[goatcode]

If you have a sensible set of statistics that you believe justify surrender of personal sovereignty of identity to this degree, I would invite you to ponder a set of statistics that you would think completely monstrous, but still arguable, toward such a surrender. There is someone out there who believes the opposite to you, and if you think the creation of a power that benefits your opinions should take place, know that it could be used by this hypothetical person to benefit his opinions.

If you're ok with all that, then you have a justifiable position. If not, then you do not.

[rekabis]

[flagged]

[brnaftr361]

You're assuming there are only communities who want paternalistic interference.

That is not the case.

You seem like you're possessed by the delusion of objectivity. There is no such thing.

[goatcode]

>There is no such thing.

Effectively, that is true; and the closer you get to absolute objectivity, the scarier it becomes to the average person (which was the crux of my point, so I appreciate your pointing out what you did). Fitting that the dude would have mentioned psychopaths, in that light.

[goatcode]

>Your “personal sovereignty” argument

What is this you're talking about? I talked about personal sovereignty OF IDENTITY. If you're going to strawman, at least strawman based on a correct reading of your target's point.