4 ms·

Those of us who value privacy and want to protect it have to find ways of convincingly demonstrating its value to others. Merely calling it a "right" is just t

Those of us who value privacy and want to protect it have to find ways of convincingly demonstrating its value to others. Merely calling it a "right" is just too hand-wavy, and doesn't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

pessimizer 4y ago
Calling privacy a right isn't an argument. Calling for privacy to be a right is what one makes an argument for. So I don't know who you're arguing with. edit: I mean, I deliberately put scare quotes around it.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Calling privacy a right isn't an argument but it's a perfectly legitimate strategy for social legitimization. Repetition legitimizes, repetition legitimizes, repetition legitimizes and is a completely valid way of constructing a social reality in a way one wishes it to be. Besides, no one asked for a right and got it granted. These are socio-rhetorical problems, not logic problems.
mdp2021 4y ago
You want a theorem. No problem. Privacy is a natural right. "I know what I am doing, and you don't." (It has to be interpreted as I did not write it in a literal form, but it will do at least for now.) Plus: one has the right not to be unnerved by peeking intruders. I have a viz for it, let me search for it and I will update the post. Edit: found: https://i.ibb.co/JCrzmbJ/clarkson-children-that-stare.jpg https://i.ibb.co/JCrzmbJ/clarkson-children-that-stare.jpg
- CyberDildonics 4y ago
  Privacy is a natural right. People have claimed "natural law" to marginalize most of what are now protected classes of people. The rest of your comment is so incoherent I can't understand what you are trying to say.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    (Speech is generally "«incoherent»", best translated as "with missing linking pieces" - which is what the reader is tasked to do -, otherwise you would have to write something like Russel's Principia Mathematica to present a complete form. ...And people would go "TL;DR" on it. ... Edit: I could have been a bit more "complete", but body was so begging for rest I had to cut it short. Physiology.) I'll translate up to some point. I wrote that explaining the logic that shows that "privacy is a natural right" is not difficult: it is based at least on the principle that the individual is responsible on his self, and is endowed with a judgement to carry on that responsibility, and that the judgement of his peers is not qualifiable as worthy in such an amount to override that of the responsibility bearer, so, exceptions aside relevant to the impact on others, the peers will leave the individual "in peace" and in suspension of judgement. This produces (logically) one side of the inappropriateness of having peering eyes on you: the peers do not have the qualifications to intrude. In [that] short [form]: "I know what I am doing [much more than you can in general judge], and you don't". Very loose form, but can be used provisionally as a shortening. And another side is that shown in the picture, with that Jeremy Clarkson acting as the "annoying staring child": it's annoying to have peering eyes on you - it is more distracting than mosquitoes and one has the right to carry on one's business in peace. There may be even more sides.
    - CyberDildonics 4y ago
      If you're trying to make a point, just try to condense it to something simple and direct. The only thing I can extract from this is "I don't like someone looking at me so privacy is a 'natural' right" which isn't a great argument at all. Maybe if you said something about consent or an imbalance of information that would make more sense. Saying something is a 'natural' right is circular logic.
      - mdp2021 4y ago
        I wrote something very different. The argument is: > the individual is responsible on his self, and is endowed with a judgement to carry on that responsibility, and that the judgement of his peers is not qualifiable as worthy in such an amount to override that of the responsibility bearer, so, exceptions aside relevant to the impact on others, the peers will leave the individual "in peace" and in suspension of judgement. This produces (logically) one side of the inappropriateness of having peering eyes on you: the peers do not have the qualifications to intrude .../hence/, privacy is a natural right. Because, by nature, you are responsible over yourself (you are that inside you), and the others are not, and their judgement is imperfect. So, what you do is your own business, naturally protected by right against the eyes of others (apart, of course, that behaviour which has consequences on others). > simple and direct Only proportionally to simplicity and the actual possibility of making something "direct"... As noted («Principia Mathematica»), "1+1" is not really direct... > "I don't like someone looking at me so privacy is a 'natural' right" But that is a secondary argument, and it is actually valid: one has the natural right not to be bothered, not to be disturbed. There has to be real, definite, proportional cause to break that rule.

pessimizer 4y ago

Calling privacy a right isn't an argument. Calling for privacy to be a right is what one makes an argument for. So I don't know who you're arguing with. edit: I mean, I deliberately put scare quotes around it.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
Calling privacy a right isn't an argument but it's a perfectly legitimate strategy for social legitimization. Repetition legitimizes, repetition legitimizes, repetition legitimizes and is a completely valid way of constructing a social reality in a way one wishes it to be. Besides, no one asked for a right and got it granted. These are socio-rhetorical problems, not logic problems.

mdp2021 4y ago

You want a theorem. No problem. Privacy is a natural right. "I know what I am doing, and you don't." (It has to be interpreted as I did not write it in a literal form, but it will do at least for now.) Plus: one has the right not to be unnerved by peeking intruders. I have a viz for it, let me search for it and I will update the post. Edit: found: https://i.ibb.co/JCrzmbJ/clarkson-children-that-stare.jpg https://i.ibb.co/JCrzmbJ/clarkson-children-that-stare.jpg

CyberDildonics 4y ago
Privacy is a natural right. People have claimed "natural law" to marginalize most of what are now protected classes of people. The rest of your comment is so incoherent I can't understand what you are trying to say.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  (Speech is generally "«incoherent»", best translated as "with missing linking pieces" - which is what the reader is tasked to do -, otherwise you would have to write something like Russel's Principia Mathematica to present a complete form. ...And people would go "TL;DR" on it. ... Edit: I could have been a bit more "complete", but body was so begging for rest I had to cut it short. Physiology.) I'll translate up to some point. I wrote that explaining the logic that shows that "privacy is a natural right" is not difficult: it is based at least on the principle that the individual is responsible on his self, and is endowed with a judgement to carry on that responsibility, and that the judgement of his peers is not qualifiable as worthy in such an amount to override that of the responsibility bearer, so, exceptions aside relevant to the impact on others, the peers will leave the individual "in peace" and in suspension of judgement. This produces (logically) one side of the inappropriateness of having peering eyes on you: the peers do not have the qualifications to intrude. In [that] short [form]: "I know what I am doing [much more than you can in general judge], and you don't". Very loose form, but can be used provisionally as a shortening. And another side is that shown in the picture, with that Jeremy Clarkson acting as the "annoying staring child": it's annoying to have peering eyes on you - it is more distracting than mosquitoes and one has the right to carry on one's business in peace. There may be even more sides.
  - CyberDildonics 4y ago
    If you're trying to make a point, just try to condense it to something simple and direct. The only thing I can extract from this is "I don't like someone looking at me so privacy is a 'natural' right" which isn't a great argument at all. Maybe if you said something about consent or an imbalance of information that would make more sense. Saying something is a 'natural' right is circular logic.
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      I wrote something very different. The argument is: > the individual is responsible on his self, and is endowed with a judgement to carry on that responsibility, and that the judgement of his peers is not qualifiable as worthy in such an amount to override that of the responsibility bearer, so, exceptions aside relevant to the impact on others, the peers will leave the individual "in peace" and in suspension of judgement. This produces (logically) one side of the inappropriateness of having peering eyes on you: the peers do not have the qualifications to intrude .../hence/, privacy is a natural right. Because, by nature, you are responsible over yourself (you are that inside you), and the others are not, and their judgement is imperfect. So, what you do is your own business, naturally protected by right against the eyes of others (apart, of course, that behaviour which has consequences on others). > simple and direct Only proportionally to simplicity and the actual possibility of making something "direct"... As noted («Principia Mathematica»), "1+1" is not really direct... > "I don't like someone looking at me so privacy is a 'natural' right" But that is a secondary argument, and it is actually valid: one has the natural right not to be bothered, not to be disturbed. There has to be real, definite, proportional cause to break that rule.