Absolutely. And that is precisely why I'd be very wary to support any power solution whatsoever. Especially when you know who does it come from and what ends does it serve.
Basically, all we need to do is ask ourselves a simple question: does it [insert any proposal, policy, rule or even daily habit here] serves my freedom as an individual or does it suppresses it? Answer to this question usually is all you need to determine whether it is worth supporting something or not.
Basically, all we need to do is ask ourselves a simple question: does it [insert any proposal, policy, rule or even daily habit here] serves my freedom as an individual or does it suppresses it? Answer to this question usually is all you need to determine whether it is worth supporting something or not.
If you place personal liberty above everything, then you have to grant it to everyone else. So you couldn't really have any qualms against lgbt, abortion, usury, OF, feminism, grooming of children and other forms of degeneracy that ultimately destroy society. It's radical liberalism and exactly what the jews push on western society to get it ready for the 1984-style final revolution.
My point was censorship is not bad on principle and we ought to suppress certain ideas and behaviors in society. So in general I'm all for decency laws and fighting degeneracy and that trumps any personal "freedom" there might be.
The thing is, when an agent with bad intentions does something that is right, that thing is objectively right regardless of the moral character of the agent doing it. Saying otherwise would be similar to an ad hominem fallacy.
I mean this as a general direction. Not an absolute law. I'm against any power solution by default, which then can be evaluated on case by case basis. For example, of course murder is bad and to some extent should be suppressed, so in this particular case I'm in agreement that some kind of regulation is needed, but that absolutely does not mean that I trust said regulators or that I would allow them regulate something else. That, whatever that may be, on it's turn should be evaluated separately. Case by case basis is a key here.
Currently society has given elites kind of a carte blanche in regards to regulation and that is its gravest mistake. To trust and to give power to someone else. Trust in authority, belief that there even exists such a thing as authority, is the main reason of current downfall of our civilization.
It's radical liberalism...
No, it's not. It's voluntaryism.
...regardless of the moral character of the agent doing it...
Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.
A very simple example: Your have to hire a babysitter for, say, a few hours. There are two proposals. One comes from known child abuser and the second one comes from a person without such history. Of course you'd choose the second option. You'd be absolutely mad to do otherwise. Or, in case other options are not possible, you wouldn't hire them at all and simply cancel whatever errands you had previously.
Is this ad hominem by your logic? Yes, of course it is! Absolutely justified and necessary ad hominem at that!
So, going back to our world, it is absolutely a must to reject anything coming from the likes of WEF, WHO, EU and all the rest of those abominations. Whatever coming from that side of ballpark is rotten from the very get-go and you are absolutely mad to think otherwise. Their real intention is the most important thing in this case and we both know that it is not what it says on a tin.
Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.
So a thing can't be true because WEF says it? That's a logical fallacy. We're not talking about their intentions but about the truthfulness of the proposition made. In this case "porn is bad for society and should be highly restricted" is a true proposition, no ifs or buts. Its truth value is independent of the person saying it and it will be true even if a gooner or the owner of OF said it.
The issue of the technocratic elite tightening their regime and using authoritarian measures to do it is distinct from it, or at least my point was they can be viewed separately. Both radical leftist and "based" right populist policies can be used to move their agenda. Case in point - D.J. Trump and Elon.
It makes perfect sense they will start restricting the internet under the auspice of "defending children" from harmful content. This is the best strategy because they know everyone can get behind this, especially right-minded people who are currently more wary of censorship and government overreach in their lives. They want to get to China level restriction ideally and they're playing the long game. So as you can see, while I acknowledge their intentions, that in no way changes the fact that porn is bad and should be restricted on pure principle, even if Satan himself is enforcing the restriction.
They want to get to China level restriction ideally and they're playing the long game.
This I do agree with. Regarding restrictions though... I think I'm gonna go with "no" on this one. I don't think it should be restricted. That should be parent's job and not government's.
Weapons are dangerous too. Should those be restricted? What about knives? In UK nanny state they have to show passport before buying a fucking knife. Do you think that is ok? Why not take this a step further? Everyone should not only prove their age when buying a knife, but also register all their knives in possession and write an explanation for each one of them why they need it. Whould you be on board for such a proposition as well? I don't mean this as a strawman, but more like an illustration of what a dangerous slippery slope this really is.
Absolutely. And that is precisely why I'd be very wary to support any power solution whatsoever. Especially when you know who does it come from and what ends does it serve.
Basically, all we need to do is ask ourselves a simple question: does it [insert any proposal, policy, rule or even daily habit here] serves my freedom as an individual or does it suppresses it? Answer to this question usually is all you need to determine whether it is worth supporting something or not.
If you place personal liberty above everything, then you have to grant it to everyone else. So you couldn't really have any qualms against lgbt, abortion, usury, OF, feminism, grooming of children and other forms of degeneracy that ultimately destroy society. It's radical liberalism and exactly what the jews push on western society to get it ready for the 1984-style final revolution.
My point was censorship is not bad on principle and we ought to suppress certain ideas and behaviors in society. So in general I'm all for decency laws and fighting degeneracy and that trumps any personal "freedom" there might be.
The thing is, when an agent with bad intentions does something that is right, that thing is objectively right regardless of the moral character of the agent doing it. Saying otherwise would be similar to an ad hominem fallacy.
I mean this as a general direction. Not an absolute law. I'm against any power solution by default, which then can be evaluated on case by case basis. For example, of course murder is bad and to some extent should be suppressed, so in this particular case I'm in agreement that some kind of regulation is needed, but that absolutely does not mean that I trust said regulators or that I would allow them regulate something else. That, whatever that may be, on it's turn should be evaluated separately. Case by case basis is a key here.
Currently society has given elites kind of a carte blanche in regards to regulation and that is its gravest mistake. To trust and to give power to someone else. Trust in authority, belief that there even exists such a thing as authority, is the main reason of current downfall of our civilization.
No, it's not. It's voluntaryism.
Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.
A very simple example: Your have to hire a babysitter for, say, a few hours. There are two proposals. One comes from known child abuser and the second one comes from a person without such history. Of course you'd choose the second option. You'd be absolutely mad to do otherwise. Or, in case other options are not possible, you wouldn't hire them at all and simply cancel whatever errands you had previously.
Is this ad hominem by your logic? Yes, of course it is! Absolutely justified and necessary ad hominem at that!
So, going back to our world, it is absolutely a must to reject anything coming from the likes of WEF, WHO, EU and all the rest of those abominations. Whatever coming from that side of ballpark is rotten from the very get-go and you are absolutely mad to think otherwise. Their real intention is the most important thing in this case and we both know that it is not what it says on a tin.
So a thing can't be true because WEF says it? That's a logical fallacy. We're not talking about their intentions but about the truthfulness of the proposition made. In this case "porn is bad for society and should be highly restricted" is a true proposition, no ifs or buts. Its truth value is independent of the person saying it and it will be true even if a gooner or the owner of OF said it.
The issue of the technocratic elite tightening their regime and using authoritarian measures to do it is distinct from it, or at least my point was they can be viewed separately. Both radical leftist and "based" right populist policies can be used to move their agenda. Case in point - D.J. Trump and Elon.
It makes perfect sense they will start restricting the internet under the auspice of "defending children" from harmful content. This is the best strategy because they know everyone can get behind this, especially right-minded people who are currently more wary of censorship and government overreach in their lives. They want to get to China level restriction ideally and they're playing the long game. So as you can see, while I acknowledge their intentions, that in no way changes the fact that porn is bad and should be restricted on pure principle, even if Satan himself is enforcing the restriction.
This I do agree with. Regarding restrictions though... I think I'm gonna go with "no" on this one. I don't think it should be restricted. That should be parent's job and not government's.
Weapons are dangerous too. Should those be restricted? What about knives? In UK nanny state they have to show passport before buying a fucking knife. Do you think that is ok? Why not take this a step further? Everyone should not only prove their age when buying a knife, but also register all their knives in possession and write an explanation for each one of them why they need it. Whould you be on board for such a proposition as well? I don't mean this as a strawman, but more like an illustration of what a dangerous slippery slope this really is.