yeahiknow3 @ yeahiknow3 @lemmings.world

Posts

1

Comments

430

Joined

1 yr. ago

It’s hilarious that Harris gets attacked from the right because she wants to ban fracking while simultaneously getting attacked from the left because she doesn’t want to ban fracking.

Let’s use our brains for a minute as we speculate whether a progressive senator wants to poison our water supply to procure the fossil fuels that her administration is desperately trying to phase out.

Given that his wife is running for president and 90% of Americans are pro capitalism, it would be awkward if he admitted otherwise.

Next up, the sky is blue.

Next, being a member of the Taliban also a protected class.

Until we come up with a way to uncorrupt the courts, sure. Currently, the SCOTUS is illegitimate.

I agree with your sentiment, but literally all nations are imaginary. Always have been.

I don’t own a gun, and you can downvote this dude’s comment all you want, but his logic is impeccable. If you can’t use your right to self defense against an armed incursion into your home where your children sleep, then when?

Your modified analogy is broken, since it is impossible for an encryption service to provide the information being subpoenaed by definition. You wouldn’t claim Hertz is “impeding an investigation” by failing to use telepathy. Damn but authoritarians are stupid.

Next they’ll make encrypting your own files illegal. Absolutely preposterous. Do better police work!

The analogy works if you lease or rent.

Rent a car, commit a crime, boom — rental company is on the hook apparently. Moronic.

Ok, except that. Don’t burn down the neighborhood.

We are entitled to justice but that doesn't entail killing folks on a whim

I appreciate the conversation. I doubt we disagree on the fundamentals. However, I have to push back against this characterization. There was nothing whimsical about her decision or this guy’s culpability.

It’s also important not to conflate our ability to know something definitively (our epistemic confidence) with the truth.

If what she claims about this guy is true, then she is morally justified. If it’s not true, then she isn’t. Our uncertainty about the matter is a separate issue and regrettably not the subject of this litigation.

when the law has really failed you

This is the actual crux of the issue. Justice doesn’t recognize national borders, governing bodies, or laws. The very fact that we — as thinking, feeling creatures capable of suffering — allow a bureaucracy to monopolize violence and distribute justice on our behalf is a tenuous miracle (and a biiiig illusion).

We are entitled to justice. It’s an innate aspect of our rational nature (what Immanuel Kant called membership in the kingdom of ends). We permit a “justice system” to act on our behalf for the sake of practical efficiency, but that's a tenuous contract, and when it fails to hold up its end of the bargain…

Vigilantism is immoral

This is a category error. You wouldn’t say that “kicking is immoral,” or that “driving is immoral.” It just depends what you’re kicking and where you’re driving.

“Vigilantism” is the extrajudicial pursuit of justice. It involves breaking the law in some random corner of the world. However, none of that has any bearing on morality. The holocaust was legal. Slavery was legal. What the Supreme Court is doing now is legal. That has no bearing on whether it’s moral.

She did the right thing with forethought and premeditation? How dare she!

Her morally good action was premeditated? Unthinkable!