4 ms·

So, my main issue is with you claiming that you have a monopoly on "common sense and general decency". It's like saying: "hey, my thoughts are also the majority

So, my main issue is with you claiming that you have a monopoly on "common sense and general decency". It's like saying: "hey, my thoughts are also the majority's and they're _nice_!" The majority is commonly wrong, and things that seem "nice" often have nasty second & third-order consequences. I probably have benefited from some public subsidy (Oregon public schools, and the lack of income tax in WA), but I can still argue against the system, can't I? :)

kafkaesq 10y ago
That's not what I claim, at all. And basically it's a slippery slope argument that you seem to be making ("Who's to know if they majority is ever right? And what about all the times they've been wrong? Therefore the whole system is brought into question", in effect). What I was saying was actually the opposite: we need to consider these situations in terms of first principles, and on a case-by-case basis.