6 ms·

People need to be protected from themselves sometimes. Just because someone is an adult, doesn’t mean they will always make correct decisions. Plus, you are nev

People need to be protected from themselves sometimes. Just because someone is an adult, doesn’t mean they will always make correct decisions. Plus, you are never sure if they are doing it without being coerced and silenced at the same time by some powerful mafia.

sneak 7y ago
> Just because someone is an adult, doesn’t mean they will always make correct decisions. It is impossible for you to substitute your definition of correct for another person’s own when it comes to their body and their life without denying them agency and declaring yourself their superior, and in the process violating their rights to self-determination. If they are harming no one but themselves, you have no moral basis to deny them their freedom to do so, unless you deem yourself competent to be their parent or guardian simply on the basis of that single decision of theirs, which is not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination. > People need to be protected from themselves sometimes. The only protection that most people want is protection from people who think this way about their lives, myself included.
- madiathomas 7y ago
  That’s why society as a whole makes that decision about what they consider correct and what they consider incorrect through laws and ethical standards. Unless you are in a dictatorship, laws and ethical standards are representative of the majority.
  - sneak 7y ago
    “Society as a whole” cannot decide anything, as “society” is an abstraction, and a leaky one at that. If an individual can’t decide for another, no assemblage of individuals can legitimately claim that authority either. I certainly don’t want to live in a place where it takes hundreds of years for the majority to finally decide that, for example, racial minorities really do deserve equal protection under the law (or a hundred years to reach the point where it is not legal to enslave them). Surely you see the problem.
    - bcrosby95 7y ago
      Ultimately the law of the land is might makes right. In a democracy that tends to lie with masses of people (sometimes counter balanced by protective laws), in other instances it tends to rest in the hands of the few. Ultimately power has to rest somewhere. If it's nowhere then someone will come and take it. The modern alternative isn't some panacea. It's the corporation and the indifference of rights so long as it doesn't negatively impact the bottom line.
  - Cakez0r 7y ago
    The majority can end up oppressing a minority. Better to just err on the side of "live and let live", no?
nickpp 7y ago
> People need to be protected from themselves sometimes. Said every dictator, ever. Also: "It's for your own good" "Without me, others would take advantage of you" "I am protecting you" "I know better than you what you need"
- moron4hire 7y ago
  Maybe we shouldn't protect people from themselves, but we should definitely protect people from the consequences it others disastrous mistakes. I don't need my idiot neighbors playing with fireworks.
  - nickpp 7y ago
    Agreed. But the OP was talking about a freely consented exchange with no repercussions on others.
    - moron4hire 7y ago
      Ah, yes, the mathematical "spherical cow".
  - madiathomas 7y ago
    That’s why I said sometimes. It isn’t all the time that you need to protect people but kids needs to be protected. People who are mentally ill must be protected from themselves. In some cases, even forcefully put them in mental hospitals. There is always a grey area.
- madiathomas 7y ago
  But even countries which aren’t under dictatorship have laws to protect people against themselves. Even those who are on top of the list of most democratic countries.
  - nickpp 7y ago
    And while some of those laws are OK, they should ALL be scraped for the principle that: "Nobody knows better than me what is better for myself and mine." It's not always true (see vaccination or smoking) but the alternative is much worse and in much more cases.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
learnstats2 7y ago
Every sentence you have said could equally refer to tech industry workers - and perhaps there would be more logic behind it.

sneak 7y ago

> Just because someone is an adult, doesn’t mean they will always make correct decisions. It is impossible for you to substitute your definition of correct for another person’s own when it comes to their body and their life without denying them agency and declaring yourself their superior, and in the process violating their rights to self-determination. If they are harming no one but themselves, you have no moral basis to deny them their freedom to do so, unless you deem yourself competent to be their parent or guardian simply on the basis of that single decision of theirs, which is not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination. > People need to be protected from themselves sometimes. The only protection that most people want is protection from people who think this way about their lives, myself included.

madiathomas 7y ago
That’s why society as a whole makes that decision about what they consider correct and what they consider incorrect through laws and ethical standards. Unless you are in a dictatorship, laws and ethical standards are representative of the majority.
- sneak 7y ago
  “Society as a whole” cannot decide anything, as “society” is an abstraction, and a leaky one at that. If an individual can’t decide for another, no assemblage of individuals can legitimately claim that authority either. I certainly don’t want to live in a place where it takes hundreds of years for the majority to finally decide that, for example, racial minorities really do deserve equal protection under the law (or a hundred years to reach the point where it is not legal to enslave them). Surely you see the problem.
  - bcrosby95 7y ago
    Ultimately the law of the land is might makes right. In a democracy that tends to lie with masses of people (sometimes counter balanced by protective laws), in other instances it tends to rest in the hands of the few. Ultimately power has to rest somewhere. If it's nowhere then someone will come and take it. The modern alternative isn't some panacea. It's the corporation and the indifference of rights so long as it doesn't negatively impact the bottom line.
- Cakez0r 7y ago
  The majority can end up oppressing a minority. Better to just err on the side of "live and let live", no?

nickpp 7y ago

> People need to be protected from themselves sometimes. Said every dictator, ever. Also: "It's for your own good" "Without me, others would take advantage of you" "I am protecting you" "I know better than you what you need"

moron4hire 7y ago
Maybe we shouldn't protect people from themselves, but we should definitely protect people from the consequences it others disastrous mistakes. I don't need my idiot neighbors playing with fireworks.
- nickpp 7y ago
  Agreed. But the OP was talking about a freely consented exchange with no repercussions on others.
  - moron4hire 7y ago
    Ah, yes, the mathematical "spherical cow".
- madiathomas 7y ago
  That’s why I said sometimes. It isn’t all the time that you need to protect people but kids needs to be protected. People who are mentally ill must be protected from themselves. In some cases, even forcefully put them in mental hospitals. There is always a grey area.
madiathomas 7y ago
But even countries which aren’t under dictatorship have laws to protect people against themselves. Even those who are on top of the list of most democratic countries.
- nickpp 7y ago
  And while some of those laws are OK, they should ALL be scraped for the principle that: "Nobody knows better than me what is better for myself and mine." It's not always true (see vaccination or smoking) but the alternative is much worse and in much more cases.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

learnstats2 7y ago

Every sentence you have said could equally refer to tech industry workers - and perhaps there would be more logic behind it.