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)