|
|
|
|
|
|
by lazide
867 days ago
|
|
|
'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question] I've been quite clear on my position (direct and implied). Why won't you be? I'm interested in desired outcomes and expected behaviors and tradeoffs, not idealism. Sophistry is the enemy of realism and truth. A type of 'crabs in the bucket' mentality, actually, as it's about 'winning the debate' instead of 'coming to the truth'. For example, your question is presupposing that there is ANY course of action that won't produce an outcome with some 'detriment to society', or at least some part of it.
Or that a course of action could not have both positives AND negatives for the same people in society.
Or that a right is ever actually inherent/inalienable, or not.
Or that folks in a society may have the right to determine (independently) what they consider to be to their detriment or not. Among other things. What desired outcome are YOU advocating for? Will you actually address the real questions? |
|
|
This is an easy question to answer, and you answered it and then un-answered your answer. Probably because when I clarified your answer to mean what it meant (by taking control of things away from people who are using them in a way society deems not useful or harmful, you are removing their wealth and thus they do not have a right to it) you violated some kind of principle you thought you held and had to backtrack.
Instead of engaging with this thought process you just proceeded to deliver a few unwanted lectures on things that you felt necessary. I must assume you lack the self-awareness and/or are regarding the question as loaded because it uses a word: wealth, which has a very distinct meaning (but you feel is being used ideologically).