Hmmm...I think your definition of 'opressive' might be a bit wide...
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:02,
archived)
I can see no excuse for banning personal behaviour which does not affect others.Unruly behaviour by drunk people should not reflect upon all people who drink, any more than a Chinaman robbing the Post Office means all Chinamen should be arrested.
Preventing individuals from doing things which do not have a negative affect on others is oppression.
(Preventing individuals from doing things which do not have a negative affect on others is oppression.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:05,
archived)
Drank half a pint of shandy as was particularly ill?
The Great Architect is still waiting for his account to be deleted on,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:11,
archived)
Plato, they saycould stick it away.
( LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:13,
archived)
Half a crate of Whiskey every day... The Great Architect is still waiting for his account to be deleted on,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:14,
archived)
and Hobbes was fond of a dram The Great Architect is still waiting for his account to be deleted on,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:16,
archived)
and renee descartes was a drunken fart!'I drink therefore I am!'
OI!
(,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:17,
archived)
OI!
Socrates himself is particularly missed... The Great Architect is still waiting for his account to be deleted on,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:18,
archived)
...on account of being continually pissed/set em up knock em down
Well, partly.But you're assuming that Mill is correct.
And, at least here, I don't think he is.
(And, at least here, I don't think he is.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:11,
archived)
i'm of the liberal schooli think that the oppression of viewpoints,actions and ideals is always negative,as it robs the future of serious debate and impinges on the rights of the individual.
i see the freedom of the individual and responsibility going hand-in-hand,so that the individual can choose what he does rather than be todl what he can and cannot do.
(,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:14,
archived)
i see the freedom of the individual and responsibility going hand-in-hand,so that the individual can choose what he does rather than be todl what he can and cannot do.
Ah-haI'm more of an anti-liberal.
You're right to say that opression is wrong - but that's trivial, because the important question has to do with deciding what is oppressive to begin with.
You're also assuming that there's such a thing as a right - something that Mill never claims, incidentally. I'm suspicious of the notion of rights, for metaphysical, epistemological and historical reasons. I can make much more sense of the notion of duties or responsibilities - but, even then, it's wholly formal, and we'd still need to know what they are.
But then again, I'm an irremediable Kant.
(You're right to say that opression is wrong - but that's trivial, because the important question has to do with deciding what is oppressive to begin with.
You're also assuming that there's such a thing as a right - something that Mill never claims, incidentally. I'm suspicious of the notion of rights, for metaphysical, epistemological and historical reasons. I can make much more sense of the notion of duties or responsibilities - but, even then, it's wholly formal, and we'd still need to know what they are.
But then again, I'm an irremediable Kant.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:20,
archived)
you're correct,a 'right' has no real existence.it is conceptual.we do have a duty to our state (if you advocate paternalism)
but i believe the individual should act as he likes as long as he DOES NO ACTIVE HARM to another.all actions have consequences,and i feel smokers should take pains to only fuck themselves up,not anyone else (like kids).
but I ABSOLUTELY ADVOCATE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
(,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:25,
archived)
but i believe the individual should act as he likes as long as he DOES NO ACTIVE HARM to another.all actions have consequences,and i feel smokers should take pains to only fuck themselves up,not anyone else (like kids).
but I ABSOLUTELY ADVOCATE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
Nope.Paternalism does not mean that we have duties to anyone.
Your claim about liberty has a problem of normativity, though. For example, I used to climb the fireguard as a child. This was what I wanted to do, and I was harming noone else. Nor would I have harmed anyone by continuing to do so. However, I don't think my parents wronged me by removing me therefrom.
So it would appear that some violations of strict liberty might not be problematic. The problem you then have is one of determining where the line is to be drawn between the problematic and the non-problematic. I'm not sure that it can be done.
(Your claim about liberty has a problem of normativity, though. For example, I used to climb the fireguard as a child. This was what I wanted to do, and I was harming noone else. Nor would I have harmed anyone by continuing to do so. However, I don't think my parents wronged me by removing me therefrom.
So it would appear that some violations of strict liberty might not be problematic. The problem you then have is one of determining where the line is to be drawn between the problematic and the non-problematic. I'm not sure that it can be done.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:30,
archived)
mill thought of thishe stated that the harm principal did not apply to children and people of less-developed nations.his phraseology,not mine.
and,as i said,i advocate choice,intelligent choice as the only way forward.the individual must take responsibility for his own actions.it is deferred responsibility that is ruining the western world.
(,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:34,
archived)
and,as i said,i advocate choice,intelligent choice as the only way forward.the individual must take responsibility for his own actions.it is deferred responsibility that is ruining the western world.
I know Mill thought of thisBut he doesn't provide a satisfactory answer that I can see. And he didn't talk about less-developed nations. He talked about barbarians and nations in their "nonage" (On Liberty, ch. 1).
I don't understand the leap you've made to the Spenglerian point about the decline of the west. It seems to have nothing to do with anything that anyone's said here hitherto.
(I don't understand the leap you've made to the Spenglerian point about the decline of the west. It seems to have nothing to do with anything that anyone's said here hitherto.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:42,
archived)
Not necessarily.You need some account of their entitlement to do that action as well, and of the intention of the person putting the difficulties in place. If there's no right to smoke, then it being more difficult to do so, or to sell cigarettes, is not really oppressive. And there is no such right.
Moreover, the intention behind a lot of the hurdles to smoking is beneficence-based. That, too, undermines claims to oppression, doesn't it?
(Moreover, the intention behind a lot of the hurdles to smoking is beneficence-based. That, too, undermines claims to oppression, doesn't it?
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:11,
archived)
Wha? Everything we could do has to be laid out in law somewhere before it becomes wrong to interfere with it?Positive rights suck ass.
(,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:14,
archived)
That's not what I said.Read the shapes I made with my keyboard and words.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:16,
archived)
I bet it is what you said anywaybut I'll give it a go.
Edit: since you say below you don't like the concept of a right, perhaps what you're saying here is that there are no rights to anything, and therefore there is never any oppression. This leaves me in the dark about what you think there is.
(,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:21,
archived)
Edit: since you say below you don't like the concept of a right, perhaps what you're saying here is that there are no rights to anything, and therefore there is never any oppression. This leaves me in the dark about what you think there is.
I'm much happier with talk of responsibilities... or of actions, laws, restrictions and so on that are kata ton orthon logon: in accordance with reason.
There's more to moral debate than appeals to rights. I don't think that such appeals to rights help; I suspect they get in the way of clarity.
The absence of rights doesn't mean that liberty is meaningless; nor does it mean that there's no such thing as oppression. Why should it?
(There's more to moral debate than appeals to rights. I don't think that such appeals to rights help; I suspect they get in the way of clarity.
The absence of rights doesn't mean that liberty is meaningless; nor does it mean that there's no such thing as oppression. Why should it?
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:54,
archived)
So why is a law that interferes with smoking not oppressive?You mentioned the intent (it's for the smokers' own good), but is it at least unfair? Do you have no principle against coercing people for their own good? How would fines for hang-gliding shape up? Very bad for you, hang-gliding, lots of broken limbs, no merit other than enjoyment.
(,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 13:02,
archived)
No.I think that there is a right to behave in accordance to personal wishes where that does not negatively impact others.
Tobacco is a readily available plant - if an individual wishes to burn it and inhale it I can imagine no possible defence for preventing this.
(Tobacco is a readily available plant - if an individual wishes to burn it and inhale it I can imagine no possible defence for preventing this.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:15,
archived)
I think it does negatively impact on others.If someone lights up in front of me when i'm walking down the road I have to make sure i'm not down wind as i think cigarette smoke stinks like fuck. When spending evenings in pubs/gig venues/peoples houses where there are smokers I invariably end up leaving with a sore throat and smelling like an ashtray.
You would complain if I farted in your face so I respectfully ask you to keep your noxious fumes out of mine.
(You would complain if I farted in your face so I respectfully ask you to keep your noxious fumes out of mine.
Cliff Apparently enjoys fishing for leopards on weekends,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:26,
archived)
No, I would not complain if you farted.This is because I understand that everyone is different and that other enjoy things which I do not.
I do not smoke, but I resent the fact that being a minority makes it a target.
A slight odour does not count as significant discomfort for others.
(I do not smoke, but I resent the fact that being a minority makes it a target.
A slight odour does not count as significant discomfort for others.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:30,
archived)
The significance of the discomfortneed not be a consideration.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:36,
archived)
Well, to go back to JSM, if I mayoffense is not harm
( LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:42,
archived)
Well, that's not clear.Mill thinks that it isn't. I'm not so sure - and by this I do mean that I don't know. I've been toying with the idea of writing something on offensiveness for a while now.
Whether or not it is, though, you're presupposing that it's the outcome of an action that makes the difference. It might be that you can be wronged without being harmed at all, or that any harm is wrong to the same extent, and that the degree thereof is a mere detail.
(Whether or not it is, though, you're presupposing that it's the outcome of an action that makes the difference. It might be that you can be wronged without being harmed at all, or that any harm is wrong to the same extent, and that the degree thereof is a mere detail.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:47,
archived)
Indeed, I agree with the theorybut I have personally addressed the questions and believe that the level of offence and harm IS important.
Aside from this, I believe that intent, rather than effect, is the governing factor in behaviour, but that does not apply to this argument.
Lunch, however, does.
Cheerio!
(Aside from this, I believe that intent, rather than effect, is the governing factor in behaviour, but that does not apply to this argument.
Lunch, however, does.
Cheerio!
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:51,
archived)
I am happy for people to enjoy smokingbut being in a smoky environment does diminish my enjoyment of an evening.
It's not targeted because it's a minority, jugglers are a minority but they're not targeted. It's targeted because it's not good for you or the people around you. Or do you doubt that second hand smoke is dangerous?
(It's not targeted because it's a minority, jugglers are a minority but they're not targeted. It's targeted because it's not good for you or the people around you. Or do you doubt that second hand smoke is dangerous?
Cliff Apparently enjoys fishing for leopards on weekends,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:40,
archived)
I doubt that second hand smoke in a unenclosed environmentis measurably detrimental to your health.
Yes.
(Yes.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:43,
archived)
That was a wonderful answer to a question I didn't ask.A fine politician you'll make.
I agree mind you on the point that it isn't harmful in open air. Yet to your original point I still feel a negative impact is still there.
You've gone from negative impact to significant discomfort to harm. These are not synonyms. Smoking in the open air indeed may not harm me but I do say it has a negative impact. Smoking inside does harm and cause significant discomfort. Which effect would you like to argue?
(I agree mind you on the point that it isn't harmful in open air. Yet to your original point I still feel a negative impact is still there.
You've gone from negative impact to significant discomfort to harm. These are not synonyms. Smoking in the open air indeed may not harm me but I do say it has a negative impact. Smoking inside does harm and cause significant discomfort. Which effect would you like to argue?
Cliff Apparently enjoys fishing for leopards on weekends,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 13:03,
archived)
Racists are negatively impacted by blacks.I am talking about smoking in unconfined spaces or alone. I am talking about harm.
My answer perfectly matches the question you asked in the context of the thread. It may not have matched the question which you intended to ask, but I cannot reasonably be expected to make inferences based upon oblique implications.
(My answer perfectly matches the question you asked in the context of the thread. It may not have matched the question which you intended to ask, but I cannot reasonably be expected to make inferences based upon oblique implications.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 13:33,
archived)
So in summary, let's ban farting.Everybody must wear some kind of gas-filtering nappy, by law. The police will perform routine checks to make sure we are wearing our nappies. Cans of beans, which must by law be unattractive, will carry large labels stating "this food WILL cause flatulence", and somewhere underneath, in smaller print, "baked beans". They will be heavily taxed. This will make the world a better place.
(,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:36,
archived)
This would be good for some people I know.but i think we're safe just sticking to the generally accepted social convention that it's not polite to fart in someone's face.
That's all that I would ask of smokers, a little consideration for those non-smokers around you.
(That's all that I would ask of smokers, a little consideration for those non-smokers around you.
Cliff Apparently enjoys fishing for leopards on weekends,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:47,
archived)
Aha!Now, consideration is an issue here, not smoking.
There are twats out there - they need to be stopped, but lumping all smokers in with the arseholes is not reasonable at all.
'Some smokers are idiots. Ban smoking!'
'Someone used paint to write on a wall. Ban all paint!'
(There are twats out there - they need to be stopped, but lumping all smokers in with the arseholes is not reasonable at all.
'Some smokers are idiots. Ban smoking!'
'Someone used paint to write on a wall. Ban all paint!'
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:53,
archived)
I would still rather see smoking disappear entirely.but one has both ideals to reach for and realistic goals.
( Cliff Apparently enjoys fishing for leopards on weekends,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 13:09,
archived)
I'd like to see golf disappear entirely.Our opinions on other people's hobbies are worthless. Except of course that smokers tend to be irrational, perhaps more so than golfers. This much I can say with confidence is a bad thing. Whether rational smoking is good or bad ... well, I've never found cigarettes appealing. I've also never found avocados appealing. I'm not confident in my ability to say whether these things are good or bad for other people, I suspect the issues may be too complex.
(,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 13:26,
archived)
Expecting consideration is perfectly reasonable(Being perfectly reasonable is considerate. Blargh, tautologies.)
(,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:54,
archived)
Hmmm...I just have no time for the concept of a right.
Actually, there's more than that. I simply can't make sense of it. I'll happily embrace a lot of what's defended by an appeal to rights as a good thing - but that doesn't make the defence any more reliable, and there're better ways to skin those particular cats.
(Actually, there's more than that. I simply can't make sense of it. I'll happily embrace a lot of what's defended by an appeal to rights as a good thing - but that doesn't make the defence any more reliable, and there're better ways to skin those particular cats.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:33,
archived)
I like this postfor it is informative and thought-provoking without being condescending
I will vote for it in the forthcoming election
(I will vote for it in the forthcoming election
Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:19,
archived)
Or it's "intervention".People apparently want the government to turn their friends and neighbours into better behaved, more sensible people, and that's why we have all this crap. Because the attitude that it's alright for everyone to apply mild coercion to everyone else is widespread. Policies are to some extent the fault of the public, since the government studies our opinions to see what we'll swallow.
(,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:20,
archived)
I've got my CCTV set upso I can spy on the neighbours to see if they're watching TV ads for alcohol
while I have a wank
(while I have a wank
Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:21,
archived)
Every one must comply?It worries me that anyone would think that was a good thing.
( LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:25,
archived)
I dunno...there must be some attraction to it. Dictators keep popping up.
( Cliff Apparently enjoys fishing for leopards on weekends,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:31,
archived)