3 ms·

> it's hard to sympathize with someone like Altman The thing about rights is you believe in them universally or you don’t believe in them at all. If we have a

> it's hard to sympathize with someone like Altman The thing about rights is you believe in them universally or you don’t believe in them at all. If we have a right to life, sympathy isn’t relevant. Awful people can be awful, but if we start compromising their rights then we deface all of our freedoms and security.

abcde666777 7mo ago
I consider rights a functional abstraction. That is to say, they're useful, we should abide them as a tenet of a civilized society, but we also made them up. And importantly we all recognize that they're conditional - if you cross certain lines of conduct you lose them - and there's actually a lot of debate to be had about where those lines are. So I disagree with your axiom that you have to believe in them 100% or 0%.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > all recognize that they're conditional - if you cross certain lines of conduct you lose them - and there's actually a lot of debate to be had about where those lines are One hundred percent of those debates end at process, not unilateral action. If it can be unilaterally nullified, it is no longer a right. > you have to believe in them 100% or 0% Not degree but range. We don’t have a right to infinite life or medicine. But everyone has to have the same level of right for it to be a right. Otherwise I can disagree with your right to a right and nullify it on my own terms.
  - abcde666777 7mo ago
    Just to clarify, here's my actual position - it was only implied in the first comment so I'll spell it out: 1. We shouldn't kill or harass or destroy the property of someone like Altman. AKA, I'm not in disagreement with your take on abiding by the laws of the land. 2. But it's not surprising that such things happen to individuals like him, for reasons outlined. Put it this way - if I was in his position, I would be very wary of my public image, and I'd be very wary of my intentions - am I acting for the greater good, or only for my own good? Of course it's possible he's actually acting with the best of intentions and is just terrible at presenting himself, which is one of the reasons I'd agree with due process and respecting his rights.
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > it's not surprising that such things happen to individuals like him It’s understandable. But that also justifies a crackdown against it. I want to see AI regulation. Dumbfucks shooting a housekeeper in Sam Altman’s house is only going to stall that.
happytoexplain 7mo ago
>you believe in them universally or you don’t believe in them at all I know what you mean, of course, but it's just not true in honesty - when pressed, there are no binaries in morality, as romantic and proud as the idea is. "Violence is never the answer" is both true and also irrelevant once a person is asked to consider the existence of his very way of life, his values, his livelihood, his culture, his home, or other resources historically at the center of revolutions.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > “Violence is never the answer" is both true and also irrelevant That statement is factually false. Sometimes violence is the answer. But we’re a social species. One-off violence is pretty much never the answer unless you need a short-term solution to e.g. entrapment. I didn’t say rights are absolute. Just universal. The process for abrogating them must be just that—a process you’d wish to be visited upon you. Unilateral action destroys the idea of a right.

abcde666777 7mo ago

I consider rights a functional abstraction. That is to say, they're useful, we should abide them as a tenet of a civilized society, but we also made them up. And importantly we all recognize that they're conditional - if you cross certain lines of conduct you lose them - and there's actually a lot of debate to be had about where those lines are. So I disagree with your axiom that you have to believe in them 100% or 0%.

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> all recognize that they're conditional - if you cross certain lines of conduct you lose them - and there's actually a lot of debate to be had about where those lines are One hundred percent of those debates end at process, not unilateral action. If it can be unilaterally nullified, it is no longer a right. > you have to believe in them 100% or 0% Not degree but range. We don’t have a right to infinite life or medicine. But everyone has to have the same level of right for it to be a right. Otherwise I can disagree with your right to a right and nullify it on my own terms.
- abcde666777 7mo ago
  Just to clarify, here's my actual position - it was only implied in the first comment so I'll spell it out: 1. We shouldn't kill or harass or destroy the property of someone like Altman. AKA, I'm not in disagreement with your take on abiding by the laws of the land. 2. But it's not surprising that such things happen to individuals like him, for reasons outlined. Put it this way - if I was in his position, I would be very wary of my public image, and I'd be very wary of my intentions - am I acting for the greater good, or only for my own good? Of course it's possible he's actually acting with the best of intentions and is just terrible at presenting himself, which is one of the reasons I'd agree with due process and respecting his rights.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > it's not surprising that such things happen to individuals like him It’s understandable. But that also justifies a crackdown against it. I want to see AI regulation. Dumbfucks shooting a housekeeper in Sam Altman’s house is only going to stall that.

happytoexplain 7mo ago

>you believe in them universally or you don’t believe in them at all I know what you mean, of course, but it's just not true in honesty - when pressed, there are no binaries in morality, as romantic and proud as the idea is. "Violence is never the answer" is both true and also irrelevant once a person is asked to consider the existence of his very way of life, his values, his livelihood, his culture, his home, or other resources historically at the center of revolutions.

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> “Violence is never the answer" is both true and also irrelevant That statement is factually false. Sometimes violence is the answer. But we’re a social species. One-off violence is pretty much never the answer unless you need a short-term solution to e.g. entrapment. I didn’t say rights are absolute. Just universal. The process for abrogating them must be just that—a process you’d wish to be visited upon you. Unilateral action destroys the idea of a right.