undefined | Better HN

0 pointswav-part8y ago0 comments

LOL its like asking victim to prove why attacker should not attack him. The onus is NOT on victim but the attacker. Its the attacker who made the first contact. Its the attacker who has to prove from the mutually agreed upon set of axioms.

0 comments

dsacco8y ago

To be honest I'm really not following your position here. Who is the victim and who is the attacker, and how does that respond to my point?

wav-partOP8y ago

Attacker = Overreeaching Govt/Collectivism. Victim = Individual.

> how does that respond to my point?

You just asked an individual to justify why its not okey for govt/people to interfere between two consenting adults.

But then I think the debate would turn into battle of axioms which is pointless.

The question should be, can/how would people with contradictory political axioms co-exist ? I think its not possible, people can only vote with feet and hope for best. Political debate is not an intellectual debate like scientific/programming debate but war with real losses and HN now is a battlefield.

dsacco8y ago

Ah, I understand. I disagree with the analogy then. If the two consenting adults are not harming each other they can still be a liability to other people. Risk can be introduced indirectly even if no individual is directly harmed. How can you adjust your analogy to account for that?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

dsacco8y ago

To be honest I'm really not following your position here. Who is the victim and who is the attacker, and how does that respond to my point?

wav-partOP8y ago

Attacker = Overreeaching Govt/Collectivism. Victim = Individual.

> how does that respond to my point?

You just asked an individual to justify why its not okey for govt/people to interfere between two consenting adults.

But then I think the debate would turn into battle of axioms which is pointless.

dsacco8y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse