I have written a piece for @PresserMag arguing against requiring DEI/EDI statements or commitments from applicants for academic positions.

@JakeBenRichards The High Court clause would have clogged things up without adding any real safeguards. No other country has it, for good reason. I hope parliament supports this Amendment.

@Shatterface A gentle suggestion: it is possible to disagree without calling your opponents psychopaths. It closes off all possibilities of engagement or finding any common ground or exploring alternative views.

And this is why I wrote earlier in the case of a depressed individual "One can quibble over whether such a wish should be made clear over a period of time so that the intention is not in doubt etc." Also related old tweet on people jumping in front of trains:

Someone having a right (by which I always mean a negative right, this is the liberal sense I always use the term) merely means we/the State cannot use force to interfere. It doesn't stop us from using persuasion, remonstration or counter-arguments if we disagree with the way the right is exercised by someone. A negative right limits interference by force, fraud or coercion - a depressed person has a right to suicide but others have a right to ask them to reconsider.

@historykev Well I will be happy to write a rebuttal of that.

I also disagree with suicide prevention strategy that involves force (absent very special cases like obvious intoxication). In general, I am on board with remonstration, persuasion, reason, entreaties. Not force. I don't think we will agree but I hope you can see where I am coming from.

If persons with mental capacity choose to die to escape depression, or indeed for any other reason, they have a right to do so, and if others willingly help out of non-selfish reasons, I think the state should not interfere and should not criminalize such assistance. That is broadly my position. One can quibble over whether such a wish should be made clear over a period of time so that the intention is not in doubt etc.

@Jebadoo2 On 1, I don't know what to say beyond what I wrote in my original tweet and the reply to it.

You are wrong about Mill - his arguments do not imply what you think it does. I have gone over this argument endlessly before on this platform, though maybe not with you. Szasz opposed it because of the State involvement - as I said, liberals and libertarians can differ on whether this mixed bag should be supported.

I have read both. As I make it clear, my preference is for no state involvement, as Szasz did. I support this Bill reluctantly as an imperfect one that takes us a step closer to the ideal. I think Szasz's essay below should be read by everyone. Freedom of association and liberal principles imply that if there is a right that the State cannot interfere with when exercised by an individual, it cannot also interfere when exercised between two consenting adults. Liberals, and reasonable people, can differ on this Bill and I have no quarrel with those liberals who don't support this bill because it creates a state machinery and involves the NHS; I'd rather it didn't.

RT @ObhishekSaha: The vague "grossly offensive" speech clauses from the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003 a…

@cryptodrftng @NathanNobis @ProfLAppleby The cost according to your own values and preferences - which could be for example suffering of any kind incurred by living on.

@cryptodrftng @NathanNobis @ProfLAppleby When, according to your own values and preferences, the cost of continuing to live outweighs the benefits (taking into consideration the possibility that things may get better). This could happen for many reasons including loss of physical or mental faculties, pain and so on.

RT @ObhishekSaha: 🧵1/ Hate speech laws must be abolished, but more is required to protect free speech in the UK. A thread.

@BrandonWarmke @omni_american Scientists do not form a monolithic group. Most good scientists know the perils of politicizing science and some have been actively writing about it.