• Liz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    Oh, no, it’s just that I don’t weigh all violence as equal. I have a different value system then you do when it comes to interpersonal violence and that’s okay that we disagree there.

    To me, removing a potential victim’s ability to protect themselves isn’t worth removing a potential victim from being attacked at all. To me, they’re not a 1:1 trade. You probably disagree, and that’s okay, but I place a high value on an individual’s agency, to the point where I’m willing to let them live in a slightly more dangerous society to get it.

    This trade-off exists in all areas of life, and I don’t necessarily side with personal freedom in all of them (I would ban cars if I could), but I do in this area.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      so selfishness then. got it. your desires for yourself are more important than what’s better for everyone. you can’t pretend this is your choice for others. it’s definitely for yourself.

      • Liz
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Uh, no, it’s so that everyone has the ability to make the choice for themselves. We could force everyone to live in padded cells for their own safety, but we both agree that’s ridiculous. We’re just arguing over what is and is not an acceptable trade-off between safety and agency.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          in this case there’s only really 2 options: better for society or better for yourself. you can’t argue it’s better for everyone to have the choice to own killing weapons when it’s clear that position results in more gun violence and death.