Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 388 posts

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#251

Post by MockObject »

acover wrote: post #196
Clubber wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The federal government derives much of it's power over the states using a controversial interpretation of the commerce clause: To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause Abortion tends to be single state centric, meaning the person getting the abortion and the abortion clinic are in the same state. Because of thi…

Doesn't the commerce clause cover basically everything? You can't grow wheat to feed your own horses because it affects interstate commerce.

You can't even grow your own weed, inasmuch as it affects the prices on an interstate black market.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#252

Post by mturmon »

AdamH12113 wrote: post #156

(Context: The article uses abortion as its central -- and only -- example.) >Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with? It's not. Many people[1] spend a great deal of time studying the rhetoric and activities of people who oppose abortion. They have studied them far more than you. >For better or for worse, the vast majority of people I know favor Roe v. Wade. Still, I think I understand the view…

I really like this as a response to OP. Thanks for taking the time.

OP laments that people who are bodily affected by these abortion rules aren't willing to have an abstract debate about the constitutional definition of privacy. Of course constitutional lawyers can construct plausible arguments that move privacy protections around. The debate can be imagined, even constructed, but it's irrelevant to the actual power struggle that's playing itself out.

The move by the court was a political one. The angles have been worked by a donor class and a compliant Senate for a decade and more. The consequences of this ruling will be unpopular and will result in needless suffering and (obviously) lawbreaking. "Fuck that noise" is a perfectly legitimate response, under the circumstances.

The fact that most commenters here can't see what's going on --- as opposed to the "logical" thing they wish were going on --- is one of the major blind spots of this discussion board.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#253

Post by ClumsyPilot »

ouid wrote: post #232
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only in bounds way to convince me to change my mind about them is to show me that my beliefs are inconsistent Have you not examined your beliefs at all? No 100% consistent belief system has even been invented, because the different principles that allow advanced society to exist conflict with each other - duty to the collective, freedom, equality, etc. Should the tolerant, tolerate people who are Nazis? Should…

It's trivially easy to create a consistent belief system. Simply have no beliefs. The mutually exclusive properties are consistency and completeness (although these can be mutually satisfied in certain limited circumstances not likely to be relevant here). You can have no belief at all about abortion. In that case, you are free to choose one as an axiom, although you are also free to not choose. If you choose a belie…

> It's trivially easy to create a consistent belief system. Simply have no beliefs

The point of a belief system is to be of practically usefull in life, not to.. whatever are we achieving here exactly?

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#254

Post by riskable »

alkaloid wrote: post #211
riskable wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know followers of invented , right? There's no dots to connect between one thing and the other. Someone can be a hardcore Catholic and invent an abortion device or an atheist could come up with a fancy new way of manufacturing crosses. Their stance on religion is irrelevant.

In this case, there are lots of dots. There are a disproportionate amount of Catholic priests represented within the scientific sphere, including the vast majority of famous ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scient... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lay_Catholic_scientist...

Again, what are you trying to say here? Some scientists are Catholics? Some of them are even famous? What does that have to do with anything?

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#255

Post by ouid »

ironmagma wrote: post #124
ouid wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh really? Would you like to provide an example of this?

A simple example is the axiom "private property exists and should be enforced with the law". There are societies without private property, and they are very different from the ones that do have it.

I tshould have been clearer about what I mean by the law. I'm treating the laws themselves as immutable, and referring to the process of their interpretation. Ie, the judgment that happens in a courtroom. Which laws should exist depends on moral arguments though. So the point does essentially stand.

The fact that people act out of mostly inscrutable, heuristic biological interest as a form of moral empiricism, does in fact count as out of bounds. I'm allowed to have a moral system that compels me not to reproduce, for instance. It's just not terribly likely (although not impossible) to be an effective reproductive strategy.

If you want to have a completely unrelated discussion about this, I'm more than willing, but I think you should probably refine the proposition "Private property exists".

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#256

Post by MockObject »

riskable wrote: post #250
alkaloid wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

First of all: What a terribly-made PDF... It's so compressed I can't even read the text at the top. Secondly, it's just from an awful source: The Family Research Council (FRC) is designated as a hate group (for good reason!) by the Southern Poverty Law Center: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/grou... Even after all that it has yet another problem : It uses loaded terms like, "unborn children" t…

I thought the PDF had been linked as a source for the claim regarding abortion laws between countries.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#257

Post by rat87 »

Clubber wrote: post #162
robonerd wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An amendment seems ideal, but wouldn't a regular federal law also get the job done? They could even strengthen it like the Federal Reserve Act: "The right to amend, alter, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved."

The federal government derives much of it's power over the states using a controversial interpretation of the commerce clause: To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause Abortion tends to be single state centric, meaning the person getting the abortion and the abortion clinic are in the same state. Because of thi…

A very broad application of the commerce clause isn't that controversial, it's also pretty obvious/logical since basically everything effects interstate commerce

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#259

Post by guerrilla »

ouid wrote: post #204
guerrilla wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I refer you to the entire Western canon of ethics because that's 99% of what it consists of. If you want a simple math example, we replaced Euclid's axioms of geometry with Hilber's axioms of geometry and others. Look into why. Then there's the fact that axioms and premises that make empirical statements which can be falsified. Those get thrown out all the time.

We didn't replace Euclid's axioms. I'm sorry that you think so, because it is a common misconception that mathematics "believes in a set of axioms". The euclidean axioms are a foundation for the logical system of euclidean geometry. Eucliden geometry is not only unchanged, but is actually a system which has been proven to be consistent and decideable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_axioms . This makes it ra…

I think you misunderstood what I said and may have demonstrated a little ignorance at the same time. Hilbert's axioms are axioms for Euclidean geometry, like Tarski's and Birkhoff's.

> That which I observe exists

This isn't even close to what empiricism is. You named a (very poor) ontological principle. Empiricism is a set of epistemological principles.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#260

Post by dvt »

jasonlotito wrote: post #186
dvt wrote: post #42

Almost every serious non-partisan legal scholar agrees that Roe v. Wade is on tenuous legal footing. It's purely a logical argument, and it doesn't follow very well from the Constitution. We have a very simple mechanism to rectify this: amend the Constitution. But that ship has long sailed, and the problem now is stare decisis †, which complicates things further. So there's a very real justification for keeping Roe i…

> Almost every serious non-partisan legal scholar agrees that Roe v. Wade is on tenuous legal footing. Citation needed. Also, would love to see how you are defining "serious non-partisan legal scholar." Seems like a whole bunch of adjectives you can use to disregard someone. As it stands, you can literally be talking about one person and be telling the truth depending on how you define those words.

Pretty good article that explains the shaky legal foundation of Roe v. Wade: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-05-03/how-roe-vs...
Post reply on HN