3 ms·

There have been a number of high-profile demonstrations lately that people cannot be trusted. Why shouldn't we ban something, if its harm can be rigorously sho

by dTal 5y ago

There have been a number of high-profile demonstrations lately that people cannot be trusted. Why shouldn't we ban something, if its harm can be rigorously shown and yet people persist in using it? What does this lofty commitment to "freedom" actually buy?

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> There have been a number of high-profile demonstrations lately that people cannot be trusted. People in the government, or somewhere else? Trusted to do what you want them to, or? > Why shouldn't we ban something, if its harm can be rigorously shown and yet people persist in using it? Automobiles fit that bill. The problem is that the (well meaning) authoritarians believe that their equation for the cost and value of everything is the one true gold standard that society must set its clock and run by. > What does this lofty commitment to "freedom" actually buy? Lots of things. For you specifically, the freedom to isolate yourself at home, the freedom to wear a mask in public, and the freedom to decide to get vaccinated and make other decisions about your personal medical treatments. You didn't think without freedom that you'll still get to do what you want and the only change is that others will also be made to do what you want, right?
ars 5y ago
> There have been a number of high-profile demonstrations lately that people cannot be trusted. Presumably including you? > Why shouldn't we ban something Because the people doing the banning can't be trusted. > if its harm can be rigorously shown and yet people persist in using it That's a contradiction - if the harm is so obvious, people wouldn't do it. If they do do it, then clearly they don't agree with you that there is harm. Which means, don't ban it, since your POV is not superior to theirs.
- ironmagma 5y ago
  > if the harm is so obvious, people wouldn't do it. That's quite an assumption. I assume you've not met many cigarette smokers?
  - ars 5y ago
    I have, and they believe the tradeoff (health for enjoyment) is worth it to them. I think they are idiots, but they don't. And my opinion is not superior to theirs.
    - bradknowles 5y ago
      Your right to smoke a cigarette ends where it becomes second hand smoke that would enter my lungs.

by dTal 5y ago

throwawaylinux 5y ago

> There have been a number of high-profile demonstrations lately that people cannot be trusted. People in the government, or somewhere else? Trusted to do what you want them to, or? > Why shouldn't we ban something, if its harm can be rigorously shown and yet people persist in using it? Automobiles fit that bill. The problem is that the (well meaning) authoritarians believe that their equation for the cost and value of everything is the one true gold standard that society must set its clock and run by. > What does this lofty commitment to "freedom" actually buy? Lots of things. For you specifically, the freedom to isolate yourself at home, the freedom to wear a mask in public, and the freedom to decide to get vaccinated and make other decisions about your personal medical treatments. You didn't think without freedom that you'll still get to do what you want and the only change is that others will also be made to do what you want, right?

ars 5y ago

> There have been a number of high-profile demonstrations lately that people cannot be trusted. Presumably including you? > Why shouldn't we ban something Because the people doing the banning can't be trusted. > if its harm can be rigorously shown and yet people persist in using it That's a contradiction - if the harm is so obvious, people wouldn't do it. If they do do it, then clearly they don't agree with you that there is harm. Which means, don't ban it, since your POV is not superior to theirs.

ironmagma 5y ago
> if the harm is so obvious, people wouldn't do it. That's quite an assumption. I assume you've not met many cigarette smokers?
- ars 5y ago
  I have, and they believe the tradeoff (health for enjoyment) is worth it to them. I think they are idiots, but they don't. And my opinion is not superior to theirs.
  - bradknowles 5y ago
    Your right to smoke a cigarette ends where it becomes second hand smoke that would enter my lungs.