I can't see what relevance this has here? Other people's utterances or desires aren't relevant here until we talk about the desire to not have your friend/family member die. But that's not what's in your response. Hmm.

But, to respond: Yeah, obviously. Its not a serious claim. Its edge-lord nonsense. I can see why a particularly vulnerable person would be harmed by those words. But the idea that it would lead to actual suicide is extreme. Yep, it happens, but then the desire was not that of the actor.

Is that what you're getting at? I think that's prima facie a totally different conversation.

But my friend was bipolar - his life was objectively not all 'scalding misery'. — Jeremy Murray

Difficult. The mania of bi-polar can be super distressing. The manic periods are disordered, almost inhuman. The depressive episodes are almost the worst mental prison one can be in. It's hard to say there's any objectivity to it not being that bad.

That said, it's up the actor to decide this - not others (saving for true perspectival mental illness).

He didn’t just make a claim. Unlike you and Philosophim, he provided references to evidence. If you want to question his evidence, that would make sense, but all you do is wave your arms. — T Clark

You seem to have ignored (again, and along with with Questioner) have obviously, and unfortunately obviously on purpose, ignore the several sources (and quotes there from, along with explanations of how they link with the context we're talking in) I have provided. I sent you to them. You have not bothered to look.

That means I don't need to care. Questioner has not provided any support that trumps several metastudies for any points hes made. The only one you seem to want to point to is the brain one. That is a myth. For which I have provided ample evidence. You not looking at it shouldn't become my problem.

Well, I certainly have never told you not to talk about this. I think it’s fine. And I don’t understand why you would say I’m not arguing in good faith. — T Clark

Because of the objective reality of the above lack in your engagement. You've literally responded to nothing except to stand behind Questioner going "yeah, get 'em!". Its not fun to see. You're usually good at this. Iin this case, you've not engaged with any argument whatsoever and just leaped straight to ad hominem.

In any case, that position betrays the claim. If brains are sexed, then that's sex. Not gender.

The claim that one can be born in the wrong body then looms large. Are we claiming that? I don't think so. That tells me there's no consistency here.

They lack social acceptability.

"We have the right not to be reminded of the ugly sides of life" is the usually unspoken stance underlying this topic. — baker

Right, ok, I get that. I suggest this isn't a disability and should never be considered one. Social acceptability hinges on essentially infinite different factors and often has nothing whatsoever to do with actual ability - its just a feelies thing. That's not to dismiss isolation and ostracization. I've experienced enough. But its like calling harsh words "violence". It just violates the intension of the word.

Hmm. I was being quite careful there - interferring with the desire wouldn't be convincing her away from using (i presume?) MAID. It would have been attempting to adjust her worldview to not want to die.

That said, I am incredibly sorry for your loss and respect your journey there immensely. Thank you for sharing.

Lacking what is my point? Its not ability-driven. It would be a purely social lack (i.e lack of social inclusion) which we don't consider a disability, even in the most staunchy leftist, rights-based thinking i know of.

Might they be in a society of gingerphobes? — bert1

Ahh, that's an awkward one though because it has to assume the social model. In that society, we wouldn't put an amputee in the same category as a ginge, still.

A peg leg makes a lot more sense than installing foot-high platforms alongside all pavements for amputees to rest their stumps on. — bert1

100%. This is good, clear indication of what I mean in some significant way.

He's wrong about most of it. He and I have gone back and forth on this many times.

Suffice to say that you making this claim doesn't make it so. I have presented him with ample evidence that the male/female brain claim is a myth, for example - which got ignored. You can probably use the search function if interested. Its in the Transwomen are women thread.

This is one of a few topis that seems to have people A. telling you not to talk about it (or shaming you for it - which is utterly ridiculous) and B. straight-up not engaging in good faith discourse. Some of our best posters such as yourself and Banno do this. Its bizarre. Just absolute non engagement with what's presented.

You seem to just be repeating yourself. Nothing was said about ending someone elses life. I get the feeling there's an emotional block here for you?

All i've said is that suffering is, in fact, a good reason to end one's life. We often do this in palliative care, whether legal or not. People being forced to suffer is morally wrong (on my view.. which I do not apply to others). I also think killing oneself is bad but I can't see why it would be morally wrong. Your point just seems to be "I don't think your suffering is a good enough reason to upset me".

1. Who owns a life?

2. Do obligations to others supersede that ownership?

3. Is interference in one's desire to kill themselves morally sound? — Questioner

Haha, yes, you nailed it: It depends. I'll have a go at each, nevertheless.

1. The owner. This seems to essentially mean between ages of about 0-16, the parents of that child (or, their caretaker/s. We seem to legally agree with this position). After that, it is the person who is living the life in question. They are free to do as they please with their life (hint: Not other's lives, which will come into play for 3.);
2. Usually, not, imo. I think you would have to have made a direct promise (broadly speaking) to not kill yourself for that obligation to supersede the overwhelming desire to end one's abject misery. But this is why it depends - if you're just some dickhead teenager who thinks being grounded and having a douchebag break up with you is reason enough to end yourself, maybe your obligations to not upset others do supersede your desire. But then, if you're a teenager, i've already stipulated you can't make that call within my answer to 1.. I presume I'm going to give some contradictions here, so bear with all the answers as they are.
3. Very carefully worded (i hope?). Yes, interfering with someone's desire to kill themselves is sound, imo. If you can alter someone's perception such that they are not longer suffering in the way that caused the desire, that's going to be advantageous to probably many, many people. So, That's fine with me. Actively preventing someone who is stuck in a cycle of utter despair with no end in sight, and having tried many options to ameliorate - I think best leave them to it. We all have to deal with loss. One less person suffering seems to perhaps be a good thing - and going out on your own terms seems even better.

My question would be imagine the 86 year old pancreatic cancer patient who wants to skydive without parachute to go out with a bang (you can come up with many similar situations). Are we wary of that?

Thanks - these were great questions, Questioner :P

Post-Script: I think I am committed to the idea that "I didn't ask to be brought into this life. I shan't ask when I want to leave it"

It depends what the context of the 'plan' is. But in principle yeah, it's got to be a balance. Both of those avenues are noble and worth pursuing.

I can't quite understand the question - having red hair is not an ability-related trait. Having a cleft lip also wouldn't be (usually). I have a couple of odd physical features which are generally not visible. They don't affect my abilities. So I think there's just a category issue going on. "most people have brown, black or blonde hair" isn't the type of statistic that gives us a normative fact. Its just a statistical one. "Most people can walk on two legs with aplomb" is normative. It creates an expectation of ability.

I am slightly misusing 'normative'. I just can't think of a better word right now - sorry for that.

This is far far beneath you Leon. You didn't even respond to my substantive reply which puts complete paid to your position against me.

Your only argument is that babies are special because they are human (fair, in the sense that we're not talking about puppies.. but). I have already made it clear that is not a reason. That is tautology. That is simply a claim, and an extremely parochial one.
What makes humans special? Consciousness? Deliberation? Moral reasoning? Babies have none of these (in the sense needed to make "human" a special category). Babies are next to useless. There is no error here - you are just not giving a reason. Just state the reason - stop prevaricating. Give a reason that isn't circular for the "specialness" of babies - given that they do not meet any of the criteria for the intension of that word, i'm left wanting.

In a long historical sense, babies are special because humans are special, not because they are nascent. — Leontiskos

It seems I have nothing to answer for here.

I now think it quite likely you are actively engaging in bad faith. That's a shame.

No-one says that though. — Mijin

I saw a clip yesterday of a transwoman (i suppose you could say influencer? I'm not sure as the media was second-gen commentary on her clip) claiming that the reason you have to consider her a woman is that she waits for her male partner to come home, and has baked brownies in the mean time.

So people do say that. But its ridiculous, so we should rightly be putting it in the ridiculous category. You make a good point that "gender dysphoria" (i am skeptical, but lets leave that aside) has nothing to do with such a claim. But I then don't know what it would have to do with. Gender appears to be stereotypes. Those are stereotypes. I'm not sure what could cause dysphoria around gender other than a mismatch of behaviour and stereotype (hence my initial comment).

Which leads me to my actual point: it seems to be the case that most trans-presenting people do not have any dysphoria and are playing a game. One that requires sexism and misogyny.

You could add to this: the assumption that other languages carry similar intension.

They aren't exclusive. One can consider life suffering, and thus want to escape it. I see no issue.

That's a good point. I think the issue - and this is one thinkers like Sam Harris, ever the peddler of parsimony - tend to miss: if you're going to take this bent, you best be open to truly, honestly considering the theories that come across your desk. Most will be easy to dismiss, but to become jaded is to enter into an essentially dishonest critique of your challengers. I think.

I, on the other hand, have had to do the opposite and reign in my penchant for the weird.

If this is to respond to my (admittedly dismissive) comment, this doesn't change what I'm seeing. Bringing this up isn't good faith, in context. Although, I recognize that bad faith is active - i doubt that's what's happening here. I just think you're choosing to debate in a way that we regularly see on talk shows. As I say, its probably better we just don't discuss these things. No harm, no foul. Its tricky.

All of these misuses occur in the medical model of disability. — Banno

I deal with the medical 'industry' regarding disability almost constantly. I do not see most of these occurring. Parochial, to be sure, but relevant to any comments I might make on it. Specifically, reification odes not occur. The concept of disability, medically, is specifically a relative term, to the statistical norm with no moral comment (again, that's my experience). That seems correct regardless of which terms we're using to describe that practice.

As someone else mentioned "tall" is very similar term.

There is no argument that gender isn't stereotypes that works. So yes.

Can you imaging a suffering so great in this life that you want to give this life up? — Questioner

Yeah dude. I have made multiple attempts on my life - two in succession, but the first weakened me too much to complete the second in short order.

I have a pretty nuanced view on suicide due to the above, coupled with two of my closest and best friends I have ever had killing themselves some years apart.

Suicide is devastating. It is harmful. It is almost unbearable for some of those left behind. One of my friends mother has never recovered. He died in 2009 and she still spends a certain amount of her time on her computer looking at his search history, his Facebook page and old messaged on his cell phone. It is horrible. It hurts.

But being in a position that you want to kill yourself hurts plenty more than I have ever felt as a reaction to a suicide. Forcing someone to endure what they perceive to unending misery, active, painful, scalding misery is immoral.

It is a lesser of two evils.

Until you come to the conclusion I have - which is that wanting to die is a product of the mind. Unless one is happy, and wants to die, it is, in a major sense, an illegitimate conclusion to draw about life.

So, do i blame those who kill themselves as immoral? No. It's a-moral. But I do harshly judge those who think its their right to enforce someone else's misery to save them the pain of that loss.

If you're happy to swap out "spiritual" with simply "numinous" which I think is a better forum to discuss this issue in, I think its, as much of hte first page stated, inextricably linked to the development of value. There's a "view from nowhere" feeling one gets in a numinous state. I doubt we could have notions of social good without this (social meaning wider-than-family).
That said, i think there's probably a guard-rail that needs to be put in place where we, at the very least, make an epistemic distinction between "information" and "our interpretation". This isn't news - but clearly several billion of us do not do this. Ever.

Twelve dead, 29 injured (updates continue) on Bondi Beach in Australia

Very much sending Love and support to all our Aussie friends.

I will save commentary for a more reasonable time.

I’ve known many older childless women and not one has ever regretted it. — Tom Storm

I've never met a happy one, unfortunately. I think that stands to reason though - females are literally psychologically hardwired (on avg) to have children. Not having htem must be a burden of some kind, even if one can work through it.

What is your definition of "special"? I don't think it's arbitrary at all. I think I am adhering to the definition of 'special' and you are not. — Leontiskos

Then give hte definition you're adhering to. I'm seeing no reasons - which is what I've asked for. Is it "it's a baby"? Because that's not a reason. I need something more than the fact of it being a baby to care (in this context - I don't hate babies). The definition of special is "better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual."

Babies are exactly not this.

It is simply a product of the usual Darwinian urges is it not? — unimportant

This is why "special" seems a random label designed for something, rather than reflecting something. I don't know why. That said, i am most closely aligned with antinatalism, so showing my hand a bit. I think you've got it right - we've inserted this term without sufficiently defining it so we can continue to have babies despite overwhelmingly good reasons not to, for the most part. Not a moral argument here - I just cannot understand the press to consider babies 'special'. They simply aren't. They're one of a billion and useless, without sucking out resources from the world around them. I want the reason that gets past this.
I note the two arguing against me are (most likely.. Don't want to put my foot in it) coming from theological positions. I accounted for that, so unsure I need continue answer those challenges without the reason I'm after articulated clearly.

Unfortunately (and this has nothing to do with you, or me particularly) I went through several pages of discussing hte power of words toward incitement with NOS4A2 and some others (Michael I think?) a few months ago. It was extremely tedious - all I can give you is that incitement can happen with words.

What you quoted isn't remotely close to incitement. That's what matters here. I am genuinely sorry I don't want to get into another match about incitement - i'm just worn on it.

Here’s one example:

Kevin Patrick Smith left dozens of threatening voice messages for US Senator Jon Tester (Montana – Democrat) — Questioner

The bad faith has become essentially untenable. I suggest we avoid discussing anything about politics together. Take care of yourself :)

All of this implies the disabilities we are referencing don't affect one's ability to give consent. Intellectual and psychiatric disabilities raise entirely different questions. — Hanover

That's true, but I'm unsure to what degree - which hinges on my having brought up antinatalism in some large way. If we take it back, you shouldn't have kids. Plain and simple. But once they're alive, if they have (and I do think this is the case) interest in continuing to live, then consent is desirable if it will lead to more (quality) life. Whcih then hinges on my bringing up eugenics.

So, in principle yeah there are some tricky cases that will come up - but if one is alive but unable to consent (for instance, to a lung transplant as is in a coma or some such) that's different to one not existing.

So survival of the fittest? — frank

Bit of a black-white fallacy I think. I'm pressing against survival of the least fit as a mode - not suggesting we do the Nazi thing. But I think it patently odd (and probably a bad thing, overall) that we train our best and brightest to put themselves in harm's way (well, 60 years ago this would hit a lot harder) and do our absolute best to pour resources into retaining the worst(you really need to read this word in context and not ascribe some mora position to me because of an emotional reaction here of us, in terms of species-level survival and progress. There is almost no way that doesn't leave a bad taste in mouths - but it seems obvious.

No, that was literally you inventing something I didn't say (or intimate). If that's your interpretation, you're entitled. But wrong. And that's okay.

So please do not dismiss Trump’s rhetoric as harmless bluster. — Questioner

Fwiw, I don't. The rest of this is pretty much just you throwing things at a wall while not listening. That's fine, bt not something I'm keen to lean into. You seem to think incitement is something other than what it is, for instance.

No it isn't. That's something you require to support your position, but is in fact, not the case.

I like oranges, but the colour is odd.

"If you don't believe me, just ask me." — Questioner

It was literally someone else.

Trump has put a lot of targets on a lot of backs. — Questioner

This is clearly unhinged political emotionalism. Given the other clearly bad-faith responses in another thread, I shall bow out. Take care :)

They were Trump's words — Questioner

The rest of my comment matters. Like.. really matters. It seems you're quite good at losing nuance in service of clearly (and reasonably) emotional takes on things.

No, they weren't. But what is interesting is your compulsion to defend such language. — Questioner

This is why the rest of my comment mattters:

I don't defend most of the utterances we could at least reliably ascribe to Trump — AmadeusD

I don't think you're doing this in anything close to good faith. Twice, in one post, you have ignored the context in service of your emotionally-derived response. So be it.

If only that was all he were. — Questioner

Fair position. I don't take it.

(I can't quite see what the context of that was - long post) I would call this muddled, semi-untrue media talking points. I don't defend most of the utterances we could at least reliably ascribe to Trump, but many of these are clearly tongue-in-cheek or contrary to other things he's said. Mkaes it difficult to get upset for me beyond the President shouldn't be such a buffoon.

Again, Charlottesville is a potent example of hte type of misleading stuff I refer to. The other examples - while uncharitable in some ways (plenty of people though that about the CP5 - Trump also received an award alongside Rosa Parks for helping urban black communities in the same period) that's fair.

I don't think MAGA "eat that shit up" though. Someone closer to your mark, ironically, is Valentina Gomez. But she's attractive so... they'll eat it lol. You're not wholly wrong, and at this point i'd just see myself as a caution or guard rail against going to deep into that as an ideological line of thinking rather htan observational. It is just not rational, imo, to ascribe 'racism' to concepts about continuing certain cultural benchmarks or wishes of the USA. A lot of these same talking points were parroted by Dems prior to Trump, so hard to see it as a MAGA thing

I am just wary of drawing discursive conclusions from those altered states. — Janus

Feel like as the resident psychonaut I have to come and agree with this. One of hte biggest turn offs of that set is that people tend to make wild claims and conclude things based on their altered experiences. There might be something to that, but god lord its tiresome when people essentially form cult-like beliefs based on something that cannot be shared.

Sure, we could call humans 'special' but that's somewhat arbitrary. Tuataras are the only beaked reptile in the world. And also a near-dinosaur. We could call any specie special.

My point is that any given baby is a drop in an ocean of noise. There's nothing 'special' about a baby unless you import something more than the fact of it's existence (perhaps it survived an incredibly difficult pregnancy?).

So you would say that when you tell me that, "I will try to enforce [my moral positions] where i am not obviously violating rights," this act of enforcement is not moral in nature? — Leontiskos

This is tricky to give a yes or no to. The answer properly is 'yes'. But what i've said there is about how I behave, Not what I try to have others do around me, if you can grok the difference. I wil behave in ways that appear morally righteous to me. The world around me will go on. But my behaviour in the world is a form of enforcement on my account. Perhaps my terms are just shoddy.

So all you have ever done in this thread is spoken about how to help other people achieve their goals? Don't you think you've also spoken about how to get other people to achieve your goals? — Leontiskos

I think you're being a little callous in your capturing of the situation, but in a significant sense, yes, that's right. When I speak about how i interact with other people, i try my best to help people toward their goals. The decision to do so is moral. The activity of, lets say, educating someone as how best to achieve their goal in my view, is entirely practical as I see it. I could just as easily leave off and nothing would be different morally.

And you never would? Similarly, why would you stop enforcing your own moral positions "where I am not obviously violating rights"? Why would rights prevent you? — Leontiskos

Not that I can imagine, no but I wont stand too strongly behind that. I don't know the future. It seems wrong, in most cases, to me. I just understand the efficiency for social cohesion so I'm not railing against police as an institution.
If my behaviour violates other people's rights, that's counter to an overarching moral intention to maintain social and cultural cohesion. This is a legal argument rather than a strictly moral one, but to be sure, I am making a moral call to resile from a behaviour once I note it may be violating another's rights of some kind.

Well look at quotes like these: — Leontiskos

There's no inconsistency. If I am trying to get someone to act, its on practical grounds due to a moral decision to help them. You must clearly delineate the two modes. A moral decision is made in my mind - I then behave without moral reasoning in persuading the other to act toward their own goal (not mine. That's incorrect). My (moral) desire is to help the person. Not their goal, per se. The how-to is somewhat arbitrary.

But you think this doesn't really count against your position because you dub it "rational" rather than "moral." — Leontiskos

It simply doesn't., because it simply is. I understand if you feel those things can't come apart. That's fair, but not my position and I don't see it as required to make sense of all this.

Can you tell me what the difference is? — Leontiskos

The quote you use there is let's call it unfinished, as a response to this quesiton. Roughly moral reasoning is that which gets us to do something because of its rightness or wrongness. Practical reason is trying to do things which will achieve an arbitrary goal. So, in my example, if my moral position was that it's good to help anyone whatever then you might find me teaching a racist how best to gut Chinese children. But my moral reasoning tells me not to help that person toward their goal. The reasoning-to-act issue never arises. Had it, the moral problem would be in my decision to help them, not my reasoning on how best they could achieve their barbaric (i presume moral) outcomes.

My general point here is that it is hard to believe that you are a thoroughgoing moral subjectivist (or emotivist). — Leontiskos

I think most people have this trouble; particularly the theologically inclined. For instance I don't need answers to 'why are we here' or 'what does it mean to be human' or whatever to get on with my life all hunky dory. I don't care. We are here. We are human. What the 'means' is made up stuff we do for fun, basically. I get that its tough to understand, but there's a massive difference between being a subjectivist when it comes to morality, and being either a-moral, or dismissing morality entirely. Alex O'Connor does a good job of discussion emotivist in these terms imo.

How does a moral subjectivist claim that the law is often wrong when it comes to moral regulation? — Leontiskos

As an example, with wills and estates there is generally a 'moral duty' to provide for one's children after death (if one has anything to pass on, anyway). I think this is wrong, overreach and inapt for a legal framework that doesn't interfere with people's personal affairs. So, that's my personal moral view. I don't think that's going to be true for the next guy. So i don't care to do anything about the policy. I have to enforce it regularly, actually (well, I have a part in doing so regularly).

This is why I think the Law does a pretty good job. For the most part, its been 'democratically' hammered out over time, through common law, into something resembling a "close-to-consensus" and I'm happy to live with that.

Yes, almost always. ....using them. — J

Hmm, okay i grok.

I guess I'm not finding it hard to grasp the problem. If someone told me "illusions are real" i would simply say "no they aren't" because that's not what "real" means. "illusions occur in reality" makes sense to me. illusions are real" is an oxymoron to me. I understand though, that this is then an argument about my use of 'real' there :P So, fair enough.

Why differentiate political liberalism from classical liberalism on this point? Aren't they the same with respect to your example of opposing racism? — Leontiskos

Possibly, but "classical liberal" values are considered either cowardly centrist or right wing values in a lot of quarters these days. The current "political liberalism" seems to me more like running with scissors.

All the talking points are out of date, but everyone still wants to be smug like 20 year old, irrelevant gotchas are conversation enders. — MrLiminal

100%. No one states their goals, no one listens to the other person, massive ad hominem, ignorance of facts etc... It's all about point-scoring. I thought high school was where that was meant to end.

I think it's been made apparent that in all three cases an unstable person for personal reasons did what they did. In no way is it representative of what you term "the left" and "the right" - — Questioner

What a wholly unfounded statement. — Questioner

Not only unfounded, entirely unreasonable. They are left-wing individuals killing, or attempting to kill 'right wing' individuals on policy grounds. There isn't another way to spin this. If you are wanting to do so, I suggest it's better we do not go into this because I can only ignore that type of thing.

This just does not line up with the facts. Could you please provide a source for this? — Questioner

It seems to me you can't really say the first thing and then ask the second in good faith. Forgive me for ignoring hte former. The latter seems better to go on. Herehttps://www.instagram.com/reel/DOteAHtCI56/?igsh=dmhremExczJ2cjdl is something you may find interesting.

We can also look at the fact that the 'right wing' has not killed anyone for their opinions in a very, very long time. We've had the Left do it in the last 12 months. And attempted several more. In fact, if some reports are to be believed they will kill their own: Hortman. I'm not going to stand too strongly behind that because, like everyone else, I can only go on what's public and what's public is a shitshow mess of a narrative. The list given in the Senate hearing is pretty damn ample for current purposes.

I am not denying that the right-wing has had a history of political violence. Its not as if the left haven't either, but i recognize the disparity. You need to carefully understand what my claim was - in the last two election cycles it has skewed one way. And perhaps there is only one example on either side, but Kirk is the prime example evidencing the claim that they will kill over speech/opinions.

This is to also entirely ignore the on-the-ground damage done by protests across the country - which almost universally turn violent at the behest of left-wing protestors.

I'd like to add - it is important to distinguish "regular people" from political leadership. Leadership sets the tone, and Trump has solidly embraced violence, just like he gave the green light to the J6 rioters. — Questioner

He has not. He did not. Sincerely, someone who wishes the constant lies about Trump were true.

Ok. But I gave chatGPT your exact prompt, copy/pasted from above:



I can see why AI is not good for these types of things.

Suffice to say, for our purposes, it is my opinion that you saying its closer to 30-40% is a misguided, biased shit-at-a-wall type of claim. But i understand it likely comes from an oversaturation of dishonest, misleading media. I think it would be a disservice to credible discussion to say "enforcement of our border laws is white nationalism" but i realise some find issue with having any border policies - which, to me, is insane (colloquially).

The "both sides" thing is a perfect example. It has been made clear time and time and time again that Trump explicitly condemned the white nationalists and neo-Nazis. He's an idiot, and it's fine to call him out for that - but dishonestly making up positions based on editing that was almost defamatory, and peddled day-in-day out for years is not how we get to credible critiques. Jake Tapper should probably be fired for how bad his role in that was. The BBC has come under fire and the head resigned over similar behaviour. It's unfair to the man, and I'm not a fan.

These create the illusion that those on the right are all bigots(or, MAGA more properly - I realise anyone with a semblance of intelligence knows that 'right' does not mean 'bigot') because of a few loud voices. Make the loudest one seem racist and Ouila! Careful out there...

Which is totally reasonable. For about 100 years liberal (meaning politically liberal rather than conceptually "classic liberal") policies have been needed (this, purely in my view) to counteract what have reasonable been seen as arbitrary inequalities and harms that could be avoided without anyone else being harmed (i.e reducing the effects of racist thinking only helps minorities and doesn't harm racists in any meaningful way).
It's having missed the boat on when we got somewhere workable that's caused the flip, I think. Being used to being 'on the right side of history' no pun intended, seems to be where the left has gained its psychopathy. You're now allowed to be openly racist to white people, publicly, even in parliaments and senates - no issue. That is a problem. We shouldn't - tolerate - it.

You seem to be conflating what is objectively useful from what society deems as valuable. — unimportant

I am asking for a reason for the deeming of value. I can't understand it, without recourse to a fiction. If that's the case, that's fine. I am interested in something more.

You can say the same about a beautiful woman. — unimportant

Definitely. But "special" is different from "beautiful". The latter is wholly subjective. There are no standards. We can say a woman is beautiful because she causes x feelings which are directly to do with beauty - sexual arousal, visual satisfaction etc..
I find it much harder to get an avenue of reasoning going for the value (intrinsic, that is) of a baby being born. Babies are surplus. They are often unwanted. Again, without recourse to a 'life is sacred' type line, I'm wanting some reason to think babies are special beyond "well, quite a few people think this".

I'm not really sure how hte nightclub thing relates here, so i'll leave it.

just that it can be hot and nasty and also fun, is probably a societal view so perhaps better to shift the goalposts now to the societal aspect — unimportant

Hmm, that's reasonable. I view sex similarly to birth: An alien coming across it would probably be horrified, not knowing it's probably one of the greatest experiences a human can have.