It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is sacrifice of individual rights for the perceived probability of harm...?

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Is the sacrifice or removal of individual rights for the perceived (not actual) probability of harm to others acceptable?

In other words.

Fundamental rights normally expected of an individual are taken away

This is based on a perceived probability of harm to others. There is no particular harm this individual is to others. There is just a probabalistic event that some perceive could be harmful to others.

Interesting side observation is what criteria and thresholding methods are used to determine what probability of harm rather than actual harm must be used

3. Is this acceptable and why?


The reason for asking this may be obvious to some, but it is being used in recent times and people are fully justifying this removal of individual rights over no action or state of a person, but rather a probability. If you still aren't sure what situation I am referring to, see below.

















What I am referring to is the internment of Japanese into holding camps to protect US citizens during the war. There was a probabilistic threat to the non-Japanese citizens of the US and an individual Japanese US citizen, whether an actual enemy or not, had a probability of being an enemy, so it would seem this is very good logic, no?

Would everyone agree that this is a valid reason to remove individual rights? There's a chance they can commit harm based on some data...or not...

Good reasoning?


+7 more 
posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 04:48 PM
link   
No. There is never ever a reason to sacrifice individual rights. We also have the right to protect ourselves.



posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Halfswede

You could have used the military draft as an example as well: Essentially enslave a segment of society, to the extent that those thus conscripted might not j u still loose their freedom, but also be placed, against their will, at risk of serious injury, or even death.

There was a time in the US, not too long ago, that the sentiment behind "Ask not what your Country can do for you. Ask, what You can do for for your Country" was considered both noble and patriotic.

Such altruism has, sadly, been crushed under "My Rights!", "My Freedom!", narcissism.



posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede
Is the sacrifice or removal of individual rights for the perceived (not actual) probability of harm to others acceptable?

In other words.

Fundamental rights normally expected of an individual are taken away

This is based on a perceived probability of harm to others. There is no particular harm this individual is to others. There is just a probabalistic event that some perceive could be harmful to others.

Interesting side observation is what criteria and thresholding methods are used to determine what probability of harm rather than actual harm must be used

3. Is this acceptable and why?


The reason for asking this may be obvious to some, but it is being used in recent times and people are fully justifying this removal of individual rights over no action or state of a person, but rather a probability. If you still aren't sure what situation I am referring to, see below.


No acceptable when applied to entire groups. Group punishment for the actions of an individual are not just fair but counterproductive.

But you mentioned probability. Not to derail the thread, but the movie ‘Minority Report’ covers this very topic. Unfortunately for Tom Cruise, the accuracy of any probability can be skewed (intentionally or otherwise) towards a particular outcome by using faulty data.

You mention the Japanese Internment. Most folks don’t know that there actually WAS someone providing the Japanese with intelligence from Hawaii (how else could the Japanese plan so meticulously?; the Japanese Consulate was saturated with surveillance…so who did it? But arresting ALL Japanese Americans was wrong. Similarly, TSA checking wheelchair bound Grannies with a fine-tooth comb shortly after 9/11 was beyond ridiculous. Sickening, really.

Hope this helps!

















What I am referring to is the internment of Japanese into holding camps to protect US citizens during the war. There was a probabilistic threat to the non-Japanese citizens of the US and an individual Japanese US citizen, whether an actual enemy or not, had a probability of being an enemy, so it would seem this is very good logic, no?

Would everyone agree that this is a valid reason to remove individual rights? There's a chance they can commit harm based on some data...or not...

Good reasoning?






posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: Halfswede


Such altruism has, sadly, been crushed under "My Rights!", "My Freedom!", narcissism.


Narcissism? How is a Constitutional Right afforded to us, a narcissism?

Tell me....which freedoms are you willing to give up? Your 1st? 5th? The 14th? Which ones?



posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Mantiss2021



There was a time in the US, not too long ago, that the sentiment behind "Ask not what your Country can do for you. Ask, what You can do for for your Country" was considered both noble and patriotic.

Such altruism has, sadly, been crushed under "My Rights!", "My Freedom!", narcissism.


LOL. Your man JFK was one of those uber wealthy democrats right! That's exactly the type of expression that I'd expect one of those to come up with. It sounds a bit like "Ask not what your Company can do for you. Ask, what You can do for for your Company", sowing the seed of fascist corporate slavery.



Such altruism has, sadly, been crushed under "My Rights!", "My Freedom!", narcissism.


Much of western society used to live under a feudal system, Lords & Slaves, that sort of thing. There were no rights, no freedoms. This was bad, that's why there was resistance and rights & freedoms became a thing. A thing that many, many people died for.

Today, we're hurtling towards exactly the same bad old feudal system, with billionaire technocratic overlords and medical tyranny, and here you are bemoaning the only things on this planet that make it even remotely sufferable.

Enjoy your slavery, and get on your knees dog.



posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: myselfaswell

I always find it so odd that people actually want to be enslaved and want the government to control their entire life and mock those who want freedom.

Either they are simply trolling or.....or what? What causes one to want that for their life???



posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I purposely laid out the OP so that people would have time to form their thoughts based on the current environment before getting to the example at hand as it is interesting how quickly we have gone from treating people based on real actions and real risk to going down the road of Minority Report etc. and determining guilt by probability (or perceived probability).

Some things seem like good ideas at the time...



posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede
Is the sacrifice or removal of individual rights for the perceived (not actual) probability of harm to others acceptable?


It seems to me that if it's truly a right -- anything we can do for ourselves and by ourselves -- it cannot be taken away, it can only be violated by someone else's willful actions.

I would also suggest that in such an instance, there is a fine line between "probable" and "possible."


What I am referring to is the internment of Japanese into holding camps to protect US citizens during the war. There was a probabilistic threat to the non-Japanese citizens of the US and an individual Japanese US citizen, whether an actual enemy or not, had a probability of being an enemy, so it would seem this is very good logic, no?


I would consider this a possibility, as opposed to a probability. While it is probable that there will be American citizens of Japanese descent who would aid and abet Japan against their nation of citizenship, it is improbable that all will; not even most will. Consequently, if we violate all of their rights, we will be committing a crime against the innocent.

Much like the current use of lethal force by police. Sure, as far as police know, anyone and everyone could be a threat to them. But in reality, only a few actually are a threat to them. The vast majority will never pose any threat to police, and are more likely to be victimized by police than be an aggressor. Consequently, innocents can and will be unjustly and unnecessarily harmed in the process.

Which, of course, means everyone is guilty until proven innocent... and there is no way to prove that someone will or will not do something.


Would everyone agree that this is a valid reason to remove individual rights? There's a chance they can commit harm based on some data...or not...

Good reasoning?


Nope, not good reasoning at all.

If rights can be violated for perceived possible harm, then no one has rights... they are only privileges to be given and taken at will by the ones with the most and the biggest guns.

edit on 23-8-2021 by Boadicea because: "probably" to "probable" and "improbably" to "improbable"



posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: shaemac
No. There is never ever a reason to sacrifice individual rights. We also have the right to protect ourselves.



Prefiero morir de la qué seguir viviendo arrodillado. ~Emiliano Zapata



posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Halfswede

I think when people are for taking away individual rights and liberties it usually means they have fear. I mean thats what all of this is in the end. Its just a lot of fear.

And when we are scared as humans we will do anything for precieved safety.



posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Halfswede

If you let your kids go out unsupervised after you've locked the doors are you a bad parent? I'm willing to sacrifice some for a perceived greater good, until proven wrong. So many are simply selfish. "It might kill your grandparents but it won't kill me, so screw you and give me my Applebees."



posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Liberty is the greater good.

But it requires responsibility as much as the respect due to their rights of individuals.

Americans have had a long and easy time cultivating the fruits of their rights. Some of these fruits have been rotten and downright poisonous only because we refuse to acknowledge the other half of liberty; responsibility.

Rights without responsibility is chaos. A degenerate society with little more than pleasures of the flesh to live for. A society of losers whose only accomplishment is having been born.

If you have nothing but responsibility then you are a slave. I hardly need to explain what that entails.

In order to have a society that extends the most liberty possible to as many people as possible you have to have a society that is educated, responsible, and of moral rectitude.

Liberty and it's defense requires as much participation as any other system of governance.

But it takes a full sense of responsibility to realize it. We've lost that, I think.




edit on 8 23 2021 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: Halfswede

I think when people are for taking away individual rights and liberties it usually means they have fear. I mean thats what all of this is in the end. Its just a lot of fear.

And when we are scared as humans we will do anything for precieved safety.


Yeah, I don't want to discount people's real fear justified or not. Its like fear of anything -- it can take hold and make a person go bonkers. I've seen big tough men do the screamy dance over a tiny little snake.

That said, I am genuinely hoping that some people who are gung ho about certain things can see the flaw in this kind of thinking and also realize we have been down this road before. It is never justified and there is only regret.

It is unacceptable for this to turn into a giant "oops, sorry my bad" situation after healthy, innocent people are rounded up and handled accordingly for the "safety" of others. I see people getting beaten by police in Australia "for their health". SMH



posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fryguy
a reply to: Halfswede

If you let your kids go out unsupervised after you've locked the doors are you a bad parent? I'm willing to sacrifice some for a perceived greater good, until proven wrong. So many are simply selfish. "It might kill your grandparents but it won't kill me, so screw you and give me my Applebees."



So are you for the internment camps?

You have every right to "sacrifice" and that's great that you have. You do not have the right to force others to sacrifice based on 'at some point they might be dangerous'.

Also, asking someone else to do something so you feel better is by definition selfish, not the other way around. It is warped logic that you can demand something of someone and they just want left alone and they be the "selfish" ones.
Don't be selfish and donate 50% of your savings to hungry African kids -- they will die if you are selfish and don't -- see the fallacy.
edit on 23-8-2021 by Halfswede because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: shaemac
a reply to: myselfaswell

I always find it so odd that people actually want to be enslaved and want the government to control their entire life and mock those who want freedom.

Either they are simply trolling or.....or what? What causes one to want that for their life???


Laziness?, fear?, no responsibility? I suppose it could be any of these things. I suspect though it's in large part because many people have had it good all their lives and just don't realise how bad things can be. Once you've reached the bottom though that's when you realise the value of those freedoms and rights, but by then, it's too late.


edit on 23 8 2021 by myselfaswell because: it's Tuesday editing day.



posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede
Is the sacrifice or removal of individual rights for the perceived (not actual) probability of harm to others acceptable?











posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Fryguy



"It might kill your grandparents but it won't kill me, so screw you and give me my Applebees."


why are we not concentrating on mitigation efforts for those who are vulnerable to this virus instead of implementing policies and mandates for the majority who are not affecting that greatly by this virus?


edit on 23-8-2021 by American-philosopher because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 05:48 PM
link   
what's that called when the hostage becomes attached to the person keeping them tied up?

Unfortunately a lot of people never grow up, they just become older, full sized children.
Do what you want with them, they'll thank you for it. Lock them up, set ridiculous standards and make them live in cubicles with high stress jobs... strap diaper's on their face! punish them because you feel like it.
MOST people will comply after so many years as slaves to the system.

those who won't are now considered terrorists by those that crave the chains.

Buncha hosers.



posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fryguy
a reply to: Halfswede

If you let your kids go out unsupervised after you've locked the doors are you a bad parent? I'm willing to sacrifice some for a perceived greater good, until proven wrong. So many are simply selfish. "It might kill your grandparents but it won't kill me, so screw you and give me my Applebees."



The problem is that people have no idea of actual risk. When you change the dial on your car radio you're putting many others at risk. Since you feel in control that risk is acceptable to you. COVID isn't in your control and most of the other things you think are, actually aren't.

Why haven't we banned alcohol? Those selfish drunks cause more death, destruction, and personal misery than COVID. Why is that frivolous activity allowed to continue but I should have to have medical treatments to get groceries?



new topics




 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join