| ▲ | mcbutterbunz 12 hours ago |
| Those that are deemed inalienable. |
|
| ▲ | SauntSolaire 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Freedom of speech is far from inalienable. Non-disclosure agreements are most relevant, but every country on earth also has at least some regulations regarding hate speech, threats, incitement, purjury, or defamation — not to mention security clearances or state secrets. |
| |
| ▲ | mcbutterbunz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | And that's where the complexity arises in this argument that I don't know how to resolve. In the case of this woman vs Meta, to me it doesn't "feel" legal that one disparaging comment costs $50K. It feels that there's something wrong here that should not be allowed despite her entering the agreement. Maybe I don't believe she should have been allowed to enter the agreement. But I understand that my point of view doesn't match legal code. Just feels fucked. | | |
| ▲ | SauntSolaire 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | To be clear, I do agree with everything you've said here — I just disagree that freedom of speech is an inalienable right, and I don't think there's ever been a time or place where it has actually been considered one. If it were up to me, I would require non-disparagement agreements to be standalone contracts, and cap the damages a company can claim to the amount they paid you to sign it. Once that number is met, the contract is void. That way the company only gets as much leverage as they're willing to pay for. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | AndrewKemendo 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The majority of people will self-alienate themselves in exchange for power or even just survival Think of a person digging their own grave under threat of immediate murder (tons of well documented examples). This is the maximum self alienation: do work to make life easier for your oppressors. In my 41 years it seems like the majority of people are content digging their own graves |
|
| ▲ | 0x3f 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Please enumerate these inaliable basic freedoms that I should not be able to deal in. |
| |
| ▲ | mcbutterbunz 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you'd like to research basic freedoms, I would suggest starting here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's very boring for you not to actually commit to anything specific, so that you don't have to defend it. | | |
| ▲ | mcbutterbunz 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There's a basic list on that page. There are many LLMs out there that you can discuss this with if you want to waste your own time. I'm not going to waste any more time with this thread. You have an attitude that says "Debate me but you'll never convince me". If you'd like to learn something, there are many resources on the internet available to you. | |
| ▲ | malfist 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm glad we're all here under the goal of making non-boring statements for 0x3f | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | We're all essentially here under the goal of making non-boring statements for each other, yes. That is the general purpose of an online forum. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The US will not permit you to sign yourself into slavery, as an example. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Only for a very narrow definition of slavery. Arguably constructing society such that it costs so much to just exist (for example, by artificially restricting housing supply) and thus you have to work is not all that different to slavery. I would say the dollar is but company scrip with better PR. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Only for a very narrow definition of slavery. Good. We have "enumerate[d] [at least one] inaliable basic [freedom] that I should not be able to deal in". | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well now you're equivocating. We've established one that you can't deal in in a specific country. _Should_ is quite a different question. You can't establish should by establishing is. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Don't hurt your back moving those goalposts. Lift with hips. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | America = literally the whole world and everyone in it so QED inalienable rights exist Well I wouldn't call it a strong argument... Nonetheless the goalposts were never shifted. The question was always 'should'. So I'm very confused by your confusion. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | What proof, exactly, would you accept for "should"? Should is an opinion. You're welcome to feel "slavery should be legal". I'm welcome to (and should) think you're insane for holding that opinion. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Should is an opinion. Well that would seem to make the rights in question not particularly inalienable. In fact if we're talking about the US slavery _is_ legal in certain contexts. So it's definitely not inalienable. Only in the context of voluntary agreements between private citizens. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Well that would seem to make the rights in question not particularly inalienable. You should read up on what "inalienable rights" are about. Even the first couple of paragraphs on Wikipedia will suffice. They get violated all the time and need constant protecting. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're taking a strangely ethnocentric view here. I don't take the founding fathers' writings as a form of scripture. Those are but bare assertions. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're taking a strangely US-centric view here. This has nothing to do with the founding fathers. The Ancient Greeks talked about natural law. The UN passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 193 countries have ratified at least parts of it. Again, I beg you to at least read a paragraph or two off Wikipedia. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | The specific term 'inalienable' is heavily associated with the founding of the US. The others are different things but not very different in substance, i.e. ultimately some guy claimed these are universal rights. Wikipedia is not going to make appeal to authority work any better as an argument, I'm afraid. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Clear ignorance again. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... > Preamble > Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world... | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Is the US not in the UN now or something? The whole UNUDHR was an Eleanor Roosevelt project. She literally drafted the documents! At least look it up before being rude. You need to get the knowledge before applying the sass. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | "An American helped convince 193 countries of something, therefore it's invalid" is a take, I suppose. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well this was really just a sub-argument about whether 'inalienable' is an Americanism, which it is. The real point about 'natural' rights, or whatever term you've switched to using, is that they're simply assertions. Not supported by anything else. Doesn't really matter who is asserting them. The argument takes the same form, and is equally bunk. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
