5 ms·
A society where everyone is safe A society where everyone is free Choose one (Obviously real life is not so binary, but since freedoms are abused to inflict
by umvi 5y ago
A society where everyone is safe
A society where everyone is free
Choose one
(Obviously real life is not so binary, but since freedoms are abused to inflict harm on others, removing the source of harm necessitates removing the freedom that led to it)
- kelseyfrog 5y agoWeird comment. Why lead with a false dichotomy and then slide into everything is a gray area? Maybe pick an example and go with that?
- selfhoster11 5y agoIt's not a false dichotomy, it's a hyperbole meant to illustrate an uncomfortable trade-off.
- kelseyfrog 5y agoIt isn't a trade off. That's the falseness of setting it up as two mutually exclusive and exhaustive choices. There are better ways to make a point than hyperbole.
- CountDrewku 5y agoExplain how it isn't a tradeoff. Give me one example that supports your stance please. It's a sliding a scale. You get to move the marker one way or the other. Whatever you do for the "greater good" will inherently remove rights from someone.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- kelseyfrog 5y agoUmm, the right to be free from slavery.
- CountDrewku 5y agoThat took rights and freedom away from certain people. We've all agreed that taking the right to hold slaves away is better for society just like taking the right to murder away is better for society. However, that doesn't mean you didn't take a freedom away from a group of people.
- kelseyfrog 5y agoI'm saying freedom from slavery was an increase in freedom and a greater good. That's the point. A net increase in both. That's why it's a false dichotomy.
- CountDrewku 5y agoThat contradicts absolutely nothing I said. I'm not sure who you're arguing against here. There's no false dichotomy being presented at all.
- asxd 5y agoPresenting two choices as mutually exclusive, when they are not, is definitely a false dichotomy.
- teakettle42 5y agoHow are they not mutually exclusive? This is a profoundly fundamental idea about human freedom. You cannot both grant people the freedom to act — even if that means they might use that freedom to harm others — and simultaneously, ensure that nobody can come to harm.
- consumer451 5y agoThe problem with this to me is that it makes "freedom to harm others" sound like something that should be valued. Also, the exact definition of "safe" would help in analyzing the original statement.
- raxxorrax 5y agoI don't think this dichotomy to be false. They are competing concepts at some point. Another example is freedom and equality, which is also a hot topic if you will. But I don't think anyone on internet platforms is in dire need of government protection. Perhaps kids that get groomed, but not adults in any capacity that can trivially withdraw from the problem.
- arp242 5y agoThe core problem is that some freedoms also restrict freedoms. For example, my freedom to play music as loud as I want at 4am restricts my neighbour's freedom to have a good nights rest. Similarly, my freedom to go out on the street and chant "gas the Jews! Gas the Jews!" would restrict the freedom of Jewish people to participate in normal life without fear. And I don't think these fears are ungrounded, or unreasonable, and can be simply dismissed. Pretty much everyone is in favour of more freedom, across the ideological spectrum. The conflict is the disagreement where the balance lies between "give people the freedom to do what they want" vs. "people using their freedoms to restrict the freedoms of others".