4 ms·
> Rights" have nothing to do with this discussion. Rights have everything to do with this discussion. You're trying to argue that other people have less right
by notacoward 8y ago
> Rights" have nothing to do with this discussion.
Rights have everything to do with this discussion. You're trying to argue that other people have less right to these areas because they've enjoyed them less than you. One could easily argue the exact opposite, that you've exhausted your share and should stay away. It's not a very good argument, but it's still more morally supportable than the one you're making.
> the residents/owners/official caretakers of the backcountry are often nobody
The default owner is the government, the default caretaker is BLM. Or equivalent in other countries. They have the authority to determine who should or should not go on that land, for what purpose. You don't. Get over it.
- ahelwer 8y agoI'm afraid you are mistaken. Under discussion is whether there is a moral imperative for individuals to publicly disseminate their personal knowledge of locations of natural beauty. Again, rights are not at all relevant, unless you're talking about the right of someone else to my personal knowledge. Given your wild misreading of the topic I won't engage with you further.
- notacoward 8y ago> ...whether there is a moral imperative... Who said there was such a moral imperative? Not me. Not even you. I'm not misreading; you're misrepresenting.