3 ms·
Hm, you have honestly intrigued me. How is that a "smug, patronizing sentence"? Could you imagine any society worth living in that is not based on this rule? T
by veddox 10y ago
Hm, you have honestly intrigued me. How is that a "smug, patronizing sentence"? Could you imagine any society worth living in that is not based on this rule?
To me, respecting another person's freedom is the only way to ever get anywhere close to a society that offers "liberty and justice for all". Can you offer an alternative approach?
- psyc 10y agoI don't disagree. But it suggests an extremely low opinion of the intelligence of the audience to point it out. There's no need to point out to a civilized adult, especially professional, educated adults prevalent on a site like this, that freedom doesn't include violating others. And it's a strawman, because nobody is ever arguing that freedom includes violating others. What's usually being argued is whether a specific action should be considered a violation of others' rights, as opposed to those others being e.g. oversensitive, controlling, or intolerant.
- veddox 10y agoI was not addressing the audience in general, but the user whose comment I was referring too, specifically this statement: > anything less than absolute is something less than "free." Now maybe I misunderstood the poster, but that does sound pretty much like what I was talking about... If you felt patronized, my apologies, but my remark was not aimed at you.