“should be weighed”

WHO is doing this “weighing”? Where do they get the authority to do this “weighing” of whether to “allow” a person to act or “forbid” a person to act. Because THAT person is the sovereign in your world. THAT person is relegating to himself the right to FORCE others to do what HE wishes. HE is master…

“it’s nearly impossible to have reasonable conversations with people who equate nudges toward public safety with shoving guns in peoples faces”

Interesting. You are claiming your “nudges” - ie laws - do NOT have the force of guns behind them? You are claiming if your “nudges” are ignored, the government will -not-…

“I would agree that the state doesn’t grant rights or freedoms, merely recognizing them and protecting them”

No you don’t. You -explicitly- declare that individual rights are NOT your standard for judgement. You’ve -explicitly- declared that individual freedom is NOT your standard. You’ve -explicitly- declared…

“any kind of nudge that crosses the sovereignty line may as well be a gun, and implies both ownership and intent of disposal”

“where we can nudge toward safety and create a meaningful effect, seems like we should”

As a post script, ‘nudging’ someone with a gun is the threat of force to get them to do what you demand. It is no different than a bank robber ‘nudging’ the teller with his gun to get that teller to give the robber the bank’s money.

…

Ah - and thank you for the clarification as well. If I understand you correctly, you agree that it isn’t the State or society or whatever which “allows” or “forbids” thinks like killing and murder. It is the fact that men are sovereign - own themselves - which is recognized and defended by the individual’s agent…

Reporting on a story doesn’t require commmitting the same crime as the thief. This is no different that sites posting ‘The Fappening’ photos. As the rational news outlets demonstrated, it was quite possible to report that story without publishing the stolen photos and thus violating their owner’s right to those photos…

“That’s kind of the point of any kind of law”

WOW! No, that is NOT the point of “any kind of law”. SOME laws treat people as slaves. SOME laws treat people as sovereign - ie not requiring the permission of some master to act.
That you lump the two together is the same as lumping murder and self-defense together.

“you…

Now we know where the martian canals went!!!

“My mum was on chemo and whatnot for a good while and basically couldn’t go near public places just in case.”

That’s just wrong.

All citizens should be REQUIRED to wear hazmat suits so that the innocent people with compromised immune systems are not put at risk. Anyone who refuses to do this would be a selfish murderer…

Or perhaps she was exposed to it by someone else who hadn’t been immunized because THEY too had a compromised immune system and thus couldn’t get the vaccine.

By your ‘logic’ that person is a murderer.

LOL

“we should go ahead and let them.”

And there is the horrid philosophy in a nutshell. We should “let” people do some things and “forbid” people from doing others. Because people do NOT have the right to act -freely-. People are NOT sovereign. They MUST be given or denied PERMISSION to act.

People are slaves.

THAT is the…

“What if it was you with the poor immune response? Would you want “choice”?”

Huh - don’t the anti-abortion people use the same irrational ‘argument’? “If you were the unborn baby, would you want “choice”?”

You’re going to have to come up with better than that before you violate people’s rights

(Note: I have no problem…

“if you want an independent games press that covers stories we think are interesting and/or important — even if developers and publishers don’t want those stories getting out — welcome to Kotaku!”

“You read the article too, so I guess your guilty too”

LOL. Thank you for the straw man - ie the demonstration that you either don’t GET the -actual- argument put to you, or you DO get it but would rather attack a lie you create rather than face having to attack the -actual- argument.

Given your resort to a lengthy ad…

The impotence of empty ad homs is always amusing. Thanks for your flaccid demonstration. :)

And now you add to the ad homs YOU posted. Interesting how those defending criminality are the one’s without rational arguments. The reason? There are NO rational arguments FOR criminality. That leaves them ONLY with things like ad homs - ie logical fallacies. :)

“Informing the public about a rape is not scheduling the victim for a followup session with all of the readers.”

And more ad homs. Consistency in irrationality is not a virtue. But then, neither is advocating criminal behavior as “journalism”. :)

Sm1ley has NO rational response to the argument made against him, so he resorts to logical fallacies (ad homs). What a surprise.