6 ms·
(Reposting here where it's more relevant.) While the saying is true that "your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins," that argument falls apart whe
by CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
(Reposting here where it's more relevant.)
While the saying is true that "your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins," that argument falls apart when you try to apply it beyond one-on-one interactions with direct consequences into group generalities and indirect/indeterminable consequences, such as "creating a more dangerous environment."
Prohibit things or compelling them, out of a feared or perceived potential for harm, leads down the slippery slope to 1984's "freedom is slavery."
- macintux 5y agoFrankly I think the argument is idiotic even in one-on-one interactions. There’s a reason assault is illegal.
- CrazyPyroLinux 5y agoMaybe you misunderstood me? "your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins" is the "reason assault is illegal."
- macintux 5y agoI should have been more explicit. Legally, “assault” does not have to involve contact, hence “assault and battery”. Assault sans battery is still a crime. Repeatedly threatening to punch someone, e.g., or throwing punches without landing them.
- CrazyPyroLinux 5y agoFair enough. My point was that declining to wear a mask or get a vaccine is very different than punching someone or even threatening to. In the context of COVID I've seen appeals to an imaginary right to feel safe, and using that to imply obligations onto others.