Board Thread:News and Announcements/@comment-27097330-20170224221935/@comment-27097330-20170322005446

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: Dragonbiscuit wrote: What we need Heart. Is a united front against people making arguments for things that restrict freedom and cause users to leave. Even though they're in a small minority of the community. Maybe Heart if people like you would stop trying to restrict people's freedom there'd be more people and less arguing. Maybe. If you would understand you're not going to win these fights to restrict freedom we wouldn't be having this conversation. Maybe if you'd recognize you sound like Vladimir Putin talking about how they need laws which basically strangle people. Maybe if you'd simply swallow a bit of your pride and say "I'm sorry this large argument was unecessary and pointless because it just drove people away." The whole standpoint requires you to value freedom above peace. I'm quite sure that any one of us can recognise that ultimate anarchy and war is most certainly not preferable to limiting freedom, but keeping everything peaceful. It could be said that the problem here, indeed, partially lies in everyone having the freedom to argue, no? Anarchy is preferable to authoritarianism, but that's irrelevant because these rules aren't anarchy. They're just simple and only specify what's neccessary. They're closer to anarchy than otherwise. If you accept the need for regulation, I fail to see how you yourself cannot see the need for proper regulation of everything. They specify next to nothing. I accept the potential need for extremely limited regulation. That does not mean I want everything controlled. That's like saying murder is bad, so we should confiscate anything that could potentially be used. If the police had an infinite budget, I'm sure they would. No they would not! That includes literally every object in existence! Used as a murder weapon, yes, though you could theoretically (with the infinite budget stipulated) make everything as safe as is possible, and then, while it's probably an exaggeration to say "all", the limitations lie on the original request; preventing human death, rather than upon the actual nature of restriction. I'm saying ultimate policing is authoritarian and ridiculous. Preventing human death is not the ultimate goal. But this is somewhat a different debate. It's not ridiculous. With enough of a budget, it's entirely reasonable. But diminishing returns means that it's not worth doing in regards to everything else. I... I'm not even going to argue with this right now, because it's off topic, and I'm not sure how to start. We'll argue this some other time.