Lots of yammering about economic "rights" on here. But there are others that have a right to life. Remember that "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" thing? Consistently these complaints are disguised under statements about liberty, but they are simply complaints about changes to routine, economic resources, comfort, and convenience. As much as it sucks, your perception of liberty does not Trump someone else's right to life. The point of all this upheaval is to minimize loss of life. Now, do some self reflection on what is actually more important to you.
Comments (21)
sorted by:
Illogical and disrespectful. I think we have detected the teenager.
All good Scotsman's.... Take a hike and go read some logic. Also, I said nothing about cages. I was specifically referring to people complaining about their economic suffering when we are dealing with a contagion, which we need to note, is not a freak accident from the PoV of the carrier and the person they infect whilst just going about their business after being warned. Would you say a drunk driver accidentally killed the family in that minivan? I wouldn't.
My original argument had nothing to do with the greater good. It was very simply, economic comfort does not Trump another person's right to life. The whole of my argument was focused on individuals, though it is easy to see how this can be further expanded to include "all others". But this is a two-way proposition then. If all sufferers of economic harm can dismiss the lives of (any/all) others, then all person's concerned about their life, can dismiss the claims of those worried about their livelihoods.
We have been warned that this virus can be contagious for 2 weeks (or even 2 days) without symptoms. So if you go out, you risk being infected and/or infecting another. Is the real underlying premise that your judgement, and the judgement of those that agree with you is better and more solid.. as a matter of fact? That would be actual Statist Mob BS.
Agreed. It is definitely an encroachment, and I am not sure its is right to do it. I was (am) trying to bring some clarity on the fact that "me me me" is not a sound moral position, no matter how we couch the presentation (liberty), and no matter how many people agree. So we had our 3rd grader scuffle, and for me. A personal respect for you has grown :)
So when people start committing suicide because they're depressed over this, does that mean someone else's right to life trumped theirs?
That person took their own life, they did not have too. To confuse suicide with murder by conflating a cause that suits your position.
You obviously do not understand the severity of depression / suicide in a person's life. You say, "they did not have to" yet you ignore what drove them to it in the first place. People can drive a person to take their own life, that's essentially murder, atypical but if you make someone commit suicide when they would not have otherwise, who's really responsible for the death? The person who would have otherwise gone on living, or you, the one who made them do it?
Spoiler: It's you.
No, I am only responsible for what I do. It's not even close to the same. By your argument, and thing that hurts someone's feelings could be murder. You sure you want to go down that road? Hint, for your contemplation time on this question - - 1A is clear and first for a reason.
Okay, you're only responsible for what you do. So if you harass someone until they commit suicide, you'd be perfectly fine to say that you were in no way at all responsible for their death?
Now your example is that I harassed them, this would be illegal, and has been for centuries under English common law. So yes, harassment is something I did (per your example), but murder still would not be. And, I don't think manslaughter either, though that would be contentious under the laws. You cannot make me responsible for another person's mental health through good and right, only through enforcing a mob rule edict.
You didn't answer my question.
I don't accept that I am responsible for someone else's action. The same answer applies no matter how you change your argument.