Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by JoshTriplett 9 days ago
> We don't need to argue about whether it is in fact murder

That's exactly the problem: we do. Not here, specifically, but if someone's false beliefs have grown to the point that they are hurting others over them, they need to be stopped.
1 comments
Joker_vD 9 days ago
Do you not realize that this argument applies equally well both against pro-choice and against pro-lifers? It does, therefore it is entirely invalid and irrelevant.

Yes, those people with "false beliefs". Ah, if only we could force everyone to have true beliefs. And it's not against freedom of thought and consciousness, oh no! We're only against actually false beliefs. That, you know, have been proven wrong. Or at least for which the proofs of incorrectness exist that we believe are correct. But since our beliefs true, this is fine.

link
lern_too_spel 9 days ago
He said nothing about forcing. Suppose the false belief he was talking about was Creationism. Does his comment read as authoritarian?
link
Joker_vD 8 days ago
Yes, it does.
link
JoshTriplett 8 days ago
It's fascinating that you are attempting to portray a comment as authoritarian that is arguing people should not enforce their false beliefs on others and should not restrict their bodily autonomy. It's literally an argument against being authoritarian.
link
bit-anarchist 8 days ago
What I understood their point to be is that the only reason they are "false beliefs" is your own biases. If they aren't actual "false beliefs", then the restrictions on bodily autonomy are as justified as when dealing with killings, and your argument degenerates into pro-authoritarism.
link
lern_too_spel 7 days ago
Some things are categorically false, and those conclusions can be reached rationally. That seemed to be his only point, and he did not say anything about preventing anyone (like Carroll's Queen of Hearts) from believing six impossible things before breakfast. That would be authoritarian.

In a democracy like ours, stopping the Queen and others from enacting restrictive and harmful policy based on impossibilities only requires convincing arguments. People are still perfectly free to believe in Creationism, but convincing arguments have removed it from curricula.

link