Hacker News Reader

Comment by vy8vWJlco | Hacker News Reader

> "I don't like guns and I think the fewer people have them, the safer we are"

The best case scenario, IMHO, is that everyone has the means to defend themselves against abuse. I value equality.

The worst case scenario, IMHO, is a single person or group with a disproportionate ability to abuse those who are defenseless against them - and they know it (your fewer-the-better scenario). IMHO, crime happens because people think they can get away with it. Good fences make good neighbors, IMHO, so I feel safer when everyone has a gun, for example, since disarmament creates an opportunity that wasn't there before.

Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your own.

View on HN

"Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your own."

Did it previously say "We don't like guns and we think..."?

No, that part was OK. I just don't want to be included, by assumption, in the set of people needing protection or those who should be afraid.

Even if the comment merely describes an opinion about me (and others) without directly putting words into my mouth, that opinion still seems to say that something is for my "own good." I disagree with the prescription and I would like to be excluded from the idea.

In that case I object to your characterization. Someone can have thoughts about other people without any implication that those people share the same thoughts. Trying to grandstand about it is either confused or an attempt at bullshit rhetoric. If you disagree, describe why you disagree (as you did with the rest of your comment), don't try and tell them what they can and can't say.

What characterization?

I am simply asking to not be spoken for, not saying the commentor isn't entitled to have an opinion. I say clearly above that I am OK with the comment as a mere opinion ("No, that part was OK" ...).

I'm curious if you read my reply closely before responding, or if you decided in advance what you wanted to say if I replied to you, because you seemed not to have received its intended meaning.

To repeat: I am not saying the commentor isn't entitled to an opinion, only saying that that opinion is wrong from my perspective and for my case since it is an opinion about me (and I was included by the word "we"). I am also entitled to my opinion.

On top of that, I also happen to think that my opinions about what is best for me should matter more in the public's view than what someone else thinks is best for me. I am not property to be managed, a sheep to be herded, or a child to be guarded. I am my own person - the horse's mouth, for my part - and I consider it offensive to be spoken for. Have you ever been told something is "for your own good"? If so, did you appreciate it?

The only bit of your post I objected to, discourse-wise, was the phrase:

Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your own.

This sounds like you are saying the commentator is not entitled to voice their opinion of the effects of a policy on a group if members of that group might hold a different opinion. You call this "speaking for you"; I say this characterization is incorrect - it is "speaking about you".

Sure - while it is an opinion about me (and others), it is also (simultaneously, though not exclusively) a recommendation (perhaps only an implied one) about what is in my best interests, when I alone can decide if I am safe, for example (it is not a lamp, or a number, it is my own feeling): therefore the commentor is speaking for me. Furthermore, since I define safety for myself, my assertion that the comment does not reflect my interests also makes it misrepresentation (in addition to speaking for me) in my case.

Hm, I wouldn't call safety a feeling at all.

I'll stipulate it and give some more thought to your position in that context. It definitely colors things a bit; I'm not sure whether it legitimately changes things.

On the flip-side, would you feel differently if the attribute being discussed was clearly not a feeling?

"I don't like guns and I think the fewer people have them, the shorter we are", or some such.

The issue is making sure all actors in such a system is rational - no point in optimizing one constraint while ignoring the other.

Actually, I don't see that as a necessary goal either since what is considered reasonable or rational in a society/system boils down to numbers - including what I tend to call useful or objective truths (even science is iterative). Since I also think everyone deserves an equal opportunity ("has the right") to choose what makes sense for his or her self, I don't feel a need/want to control anyone but myself (to make sure he or she chooses according to my morality, or current scientific theory) unless I absolutely have to interact with him or her. I only want to also be treated equally in any and all social interactions (such as having the right to own anything anyone else, government or non-government, may), and to otherwise be left alone wherever possible, since I am only trying to speak for myself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com