Personal Freedom vs. Public Welfare

[chair]

Yes it does. Statistics show that the other 498 know how to engage in their hobby safely.

Eddie has a the same hobby. He likes pistols. So he goes to downtown Chicago and shoots a pistol with a silencer in different directions. So far he hasn't broken a window, caused damage, or killed anybody, so the police are leaving him alone.

In New Orleans, the situation is similar, except that there are 500 guys like Billy, all with the same idea. About once a week one of them kills somebody, so the police arrest the killer, and let the remaining ones continue shooting. So far it's only been 30 deaths this year, so no one is overly concerned.

Make sense?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nobody, as far as I know. It's a question of probabilities- drunk drivers are far more likely to cause an accident.
So you think drunk driving is OK. How about ignoring red lights?



Unless you have been living in total isolation fro the past few weeks, you don't know that.

Wow, I've got the doser dipstick on ignore but oh so telling that he admits to driving when drunk after you've quoted him here. Ironic on many a level, including a breathalyser probably...

 

[ok doser]

... I've got [that brilliant poster] doser ... on ignore ....

You're doing it wrong :darwinsm:

 

[ok doser]

Eddie has a the same hobby. He likes pistols. So he goes to downtown Chicago and shoots a pistol with a silencer in different directions. So far he hasn't broken a window, caused damage, or killed anybody, so the police are leaving him alone.

In New Orleans, the situation is similar, except that there are 500 guys like Billy, all with the same idea. About once a week one of them kills somebody, so the police arrest the killer, and let the remaining ones continue shooting. So far it's only been 30 deaths this year, so no one is overly concerned.

Make sense?

Doser likes guns. Doser has several guns. Doser often fires these guns. Doser has never killed anybody with his guns. There's no reason to think that Doser ever will kill anybody with his guns.

Other people in Doser's country HAVE used guns to kill people. Innocent people. Because of the illegal inconsiderate careless actions of these other people, Doser's government has decided that Doser can't be trusted with certain kinds of guns. If Doser owns buys or possesses these certain kinds of guns the government decides that Doser has committed a very serious crime and takes away his freedom.

Even though nobody has been harmed by Doser's actions and there's no reason to think that anybody will be harmed by Doser's actions.

 

[Hilltrot]

Hilltrot takes medicine to help him live longer. Hilltrot has pay a doctor and pharmacist over a thousand dollars a year to get his medicine. If Hilltrot gets his medicine another way, Hilltrot will lose his freedom and property.

 

[7djengo7]

Many of these rules are for the public good, but they often infringe on personal freedom, and they are enforced, in most countries by fines, imprisonment or in extreme cases the death penalty.

"the public good": one more meaningless phrase that you Nazi leftards will have no more fun in being questioned about than you Darwin cheerleaders get out of being questioned regarding your meaningless phrase, "life itself":

Originally posted by Arthur Brain >>

Evolution isn't about how life itself came into being.​

​

 

[Arthur Brain]

"the public good": one more meaningless phrase that you Nazi leftards will have no more fun in being questioned about than you Darwin cheerleaders get out of being questioned regarding your meaningless phrase, "life itself":

[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Oh wow, this chestnut again. Evolution has nothing to do with the origination of life. The evolving of life is completely separate as to how it came about to begin with. No wonder you just prattle on and on and think you've set "challenging questions". You've shown yourself up to be an embarrassing ignoramus, just with the term "Nazi leftard", never mind the rest of your bonkers spiel.

Grow up kid, you've got a lot to do.

 

[chair]

Eddie has a the same hobby. He likes pistols. So he goes to downtown Chicago and shoots a pistol with a silencer in different directions. So far he hasn't broken a window, caused damage, or killed anybody, so the police are leaving him alone.

In New Orleans, the situation is similar, except that there are 500 guys like Billy, all with the same idea. About once a week one of them kills somebody, so the police arrest the killer, and let the remaining ones continue shooting. So far it's only been 30 deaths this year, so no one is overly concerned.

Make sense?

Is the situation in New Orleans (see above) reasonable? I didn't see any answers.

 

[chair]

Oh wow, this chestnut again. Evolution has nothing to do with the origination of life. The evolving of life is completely separate as to how it came about to begin with. No wonder you just prattle on and on and think you've set "challenging questions". You've shown yourself up to be an embarrassing ignoramus, just with the term "Nazi leftard", never mind the rest of your bonkers spiel.

Grow up kid, you've got a lot to do.

He's really not worth the bother.

 

[Arthur Brain]

He's really not worth the bother.

Copy that.

 

[Yorzhik]

I am trying to get people to think about this logically. That will work a lot better if we step away from the emotionally charged COVID Mask topic, and look at it in a more general way.

After asking a good question Chair will always disengage after encountering even small resistance.

Chair was already shown how masks don't help much. He was kind enough to provide the studies that showed they don't help much. So as far as COVID is concerned, requiring masks is an overreach of government at the very least. And people being worried about being injected, by force, with "trust us it's good for you" vaccines as a natural progression of this overreach is a valid concern that Chair won't discuss logically or rationally.

But Chair is not stupid. He brings up a principle that the governments job is to produce justice. And, it would be unjust to let a person into society that would harm people at random and without intent. In other words a person would be negligent homicide in avoiding harm to people when they knew harm was a possibility.

So, based on this principle we need to ask Chair at least one simple question. He never answers because for all his displays of intelligence and fair play, he's rather irrational.

These questions are: since this principle applies to the flu, how do we stop the government from controlling every aspect of everyone's life? If you don't know, do you realize that is also negligent homicide if someone dies from a policy you support and you are wrong?

 

[expos4ever]

Chair was already shown how masks don't help much. He was kind enough to provide the studies that showed they don't help much. So as far as COVID is concerned, requiring masks is an overreach of government at the very least.

I do not follow your logic. I do not know how effective masks are. But even if they only reduce transmission by a modest fraction, they are still worth wearing.

And people being worried about being injected, by force, with "trust us it's good for you" vaccines as a natural progression of this overreach is a valid concern that Chair won't discuss logically or rationally.

Anti-vaxxer thinking is the very definition of irrational thinking. Besides, is anyone talking about forcing people to be vaccinated? I doubt it. I am in favour of not allowing those who refuse to be vaccinated to access public spaces - school, places of employment, etc. That is not the same thing as forcing them to be vaccinated. One certainly has the right to be stupid about your own body. But one does not, at least should not, have the right to force the consequences of such stupidity on others.

 

[ok doser]

I do not follow your logic. I do not know how effective masks are. But even if they only reduce transmission by a modest fraction, they are still worth wearing.


Anti-vaxxer thinking is the very definition of irrational thinking. Besides, is anyone talking about forcing people to be vaccinated? I doubt it. I am in favour of not allowing those who refuse to be vaccinated to access public spaces - school, places of employment, etc. That is not the same thing as forcing them to be vaccinated. One certainly has the right to be stupid about your own body. But one does not, at least should not, have the right to force the consequences of such stupidity on others.

Simple solution: all those who want to avoid being infected by others should wear N95 masks

 

[Idolater]

You're talking about rights. The political philosophy concerned with rights is liberalism. The idea that liberalism and the regard for rights is "freedom" or "liberty" is an interpretation of rights, an interpretation of liberalism. We must be careful to not run too far with an interpretation when it goes far beyond its foundation, which are rights.

The conflicts we see especially in America but also wherever the people recognize rights is imo because we have not formed a canonical enumeration of almost any of our rights. Some exceptions to this are the rights against being murdered and raped and kidnapped or falsely arrested, and the rights to remain silent and to not be coerced into incriminating ourselves, and the rights to a trial by jury and to due process of law, and the rights against having your possessions stolen and being falsely testified against and being slandered or libeled or defamed. There are many other examples where rights have been precisely defined and enumerated, but for the most part rights are not so carefully explicated.

So whenever conflict arises between "liberty" or "freedom" and whatever is posed as their opposites, I recommend pondering that dispute and framing it as a struggle to define our rights, rather than it being between the forces of good against the forces of evil. To perpetuate it as the latter is to presume that an anarchistic liberalism is the correct interpretation of our rights, and that requires additional argument to sustain (and I personally would object that anarchistic liberalism is the correct view).

A line from a book I read goes, "...it would be wrong to punish an innocent man as a hostage even if to do so would in fact reduce crime." I think that we can all agree with this, right? This imo strikes at the heart of the matter here, it has to do with utility, which is defined basically as the most good for the most people, and when that calculus threatens our rights, such as the right against being kidnapped or falsely imprisoned.

Even if it would be more utilitarian to deny some people their rights, even if it would result in the most good for the most people, to disregard the rights of some, it is still immoral to do so. This is the heart of the matter, what are our rights, and how do we defend or protect them, especially when the utilitarian proposition, that is of the same pattern as "[punishing] an innocent man as a hostage...would in fact reduce crime (which satisfies a utilitarian calculus)," seems so correct and compelling.

 

[chair]

...
These questions are: since this principle applies to the flu, how do we stop the government from controlling every aspect of everyone's life? If you don't know, do you realize that is also negligent homicide if someone dies from a policy you support and you are wrong?

There isn't a simple answer to this question, as I think you know. Governments by their very nature interfere with everyone's life, be it through taxes, traffic laws, military draft, or limiting water use in time of drought. There's a need to reach a balance between the public good and personal freedom. Somewhere between anarchy and a totalitarian state.

Where do you think the line should be?

 

[expos4ever]

Simple solution: all those who want to avoid being infected by others should wear N95 masks

I will answer serious posts - this one cannot be taken seriously for reasons an 8-year old could enumerate.

 

[ok doser]

I will answer serious posts - this one cannot be taken seriously for reasons an 8-year old could enumerate.

Sorry I hadn't realized you're retarded

You guys really should be made to wear a sign so the rest of us know

 

[chair]

I will answer serious posts - this one cannot be taken seriously for reasons an 8-year old could enumerate.

The idea makes some sense- if the the non-mask wearer is truly willing to bear the full price for his behavior, and not go to the hospital if he gets sick. As they say "it's your funeral!"

 

[expos4ever]

Sorry I hadn't realize you're retarded

Two helpful recent developments in your deep-fried milkshake-quaffing country (thank God I live elsewhere):

1. Morons self-identify by the red ball caps;
2. *Profanity removed* (conceptually a distinct category from morons, although many fall into both camps) self-identify by refusing to undertake the most act of consideration for others - wearing a mask.

It used to take more work to identify the morons and the *Profanity Removed* - now it is much easier.

 

[ok doser]

The idea makes some sense- if the the non-mask wearer is truly willing to bear the full price for his behavior, and not go to the hospital if he gets sick. As they say "it's your funeral!"

If the mask wearer is really hoping to avoid infection why on Earth wouldn't they wear a mask designed to protect them from infection?