3 ms·

This isn't the same as "if you don't like the movie, don't watch it". It's more like "if you don't like traffic cops, don't be on roads". Yes, it is technicall

This isn't the same as "if you don't like the movie, don't watch it". It's more like "if you don't like traffic cops, don't be on roads". Yes, it is technically achievable by some measure, but nobody living anything resembling a reasonable life is going to avoid ever going in public. It's also fine for people to want different things to be acceptable or not in different circumstances; I am fine with adults wearing swimsuits at the beach, but would be uncomfortable if they went to my child's kindergarten class in them. Figuring out the trade-offs and coming up with compromises is the whole value proposition of society.

doodlesdev 4y ago
> "if you don't like traffic cops, don't be on roads". Which is a completely valid and reasonable statement.
- gameman144 4y ago
  It is completely valid. It is also completely infeasible. Consider the statement "if you don't like being bullied, completely isolate yourself from all humans forever." This is a valid way to avoid being bullied. It is also, however, not at all practical. It is also completely valid and reasonable, and much more tenable in reality, to propose alternative solutions (e.g. punitive action against bullies, teaching good coping mechanisms to victims, making people not want to bully, etc.) Similarly, one valid approach to Celiac is to not eat any food at all ever. An equally valid approach is to not eat gluten. The latter requires some more social buy-in (e.g. ingredient lists), but that effort makes it wildly more achievable in practice. Being valid doesn't mean that something is the best, or even a good, recommendation.
drdaeman 4y ago
As I get it, there are two ways to look at the problem: 1. One is if we say that a person has a right to remain private and retains right to their image under any or some circumstances. 2. Another is if we say that a person has a right to observe and record their observations freely, always or under some circumstances. Both are highly subjective, especially when it comes to particular conditions - that's for sure. Both could be true (or not, some may argue), and in practice they're kind of balanced - but with different places valuing one thing over another, creating a different balance. Whatever an individual may like or dislike doesn't actually matter, except for being a data point - those in power (be it a power of democracy or authoritarianism) define the rules. If someone doesn't like the rules of the place they live in - well, there's no definite answer to that. Sometimes the ridiculous "live somewhere else" is the only practical answer (no jokes or sacrasm intended).

doodlesdev 4y ago

> "if you don't like traffic cops, don't be on roads". Which is a completely valid and reasonable statement.

gameman144 4y ago
It is completely valid. It is also completely infeasible. Consider the statement "if you don't like being bullied, completely isolate yourself from all humans forever." This is a valid way to avoid being bullied. It is also, however, not at all practical. It is also completely valid and reasonable, and much more tenable in reality, to propose alternative solutions (e.g. punitive action against bullies, teaching good coping mechanisms to victims, making people not want to bully, etc.) Similarly, one valid approach to Celiac is to not eat any food at all ever. An equally valid approach is to not eat gluten. The latter requires some more social buy-in (e.g. ingredient lists), but that effort makes it wildly more achievable in practice. Being valid doesn't mean that something is the best, or even a good, recommendation.

drdaeman 4y ago

As I get it, there are two ways to look at the problem: 1. One is if we say that a person has a right to remain private and retains right to their image under any or some circumstances. 2. Another is if we say that a person has a right to observe and record their observations freely, always or under some circumstances. Both are highly subjective, especially when it comes to particular conditions - that's for sure. Both could be true (or not, some may argue), and in practice they're kind of balanced - but with different places valuing one thing over another, creating a different balance. Whatever an individual may like or dislike doesn't actually matter, except for being a data point - those in power (be it a power of democracy or authoritarianism) define the rules. If someone doesn't like the rules of the place they live in - well, there's no definite answer to that. Sometimes the ridiculous "live somewhere else" is the only practical answer (no jokes or sacrasm intended).