I think you don’t get what “arrogance” means (not a fault: English is not my first language either and it just happens that the English concept of “arrogance” exists with the same nuances in my language - I guess it’s not the same for yours).
In layman’s terms, arrogance is when one dismisses another’s opinion not for its (de)merits, but because they believe their own is a priori the right one.
Ironically, that describes more closely your “the amount of arrogance dripping off of this comment omg” than me expressing a position 1) without refusing another’s, 2) explaining the reasoning behind it, and 3) explicitly stating that it is my opinion (“I think”) and not factual reality.
You’re assuming you get to say who deserves self governance.
I am in fact allowed to say who I think (you conveniently omitted this) deserves to self-govern… What do you mean I don’t get to say that? Why? Do you get to say what I can say and what I can’t?
Regardless, I’ll try to explain my reasoning further… hopefully this will bring this discussion back into productive lands.
It is normal that people can be stripped of their rights if they can’t use them responsibly (where I live this only applies to most rights, but in those backwards countries that still have the death penalty even the very right to be alive can be retracted).
Drive carelessly and your license gets taken away, show you are unstable and your gun+carry permit get taken away, kill and your freedom gets taken away, etc.
Specifically, for serious crimes (IIRC where I live it’s those with 5+ years of detention, but IANAL) people have their very right to vote taken away.
Now, self determination is not more fundamental a right than voting (in fact, in a democracy it’s the same thing, only for the populace at large instead of individuals)… why should that be inviolable?
You’re assuming you get to say who deserves self governance.
That’s a presumptuous claim manifesting an attitude of superiority in quite an overbearing manner.
I think you don’t get what “arrogance” means (not a fault: English is not my first language either and it just happens that the English concept of “arrogance” exists with the same nuances in my language - I guess it’s not the same for yours).
In layman’s terms, arrogance is when one dismisses another’s opinion not for its (de)merits, but because they believe their own is a priori the right one.
Ironically, that describes more closely your “the amount of arrogance dripping off of this comment omg” than me expressing a position 1) without refusing another’s, 2) explaining the reasoning behind it, and 3) explicitly stating that it is my opinion (“I think”) and not factual reality.
I am in fact allowed to say who I think (you conveniently omitted this) deserves to self-govern… What do you mean I don’t get to say that? Why? Do you get to say what I can say and what I can’t?
Regardless, I’ll try to explain my reasoning further… hopefully this will bring this discussion back into productive lands.
It is normal that people can be stripped of their rights if they can’t use them responsibly (where I live this only applies to most rights, but in those backwards countries that still have the death penalty even the very right to be alive can be retracted).
Drive carelessly and your license gets taken away, show you are unstable and your gun+carry permit get taken away, kill and your freedom gets taken away, etc.
Specifically, for serious crimes (IIRC where I live it’s those with 5+ years of detention, but IANAL) people have their very right to vote taken away.
Now, self determination is not more fundamental a right than voting (in fact, in a democracy it’s the same thing, only for the populace at large instead of individuals)… why should that be inviolable?