catreadingabook

In the academic sense of the term, negative rights include the right to not have things done to you (e.g., to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law).

Positive rights include the right for you to do something, generally as against others (e.g., the right to have food, healthcare, or education be provided to you by other people).

I'm not sure it is useful to try to categorize abortion rights, for similar reasons why it would be difficult to categorize the right to try and grab the only parachute on a crashing plane. Even if it causes injury or death to others, our general tendency is to treat positive acts of genuine self-preservation as a negative right, if only in the sense that we would never enforce a rule that prohibits the person from trying.

A funky brain teaser on the topic might be whose right of life prevails when a perfectly healthy person turns out to be the only match for 5 patients with failing organs, one needing a new heart, another needing a new intact liver, etc., who are each about to die if we don't kill the healthy person and harvest their organs for transplant. And would the answer change if this wouldn't kill the healthy person, but severely decrease their quality of life - such as involuntarily taking one of their lungs and one of their kidneys?

(TOS spoiler for one episode)

Just in case any lurkers are still wondering: I think - but don't remember 100% - the guy everyone's calling Kevin was some random crew member in TOS who took over the ship's control room and started trolling the ship's PA system, until the main characters managed to break into the room and subdue him.

The episode gave him an unreasonably long monologue with the PA system, during which he sang an entire song ("I'll Take You Home Again, Kathleen"). It's also a little weird that this one crew member can take over the entire ship even though he's some average joe who we don't really see again.

No idea where the memes about him started though.

I think it has to be somewhere in between. This 'real deal' theory doesn't explain the popularity of hentai, but at the same time, OnlyFans shows that some people reaaallly care about the personal element. I would bet niche kinks (especially those 'illegal to make but legal to watch'?) will lean heavily on AI for content, but the rest will probably change based on our culture's attitude toward AI in general.

Most people in first world countries will probably understand 'L' and 'R' anyway. But hypothetically, the problem could probably be solved by adding another letter, the same way we know that 'T' is for 'Tuesday' and 'Th' is for 'Thursday.'

Casualties... 8 crew members subpoenaed, 15 sent to mandatory arbitration. Let's not let their sacrifices be in vain. Ready the counterclaims. Prepare to file!

Advice against phishing emails can be reduced to, "1: Never click on a link, call a phone number, download an attachment, or follow instructions you found in an email unless you were already expecting this exact email from this exact sender. 2: If you really want to do those things, search up the organization's website directly and use the contact info they provide there instead."

imo it's the ad-hungry articles stretching everything into 10+ pages that's making advice so inaccessible to people. Super annoying because it dilutes the real, simple message that's already there, it's just locked behind an adwall.

That's actually hilarious. The legal consequence of not thinking about anyone other than himself.

Wait, why? Not to complain, but it's essentially law that when federal courts have jurisdiction, a civil case may be 'removed' from state court and into federal (district) court upon the defendant's request -- and it seems pretty clear that federal courts have jurisdiction over civil cases arising under the Constitution. I guess the court technically has discretion in some cases, but that's pretty surprising.

Completely speculating btw:

Separate complaints are generally addressed separately, even within the same suit. It's unlikely one could have "tanked" the other.

I briefly looked over the original federal complaint vs desantis and the original state law countersuit vs the oversight district. The complaints in the other suit do point to different laws.

Since we all know these cases are going to get appealed no matter what, it's entirely possible Disney could be trying to entice the Supreme Court into taking on the federal case down the line by whittling it down to just one issue (free speech).

Single issue cases revolving around constitutional arguments are like crack to the Supreme Court, they love to take these so that they can announce new rules or reasoning before applying it to the case, which they get to do when """interpreting""" the Constitution.

Disney might suspect that the current Justices are drooling at the possibility of ruling expansively in favor of free speech.

Yes, but, what about those poor little multibillion dollar corporations who need their spam mail delivered RIGHT NOW? All these workers trying to, "not die," is getting in the way of their profits!! :(

Without taking a stance myself - I doubt anyone disagrees with the principle, but rather on the implementation. How do we know who's responsible enough; can we write a law that accounts for:

• A 50-year-old woman who committed robbery in a moment of desperation as a 16-year-old and has since shown remorse, attended therapy, and held a stable job,

• A 40-year-old businessman who's never been convicted of anything, seemed okay when he saw a therapist once last year, but privately he gets into vicious screaming matches with his wife and has really inappropriate temper tantrums when he's drunk, and

• A 21-year-old college graduate who seems smart and stable enough, but their social media page is full of harsh criticisms of the government, projections of what would happen if various officials were theoretically assassinated, and more than a few references to "hoping for another civil war"?

While balancing that with the idea that the government isn't supposed to protect something as a "right" while also preemptively taking that right away from people they think might be dangerous, if they can't point to highly credible evidence. (Otherwise, it becomes possible to arrest people for 'thought crimes.')

Idk the solution personally. Seems impossible to balance unless gun access legally becomes a privilege to qualify for, rather than a right to be restricted from. But that would put the power into states' hands, and then states would have the power to decide that no one can have guns except the police.

?? We don't disagree on this.