oce 🐆

I try to contribute to things getting better, with sourced information, OC and polite rational skepticism.
Disagreeing with a point ≠ supporting the opposite side, I support rationality.
Let’s discuss to make things better sustainably.
Always happy to question our beliefs.

  • 73 Posts
  • 2.17K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 7th, 2023

help-circle

  • The point of the “moment of aggression” is that there is no way any democratically legitimated power can protect you immediately in the moment of a physical aggression. Unlike an unfair insurance system where you should be able to get legal protection and sue to claim your rights. If the system doesn’t protect one’s rights enough, then one should work on improving it through getting involved in the democratic process. Are they voting? Are they demonstrating? Have they done everything they could to support the politicians that defend their values, or risked themselves to carry the burden of becoming one? Killing people is just going to illegitimate your opinion, and also probably negatively impact the other people who share it too.

    Any intervention on society, with a goal to impact it, is political, I don’t know what surprises you there.




  • In my country, physical self-defense is relevant to the moment of the aggression and is required to be proportional (which is complicated, I concede). If you later go look for the aggressor to exercise your right to “self-defense”, that’s vengeance and personal justice, not self-defense anymore. This is usually forbidden in democratic countries because it could have a lot of negative effects of society.
    Overall, unless the laws and logic are very different in the USA, I don’t think this could be considered self-defense. This is also not going to stop the abuse by insurance companies since thousands of people can replace this guy, so it’s more about sending a message, isn’t it. What do we usually call the method of killing people to send a political message?











  • The eugenics law permitted sterilization or abortion surgery for people with intellectual disabilities, mental illnesses, or hereditary disorders without their consent, aiming to prevent “inferior” traits from entering the gene pool.
    About 25,000 people were sterilized, 16,500 of them without consent, and there were around 59,000 cases of abortion surgery under the law, according to government data, with over 23,000 victims estimated to be alive.
    The government will pay 15 million yen each to victims of forced sterilization surgery under the 1948-1996 eugenics law, 5 million yen to spouses of the victims and a lump sum of 2 million yen to those forced to undergo abortion surgery.

    15M JPY is about 100k USD, and 4 years of median annual salary.