3 ms·
You start with a premise: "They are not wrong", but you then don't really make a case for why it doesn't make them wrong. All you say is "if you don't agree wit
by krageon 8y ago
You start with a premise: "They are not wrong", but you then don't really make a case for why it doesn't make them wrong. All you say is "if you don't agree with me, that's hubris". That's not a very compelling argument and it's also humorous to me for how ironic that is.
- hackinthebochs 8y agoThere's nothing "ironic" about challenging a unsupported moral claim with its negation. That's usually the only response such claims warrant.
- smallgovt 8y agoI think you'll find a lot of coherent arguments for privacy's value in this thread. It goes along the lines of: Privacy is valuable because without privacy A, B, and C will be possible. And, we can all agree A, B, and C would be very very bad. There are two ways to attack this argument: 1) A, B, and C aren't that bad when compared to the benefits of operating in an environment with less privacy. 2) A, B, and C are possible but unlikely. I.e. this is fearmongering. I tend to go with 2.