[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]


File: 1671335950407.png (392.88 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, large.png) ImgOps Google

Something I've been thinking about lately:

We all have a list of things we consider essential to our survival and basic dignity.  For me, it's shelter, food, a correct name, a correct gender, and a capacity to do or attempt to do the work I consider important.  Oh, and not being assaulted or tortured is a plus, etc.

But whoever you are and whatever your list, there are probably people you will become acquainted with who will have an opinion that you should not have these 'necessities.'  I suppose this is an opportunity to ask if you can, in fact, tolerate fewer freedoms.  Perhaps these people have something to add about not being entitled or greedy.

But in most cases you will not want to amend your list of needs, and so you will have to accept that many people do not care for you to exist in a way you find appropriate.  I struggle to feel...good about this, I guess.  To be open-minded and tolerant, since we must give ponies/people the freedom to share opinions.  Maybe some tips would be nice.

This picture is not relevant, I just thought it was nice (https://derpibooru.org/images/2225879).


File: 1671345547066.png (90.45 KB, 325x309, 325:309, 5e7ef1cdec06f96968139fd39c….png) ImgOps Google

>Existential Threats
I think that an unaligned superhuman AI is the biggest existential threat to humanity.  


File: 1671347697946.png (211.42 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, large.png) ImgOps Google

OK, we can work with that.  

Do you think dangerous AGI is feasible within your lifetime?

Do you think unaligned AGI will be sufficiently dominant (I guess versus aligned AGI) to be a threat to you within your lifetime?

Are there people that you see as favoring, expressing ideas in favor of, or working toward harmful AGI?

Are you human?

Now, if all those are so, how do you respond respectfully to people who don't care for your wish to have a life free of Terminator AGI, but are not actually threatening you with Terminator AGI in the moment?


Humanity in general and Americans in particular can't even come to an agreement on whether multiple groups of people even have the right to exist (to actually be alive, far beyond the question of thriving and being happy with life) at the very basic level.

So, alas, talking about something like freedom of speech or the right to health care is kind of supremely flawed from the beginning. If you don't think, say, transgender people should be allowed to breathe, why would you possibly want them to be able to publish books and set up public demonstrations? If you don't think somebody should be able to call themselves a Satanist, why for goodness' sake would you allow them to run for office someplace?

I think a core part of being an adult in these troubled times is to recognize that what you see as clearly morally obvious, 2+2=4 style fact is going to be firmly opposed in every way by your neighbor. That's just how it is. What you think is the absolute bare minimum of ethical decency is to your neighbor as extreme to them as requiring them to sprout wings and fly. I suppose it boils down to patience, humility, determination, grit, and other aspects of personal character: we are more different on the inside than orks versus elves versus hobbits and such are on the TV/movie screen but must still coexist. Accept that your neighbor might wake up one morning with the desire to chew one of your arms off because such is the nature of humanity currently. Live on.


>transgender people should [not] be allowed to breath
Right, it's about civility and patience.  This is a valid opinion that you should expect to find in your day-to-day life and you must treat with kindness.  You need only respond negativly or defensively when someone issues a credible and immediate threat to you as an individual.  At least, that's the route I see to peaceful coexistance


>this is a valid opinion
Valid in that a person holds the "opinion," sure. Valid in that it is based on logic or fact, no.
Secondly, thinking that a group of non-cis-heteronormativity people should be culled is not an opinion. It is demonstrably inhumane and wrong.

>you should expect to find in your day-to-day
No, I shouldn't. I should not expect to be told daily to be told I deserve to die because I do not conform to arbitrary social constructs. Be it in the form of media or conversations.

>You need only respond negatively or defensively when someone issues a credible and immediate threat to you as an individual
Like people actively pushing to make it nigh-impossible for people to get gender-affirming care that is shown to reduce the suicide rate? Or people pushing misinformation for decades that has led to trans youths being pushed onto the streets because their parents refuse to listen to the bulwark of science and increasing the suicide rate?
The laws and policies that current legislators at all levels that target trans people are credible and immediate threats to life.

>At least, that's the route I see to peaceful coexistance
You cannot coexist with people that want you dead.


Serious question.
Are you trying to operate in good faith because this response leaves me questioning that?

Why is your immediate response "you can't just genocide them because they want to genocide you"?

No where is the implication of violence in my post.

You educate, you make policies to protect the marginalized.
You build a society in which being a bigot has negative consequences.


>You cannot coexist with people that want you dead.
What does it mean to not coexist?


It's an opinion, for sure, but I wouldn't call it 'valid' per se.

While I don't like the fact that people who believe in violent coercion against those they don't like must be fought back using persuasive methods and other forms of nonviolent organization, I suppose things can't really go any other way. Fire doesn't stop fire. Water stops fire. Still, it feels like you're a sheep going against a wolf in some kind of contest given how much the socio-political deck is stacked against pacifistic people and for the militantly active.


A hypothetical question could be asked, "does everyone deserve to act in self defense?"  If so anyone may resist violence with violence.  But opinions having to do with violence are not violence and may just be hyperbole.  Anger at people's opinions can be used against you.


Making policies to "protect the marginalized" is just creating different marginalized. This is genuinely how the nazi party in Germany prior to WW2 saw themselves, as marginalized to a jewish elite. They saw the anti-jewish laws they passed as a form of equity, as a means of taking back what they deserved from an undeserving elite (who was never really that much of an elite in the first place).

To prop up a group through law is to make them the elite. To favor one group over another through law is to marginalize. Plain and simple. To pretend like it pointing at the *correct* people is fundamentally different is simply you identifying yourself as a supremacist of that particular flavor. There's a very, *very* fine line between passing laws to protect the marginalized, and establishing a legal system of oppression.


It is true anyone may claim to be oppressed.  The NAZI's had the opinion that the Jewish elite were their oppressors.  The Jewish people probably had to think about how to respond kindly to that opinion.


Yes, I think Nazis and bigots should be marginalized.

If you think that ant-jim crow law, anti redlining laws, and law that oppose segregation and discrimination are on the same level as the fucking Holocaust, I doubt we can ever have a meaningful conversation.

If saying bigots and Nazis should be marginalized makes me a supremacist then that really tells me all I need to know about you.



It's just an extreme rhetorical example to make the general point without the muddiness of a more grey area to confuse. It's not a statement of moral comparability. Same as using tiny models to explain the behavior of larger things.

The point is not that they're morally equitably, just that being "marginalized" is relative and subjective.

I'm also making the point that it's easy to overlook relative marginalization when you have an overly rigid dogma regarding certain groups, like how many people don't regard hate crimes committed by "less marginalized people" against "more marginalized people" as hate crimes. Just because, for example, asian people are seen to generally have it easier in America than black people, that doesn't make a black person committing violence against an Asian person, motivated by their race, any less bad. A lot of social justice dogma would dismiss such hate crimes, and that's morally repugnant and hypocritical, in my opinion.

Nazi and bigot are ideologies, which are generally acceptable to socially marginalize, so that's not a problem.


The Jews engaged in some terrorism in Nazi Germany, but that is generally seen as less important than the oppression Jews experienced during that time.  This worries you, I gather.


So you agree with me you are just being needlessly obtuse in doing so.

One, anyone that engages in that thinking is wrong, I agree. However that is in no way the broader understanding of how intersectionality or marginaliztion operates. You're tilting at windmills.

So again we should pass laws that protect groups that have historically be marginalized against by bigots to protect their civil rights.



No, you're missing my point. My point is the Nazis saw themselves as social justice warriors fighting against the oppressive overclass, just like how you see yourself. If you stay as dogmatic and uncritical as you're being, what with people falling into a "marginalized" scale and their acts being only meaningful in the context of their relative marginalization, then what stops you from holocausting those groups you see as not marginalized? If racism against Asians by blacks isn't racism, then is assault not assault? Is murder not murder? Is genocide not genocide? You've already laid a philosophical framework that would see another 6 million dead by racial motivations and not see it as wrong. That's pretty dangerous and wrong, is it not?


The point is that the thinking of the both of you would dismiss a lot of bad shit just because the "right people" are doing it. Oppressing people with laws isn't bad because the wrong people are being oppressed by them. It's the difference between writing a law that says "shall not discriminate based on race", and "shall not discriminate against black people", or "shall not discriminate against people with a marginalization score greater than or equal to 12". The writing of most modern anti-discrimination law specifically contradicts your more "marginal groups" way of thinking, as you would want to see discrimination against some groups, while the letter of a lot of anti-discrimination laws would not allow any form of discrimination. Why break the more obviously moral like of egalitarianism to try and recreate discrimination in the name of fighting against it? Surely you know that's not a path that will end in racial harmony?


The most bigoted people I've met regarded themselves the most egalitarian. Fighting, or so they claimed, for equality.

There is reason we have rules that apply to everyone, equally, regardless of who you are.
Less inevitably results in abuse. Especially by the well intentioned.


If we were to forgive Jewish violence against Nazi's because Jews were marginalized, what's to prevent us forgiving the Jews killing 6 million Nazi's in concentration camps?  Is that your question?


Who exactly do you think I want to marginalize?

You are putting words in my mouth. I agreed that oppression Olympics is bad.

But we don't.
You can't honestly tell you think the law is applied like that.


As is, sure.
But your suggestion in >>11811 seemed to suggest you desired particular legislation for certain groups everyone else doesn't get.

>"So again we should pass laws that protect groups that have historically be marginalized against by bigots to protect their civil rights."


Do I really need to explain why groups that have historically been the victims of systemic malfeasance need legal protection? Do you think that the 14th amendment is the be-all and end-all?
Do you think the ADA is creating a separate group of marginalization for disabled people?

I outlined the people I think should be marginalized. Never have I said that only gays get this, or Asians this. I again said that oppression olympics are bad and get us nowhere in this conversation. No one is arguing for a tiered system of rights.

I am arguing for equal protection, which does not exist/is actively being fought against by certain political groups.


Memory serves, the ADA is quite general, and doesn't specify disabilities, as you put it, "that have historically be marginalized ".

Regardless, this line is why ultimately I am under the perspective that, contrary to what you say, these are unlikely to be applied equally.
Now, if you're saying that post was in error, and those words said weren't what you meant, by all means, I'm happy to accept that.
But I've still got my opposition to inequal treatment under the law, nonetheless.


Do you think that disabled people have not been historically marginalized? Do you honestly think I am arguing that blind people should have different rights than deaf people?

Is it really just because I used the word marginalized? Do you think this is some gotcha? Is this really you just splitting hairs over the subjectivity of words?

Your smugness is both unearned and uncalled for. No one is for unequal treatment in this argument and your insinuation that I am is appalling.


In their totality, for every single disability one might have, to the point of including new classifications previously unknown?
No, not really.
Some, yes. All, no.

The rest here seems to be you simply flailing because I had the audacity to take issue with what you've said.
I don't see benefit nor productivity in addressing such things. You can assume my motive all you like, I'm afraid I don't overly care what presumptions you deign to ascribe for the sin of pointing to a phrase you've given that seems to contradict what you're saying now.


Incidentally, it isn't the word "marginalized", which would've been apparent if you bothered to read what I've said.
But you were quite clearly too busy being affronted by some perceived slight on your pride to engage which such honestly.

If it's such an emotional subject for you, I'd suggest taking a breather, and coming back to it, instead of jumping down people's throats for petty presumptions.


File: 1674013404860.png (256.02 KB, 944x911, 944:911, 1507233.png) ImgOps Google

It sounds like a conflation of wants and needs.  A person won't die if someone doesn't recognize their "correct name" - even if this goes on for years or decades or indefinitely.  In contrast, a person will die without food relatively quickly.


Except for, you know, the mental and emotional toll that this sort of things takes on a person, which very provably often results in suicide.

There are more existential threats than just those that affect your physical body directly, like not having enough food or protection from the elements. Mental and emotional damage can have terrible effects on a person physically, both psychosomatic and through self harm.

Its like the Heirarchy of Needs. Obviously you need to care for your physical needs first or you will die very quickly, but if you ignore the mental and emotional needs, you get trapped in a slow death.


We need a word for something that is a bit more than a preference but will not actually cause imminent death.  Like X describes a desire to not spend life as a prisoner of war in solitary confinement.


I suppose food is only a need for those who are starving and not going to die from some cause other than starvation (eg, disease).  Food is not a general human need as few are starving at any given time.

We need better words, perhaps. As you say, a Heirarchy of Needs [and Wants].


A fundamental problem that I don't know how to solve is that large sections of the American people regard things such as spreading child pornography, making threats of sexual assault, celebrating murders right after they occur, leaking personal financial information, and other such actions as potentially justifiable choices if done by their political tribe. To me, each of those listed acts should put you in jail. To them, it is all just an inherent aspect coming from having the freedom of speech.

To put it bluntly, a political activist willing to instruct me on their plans to molest me, steal my property, kidnap my family, and so on has a power over me that I by definition cannot stop. They are over me. I am below them. I can only use morally restricted rhetoric and the like based on my sense of having principles. They, in promoting their politics, are unfettered.

Is it not natural that they should win the day? That their politics advances? I suspect so.


I don't agree that 'wants' are of a category that don't apply to rights.

To pick a specific, clear-cut example, consider when the real, historical Nazis used SS forces to go through Polish villages deliberately targeting local Roman Catholic clergy and taunted those victims by instances such as telling them that if they replaced their religious faith they might have a chance to avoid imprisonment/rape/death/etc. Almost all of the time, or so I've personally read, the Catholics refused. And thus atrocities went on.

This was clearly just a matter of 'wants'. They 'wanted' their religious faith to be given respect by others. They 'wanted' to pick and choose their convictions. All they had to do was say the magic words, renouncing their spiritual identities. Their voluntarily chosen identities that they weren't born into.

And yet modern Western democratic values condemns those Nazis, lauds those Poles, and advocates for the idea of 'freedom of religion'. That your own 'wants' to pick an identity molded to your own nature is as vitally important as the right to, say, bear arms or not have property stolen. Is this correct? I think so.


Let's take an immediate threat, where someone says, "give me a million dollars or I will kill myself."  Clearly this is an unreasonable demand as the threat has no bearing on what they are (or think they are) "owed" by the person from whom they are demanding it.  They are in fact owed nothing, and the threat makes no difference.  An implied threat of suicide at some indeterminate time also makes no difference.  If one says, "Give me a million dollars," the answer is "no."  If one says, "Give me a million dollars or I will kill myself," the answer is still  "no."  An individual's rights end where the person from whom they are demanding begins, and as there is no basis for demands of universal action, the rights do not extend, regardless of implied threats of self-harm.
Sure it would be nice if everyone was agreeable, played nice, and catered to your every whim, but there's no basis for expecting it as a right from others, just as they have no basis for expecting it from you as a right.  Just as if I declared that my name is henceforth "Zalfernon, God Emperor of All Existence" and demanded that all refer to me as such, it is not my right to have you refer to me in this way, even if I threatened self harm over it.

It's a difference between being allowed to practice your own religion, and expecting everyone else to respect it.  And I do mean respect, because, for example, no one respects Scientology, yet it is allowed to persist without government interference.  No one respects Pastafarianism as a legitimate religion, yet it is generally afforded all the protections of other religions because it is not the place of government to decide.  The same cannot be said of Catholics under the Nazis.


You're actually coerced against your will to respect Scientology, though. You can't lie, cheat, steal, rape, murder, kidnap, or whatever else as a punishment for somebody or some group being of that background. You can't fire somebody from their job for that. You can't deny them health care at your hospital for that. You can't refuse as a firefighter to put out the flames in their house for that. You can't stop them from having a rally in the town square for that. And so on.

You can't harm anybody in any way no matter how much you want to express your lack of respect for their faith. And that's government coercion. Big Brother is forcing you to be a certain way unlike your free choices.

Trans rights being accepted as a thing everywhere would mean applying the literal and exact same standard. Forced respect. Forced prevention of harm.


File: 1680246148470.png (1 MB, 1240x1024, 155:128, fishing.png) ImgOps Google

Those are generally things you can't do to any person of any religion, and in most cases, to any person regardless of religion.  Failure to show respect is not the same as killing someone, for example.  Neither is showing disrespect the same thing as harming them.


But you're drawing a line between trans rights and other rights that doesn't exist here.

All that trans rights is involves taking the same legal and moral concepts around having a Catholic identity, Jewish identity, Hispanic identity, disabled identity, or such and applying it all to another identity.

Coercion in terms of forced prevention of harm. And forced equality under the law. And as well forced equality of opportunity in terms of equal access and control as anybody else of any identity.


File: 1680248646084.jpg (29.77 KB, 320x269, 320:269, 105190 - applejack artist ….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In some instances, yes.  In other instances, no.  It is not a direct apples to apples comparison.


I genuinely see no differences at all.


File: 1680249070627.gif (73.66 KB, 398x330, 199:165, applehat_nom.gif) ImgOps Google

The closest thing I could equate it to, is the fundamentalist Muslim proscription regarding whether non-Muslims are allowed to draw Mohamed.  In that sense, I would say there's no difference.


What does that situation have to do with trans rights in any way, even by analogy?


I can only think of a similarity in what if an extremist drew an image that included Mohammed in it that was created in order to threaten violence against Muslims (or to advocate for such violence in some fashion more abstractly), which could be possibly legal under U.S. law.

Muslims would want that banned. I would honestly as a non-Muslim agree. I think laws about criminal violence (including speech as inciting criminal violence) should be tougher.

And when it comes to statements said, drawn, typed, or whatever made by those who aren't trans that threaten violence against them... same thing, I suppose.


File: 1680249898490.jpg (91.21 KB, 864x924, 72:77, applejack_brushie_by_smock….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Fundamentalist Muslims extend their "right" to not be offended to include what non-Muslims can say about their religious figure(s), with some going so far as to commit acts of violence over it.  This goes beyond tolerance into forced acceptance whether one agrees with the proscriptions or not.  The same applies for trans activists, for whom tolerance is insufficient, and forced acceptance is demanded, whether one agrees with the underlying rationale or not.


But forced acceptance is the entire thing behind rights. All rights are based on forced acceptance. We only have rights at all because a government uses violence to a constrained extent to protect us.

You can hate Jews with every fiber of of your being, but the law forces you to accept them. Same as with Catholics. With disabled people. With black people. With any other identity.

You must allow for other identities to be protected from harm. To have equality of opportunity. Fair access. Equality under the law.


File: 1680250542034.png (598.76 KB, 750x750, 1:1, 1165119__safe_solo_appleja….png) ImgOps Google

That's fundamentally incorrect.  You are not required to accept behavior that you disagree with.  Else you'd be required to "accept" the "religious rights" of the very religions you reject outright that contradict the very notion of transgerderism.
Whether you hate someone or not is irrelevant to human rights.


You're not making any sense at all.

To start with, transgender people are people. 'Transgenderism' as a social construct has no rights because it can't. People have rights. That's how it works. A concept can't have rights because that's not how laws function.

Trans rights is about having trans people have the same rights and treatment as everybody else. The end. That's all. No less. No more.

What's being asked of you is that you extend the exact same ethical and legal sense of identities such as 'black person' and 'Catholic person' to also include 'trans person'.

You're absolutely required to accept behavior that you oppose. A Germanic neo-pagan neo-Nazi in uniform can go about their life as they see fit. You can't lift a finger. You must even accept them as a patient if you're an ER nurse. Put out their house on fire if you're a firefighter. Rent an apartment to them as a landlord. And so on. Your neighbor can wear a swastika armband, and you have to swallow it while giving them full respect as a human being with an identity as meaningful as yours. You can freely show 'disdain' and more, but 'respect' is legally compelled: you can't do anything whatsoever to prevent them from being a happy neo-Nazi.


File: 1680252340616.jpg (72.19 KB, 800x777, 800:777, applejack_by_skylergraysin….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Just like Muslim people are people.  And their proscription about what you are/n't allowed to depict regarding their prophet is something you can either ignore as you tolerate them, or accept/affirm.  Just as transgender people are people, and their proscriptions regarding what they must be called are something you can either ignore as you tolerate them, or accept/affirm.  It is no different to the dicta of any religion or culture regarding what is permissible or impermissible.

The concept has no rights.  But people represent the concept.  Problems arise when people seek to implement the dicta of their concepts upon others who don't adhere to them.


You're still not making any sense.

Can you name one specific physical behavior that you want to be able to do to your neighbor that would depend on whether or not they're transgender (assuming you're in a place with total trans rights)?

And how that prohibition is any different to any other core identity?

Again, you are already living in a world of forced acceptance through state-endorsed violence if you support any other application of human rights as a legal framework.


File: 1680253582968.gif (1.6 MB, 416x232, 52:29, aj32.gif) ImgOps Google

>Can you name one specific physical behavior that you want to be able to do to your neighbor that would depend on whether or not they're transgender (assuming you're in a place with total trans rights)?
There's nothing I want to be able to do to a hypothetical transgender neighbor.  Any potential problems would arise regarding the special proscriptions, should I refuse to accept them.  For example, if I'm going to call "women's" powerlifting world champion Avi Silverberg "ma'am" it's clearly as a joke, as "she" "herself" does not believe "she's" a woman.  Or the Kentucky shooter, whose pronouns I couldn't give less of a damn about.  Or anyone who comes to me and demands I call them Xir can shove it.  That doesn't mean I want them dead, or to lose their job, etc., but it does mean I'm not going to necessarily accept whatever is being demanded of me because of an appeal to supposed human rights.

>And how that prohibition is any different to any other core identity?
If an identity has restrictions that extend beyond the restrictions of any other identity, then the prohibitions may be viewed as illegitimate.


You have the right to lie, like anyone else about anything else, in a world with trans rights. So you can tell Steve that he's Bob, you can call the world flat, you can say that the lizard aliens caused global warming, and whatever else. You can tell a man that he's a woman. You can crown yourself Grand Wizard of Narnia. That's just that.

Again, this is the same with dealing with anybody of any identity. Lying is absolutely legal. Immoral at times (or all of the time, or none of the time, eh, ethicists have been on this for decades). Yet legal. Trans rights here has absolutely no difference to any other aspect of human rights.

Of course, other people can lie to you first. And they will. And they can attempt without force using mere persuasion to make you stop lying. You don't have any compulsion to listen.

The only way I can see speech restriction about lying reflect human rights in some way is if you're in a work situation, and there you'll be told to either stop or be fired. Like if you're trying to psychologically abuse a customer. Yet in those cases, though, you're actively preventing the regular process of work in the first place. Which is not just mere speech but reflects imposed harm on the employer via stopping their financial goals.

Also, I don't think one has the right to a job with no connection to work performance. If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen, with some people not being right for some careers. It's a reflection of chosen behavior and not at all identity. This also, of course, is general and not specific to trans rights. If you demanded to use the n-word to refer to a black customer, it'd be the same situation ethically and legally.

If you can think of any single other way that lying is illegal under human rights law, tell me. The fantasy that trans rights means you go to jail for using the wrong pronoun on somebody is an interesting thought experiment but isn't reality in the slightest.


Oh, lying under oath in a legal context is always banned. And lying in financial records is often restricted as well. Those cases.

Again, though, trans rights doesn't restrict your speech in any different way compared to other aspects of human rights. You can't say on the stand that you saw Steve at the party before the murders started regardless of Steve's gender identity, religion, skin color, or whatever else. Same for who you blame on your grant request for an unexpected equipment purchase the taxman should know about.


File: 1680256885357.gif (1.89 MB, 624x509, 624:509, what_is_applejack_doing_wi….gif) ImgOps Google

I can't really tell what point you're trying to make.

>Again, though, trans rights doesn't restrict your speech in any different way compared to other aspects of human rights.
Insofar as no one has a right to have you call them anything at all, that is correct.


Again, I can't tell why you oppose trans rights.

If it's because you want to be able to insult trans people or otherwise be harassing in speech terms, that's not relevant. Human rights for Jews hasn't stopped people from saying the most awful stuff for decades upon decades. Same for black people. And all identities.

There's nothing special about trans rights compared to human rights in general. It's just one particular identity out of the many. One that for whatever reason it seems more popular to discuss on the internet, I guess.


File: 1680257743901.png (55.17 KB, 420x420, 1:1, 1d536e719c31ee5776668c918f….png) ImgOps Google

Me?  I'm not even sure what "trans rights" entails according to you, so I cannot be either for it or against it as I don't know what it is.  I am merely pointing out the flaws in the argument that affirmation is a human right, which it most certainly is not.  That was the initial point as relates to the OP.

>There's nothing special about trans rights compared to human rights in general.
Sure there is, because people opposing various legislation regarding things like banning child sex changes do so, in the name of trans rights.  People pushing to hide children's gender identities from parents are doing so, in the name of trans rights.  A couple of obvious examples that don't, for example, apply to black people or Jews.

And like I said, if your special interest group gets extra-special rights that are unique and unlike those of other protected groups, then it calls into question the legitimacy of those supposed rights.


Human rights are controversial to the point of being useless as a list of particular objective freedoms.  I gather in practice you get whatever rights you consider to be appropriate to your class of being (eg. human), by setting personal boundaries.  If you feel a male gender is appropriate, you may remove people from your life who will not use that gender to refer to you.

The outlier is the state, which you generally aren't to disobediently put outside your personal boundary.  But if the state owes us nothing, we may consider it amoral and having no bearing on rights.


You're not making any sense at all. Denying people health care in order to harm them because you personally hate them is a violation of human rights for all identities. If you were an ER nurse who refused to help somebody after a car accident because they're a rabbi, it would be the same ethical principle involved. Or the historical cases of how the American Medical Association supported Jim Crow laws.

If a hospital, hotel, diner, grocery store, pharmacy, or whatever else refuses to let a transgender person through the door and has the de facto policy of putting up a segregation sign saying "No Trans Allowed" based on using a sharpie pen to update a "No Blacks Allowed" sign, then what their doing is morally wrong. To most people. And to me.

Trans rights are the exact same as any other form of human rights applied to any identity. It's about equality under the law. If you hate transgender people and want then harmed, denying their human rights, then be honest about that. And stop bringing up a false straw man that trans rights are special rights. Facts don't care about your feelings.


File: 1680507743493.png (174.37 KB, 888x900, 74:75, i_think_applejack_likes_yo….png) ImgOps Google

This is hilarious.

>Denying people health care in order to harm them because you personally hate them is a violation of human rights for all identities.
Well first off, hate doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it, and neither is it an effort to harm people in virtually all instances where an argument is being made.  Second, there is disagreement about the nature and efficacy of the supposed healthcare itself.

>If you were an ER nurse who refused to help somebody after a car accident because they're a rabbi, it would be the same ethical principle involved. Or the historical cases of how the American Medical Association supported Jim Crow laws.
This is like comparing a medical emergency with an elective surgery.

>If a hospital, hotel, diner, grocery store, pharmacy, or whatever else refuses to let a transgender person through the door and has the de facto policy of putting up a segregation sign saying "No Trans Allowed" based on using a sharpie pen to update a "No Blacks Allowed" sign, then what their doing is morally wrong. To most people. And to me.
"Bad things are bad."  I've seen no evidence that anyone is arguing for this, and certainly I am not arguing for this, so why are you arguing against it?  Straw man city.

>Trans rights are the exact same as any other form of human rights applied to any identity. It's about equality under the law. If you hate transgender people and want then harmed, denying their human rights, then be honest about that. And stop bringing up a false straw man that trans rights are special rights.
What other group has the supposed "right" to have medical procedures performed on them as minors without the parents' knowledge, as a fundamental aspect of affirming their identity?  It would be like convincing a non-Jewish child that he's Jewish, and then taking him to get circumcised without his parents' knowledge.  That would be applying the rights equally.  Being against covert circumcisions does not make you "anti-Jewish", any more than being opposed to elective surgeries and covert medication of minors makes you "anti-trans".

>Facts don't care about your feelings.
You do seem pretty upset.


File: 1680562527477.jpeg (53.86 KB, 480x640, 3:4, Fsv4FjGaAAIgfYZ.jpeg) ImgOps Google


Are you really not capable of understanding that bigots using coercive force in denying victims housing, voting, healthcare, water, jobs, safety, heating, and everything else thought of as a natural part of being in a civilized country is a moral injustice?

If a landlord kicking Bob out of his apartment due to him being transgender is all fine and dandy, as social conservatives demand, why isn't the same true for any other bigotry based on any other identity? Same for Bob being denied the medication to save his life? Being prevented from voting? Being assaulted in the streets? Why is Bob nothing but unfeeling meat in the eyes of the state if he's transgender but other forms of status matter? You think that Bob ethically cares if he's being refused to get the medical treatment keeping him from dying due to hatred of those who're transgender versus being a redhead versus being Catholic versus being white versus anything else about him? It's all victimization.


> why isn't the same true for any other bigotry based on any other identity?
Personally, this is my big issue with these kinds of laws to begin with; They always are.
Good example is political leanings aren't protected, for example. They can have nothing to do with the job you work, the service you requested, where you live, ect, and yet there're those who will absolutely campaign for you to be cut off from society entirely, to live as a pariah outcasted and banished, just for disagreeing politically.

People pick and choose too much with these kinds of protections.

[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]