5 ms·

It really is not. Right to physical assembly is something that should be restricted in the middle of a global pandemic, since that right cannot trump the right

It really is not. Right to physical assembly is something that should be restricted in the middle of a global pandemic, since that right cannot trump the right of life of hundreds of thousands of people. Same for the right to travel. Rights such as free speech or right to private property may be broken in more extreme cases such as war. Pretending that nuanced reality doesn't exist is the definition of "rights absolutism".

fapjacks 7y ago
No. Because tin-pot shitholes -- and the people trying to make them -- have, can, and will always find some new "threat" with which to justify taking away civil liberties. Things similar to what you have said here about "nuanced reality" with respect to civil liberties have always been for me a pretty good smell test for underlying authoritarian beliefs. In ANY context, it's possible to point to something as justification for taking away civil liberties in the name of safety and security. Yesterday it was internet death threats and human trafficking, today the pandemic, tomorrow who knows, but I promise there will be one.
- andrepd 7y ago
  I'm not familiar with the concept of "tin-pot shithole". >have, can, and will always find some new "threat" with which to justify taking away civil liberties. So slippery slope, is what you're arguing? "First they make a completely reasonable and temporary restriction of right of physical assembly, next we'll be off to the gulags." Isn't really an interesting argument, is it?
  - fapjacks 7y ago
    Nice use of quotation marks there, considering that is not what I said.
    - mr_woozy 7y ago
      which part didn't you say exactly?
      - fapjacks 7y ago
        > "First they make a completely reasonable and temporary restriction of right of physical assembly, next we'll be off to the gulags." Please find this text in my post.
  - skrowl 7y ago
    Look at the circumstance under which the Patriot Act was created
chance_state 7y ago
Could not disagree more. The entire point of enumerating rights in the constitution and it's amendments is so that they are _not_ subject to changing circumstances.
- skrowl 7y ago
  The person you're replying to clearly doesn't know what inalienable means.
- andrepd 7y ago
  Let's put it this way: you have a right to life, but this right may be suspended in certain delimited circumstances: if you're posing an imminent threat to someone, or in certain places maybe if you're merely trespassing. You have a right to free speech, yet this is again restricted in many circumstances. You cannot: lie under oath, make a false accusation, make a libelous statement... Pretending that a small sentence can encompass all the possible nuance of the multiple situations that arise in our messy reality is being an "absolutist".

fapjacks 7y ago

No. Because tin-pot shitholes -- and the people trying to make them -- have, can, and will always find some new "threat" with which to justify taking away civil liberties. Things similar to what you have said here about "nuanced reality" with respect to civil liberties have always been for me a pretty good smell test for underlying authoritarian beliefs. In ANY context, it's possible to point to something as justification for taking away civil liberties in the name of safety and security. Yesterday it was internet death threats and human trafficking, today the pandemic, tomorrow who knows, but I promise there will be one.

andrepd 7y ago
I'm not familiar with the concept of "tin-pot shithole". >have, can, and will always find some new "threat" with which to justify taking away civil liberties. So slippery slope, is what you're arguing? "First they make a completely reasonable and temporary restriction of right of physical assembly, next we'll be off to the gulags." Isn't really an interesting argument, is it?
- fapjacks 7y ago
  Nice use of quotation marks there, considering that is not what I said.
  - mr_woozy 7y ago
    which part didn't you say exactly?
    - fapjacks 7y ago
      > "First they make a completely reasonable and temporary restriction of right of physical assembly, next we'll be off to the gulags." Please find this text in my post.
- skrowl 7y ago
  Look at the circumstance under which the Patriot Act was created

chance_state 7y ago

Could not disagree more. The entire point of enumerating rights in the constitution and it's amendments is so that they are _not_ subject to changing circumstances.

skrowl 7y ago
The person you're replying to clearly doesn't know what inalienable means.
andrepd 7y ago
Let's put it this way: you have a right to life, but this right may be suspended in certain delimited circumstances: if you're posing an imminent threat to someone, or in certain places maybe if you're merely trespassing. You have a right to free speech, yet this is again restricted in many circumstances. You cannot: lie under oath, make a false accusation, make a libelous statement... Pretending that a small sentence can encompass all the possible nuance of the multiple situations that arise in our messy reality is being an "absolutist".