And if you were truly able to attack my position on its merits you wouldn't need to keep stripping out all specifics to build a straw man, but here we are!

(Also, the analogy would only be necessary if it were… not analogous to the topic at hand? That makes no sense.)

▲

ImPostingOnHN 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Why would I attack your position? Your position is totally reasonable given a particular set of pretty common preferences ("this" over "that"). Besides, you never asked me to try to change your mind, so why would I assume you wanted me to spend my time & effort doing that work?

What's more, your "position" (opinion) is no more or less defensible than the opposite opinion held by a different person, or any opinion in general, and other people are no more obliged to "attack" yours than you are theirs (is "attacking" really a good conversation anyways?)

I'm just a third party elucidating that this is 2 people disagreeing based on their own personal preferences, which are based on their own personal opinions, and doesn't need to be a referendum on either person.

	▲	jakelazaroff 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You know, I really don't appreciate this coy "I'm not attacking your position, I'm just simplifying it to a tradeoff between liberty and safety and what's that quote about liberty vs. safety again? Ah well, the reader can draw their own conclusions." Your whole "all opinions are valid, who can truly say which is more defensible?" schtick is the last refuge of people who are unable to defend their views. It's pretty obvious what you're trying to say here, man. Don't piss on my leg and tell me that it's raining.