Is the group more important than the individual?

[2A_Tom]

Agree, but how many times have we heard the mantra "if it saves but one child"? Yes a purely emotional response meant to control the masses, yet so many times that "one" wins over many in a country that is supposed to be majority rule.

Have you read the Constitution?

 

[actaeon277]

Agree, but how many times have we heard the mantra "if it saves but one child"? Yes a purely emotional response meant to control the masses, yet so many times that "one" wins over many in a country that is supposed to be majority rule.

When I've heard that argument, I turn it on it's head.
If banning ________ gun will save one life...

Okay, but what if having that same gun will "save one life..."


Usually stymies them.

 

[NavVet78]

Agreed. The group can not have any rights that violate any of my constitutional rights as an individual. Once rights are granted to a group over and individual then you can start kissing your freedom goodbye. Kind of like what's going on now.

 

[2A_Tom]

Agreed. The group can not have any rights that violate any of my constitutional rights as an individual. Once rights are granted to a group over and individual then you can start kissing your freedom goodbye. Kind of like what's going on now.

I sent you a PM check your notifications.

 

[worddoer]

Unpossible to answer this poll correctly.

What made America different from all other countries is that our primary motive was our government would recognize and get out of the way of individual rights.

If the collective is more important, or just as important or only slightly behind individual rights.....then there is no limit to the control the government could take "for collective safety".

Here is my answer: The individual is significantly more important than the group: it's time to start lifting some restrictions

 

[nonobaddog]

The current restrictions apply to both groups and individuals. Just get rid of the damn restrictions and sort out the philosophies later.

 

[jamil]

Emotions are not justification.

Are you sure that it must be that they hold the view they do because of emotions? Are you sure that your view isn’t based on any emotion?

 

[2A_Tom]

Scientifically speaking, you build immunity by exposure. Historically the sick were quarantined not the healthy. It reasonable to suggest that people take precautions. To include at risk people limit their contact with the public, the washing of hands, the wearing of gloves and a mask.

This panic is based on faulty projections. The States have taken authority that we have not given them and I reject that.

Emotional? Well, I am ticked, but I believe that is based in principle.

 

[jamil]

Unpossible to answer this poll correctly.

What made America different from all other countries is that our primary motive was our government would recognize and get out of the way of individual rights.

If the collective is more important, or just as important or only slightly behind individual rights.....then there is no limit to the control the government could take "for collective safety".

Here is my answer: The individual is significantly more important than the group: it's time to start lifting some restrictions

Well, it sounds to me like you fit solidly in the individual rights > group rights, at least a little. Because if it’s all the way, it’s also at least a little. It was worded that way so I didn’t have to have too many possibilities.

And for Alpo, I don’t think it’s necessary to have an “it depends” for this question. If you’re in the middle on this one, you’re probably not precisely in the middle to the point where you can’t say what your preference would be. I mean justifying ANY government is an acknowledgment that there are circumstances in which the group is more important than the individual. So think of it this way then if it’s that hard to answer. For most circumstances, is the group or individual more important?

 

[jamil]

Scientifically speaking, you build immunity by exposure. Historically the sick were quarantined not the healthy. It reasonable to suggest that people take precautions. To include at risk people limit their contact with the public, the washing of hands, the wearing of gloves and a mask.

This panic is based on faulty projections. The States have taken authority that we have not given them and I reject that.

Emotional? Well, I am ticked, but I believe that is based in principle.

Now I am playing devil’s advocate. Yes. You build immunity by exposure. You also get sick and die by exposure. It’s more complicated than the simple way you’ve portrayed it. But, nevertheless, I do think the reaction to it is overblown.

 

[jamil]

The current restrictions apply to both groups and individuals. Just get rid of the damn restrictions and sort out the philosophies later.

Why do people differ so strongly a out this issue? Why don’t people see things the same way, or at least a little closer to the same way? Why some people seem to think that the harm to the group is greater than the harm to individuals, and visa versa.

I don’t think we’ll get closer to a resolution without understanding the division and how to communicate about it. But, I do think the way this may play out is that as it goes on, more people will oppose it. People are growing weary of the quarantine. More and more people are protesting it. And it’s not just conservatives, contrary to what the evening news says. So maybe that question won’t be all that practically necessary.

 

[2A_Tom]

Now I am playing devil’s advocate. Yes. You build immunity by exposure. You also get sick and die by exposure. The reaction to it is overblown.[SUB][snip][/SUB]

To AIDS, no immunity, but we do nothing to stop them from spreading it.
To pneumonia, no immunity.
To the flu, immunity to strains you have had, vaccines are available, but are virus specific and hardly here match the one going around.

People die, I will die when it is my time. I take precautions because that makes sense.

But if I or anyone else says you have to tell them to ... all the way off!

 

[DadSmith]

You're saying those who risk their lives and sacrifice their individual liberty found something that, to them, was more important. I agree. That would be at odds with "Nothing is ever more important than individual liberty" so I'd like to know what the person/people expressing that view say.



See, there you go. As a soldier you're putting the interests of your country (a group) above your own. Military service = socialism. You heard it on INGO first.

You guys have fun.

I disagree with your take on that. My son's, sister's, brother, and I joined to help defend the constitution which defends the rights of individuals. No United States Constitution means no individual freedom.

 

[Alpo]

Well, it sounds to me like you fit solidly in the individual rights > group rights, at least a little. Because if it’s all the way, it’s also at least a little. It was worded that way so I didn’t have to have too many possibilities.

And for Alpo, I don’t think it’s necessary to have an “it depends” for this question. If you’re in the middle on this one, you’re probably not precisely in the middle to the point where you can’t say what your preference would be. I mean justifying ANY government is an acknowledgment that there are circumstances in which the group is more important than the individual. So think of it this way then if it’s that hard to answer. For most circumstances, is the group or individual more important?

I never said "it depends"...or at least not in the last few days...and I use my age as an excuse if I did.

Sometimes you just seem to keep typing and typing. Words.

Word.

 

[nonobaddog]

Why do people differ so strongly a out this issue? Why don’t people see things the same way, or at least a little closer to the same way? Why some people seem to think that the harm to the group is greater than the harm to individuals, and visa versa.

I don’t think we’ll get closer to a resolution without understanding the division and how to communicate about it. But, I do think the way this may play out is that as it goes on, more people will oppose it. People are growing weary of the quarantine. More and more people are protesting it. And it’s not just conservatives, contrary to what the evening news says. So maybe that question won’t be all that practically necessary.

This is a yuge sentence. I think you have nailed the biggest issue. In fact this may actually be the whole issue - and it is just hiding behind a bunch of political topics that are like veneer over the top of this, the underlying problem.

I wish I had some tiny bit of an answer but I don't know how to understand and communicate with bat-**** crazy.

 

[Mgderf]

I did not answer the poll.
Individual rights take precedent in my view.
Your fears don't trump my rights.

 

[Mgderf]

You're saying those who risk their lives and sacrifice their individual liberty found something that, to them, was more important. I agree. That would be at odds with "Nothing is ever more important than individual liberty" so I'd like to know what the person/people expressing that view say.



See, there you go. As a soldier you're putting the interests of your country (a group) above your own. Military service = socialism. You heard it on INGO first.

You guys have fun.

I was honorably discharged after serving my term, and I could not disagree more with your statements here.

 

[actaeon277]

I gave up freedoms to serve in the USN, to protect freedoms to enjoy later.
I do not relish giving up freedoms now.
Will I voluntarily do stuff, to temporarily work this virus stuff out? Yes.
But as more and more tinpot dictators emerge, I am becoming less and less enamored.

 

[2A_Tom]

You're saying those who risk their lives and sacrifice their individual liberty found something that, to them, was more important. I agree. That would be at odds with "Nothing is ever more important than individual liberty" so I'd like to know what the person/people expressing that view say.



See, there you go. As a soldier you're putting the interests of your country (a group) above your own. Military service = socialism. You heard it on INGO first.

You guys have fun.

I had to go back and read this in context. As quoted it did not sound like you.

I agree with dad.

 

[jamil]

To AIDS, no immunity, but we do nothing to stop them from spreading it.
To pneumonia, no immunity.
To the flu, immunity to strains you have had, vaccines are available, but are virus specific and hardly here match the one going around.

People die, I will die when it is my time. I take precautions because that makes sense.

But if I or anyone else says you have to tell them to ... all the way off!

None of those diseases filled up hospitals. Those diseases aren’t as transferrable. I have virtually zero risk of getting aids. I don’t live that kind of lifestyle.

I’m mot making a justification for continuing to quarantine everyone indiscriminately. I think people who are at risk should choose to take the steps necessary to protect themselves. Do what you must according to your own need, as long as you aren’t harming others. And that last part kinda makes a grey area where people sort of split according to the way they see things. What I just described is a very individualist viewpoint. But someone who has a more group oriented viewpoint might tend to think about it differently. They’ll have a more top-down approach.