on earth also has at least some regulations regarding hate speech, threats, incitement, purjury, or defamation — not to mention security clearances or state secrets.
- mcbutterbunz 6mo agoAnd that's where the complexity arises in this argument that I don't know how to resolve. In the case of this woman vs Meta, to me it doesn't "feel" legal that one disparaging comment costs $50K. It feels that there's something wrong here that should not be allowed despite her entering the agreement. Maybe I don't believe she should have been allowed to enter the agreement. But I understand that my point of view doesn't match legal code. Just feels fucked.
- SauntSolaire 6mo agoTo be clear, I do agree with everything you've said here — I just disagree that freedom of speech is an inalienable right, and I don't think there's ever been a time or place where it has actually been considered one. If it were up to me, I would require non-disparagement agreements to be standalone contracts, and cap the damages a company can claim to the amount they paid you to sign it. Once that number is met, the contract is void. That way the company only gets as much leverage as they're willing to pay for.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- AndrewKemendo 6mo agoThe majority of people will self-alienate themselves in exchange for power or even just survival Think of a person digging their own grave under threat of immediate murder (tons of well documented examples). This is the maximum self alienation: do work to make life easier for your oppressors. In my 41 years it seems like the majority of people are content digging their own graves