TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,956
The author existentialgoof made a good comparison and showed how CTB prevention laws (and policies) are akin to that of 'blasphemy laws' and while he did a good job explaining and hitting various points, in this thread, I will be addressing the same topic albeit from slightly different lens and point of view. I believe that between me and him will definitely cover all the bases and allow further understanding through different points. His focus is more towards the cause and effects as well as the definitions specifically and technical aspects, while mine is more focused on analogies and condensed down to allow easier understanding for the layperson. Either way, his points are valid and while they cover other aspects, mine will just convey his points "but in a different way" in order to facilitate further understanding and comprehension.
Disclaimer: No this thread is not going to focus on debating psychiatry, psychotherapy, or similar disciplines and fields as pseudoscience versus real science, nor it will not focus on 'skirting around CTB topics, or anything of that. I wrote an entire megathread about it in depth. Instead, this thread is to take existentialgoof's point(s) and reiterate them in such a way to help comprehension and understanding as well as offer additional points that isn't covered in his article.
Now why are CTB Prevention laws functionally equivalent to blasphemy laws? It is functionally equivalent as such because there are NO other kinds of similar laws or regulations that bypasses the civil liberties, including due process, and legal system (but through the medical system) other than these set of laws and policies. It treats CTB as a disease and illness (pathologization) and also allows blanket authority for those in power to act first and bypass the individuals' rights. There are almost no other things or policies that does so. In addition to this, it is also a similar to that of blasphemy laws because it is not about whether the person's well being is concerned (even though they blatantly claim that, which is of course, hard to disprove when they act like tyrannical and paternalistic actors yet hide behind the veneer of benevolence, though I digress), but rather about upholding the status quo, projecting their view of the 'sanctity of life' being valuable (without question), and of course protecting their own insecurities by suppressing dissent and those who violate it. To the CTB preventionists, their act of interfering, conspiring to foil CTB plans or attempts, and/or even acting, regardless of the outcome (whether it is better for the individual or not) is rooted in protecting their worldview and upholding the status quo. As for the government and the State, it is to protect their interests (one less taxpayer and worker is one less productive sycophant to keep the wheels of society running).
Here are some examples showing why there are (almost) no other acts that result in summary violation of one's due process, civil liberties, and freedom through detainment and sectioning against one's will. For example, if one does something that is adverse and perhaps unhealthy such as having a poor diet, not exercising well, or anything, there isn't some governmental body nor busybody trying to police others' diets and lifestyles, and even if there are, there are certainly equal (if not greater) pushback against the busybodies that may try to or do impose their will on others' lifestyles.
Another example is if someone doesn't like a certain music, food (not necessarily allergic to it), or even certain kinds of affection (hugs, kisses, or handshakes, etc.), we don't have the affection or social police regulating or locking people up because of their love language differences nor do we have public shaming of such. In fact, we put stock into respecting 'bodily autonomy' and 'choice' when it comes to many things and some will even go far to enforce such boundaries. It certainly would be blasphemous and a direct violation of their rights and due processes if one were to 'police and regulate' such social interactions, such as locking someone up (even temporarily) for not showing appropriate affection or appeasing another's love language.
Then of course, there are the sickness and physical ailments. A common one is colds and coughs. It would certainly be a blasphemy law and wrong if society were to police and regulate those who are ill and sick, by either detaining them or quarantining them (not necessarily such as covid-19 times), but in most countries and even in the US, people value freedom so much that they wouldn't just regulate people having ailments or demanding that they be temporarily detained, monitored, and/or even evaluated against their will for 'coughing' or being physically ill. That would be dictatorial and very much opposed by many.
There are so many other examples to be said, but there is nothing more paternalistic, subjective, and even punitive towards an individual than CTB prevention laws, especially in the current state that it is implemented in. It gives nearly unlimited power to those in charge to bypass the civil rights, freedoms, and liberties of individuals suspected of planning to, attempting to, or even failing CTB against their will. It wasn't necessarily done for the best interests of the individual, but to protect society's view as well as the collective individual's view on the sanctity of life and 'punish' those who challenge or otherwise violate this pseudo-law that isn't even on the books.
Disclaimer: No this thread is not going to focus on debating psychiatry, psychotherapy, or similar disciplines and fields as pseudoscience versus real science, nor it will not focus on 'skirting around CTB topics, or anything of that. I wrote an entire megathread about it in depth. Instead, this thread is to take existentialgoof's point(s) and reiterate them in such a way to help comprehension and understanding as well as offer additional points that isn't covered in his article.
Now why are CTB Prevention laws functionally equivalent to blasphemy laws? It is functionally equivalent as such because there are NO other kinds of similar laws or regulations that bypasses the civil liberties, including due process, and legal system (but through the medical system) other than these set of laws and policies. It treats CTB as a disease and illness (pathologization) and also allows blanket authority for those in power to act first and bypass the individuals' rights. There are almost no other things or policies that does so. In addition to this, it is also a similar to that of blasphemy laws because it is not about whether the person's well being is concerned (even though they blatantly claim that, which is of course, hard to disprove when they act like tyrannical and paternalistic actors yet hide behind the veneer of benevolence, though I digress), but rather about upholding the status quo, projecting their view of the 'sanctity of life' being valuable (without question), and of course protecting their own insecurities by suppressing dissent and those who violate it. To the CTB preventionists, their act of interfering, conspiring to foil CTB plans or attempts, and/or even acting, regardless of the outcome (whether it is better for the individual or not) is rooted in protecting their worldview and upholding the status quo. As for the government and the State, it is to protect their interests (one less taxpayer and worker is one less productive sycophant to keep the wheels of society running).
Here are some examples showing why there are (almost) no other acts that result in summary violation of one's due process, civil liberties, and freedom through detainment and sectioning against one's will. For example, if one does something that is adverse and perhaps unhealthy such as having a poor diet, not exercising well, or anything, there isn't some governmental body nor busybody trying to police others' diets and lifestyles, and even if there are, there are certainly equal (if not greater) pushback against the busybodies that may try to or do impose their will on others' lifestyles.
Another example is if someone doesn't like a certain music, food (not necessarily allergic to it), or even certain kinds of affection (hugs, kisses, or handshakes, etc.), we don't have the affection or social police regulating or locking people up because of their love language differences nor do we have public shaming of such. In fact, we put stock into respecting 'bodily autonomy' and 'choice' when it comes to many things and some will even go far to enforce such boundaries. It certainly would be blasphemous and a direct violation of their rights and due processes if one were to 'police and regulate' such social interactions, such as locking someone up (even temporarily) for not showing appropriate affection or appeasing another's love language.
Then of course, there are the sickness and physical ailments. A common one is colds and coughs. It would certainly be a blasphemy law and wrong if society were to police and regulate those who are ill and sick, by either detaining them or quarantining them (not necessarily such as covid-19 times), but in most countries and even in the US, people value freedom so much that they wouldn't just regulate people having ailments or demanding that they be temporarily detained, monitored, and/or even evaluated against their will for 'coughing' or being physically ill. That would be dictatorial and very much opposed by many.
There are so many other examples to be said, but there is nothing more paternalistic, subjective, and even punitive towards an individual than CTB prevention laws, especially in the current state that it is implemented in. It gives nearly unlimited power to those in charge to bypass the civil rights, freedoms, and liberties of individuals suspected of planning to, attempting to, or even failing CTB against their will. It wasn't necessarily done for the best interests of the individual, but to protect society's view as well as the collective individual's view on the sanctity of life and 'punish' those who challenge or otherwise violate this pseudo-law that isn't even on the books.
