3 ms·

It is better for the purpose of allowing people to make their own free choices, and letting the market decide what's best. The mere act of providing alternativ

by stale2002 7y ago

It is better for the purpose of allowing people to make their own free choices, and letting the market decide what's best. The mere act of providing alternative options is a good thing.

arcticbull 7y ago
Dropping a flaming turd on someone’s porch is an alternative to putting up with someone but it’s strictly worse for obvious reasons. Providing that alternative is not better if you can’t even begin to speculate on why it might be better. The entirety of your case is "#freedom" and you refuse to speculate on why it might actually be better. Nobody's arguing with your right to do stupid things, I'm just asking why your suggestion might be better and you keep refusing to even speculate.
- stale2002 7y ago
  > is an alternative to putting up with someone but it’s strictly worse for obvious reasons If the person has the choice of this happening, and chooses, for whatever reason, to have this happen to them, then yes, I would say that it is positive, and not negative. I am specifically referring to people voluntarily choosing something for themselves. And no matter how ridiculous, I'd still say that it is positive, if they choose to do it. > Nobody's arguing with your right to do stupid things I am saying that if someone chooses to do it, then it is not stupid. People can have whatever reasons that they want, for doing anything, and I am not going to argue against it.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    > I am saying that if someone chooses to do it, then it is not stupid. That may be the worst argument I’ve heard in support of anything ever. People do stupid things a lot and I’m your model that’s never true solely because they chose to do that. I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith, anymore.
    - stale2002 7y ago
      I am absolutely arguing in good faith. If people want the free choice to choose a different set of properties, for their own money, then the fact that they want it is a good enough reason, in an of itself, for such a money to exist. No other reason or justification is necessary. “Because people want it”, is good enough. Freedom of choice is something, in an of itself, that people value. And because people want something, is a good enough reason, alone, such that it is justified. People can want things that you think are “stupid” or “ridiculous” things if they want, and your opinion that they are stupid or ridiculous, does not overrule their own value system and wants. There are basically no situation where your opinion on this, would matter. It would be like saying “Why do you like ice cream! That’s stupid!”. Such a statement is just meaningless. The fact that you think it is stupid that someone else likes ice cream is irrelevant and doesn’t matter. The fact that I just like ice cream, is a good enough reason, in an of itself, for me liking ice cream. Me liking something, or not liking something, is circularly, self evidently true, and I need no other justification or reason for it. I like it, because I like it, and that’s it. The fact that I like ice cream, is axiomatically true, because I am the one who decides what I like, not other people, and so it make no sense, and is just a meaningless statement to say that it is “stupid” that I like ice cream.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        > No other reason or justification is necessary. “Because people want it”, is good enough. Some people want to dump chemicals in the river, and yet, when its bad for society we decide not to let them do that, and I'm totally okay with that. Which is why if you want to make a broad social decision like changing how money works (even allowing for a new option) that conversation needs to be had on merits. We weigh pros and cons. Then we decide. That's how society works broadly, at least in a democracy. Remember, your freedoms end where my rights begin. In so long as something doesn't impact anyone else, they're free to have at it. Once it starts to impact those around them, it's no longer solely their decision -- and degree matters. If you want to eat a ton of ice cream, do it. If you want to change the way a broad swath of society functions, we need to have a chit-chat. Much of our day to day is in between.

It is better for the purpose of allowing people to make their own free choices, and letting the market decide what's best. The mere act of providing alternative options is a good thing.

arcticbull 7y ago

Dropping a flaming turd on someone’s porch is an alternative to putting up with someone but it’s strictly worse for obvious reasons. Providing that alternative is not better if you can’t even begin to speculate on why it might be better. The entirety of your case is "#freedom" and you refuse to speculate on why it might actually be better. Nobody's arguing with your right to do stupid things, I'm just asking why your suggestion might be better and you keep refusing to even speculate.

stale2002 7y ago
> is an alternative to putting up with someone but it’s strictly worse for obvious reasons If the person has the choice of this happening, and chooses, for whatever reason, to have this happen to them, then yes, I would say that it is positive, and not negative. I am specifically referring to people voluntarily choosing something for themselves. And no matter how ridiculous, I'd still say that it is positive, if they choose to do it. > Nobody's arguing with your right to do stupid things I am saying that if someone chooses to do it, then it is not stupid. People can have whatever reasons that they want, for doing anything, and I am not going to argue against it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- arcticbull 7y ago
  > I am saying that if someone chooses to do it, then it is not stupid. That may be the worst argument I’ve heard in support of anything ever. People do stupid things a lot and I’m your model that’s never true solely because they chose to do that. I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith, anymore.
  - stale2002 7y ago
    I am absolutely arguing in good faith. If people want the free choice to choose a different set of properties, for their own money, then the fact that they want it is a good enough reason, in an of itself, for such a money to exist. No other reason or justification is necessary. “Because people want it”, is good enough. Freedom of choice is something, in an of itself, that people value. And because people want something, is a good enough reason, alone, such that it is justified. People can want things that you think are “stupid” or “ridiculous” things if they want, and your opinion that they are stupid or ridiculous, does not overrule their own value system and wants. There are basically no situation where your opinion on this, would matter. It would be like saying “Why do you like ice cream! That’s stupid!”. Such a statement is just meaningless. The fact that you think it is stupid that someone else likes ice cream is irrelevant and doesn’t matter. The fact that I just like ice cream, is a good enough reason, in an of itself, for me liking ice cream. Me liking something, or not liking something, is circularly, self evidently true, and I need no other justification or reason for it. I like it, because I like it, and that’s it. The fact that I like ice cream, is axiomatically true, because I am the one who decides what I like, not other people, and so it make no sense, and is just a meaningless statement to say that it is “stupid” that I like ice cream.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      > No other reason or justification is necessary. “Because people want it”, is good enough. Some people want to dump chemicals in the river, and yet, when its bad for society we decide not to let them do that, and I'm totally okay with that. Which is why if you want to make a broad social decision like changing how money works (even allowing for a new option) that conversation needs to be had on merits. We weigh pros and cons. Then we decide. That's how society works broadly, at least in a democracy. Remember, your freedoms end where my rights begin. In so long as something doesn't impact anyone else, they're free to have at it. Once it starts to impact those around them, it's no longer solely their decision -- and degree matters. If you want to eat a ton of ice cream, do it. If you want to change the way a broad swath of society functions, we need to have a chit-chat. Much of our day to day is in between.