4 ms·

(amazing username.) You assume that a lady getting an abortion is not committing murder--these folks clearly think she is. (We don't need to argue about wheth

(amazing username.) You assume that a lady getting an abortion is not committing murder--these folks clearly think she is. (We don't need to argue about whether it is in fact murder, or whether if it is that the murder is justified or not--just understand that there are people that believe differently, and apparently they're willing to expend police resources on it.)

JoshTriplett 3mo ago
> We don't need to argue about whether it is in fact murder That's exactly the problem: we do. Not here, specifically, but if someone's false beliefs have grown to the point that they are hurting others over them, they need to be stopped.
- Joker_vD 3mo ago
  Do you not realize that this argument applies equally well both against pro-choice and against pro-lifers? It does, therefore it is entirely invalid and irrelevant. Yes, those people with "false beliefs". Ah, if only we could force everyone to have true beliefs. And it's not against freedom of thought and consciousness, oh no! We're only against actually false beliefs. That, you know, have been proven wrong. Or at least for which the proofs of incorrectness exist that we believe are correct. But since our beliefs true, this is fine.
  - lern_too_spel 3mo ago
    He said nothing about forcing. Suppose the false belief he was talking about was Creationism. Does his comment read as authoritarian?
    - Joker_vD 3mo ago
      Yes, it does.
      - JoshTriplett 3mo ago
        It's fascinating that you are attempting to portray a comment as authoritarian that is arguing people should not enforce their false beliefs on others and should not restrict their bodily autonomy. It's literally an argument against being authoritarian.
        bit-anarchist 3mo ago
        What I understood their point to be is that the only reason they are "false beliefs" is your own biases. If they aren't actual "false beliefs", then the restrictions on bodily autonomy are as justified as when dealing with killings, and your argument degenerates into pro-authoritarism.
        lern_too_spel 3mo ago
        Some things are categorically false, and those conclusions can be reached rationally. That seemed to be his only point, and he did not say anything about preventing anyone (like Carroll's Queen of Hearts) from believing six impossible things before breakfast. That would be authoritarian. In a democracy like ours, stopping the Queen and others from enacting restrictive and harmful policy based on impossibilities only requires convincing arguments. People are still perfectly free to believe in Creationism, but convincing arguments have removed it from curricula.
        Joker_vD 3mo ago
        > stopping the Queen and others from enacting restrictive and harmful policy Like regulating the production, sales, and use of opiates. Or tightly restricting the abortions. Or forcing people to wear seatbelts while driving (and two years ago on this very HN I've seen lots of people complaining about state-mandated vehicular safety, so no, the seatbelts are not an uncontroversial topic). There are many other examples of the authoritarian nanny states unduly restricting bodily autonomy of people. Crucially, most of those policies aren't really based on truth or falsity of anything but simply on a value call. Forcing people to wear seatbelts may or may not actually reduce vehicular injuries (in fact, some research indicates that wearing seatbelts makes one more prone to reckless driving) — they're mandated anyhow, simply because some people believe it's the right thing to do.

JoshTriplett 3mo ago

> We don't need to argue about whether it is in fact murder That's exactly the problem: we do. Not here, specifically, but if someone's false beliefs have grown to the point that they are hurting others over them, they need to be stopped.

Joker_vD 3mo ago
Do you not realize that this argument applies equally well both against pro-choice and against pro-lifers? It does, therefore it is entirely invalid and irrelevant. Yes, those people with "false beliefs". Ah, if only we could force everyone to have true beliefs. And it's not against freedom of thought and consciousness, oh no! We're only against actually false beliefs. That, you know, have been proven wrong. Or at least for which the proofs of incorrectness exist that we believe are correct. But since our beliefs true, this is fine.
- lern_too_spel 3mo ago
  He said nothing about forcing. Suppose the false belief he was talking about was Creationism. Does his comment read as authoritarian?
  - Joker_vD 3mo ago
    Yes, it does.
    - JoshTriplett 3mo ago
      It's fascinating that you are attempting to portray a comment as authoritarian that is arguing people should not enforce their false beliefs on others and should not restrict their bodily autonomy. It's literally an argument against being authoritarian.
      - bit-anarchist 3mo ago
        What I understood their point to be is that the only reason they are "false beliefs" is your own biases. If they aren't actual "false beliefs", then the restrictions on bodily autonomy are as justified as when dealing with killings, and your argument degenerates into pro-authoritarism.
        lern_too_spel 3mo ago
        Some things are categorically false, and those conclusions can be reached rationally. That seemed to be his only point, and he did not say anything about preventing anyone (like Carroll's Queen of Hearts) from believing six impossible things before breakfast. That would be authoritarian. In a democracy like ours, stopping the Queen and others from enacting restrictive and harmful policy based on impossibilities only requires convincing arguments. People are still perfectly free to believe in Creationism, but convincing arguments have removed it from curricula.
        Joker_vD 3mo ago
        > stopping the Queen and others from enacting restrictive and harmful policy Like regulating the production, sales, and use of opiates. Or tightly restricting the abortions. Or forcing people to wear seatbelts while driving (and two years ago on this very HN I've seen lots of people complaining about state-mandated vehicular safety, so no, the seatbelts are not an uncontroversial topic). There are many other examples of the authoritarian nanny states unduly restricting bodily autonomy of people. Crucially, most of those policies aren't really based on truth or falsity of anything but simply on a value call. Forcing people to wear seatbelts may or may not actually reduce vehicular injuries (in fact, some research indicates that wearing seatbelts makes one more prone to reckless driving) — they're mandated anyhow, simply because some people believe it's the right thing to do.