41–50 of 60 posts
It will be nice when the religious old generation with their ideology die off. The repressive outcomes restricting a better timeline from proceeding earlier is so sad to witness. Speaking as an LGBT person who has witnessed suicide among peers and when this treatment likely could help the tolls of abuse in correlation to antiquated beliefs. Thanks to the dying god.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It will be nice when the religious old generation with their ideology die off. " the new generations are already hard at work building their own oppressive ideologies.
I assume you mean social justice. You must realize it's a false equivalence: oppression in the name of a more just society is much more worthwhile than oppression in the name of magical imaginary friends. For example, our society oppressing serial killers (for the mission statement of keeping people safe) is much more worthwhile than serial killers oppressing our society (for the mission statement of indulging urges,…
This is in the site guidelines. Would you mind reviewing them?
It will be nice when the religious old generation with their ideology die off. The repressive outcomes restricting a better timeline from proceeding earlier is so sad to witness. Speaking as an LGBT person who has witnessed suicide among peers and when this treatment likely could help the tolls of abuse in correlation to antiquated beliefs. Thanks to the dying god.
I'm not sure there's much in religion about no psychedelics?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sort of authoritarian thinking seems to be becoming more popular of late on HN
They fail to realize that these authoritarian measures will undoubtedly be used against them when their political rival takes power...
How is this "authoritarian" ?
Everyone took what they THINK he's saying and are running with it, without ever addressing his point.
Is putting murderers in jail authoritarianism ?
It will be nice when the religious old generation with their ideology die off. The repressive outcomes restricting a better timeline from proceeding earlier is so sad to witness. Speaking as an LGBT person who has witnessed suicide among peers and when this treatment likely could help the tolls of abuse in correlation to antiquated beliefs. Thanks to the dying god.
I'm not sure there's much in religion about no psychedelics?
Many religions use psychedelics so it's generally not something outside of it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> criminals I've never accepted some behaviour to be criminal without a victim. Pedantic gov'tal meddling, waste of resources at best, a way to lock up lefty/hippy/non-whites at worst. Passing laws that make victimless behaviour illegal should be criminal. Let's make that a constitutional law...
I think exactly the same yet legalizing everything victim-less can be a hard target to reach. There is, however, an easier concept: laws that are scientifically and logically unreasonable should be cancelled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> criminals I've never accepted some behaviour to be criminal without a victim. Pedantic gov'tal meddling, waste of resources at best, a way to lock up lefty/hippy/non-whites at worst. Passing laws that make victimless behaviour illegal should be criminal. Let's make that a constitutional law...
> I've never accepted some behaviour to be criminal without a victim. You don't have to. That's easy to 'solve' at least a few different ways, depending on how you prefer to look at it. (1) The victim is the same as the criminal. (2) The victims are those who have to pay for that guy's legal/medical/whatever bills later. (3) The victims are nearby/associated families who have to deal with the consequences.
One has to identify as victim. It's not up to someone else to decide if I was a victim at some point.
> (2) The victims are those who have to pay for that guy's legal/medical/whatever bills later.
So in case of medical insurances for all the public is the victim for every persons action is remotely risky.
> (3) The victims are nearby/associated families who have to deal with the consequences.
See 1. Let's say some family members take great offense from one member being gay. They feel victimized. Poor them. Because they are delusional. They are no victim. If they, e.g., excommunicate the gay, the gay person is a victim of a non-punishable offense in my opinion. Not the other way around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think exactly the same yet legalizing everything victim-less can be a hard target to reach. There is, however, an easier concept: laws that are scientifically and logically unreasonable should be cancelled.
I keep suggesting that laws should have "acceptance tests" in the form of a stated intent in a form that must be possible to invalidate if the premises are wrong. You'd need a mechanism to challenge laws both on the basis that the intent is not met and on the basis that the stated intent is too unclear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've never accepted some behaviour to be criminal without a victim. You don't have to. That's easy to 'solve' at least a few different ways, depending on how you prefer to look at it. (1) The victim is the same as the criminal. (2) The victims are those who have to pay for that guy's legal/medical/whatever bills later. (3) The victims are nearby/associated families who have to deal with the consequences.
> (1) The victim is the same as the criminal. One has to identify as victim. It's not up to someone else to decide if I was a victim at some point. > (2) The victims are those who have to pay for that guy's legal/medical/whatever bills later. So in case of medical insurances for all the public is the victim for every persons action is remotely risky. > (3) The victims are nearby/associated families who have to deal w…
Yes, and there certainly do exist people who identify as victims of others' drug use. Unfortunately they don't come knocking on our doors to inform us of this fact. Instead they settle for the sadly-suboptimal solution of electing representatives to represent their perspectives while they go about their own businesses. If you're genuinely suggesting such people are nonexistent, well, I'm not going to continue entertaining this further.
> So in case of medical insurances for all the public is the victim for every persons action is remotely risky.
I can't parse this sentence.
> See 1. [....]
See response to 1. Also note that dealing with drug users (medical care or however else) costs people's money which is not exactly a subjective or delusional thing to concern oneself with.