But why should it be managed at all? — NOS4A2

Well, to start, there needs to be a central currency. Unless you think some sort of barter system can work in today's age.

Poverty, overconsumption, monopoly, wealth inequality, seem to me the common objections. Keynes said as much in his essay “The End of laissez-faire”. But all of the above are apparent in all systems — NOS4A2

Sure, but the presumption is that under a truly laissez-faire economy it would be worse than it is now.

All of it at the cost of justice. It cannot differentiate between just and unjust distribution of wealth. — NOS4A2

It might not be just to tax people, but it might also not be just for a government to let the population starve. We then have to decide which injustice is greater and act accordingly; as you say, we must "lay bare our conscience and morality." And most people with a conscience and a sense of morality would side with feeding the people, and so the necessity of tax-funded welfare.

From what little I've read, unless they can somehow use the Commerce Clause as a justification, any federal law will be declared a violation of State rights.

And any federal law would just get repealed when the Republicans are next in power.

I did look through the bill, and it even includes provisions stating the Supreme Court precedent should not be considered. — Hanover

Not just precedent:

Without limiting prosecutorial discretion, this state and all political subdivisions of this state shall enforce the provisions of this Subpart without regard to the opinions and judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113(1973), and its judicial progeny, past and future...

How normal is this?

(2) This state and its political subdivisions, and agents thereof, may disregard any part or whole of any federal court decision which purports to enjoin or void any provision of this Section.

F. Pursuant to the powers granted to the Legislature by Article X, Part III, of the Constitution of Louisiana, any judge of this state who purports to enjoin, stay, overrule, or void any provision of this Section shall be subject to impeachment or removal.

Louisiana HB 813

If this passes then women can be charged with murder for using an IUD.

(7) "Person" includes a human being from the moment of fertilization and implantation and also includes a body of persons, whether incorporated or not.

***

(11) "Unborn child" means any an individual of the human species being from fertilization and implantation until birth

IUDs can either stop fertilization or the subsequent implantation. Because they've removed the "and implantation" part of the bill, if an IUD doesn't stop the fertilization, only the implantation, it counts as having killed an unborn child.

I don't know. But responding with "therefore, it must be some supernatural intelligence" is a god of the gaps fallacy.

In my scientific knowledge there is no gap. — Hillary

Yet you said: "My default position was that science has the answers. But it hasn't, in principle" and "But science can't explain everything, especially not the origin of the universe."

That's the god of the gaps fallacy; our scientific theories can't explain X, therefore God(s) explain X.

My default position was that science has the answers. But it hasn't, in principle. So now my default position is science plus gods. They provide the reason for origin and the nature of matter. — Hillary

God of the gaps

Any conversation that doesn't involve simply putting a women in charge of her own body is not to be taken seriously. — Streetlight

I agree with that.

Sounds like abdication of responsibility to me. — Streetlight

A shared responsibility isn't an abdication of responsibility.

Insofar as men are 100% responsible for all pregnancies... — Streetlight

Terrible logic in those tweets, and also ignores the fact that there can be unwanted pregnancies after a woman wants her partner to not wear a condom and to finish inside of her.

The simulation argument is different in that a necessary condition for reality being a simulation is that consciousness can be simulated/is a product of computation. If consciousness can't be simulated, then we're not living in a simulation. — RogueAI

Sure. Bostrom does say:

Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race.

The related notion of Boltzmann brains wouldn't require this premise.

You don't abandon the system just because it handed you a defeat — frank

The reintroduction of slavery wouldn't just be a "defeat". Politics isn't just some game where the only thing that matters is one's team "winning" for the sake of being the winner.

What alternative do you propose? — frank

Not allowing the majority to decide that slavery is acceptable, and not allowing the majority to decide that abortion isn't acceptable.

In a democracy, the majority (with temperance provided by various mechanisms) rules. — frank

So you don't see a problem with a majority who decide that slavery is acceptable?

Of course. It's called democracy. — frank

The majority doesn't have the right to oppress the minority.

Should they also get to decide whether or not that act be repealed so that they can decide if they want homosexuals or black people in their communities?

Whether they want abortion in their communities. — frank

Should they also get to decide if they want homosexuals or black people in their communities?

What about the rationalist position? Shouldn't we be able to deduce the difference? — Agent Smith

From what premises?

What I find intriguing is that these essentially skeptical hypotheses (questioning the authenticity of reality) are predicated on one singular truth: We can't tell the difference between reality and illusion. — Agent Smith

If we've only ever experienced one then how could we know which it is we've experienced? Obviously if there was a noticeable difference between reality and illusions, and if we've experienced both, then we can tell whether or not this is real or an illusion, but if we've only ever experienced an illusion then how can we tell that it's an illusion?

Freedom of expression is a human right. When certain companies grow so large that they have the power to impede human rights you're asking me who is going to compensate them for not violating those rights? — Tzeentch

Twitter doesn't impede your right to speech. The existence of Twitter doesn't take away other methods of expressing your opinion. Start your own blog or newspaper, or go out onto the streets with a soapbox, or find some other social media company (like Parlor) that lets you say more things than Twitter.

And you didn't answer my question. If Twitter is a public forum then should the taxpayer (of which countries?) fund its expenses?

I'm here to help.

You should still be able to get an abortion, just under specific circumstances (like rape, or life of the mother is threatened) or within a certain time frame (before the third trimester). — Harry Hindu

The recent Texas law doesn't allow for abortion even in the case of a child being raped, and only allows it up to the detection of a fetal heartbeat, which can be as soon as 6 weeks. Apparently most women don't realize they're pregnant until 4-7 weeks.

You're giving states too much credit.

It just means a woman in Mississippi who wants an abortion will have to drive a while to get to a state that does them. A woman who doesn't have transport will probably be able to get a local one illegally. That's how it was before Roe. — frank

Which will disproportionately affect the poor, pushing them further into poverty (or death).

I think that abortion will still be legal in all states but with varying limitations depending on the state. — Harry Hindu

I think a few states will immediately ban abortion. — frank

22 states have laws against abortion already on the books that will come into effect as soon as Roe v Wade is overturned.

But social media like Twitter hold a special, near monopolistic place in public discourse and should in my opinion be regarded as a public forum in the legal sense, — Tzeentch

So I guess their expenses should be paid for by taxes? Although by which country? It's headquarters are in the USA, so I guess it's American taxpayers who should foot the bill, but then there's global access to it, so maybe it needs to come out of the UN's budget?

Or alternatively start up a new social media company that allows more freedom in what you can say, and try to compete against Twitter and let the free market decide. I think there's something called Parlor that's trying to do that. If people want to listen to what you have to say then they can use that, and if not they can stay on Twitter.

I would add a further claim such as:

It is acceptable to refuse to hire someone for expressing morally reprehensible opinions

And of course there are other acceptable reasons for refusing to hire someone (demanding too high a salary, not being capable, there not being a job opening, etc.), with things such as gender, sexuality, and religious affiliation not satisfying any such reason (except in special cases).

So you're right to call out my overgeneralization.

Of course you do. You exercise that right by being able to sign contracts with whoever you like, and come to a mutual agreement about the terms of that contract.

If you happen to contract somebody who turns out to be a bit of a nutcase; tough luck! That's down to you being a poor judge of character or being careless with the terms of contract, and unless they do something illegal or breach the contract, I'd say you're morally (and in a lot of cases legally) obliged to uphold your end of the deal. — Tzeentch

Many contracts include provisions regarding conduct, and social media companies include terms of service for the same. So I assume you accept that Twitter can suspend accounts for saying such things as "all Muslims are terrorists" given that their terms of service explicitly prohibit such speech?

Such interactions between individuals are usually written down in a contract, and includes what is expected of both parties.

Why would your right not to be offended take precedence over contractual obligations? — Tzeentch

As I have mentioned before, for the sake of argument it is legal to fire the employee for expressing such an opinion. We're not discussing legality here.

Premise 1, obviously. — Tzeentch

So am I obligated to accept labour from (and compensate accordingly) someone who expresses morally reprehensible opinions? Do I not have the right to choose who works for me?

And these certain kinds of opinions just so happen to be views you disagree with also? — Tzeentch

No, the general principle is:

An employer has the right to fire an employee for expressing morally reprehensible opinions

I then apply this principle to specific cases:

Racism, sexism, homophobia, and anti-semitism are morally reprehensible

Therefore, an employer has the right to fire an employee for expressing racist, sexist, homophobic, and/or anti-semitic opinions

Do you disagree with one or both of the premises?

I don't know what such a "natural right" would be based on. Some sort of right not to be offended by someone else? — Tzeentch

The right to not be required to accept another person's labour and the right to not be required to give money to another person.

Whether they have the right or not is a legal matter and depends entirely on where one lives and what the terms of contract are. — Tzeentch

We're not talking about legal rights but ethical(?) rights. The argument often made is that we have a "natural" right to speech and so laws against speech are wrong. My claim is that we have a "natural" right to fire people for expressing certain kinds of opinions.

Then what are you saying people should do? — Tzeentch

I'm not saying people should do anything.

Why should someone else's ignorance bother me so, assuming all they do is hold an ignorant opinion? — Tzeentch

Again, I'm not an authority on other people's psychology. If it doesn't bother you then don't fire them. But if it bothers another employer then they have the right to fire their employee.

And who should be the arbiter of this?

People don't exactly have a shining track record when it comes to determining what is "extreme" and what is "reasonable". — Tzeentch

Us. We're the arbiter of everything. Who decided that we have the right to free speech in the first place? That we sometimes make mistakes isn't that we shouldn't make any kind of judgement at all.

Lets say you overhear your employee during a private phone conversation and you find out they have an opinion you strongly dislike.

Should you now fire them? — Tzeentch

I'm not saying that they should fire them. I'm saying that (depending on the opinion) they have the right to fire them.

If they express the opinion that black people are inferior to white people and ought not have the same legal rights, then you, possibly a black man, ought be allowed to terminate their employment. You're not obligated to continue working with and paying a racist, as you are suggesting.

Should I now fire you because I dislike your opinions? — Tzeentch

Again, I'm not saying that you should fire me, I'm saying that, as my employer, you have the right to fire me. Although, as above, that depends on the opinion. It is acceptable to fire me for expressing the opinion that black people are inferior to white people but maybe not acceptable to fire me for expressing the opinion that Thai food is nicer than Spanish food.

Here's a question for "free speech absolutists": should us moderators be allowed to ban accounts that only post in some other language than English?

I'm sure they matter to people, but why? — Tzeentch

Ask them, I'm not an authority on other people's psychology.

Note that I've already offered you a way out, in suggesting that certain opinions may lead to problematic behavior which could be a grounds for firing someone. (In which case it would be the behavior and not the opinion that is the critical factor) — Tzeentch

I don't need a "way out".

But instead you insist that the act of having an opinion is sufficient grounds for censorship and robbing someone of their livelihood. — Tzeentch

No, the act of expressing that opinion is sufficient grounds for being fired or having one's social media account suspended. I'm not suggesting that people be physically prevented from expressing their opinion or imprisoned or fined.

You believe opinions matter enough for people to be fired and censored over them. — Tzeentch

I believe that public expressions of a person's opinions does matter to people. Nowhere have I said that private opinions should matter.

I also believe that an employer ought have the right to fire people for expressing certain kinds of opinions, like Nazism, and that Twitter ought be allowed to suspend accounts if they violate their terms of service. Nowhere have I said that it ought be illegal for Nazism to be expressed or for Twitter's terms of service to be violated.

That directly contradicts your desire to see people with private opinions you dislike unemployed and censored. — Tzeentch

How do you get from "employers ought be allowed to fire people for expressing certain kinds of opinions, like Nazism" to "other people's private opinions should matter to you and I want people with private opinions I dislike to be unemployed and censored"?

but you cannot even tell me why their private opinions should matter to you? — Tzeentch

I've never said that private opinions should matter to me so your question is irrelevant.

You're telling me that you wish for people to lose their jobs and their right to free speech because they hold opinions you don't like — Tzeentch

They don't lose their right to free speech.

I'm saying that an employer ought be allowed to fire their employee for being a Nazi and that Twitter ought be allowed to suspend accounts that violate their terms of service.

How is "If X is true for everything within the universe, then X is also true for the universe itself." not a correct representation of the argument? — Magnus

Let's say X is "is a thing within the universe."

P1. If everything within the universe is a thing within the universe then the universe itself is a thing within the universe.

Neither of the Kalam cosmological argument's premises entail P1. Therefore P1 is an incorrect representation of the Kalam cosmological argument's premises.

I think this argument is a false argument and I will try to explain why here. — Magnus

Arguments can't be false. Premises (and conclusions) can be false, arguments can be invalid. So do you believe that one or both of the argument's premises are false, or that the conclusion doesn't follow?

I certainly think that the conclusion follows, so if the conclusion is false then either things can begin to exist without a cause or the universe has an infinite past.

And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasise that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right.

Ah, the old "ignore our legal reasoning if it implies things that I don't want it to." :roll: