6 ms·

There is no logical contradiction at all in simultaneously opposing abortion while supporting capital punishment or vice versa. A right-winger believes that the

There is no logical contradiction at all in simultaneously opposing abortion while supporting capital punishment or vice versa. A right-winger believes that the state should serve to enforce the social contract and punish violators—they believe that a fetus is entitled to protection because it has done nothing to violate the social contract whereas a serial killer is clearly a menace to the interests of society. Right-wingers don’t object to state power over the individual in the abstract—they object to it situationally because they think state power is largely controlled by people who are hostile to their preferences and interests.

noduerme 5y ago
Is objecting to state power, or really anything, only situationally - when it doesn't suit you - just another way of saying you're willing to argue logically inconsistent positions from one day to the next?
- _dain_ 5y ago
  No.
  - noduerme 5y ago
    If your only logic is a boot to the face of anyone you're told to hit, or to kill people you never even met, you aced the test. Today you're the victim of a lot of conspirators. Tomorrow you're the hero. Nevermind the people driving you to kill those other people are also conspirators, using you to kill their personal rivals. Must be easy to see the world this way. I've never been dumb enough to do it, but maybe you could spare a couple words and explain why it's so great. "No".
    - _dain_ 5y ago
      I want a state that does things I'm in favor of and doesn't do the things I'm not in favor of. This is not me being "logically inconsistent" by "objecting situationally"; it's almost a tautology.
      - noduerme 5y ago
        It's only a tautology if you're completely solipsistic and think the state exists to grant your wishes. Once a state works that way, it's out of control, and the only people who get their wishes are the ones at the very top. Say you and I both agree our city should build a new ballpark. I think they should put it out in the old industrial zone. You think they should build it conveniently close to downtown, which would involve tearing down my house. The city ends up deciding to build it near downtown, except they're going to tear down your house to do it. Now who's going to take you seriously if you complain about your house being torn down, when you were just arguing it was fine to tear down someone else's? I want a state that does things according to reasonable, universally applied principles. Sometimes those are going to be things I don't like, but it's more important that the principles be upheld than that I get the result I want. I might want to see someone dead, but the principle of not killing people supersedes that. Because if the city has no guiding logic like, "it's wrong to tear down houses because this guy thinks we should" then they'll eventually come for your house, because you're never gonna be that guy.

noduerme 5y ago

Is objecting to state power, or really anything, only situationally - when it doesn't suit you - just another way of saying you're willing to argue logically inconsistent positions from one day to the next?

_dain_ 5y ago
No.
- noduerme 5y ago
  If your only logic is a boot to the face of anyone you're told to hit, or to kill people you never even met, you aced the test. Today you're the victim of a lot of conspirators. Tomorrow you're the hero. Nevermind the people driving you to kill those other people are also conspirators, using you to kill their personal rivals. Must be easy to see the world this way. I've never been dumb enough to do it, but maybe you could spare a couple words and explain why it's so great. "No".
  - _dain_ 5y ago
    I want a state that does things I'm in favor of and doesn't do the things I'm not in favor of. This is not me being "logically inconsistent" by "objecting situationally"; it's almost a tautology.
    - noduerme 5y ago
      It's only a tautology if you're completely solipsistic and think the state exists to grant your wishes. Once a state works that way, it's out of control, and the only people who get their wishes are the ones at the very top. Say you and I both agree our city should build a new ballpark. I think they should put it out in the old industrial zone. You think they should build it conveniently close to downtown, which would involve tearing down my house. The city ends up deciding to build it near downtown, except they're going to tear down your house to do it. Now who's going to take you seriously if you complain about your house being torn down, when you were just arguing it was fine to tear down someone else's? I want a state that does things according to reasonable, universally applied principles. Sometimes those are going to be things I don't like, but it's more important that the principles be upheld than that I get the result I want. I might want to see someone dead, but the principle of not killing people supersedes that. Because if the city has no guiding logic like, "it's wrong to tear down houses because this guy thinks we should" then they'll eventually come for your house, because you're never gonna be that guy.