• atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    you take the position that the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable

    Explain how that’s my position. Please use references to support your argument.

    Because that’s not my position. Nor have I stated it as my position. I recommend searching for the word “risk” when reading my prior comments.

    EDIT: Oh - sorry… I guess I’m just off-topic in here. ELON BAD LOL

    • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Sure: you disregard this specific case and only bring up other hypothetical cases to prove why this is unjust. Like you just did in the comment I replied to.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        And you extrapolated that to “the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable”.

        If you really care - and I suspect you don’t because you’re just another lemmykin who just wants to jump on somebody who disagrees with you and “be right” - I’m saying the risk involved with state-sponsored censorship is higher than the risk associated with allowing misinformation to be spread.

        This is why I say the original case largely doesn’t matter - because my position doesn’t depend on the veracity of the claims being made. I’m arguing about what a state should and should not be allowed to do. Because the state is sometimes led by people who define truth very differently from how I would want.

        You think this translates to “the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable”???

        • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah, it’s a black and white position. You specifically are saying the state is unable to obtain justice because of the “risk”. You preclude the possibility of justice being obtained. I’m pretty amazed you can find so many ways to say the same thing and not realize that. But hey, I’m sure it’s just everybody else being irrational right?

          • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Do you think “black and white” just means that I have an opinion that I feel is correct?

            You preclude the possibility of justice being obtained.

            How did you even possibly get this from what I’ve said? I feel that allowing free speech is justice.

            I’m sure it’s just everybody else being irrational right?

            Not one person has yet actually asked me to clarify my position. You’ve all only told me what I really mean. So yes - it is everyone else being irrational.

            • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              This is how people figure out how each other think, calm down.

              It does seem you are saying governments shouldnt be permitted to seek justice against misinformation because doing so puts a greater injustice on the public as a whole.

              Thats me rephrasing your point from earlier to see if I understand it right, so if I have it wrong feel free to explain.