LogFAQs > #957220945

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, Database 9 ( 09.28.2021-02-17-2022 ), DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	I don't understand you...
SKARDAVNELNATE 08/18/21 11:18:09 PM #19:	adjl posted... It's still the government imposing restrictions on their personal freedom (complete with penalties if they fail to comply). That there's a considerable benefit to personal safety is completely irrelevant to that. Good point. If a driver gets struck by another vehicle because of their own actions the direct result should be enough punishment. I still don't mind the Stop sign recommending that people stop there. But imposing fines for not heeding that recommendation is a step too far. adjl posted... So we're okay with restricting personal freedoms if doing so prevents the restricted person from imposing their will on others. Got it. I prefer no one impose their will on anyone. If someone does impose their will on another I suggest resisting them. If the instigator doesn't stop at resistance then it is the duty of another will to oppose them. adjl posted... this man should be freely allowed to impose his will on others by placing them at risk of infection? A risk is not an expression of will. In your example there was a gun and it can be proven that a bullet came from that gun. You can't shoot someone if you don't have bullets. Can you prove this man was infected? adjl posted... No, your original argument is stupid. Then it should be easy for you to refute it. adjl posted... you need to do what I've asked of you. Why should I make things easier for by doing what you want? adjl posted... literally endangering their lives! First you said it was a risk, now you treat it like a certainty. You say he did. I say demonstrate that it's true. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:957220945] in I don't un... [t:79613555]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>It's still the government imposing restrictions on their personal freedom (complete with penalties if they fail to comply). That there's a considerable benefit to personal safety is completely irrelevant to that.</quote>Good point. If a driver gets struck by another vehicle because of their own actions the direct result should be enough punishment. I still don't mind the Stop sign recommending that people stop there. But imposing fines for not heeding that recommendation is a step too far. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>So we're okay with restricting personal freedoms if doing so prevents the restricted person from imposing their will on others. Got it.</quote>I prefer no one impose their will on anyone. If someone does impose their will on another I suggest resisting them. If the instigator doesn't stop at resistance then it is the duty of another will to oppose them. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>this man should be freely allowed to impose his will on others by placing them at risk of infection?</quote>A risk is not an expression of will. In your example there was a gun and it can be proven that a bullet came from that gun. You can't shoot someone if you don't have bullets. Can you prove this man was infected? adjl posted... </cite> <quote>No, your original argument is stupid.</quote>Then it should be easy for you to refute it. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>you need to do what I've asked of you.</quote>Why should I make things easier for by doing what you want? adjl posted... </cite> <quote>literally endangering their lives!</quote>First you said it was a risk, now you treat it like a certainty. You say he did. I say demonstrate that it's true. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1