• Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    You cannot have it both ways.

    Ban the delivery of messages containing hate towards a group based on their identity.

    • NateNate60@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 month ago

      Let me try to twist this rule.

      The delivery of materials informing women of abortion resources is now prohibited as this represents hate towards foetuses on the basis of their unborn status and advocates for killing them.

      The delivery of materials promoting diversity in hiring and criticising the makeup of the boards of directors of large companies as being overwhelmingly white and male is now prohibited as this represents hate against white male executives.

      You see, the issue is that you cannot guarantee that the person interpreting the rule you want to impose will think the same way you do.

        • NateNate60@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Nope.

          I’m a person who doesn’t agree with you and I find myself in the position to interpret the rule. Therefore, I am interpreting the rule in my favour. A foetus is a person. The articles will not be delivered.

          Hopefully this makes the argument a bit more clear . In this hypothetical scenario, a malicious person who disagrees with you is in charge of interpreting the rule. You have no power here and none of your arguments will convince them otherwise.

          The only thing you can do is design a system that is robust enough that the damage that can be done by that malicious person.

          You say a foetus is not a person. That person says “nuh uh”. But they are in charge and you are not, so their interpretation stands and you have to suck it and now you regret giving that organisation the power to make that determination.

          You can think of it all in terms of game theory. You get to write the rules, then I, a malicious entity, get to play by your rules, and you can only stand and watch. Once you put your pen down, I am in charge.

          Now you can see that in this game, you would want to write rules that constrain what I can do as much as possible.

          • ASDraptor@lemmy.autism.place
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            1 month ago

            You need to be born to be a person. Otherwise where do we set the limit? Maybe for medical reasons, we should set it at a certain number of weeks, but for non medical reasons should be considered the moment of birth. Otherwise when does it become hatred? Can I say “I hate fetuses under 4 weeks” but not “I hate fetuses of 12 weeks”?

            Following that logic, someone could consider masturbation as a crime, and menstruation too.

            • NateNate60@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              23
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 month ago

              Well, you see, I am a malicious entity that doesn’t need to listen to your logic. All I need is the power that you have given me.

              For your rules, since I am the malicious entity in charge, I can just say “I’m right, you’re wrong”, and there is nothing you can do about it.

              • ASDraptor@lemmy.autism.place
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                19
                ·
                1 month ago

                But what I said can’t be twisted. To be a person you must be born.

                There is no interpretation there. A fetus is not a person because it hasn’t been born.

                • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  16
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Ok, let’s say it a different way.

                  You have blond hair, but the person who delivers your mail hates blonds and refuses to deliver to you. They deliver mail to everyone but you, and because there’s a rule that says the postal worker can choose who they want to deliver to, you can’t force them to.

                  So now you have to go all the way to the post office to pick up your mail because you have blond hair.

                  That’s the crux of the argument.

                • NateNate60@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  You don’t get it do you?

                  “Nuh uh.”

                  There. That’s all I need to say to nullify everything you say. Because I have power and you don’t.

      • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        I agree, humans won’t stop stochastic terrorism, because enough humans don’t give a shit, and they’re fine with people dying because they’re not white and heteronormative.

        That’s why I don’t feel attached to humanity, and I don’t class myself as one.