3 ms·
LOL its like asking victim to prove why attacker should not attack him. The onus is NOT on victim but the attacker. Its the attacker who made the first contact.
by wav-part 9y ago
LOL its like asking victim to prove why attacker should not attack him. The onus is NOT on victim but the attacker. Its the attacker who made the first contact. Its the attacker who has to prove from the mutually agreed upon set of axioms.
- dsacco 9y agoTo be honest I'm really not following your position here. Who is the victim and who is the attacker, and how does that respond to my point?
- wav-part 9y agoAttacker = Overreeaching Govt/Collectivism. Victim = Individual. > how does that respond to my point? You just asked an individual to justify why its not okey for govt/people to interfere between two consenting adults. But then I think the debate would turn into battle of axioms which is pointless. The question should be, can/how would people with contradictory political axioms co-exist ? I think its not possible, people can only vote with feet and hope for best. Political debate is not an intellectual debate like scientific/programming debate but war with real losses and HN now is a battlefield.
- dsacco 9y agoAh, I understand. I disagree with the analogy then. If the two consenting adults are not harming each other they can still be a liability to other people. Risk can be introduced indirectly even if no individual is directly harmed. How can you adjust your analogy to account for that?
- wav-part 9y agoAs I said this is battle of axioms. The issue cannot be solved with debate.