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)