08-23-2016, 03:20 AM
No, that's not what I'm talking about. He's mixing the prescriptive with the descriptive. Just because no freedom IS not regulated, that does not mean all freedoms SHOULD BE regulated. If I can't show you a freedom that is not regulated, does that mean you will dismiss any freedom I show you that should not be regulated at all? Surely we, grown adults, can discern between the prescriptive and the descriptive and approach the issue rationally from beyond the scope of one point of view that says "This is the way it is, so get used to it." We don't all have to accept that, and we're not being absolutist if we don't. We're just realizing that, even if your challenge was even valid, it wouldn't prove the point you are trying to make.
It doesn't take a genius to see the idiocy of his statements and that he should reframe his argument if he wants to be taken with any semblance of legitimacy. Because the challenge he posed just defies the boundaries of rational inquiry and crosses into acute naivete. Because not only did he pose the problem of "show me a freedom that is not regulated", thereby assuming what I've just mentioned above, but then AF pointed out that, in fact, it's true and that's why we're not free, and he responded with, "Exactly," as if the mere observation of a lack of freedom was supposed to prove that we should all accept the completely unrelated proposition that we need said regulation.