You Don't Have a Right to Be Wrong

I'm a pretty easy-going person. I really try to not become so attached to my positions that I cannot abandon them in the face of new evidence. The fact that I've been changing less recently scares me because I can't tell if that's indicative of more strongly bolstered ideas forming a highly-coherent conceptual framework or I'm just getting old and calcified in my thinking.

Regardless, one area where I'm practically a zealot is that of truth. I can't stand it when people are dishonest, especially to themselves about their motives. As a relativist, I'll grant that you may have different values than me though I may not value them myself and may even have to do something about it if they're grossly incompatible with mine. Where we're going to have a big hurdle is if you're spewing a lot of bullshit. If you keep moving the goalposts or not accepting conclusions accordant with your stated beliefs or are just flat-out lying or dodging the question, then I'm going to call you out.

Due to my stance on rights, I'm taking on the role of Justin-contextual granter of rights. And I don't grant you the right to switch between axioms when it suits you or behave in ways which are not congruent with your claims or deny the truth of conclusions based on premises which you support. If you want to enter into a debate with me, I demand solid grounding. My stance is highly related to what Eliezer Yudkowsky demands in "Is that your True Rejection?"

I am in no position to tell another what is pertinent or not to forming their conclusions. If another feels that skin color is so important as to deny rights to a whole class of people, that is their prerogative. After all, is that qualitatively different than grasping at straws to find human rights-granting exceptionalism? All I demand is consistency and additional qualifiers where necessary. So, let's start with something which is bound to piss people off: abortion.

Accepting the Consequences of Common Unqualified Pro-Choice Arguments

It's my body, and I can do what I want with it.

So you deny the moral and legal wrongness of taking drugs since people can do what they want with their bodies?

So you deny the moral and legal wrongness of prostitution since people can do what they want with their bodies?

So you deny the moral and legal wrongness of suicide since people can do what they want with their bodies?

One has no right to involuntarily take resources from another.

So you're for father's rights of abandonment, and abandonment in general, because the money, wealth, and time of another are their resources?

So you're against involuntary taxation?

So you're claiming that money, wealth, and time aren't resources or don't belong to an individual?

It's not a person and doesn't have a right to life.

So if someone assaults you and causes you to miscarry, it's a property crime, not murder?

Solution required to maintain position #1 LHS without accepting #1 RHS: add "only for women" or "only related to reproductive functions" or some other qualifier.

Solution required to maintain position #2 LHS without accepting #2 RHS: add "only for bodily fluids and nutrients".

Solution required to maintain position #3 LHS without accepting #3 RHS: add "it's only not murder if the mother does it" (note you'd still have to abandon the "not a person" argument, but you could maintain the right to life).

Bear in mind that each qualifier you add makes it less likely that others will accept the whole package. Are you arguing for truth or arguing to win?

Accepting the Consequences of Common Unqualified Pro-Life Arguments

It has a heartbeat

So does a daphnia. Are you against voluntarily killing tiny animals?

It's a human

So is the guy on death row, so was Osama Bin Laden. Are you against killing all humans?

It's not a choice, it's a baby

It's not a choice it's a job.

It's not a choice, it's a car.

She made her bed, now she can lie in it

So you'll keep working at a job you hate?

So you'll keep living in a town that isn't ideal for you?

So you'll stay in a relationship even though it damages you?

So you're completely against divorce?

So you can never give up a pet if you have to move to a place which doesn't accept pets?

It could grow up to be the next Einstein

So you're willing to put effort into highly unlikely things just because the possibility exists? Do you play the lottery? Why aren't you trying to be a professional writer or basketball player?

It's against God

So you're against eating shellfish, working on The Sabbath, etc.?

Conclusion

Please, think your issues through or, better yet, own your values. Remember that your dispositions and aversions and hence your desires are likely to not be things which have been reasoned into and thus will not have a logical justification backing them. The mind is a pattern matcher and wants to tease out rules which it can cache for later application - it can cause agents to get angry or anxious when it can't find patterns. Make sure the rules you tease out actually make sense lest if I debate you we end up playing a game of "is that your true rejection" which, again, I don't grant you a right to force me to play.