Notices by Fundamentally Broken Person #KillAllCommies :verified: (themadpirate@freespeechextremist.com)

@shmibs

and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong

When did I EXPLICITLY and DIRECTLY said that ?

@shmibs

yes, you can apply “hard science” to study the choices people make, i.e. get a better estimate of the current (changeable) average context for decisions about when to frame an action as positive or negative

yeah, that’s the idea of decision making theory in sociophysics.

but you can’t apply “hard science” to dictate the choices they make

Who said I was making that argument?. I not only never made that argument, but I argued that it is every person’s responsibility to know if their opinions are based on actual facts or not.

@shmibs And yes, I do believe that the methodology of hard science can and should be applied to the study of social phenomena. That’s why we have thriving fields like sociophysics and econophysics.

@shmibs Even human behavior is dictated ( on average ) by the laws of nature, and therefore, for the most part, it is rooted on a biological basis with an added layer of social modding ( that is social environment can push a given “dial” but it can not add or remove any of the biologically set “dials” ). That why reality, even social phenomena, are , statistically speaking, objective in terms of the observations.

@shmibs My point is that, what most rational people, understand as the concept of Freedom is based upon Negative Liberty, the idea that as long as you act according to your conscious and personal responsibility, you are free to act without interference from other people. That’s what is derived from human behavior when people use the concept of Freedom. It is not arbitrarily defined, not it subject to a zeitgeist, it is derived from observing human behavior itself.

@shmibs

but any given action can be rephrased as an exactly equivalent inaction, or vice versa

Not really. Someone’s inaction is not related to someone else’s actions against themselves. There is no equivalence there. Other people’s problems are someone else’s problems.

@shmibs I am asserting that my inaction doesn’t imply I am responsible for other people’s actions against themselves.

@shmibs No, that’s a false equivalence. The correct equivalence is : decide not to take vaccine child = individual risk of the child to get measles. Just because I decided not to act, that doesn’t mean other people can not take action to protect themselves. For example, if someone is poor, that’s the direct consequence of the life choices of that person that lead them to be poor, it is not the fault of “rich people” not “giving their fair share” ( or some idiotic crap like that ) to support the welfare state. Your example is just a cope out that irresponsible people use to excuse themselves from the consequences o their own behavior.

@shmibs When I exercise my individual and economic freedom, the actions or inactions of other people do not enter into my sphere of consideration, irrespectively of whether such actions or inactions exists or not, unless they directly and purposefully initiate the use of force against me. That’s what “live and let live” means.

@shmibs It is not a “consideration”, it is based on observation. You observe someone’s behavior, and apply a criteria that allows you to identify you where that persons stands. The criteria is not arbitrary, it is very well defined.

@shmibs My point is that there’s a criteria, a praxis, to delineate ( from the ontological positivist point-of-view also fuck nihilism ) when the word “freedom” is used to mean positive liberty and when it is used to mean “negative liberty”.

@shmibs Valid Logic is tautological. If the reasoning is not tautological then it’s a fallacy.

@shmibs Not unless that person is my dependent, in which case I am solely responsible for the wellbeing of that person. I am not responsible for the wellbeing of my group or my community, I am no total stranger’s keeper, they are not my responsibility.

@shmibs Freedom does indeed means you are free to murder people. Freedom doesn’t excuse you from the consequences off murdering other people, like for example, other people killing you as a reciprocate action.

@shmibs That is simply not true. Just because I decide NOT to do something that implies I am stopping someone FROM doing something. The key word here is personal responsibility.

@shmibs Freedom for example means that I am free to refuse to help someone who is drowning, even if that leads to that person’s death. Sure, I can be accused of “involuntary manslaughter” ( whatever that means ) in some parts of the world, but that’s would be up to me to take personal responsibility. So yeah, Freedom doesn’t care about your feelings or needs.

@shmibs @Moon @Nudhul @Secftblgirl @mrsaturday Yeah, Negative Liberty rejects the concept of security. If you acted in a way that puts you in danger, you have no reason to demand other people’s freedom to be curtailed. Positive Liberty does the opposite, demands other people’s actions to be restricted so you feel secure can operate in a way you believe things ought to be.

@shmibs @Moon @Nudhul @Secftblgirl @mrsaturday “My Body, My Choice” mansplaining edition :

• “I should be free to chose if I want to have the jab or not” -> Negative Liberty, does not impose what others should do or do not, freedom is based on individual choice and personal responsibility, rejects to conform to the idea of “security”.

• “Abortions should be tax-payer founded so I can be free to do what I want with my body” -> Positive Liberty, imposes a condition on other people so they can feel “free” to act in a certain way, freedom depends on collective coercion, rejects individual choice and personal responsibility, uses the label “freedom” to mean security.

@shmibs @Secftblgirl @Moon @Nudhul @mrsaturday Be careful when you use the word “freedom”. Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty are two very different ideological position, yet both use the word “freedom” to defend their stance.