NationStates Jolt Archive

We:

Don’t actually care what people get up to, unless there is compelling evidence that said actions are harmful.
Even with such evidence, we'd have to be convinced that the possible harm outweighed the importance of not butting in on people’s lives.
When it comes to any attempt to prevent a person from doing a thing, the onus should always been on those who wish said thing prevented to make a case based on #2.


I do really think this way of approaching life is superior. If you have another take on it, I'd love for you to explain it, and back it up.

We:

Don’t actually care what people get up to, unless there is compelling evidence that said actions are harmful.
Even with such evidence, we'd have to be convinced that the possible harm outweighed the importance of not butting in on people’s lives.
When it comes to any attempt to prevent a person from doing a thing, the onus should always been on those who wish said thing prevented to make a case based on #2.


I do really think this way of approaching life is superior. If you have another take on it, I'd love for you to explain it, and back it up.
I didn't know you were a libertarian.

*runs away*

I'm inferior, and proud of it. :p

We:

Don’t actually care what people get up to, unless there is compelling evidence that said actions are harmful.
Even with such evidence, we'd have to be convinced that the possible harm outweighed the importance of not butting in on people’s lives.
When it comes to any attempt to prevent a person from doing a thing, the onus should always been on those who wish said thing prevented to make a case based on #2.

4. Have spiffy hats.

5: have windmill beards

We're all going to die, and so value distinctions are pointless arguments of the moment in the face of total oblivion and cessation. That is why your views are useless, they say nothing the face of their own stupid brevity.

4. Have spiffy hats.Like these.
http://www.freshnessmag.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/bape-new-era-camo1.jpg
BAPE, yup. :p

We:

Don’t actually care what people get up to, unless there is compelling evidence that said actions are harmful.
Even with such evidence, we'd have to be convinced that the possible harm outweighed the importance of not butting in on people’s lives.
When it comes to any attempt to prevent a person from doing a thing, the onus should always been on those who wish said thing prevented to make a case based on #2.



Almost everyone has this approach to life, that's actually quite vague, since harm can be a very ambiguous and subjective word.

4. Have spiffy hats.
Hm, it seems I spoke too soon. A spiffy hat really does elevate over everything, that I cannot deny.

Almost everyone has this approach to life, that's actually quite vague, since harm can be a very ambiguous and subjective word.

Yes, 'harm' can be a subjective, and value-laden judgment.

However, I don't believe almost everyone has this approach to life. In fact, quite a few people here on NSG seem to believe that the onus should be on a person wishing to do a thing, to prove why they should get to do that thing. I think that onus is ridiculous.

I also specified that any 'harm' identified would have to actual outweigh the default position of non-interference. Quite possibly you could say 'well if I don't like it, it's harmful, therefore interference is warranted'...but you'd be a douche, and you wouldn't actually be adhering to the philosophy laid out in the OP. Your personal discomfort with an action should not alone outweigh a person's right to do something UNLESS that something involves your physical integrity or personal autonomy.

Hm, it seems I spoke too soon. A spiffy hat really does elevate over everything, that I cannot deny.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51zMx83QC0L._SL500_AA280_.jpg

I prefer a bottom's up approach to elevation.

....Of course having kids complicates issues.
And once they become teenagers they KNOW more than you - there's no moral relativism for them!

Huh?

However, I don't believe almost everyone has this approach to life. In fact, quite a few people here on NSG seem to believe that the onus should be on a person wishing to do a thing, to prove why they should get to do that thing. I think that onus is ridiculous.


Well I don't think I've ever seen that.


Your personal discomfort with an action should not alone outweigh a person's right to do something UNLESS that something involves your physical integrity or personal autonomy.

Right, now we're narrowing it down a little. But it's still going to be subjective, some people will argue that the death penalty (for example), whilst violating physical integrity and autonomy, is still outweighed by the idea that it might reduce crime, or even the idea that it's more just.

I didn't know you were a libertarian.

*runs away*

The Cree are fast runners. Don't make me beat you.

Stay here instead and help me stir the pot.


We're all going to die, and so value distinctions are pointless arguments of the moment in the face of total oblivion and cessation. That is why your views are useless, they say nothing the face of their own stupid brevity.
Speak for yourself. I'm getting my head frozen.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51zMx83QC0L._SL500_AA280_.jpg

I prefer a bottom's up approach to elevation.That fish looks pretty mad. :p

Yes, 'harm' can be a subjective, and value-laden judgment.
Not to mention confusing when we inevitably start to discuss psychological harm. Tricky cases like, '(who) does vandalism harm?', or, '(who) does sex in public harm?', have a danger of undermining ethics based upon the Harm Principle.



Hm, it seems I spoke too soon. A spiffy hat really does elevate over everything, that I cannot deny.
'tis true.

When one has a spiffy hat, oblivion and cessation seem mere trifles.

That fish looks pretty mad. :p

That because it knows it's going to die soon.

That because it knows it's going to die soon.Hm.

I was thinking more...This wins more.
http://rdr.zazzle.com/img/imt-prd/isz-m/pd-148443054581495555/tl-awkward_turtle_hat.jpg

I prefer a bottom's up approach to elevation.
Your fish cannot save you in the face of my incapacity to recognize the obvious puns I have made.
Speak for yourself. I'm getting my head frozen.
But will it last forever? Possibly, but I can pretend to disbelieve for as long as you can continue existing.

Well I don't think I've ever seen that. Would it be flame-baiting, I wonder, to link to recent examples?

Nm.

Right, now we're narrowing it down a little. But it's still going to be subjective, some people will argue that the death penalty (for example), whilst violating physical integrity and autonomy, is still outweighed by the idea that it might reduce crime, or even the idea that it's more just.

Well let's go back a bit, and pick murder as the crime. Murder is something we have an interest in disallowing, because the harm done (the taking of someone's life against their will) outweighs the 'right' of the other person to take someone's life. I mean...sure we can debate that, we can toss in details like the person targeted for murder did something heinous, etc. We can come up with all sorts of scenarios whereby some people could even justify taking that person's life. However, in general, I think it's obvious how the harm in allowing someone to kill another person justifies intervening in some way.

So then we realise, well, laws don't actually prevent, they simply provide a guide for when something does happen that we've decided shouldn't. So we need a way to introduce some sort of 'prevention' into the equation, to stop random people from killing other random people. We turn to socialisation first. We as a society reinforce the idea that murder is wrong. Then we come up with systems to deal with the inevitable. We deal with the situation contextually...we have positive defences like self-defence, we have mitigating factors like provocation, etc. Then we have sanctions, both as a deterrent and as a punishment. Whether or not capital punishment 'works', and indeed outweighs the harm done, is debatable yes. No philosophical bent is going to steer you easily through the murky waters of life.

*Jaysus, I'm really sick of hearing gunshots around here*

However, I think in a more everyday context, there are many behaviours that are prohibited without any actual 'harm' based analysis. I mean, more than simple a surface, 'oh that's not something I want happening' analysis. Basically I feel like, if you can't justify why you DON'T want something to happen, and do so fairly simply and concisely, then I'm not really going to be able to support you in that. 'You' being the impersonal third person.

Rolling squid;14157531']5: have windmill beards

I was wondering where I heard that before

http://yourargumentisinvalid.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/there_is_a_windmill_in_my_beard.jpg

Well researched Hyde! Good pikkie!

Not to mention confusing when we inevitably start to discuss psychological harm. Tricky cases like, '(who) does vandalism harm?', or, '(who) does sex in public harm?', have a danger of undermining ethics based upon the Harm Principle.

I think those are fascinating discussions. Take for example, not the public sex example, but something a little more common...breastfeeding in public. So, you (third person impersonal) want to prohibit it. Alright. What's the harm? Well...it's icky damnit! Um...you don't want to see it, you might replay the image in your head over and over again...

To me, the 'harm' analysis can't just stop there. I'm looking for evidence, not just suppositions. So at that point, I'd have to see some evidence that the 'icky' or 'replaying over and over' factor would outweigh the woman's natural right to breastfeed in public. In this case, it wouldn't really matter to me if a particular individual might be psychologically harmed...that one on one analysis still wouldn't tip the scales...not unless someone took that person who hates seeing breastfeeding and locked them in a room with the woman, forcing them to watch.

Instead, there would have to be the clear and probable psychological harm to pretty much any 'everyday' person who saw that. (akin to a reasonable person standard, which of course is also extremely nuanced and contextual)

Your fish cannot save you in the face of my incapacity to recognize the obvious puns I have made.

But will it last forever? Possibly, but I can pretend to disbelieve for as long as you can continue existing.

Wouldn't the period of your own existence be a more natural limit to your disbelief?

An English couple were recently jailed for having sex on a Dubai Beach. Okay, they may have been being culturally insensitive but I would argue they were harming noone and that they should be released.
I accept the argument "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" - but only to a point, which is why I choose to avoid going to regimes that impose their religions on me.
Public breastfeeding is a woman's right in Australia - and so it should be.

We have to get rid of laws that date back a century.

Wouldn't the period of your own existence be a more natural limit to your disbelief?
I and my disbelief are planning to be placed in the same freezer as your head. Failing that, I shall teach my children (yeah, I'll have one or two, everyone does eventually) to disbelieve your claims, and they'll teach their children, and etc.

*Jaysus, I'm really sick of hearing gunshots around here*


Huh?


However, I think in a more everyday context, there are many behaviours that are prohibited without any actual 'harm' based analysis. I mean, more than simple a surface, 'oh that's not something I want happening' analysis.

Can you be specific? Remember, many frivolous laws probably are still based on harm based analysis, but by describing it's 'harm done to society'. Also, this doesn't cover what the government should do not in order to prevent actions, but to create growth and increase quality of life and happiness, such as benefits and egalitarian measures etc...

I'm better because movies tend not to start without me, I generally get a good seat, I more often than not find good parking, often get free deserts at diners, and my nachos are nach-yos because yours are nach.

Um... so... the whole notion is "I believe in a live and let live approach to life, so therefore I am going to act like an arrogant bastard (Or bitch, depending upon gender and/or worldview) and claim to be better than everyone else"? Part a does not seem to connect with part b.

We:

Don’t actually care what people get up to, unless there is compelling evidence that said actions are harmful.
Even with such evidence, we'd have to be convinced that the possible harm outweighed the importance of not butting in on people’s lives.
When it comes to any attempt to prevent a person from doing a thing, the onus should always been on those who wish said thing prevented to make a case based on #2.


I do really think this way of approaching life is superior. If you have another take on it, I'd love for you to explain it, and back it up.

1. Harmful to whom? If they are harmful only to those partaking of the action then even if it is harmful I don't care.

That is to say - stop trying to stop others from harming themselves. If they want to then that is their business.

2. single subject Utilitarianism?? Let us weigh the benefits and costs in balance and if the costs outweigh the benefits then it is BAD.

Not for me thank you. How do you weigh the benefits and costs. Who decides ?

3. OK

I think that Neesika was being ironic - which is hard to do without flashing lights that say "Isn't it ironic, don't you think"
She was having a shot at those that were going "Tsk! Tsk! She hasn't loved everyone she has rock and rolled with"
Maybe the gunshots were the cross-fire

Um... so... the whole notion is "I believe in a live and let live approach to life, so therefore I am going to act like an arrogant bastard (Or bitch, depending upon gender and/or worldview) and claim to be better than everyone else"? Part a does not seem to connect with part b.Add part c! :p

Huh? Pretty much every weekend. Caused me to make a typo which I had to go back and correct :P



Can you be specific? Remember, many frivolous laws probably are still based on harm based analysis, but by describing it's 'harm done to society'. The 'harm to society' argument should be more naunced than just 'that would harm society' full stop. I think it CAN be a valid argument, but again, there should be actual facts used, actual evidence. So when the issue of gay marriage was challenged, the 'harm to traditional marriage' and 'harm to society' arguments essentially failed for lack of evidence. Nonetheless, polygamy is still prohibited, without a necessarily good argument or evidence as to what harm would be caused by allowing it.

Also, this doesn't cover what the government should do not in order to prevent actions, but to create growth and increase quality of life and happiness, such as benefits and egalitarian measures etc...
In that case the argument would be 'what harm would occur if we did NOT do this thing'. If there was no employment insurance, for example.

Hey Sin, I'm better than you. Why? I just am.

GET YOUR ASS ON MSN.

Um... so... the whole notion is "I believe in a live and let live approach to life, so therefore I am going to act like an arrogant bastard (Or bitch, depending upon gender and/or worldview) and claim to be better than everyone else"? Part a does not seem to connect with part b.

:D Exactly!

Except it's more like "I believe in a live and let approach to life, therefore I'm NOT going to act like an arrogant bastard (or bitch, depending on gender and/or worldview) and claim to be better than everyone else EXCEPT in this one case, which is silly, because ultimately, I don't actually care if you don't think the same way."

:p

Pretty much every weekend. Caused me to make a typo which I had to go back and correct :P


In Canada? :eek2:


The 'harm to society' argument should be more naunced than just 'that would harm society' full stop. I think it CAN be a valid argument, but again, there should be actual facts used, actual evidence. So when the issue of gay marriage was challenged, the 'harm to traditional marriage' and 'harm to society' arguments essentially failed for lack of evidence.

What evidence can there be about whether there is harm to society or not? It's a value judgement.


Nonetheless, polygamy is still prohibited, without a necessarily good argument or evidence as to what harm would be caused by allowing it.


Right, but your model alone doesn't prevent such a law.

EDIT: As in, just that model alone isn't enough.


In that case the argument would be 'what harm would occur if we did NOT do this thing'. If there was no employment insurance, for example.

And whether the benefit outweighs the increase in tax, increase in government intervention and the expanding of bureaucracy.

I think those are fascinating discussions. Take for example, not the public sex example, but something a little more common...breastfeeding in public. So, you (third person impersonal) want to prohibit it. Alright. What's the harm? Well...it's icky damnit! Um...you don't want to see it, you might replay the image in your head over and over again...
But what's not to say that I'm (psychologically) harmed? The 'ickiness' I feel could well be psychologically harmful; for a number of reasons. Offence and harm blend together so subtly here that it's a tricky (but perhaps not impossible) distinction to make.

And furthermore, where do we draw the line? Let's assume that we can get a majority of the population to agree that showing hardcore pornography to pre-teen children causes significant psychological harm, but only a small minority to agree that public breastfeeding causes significant psychological harm. Are we to go down the route of saying that the minority doesn't count, that their psychological harm, to some extent, doesn't matter? Then we seem to be open to abuse by the majority; discounting genuine harm.

Does the sufferer of ickiness-caused harm have to put up with it, even while we're decreeing that actions should be prevented on the basis of possible harm caused?

Moreover, must we go over every moral issue, garnering a poll of who is harmed by what?

To me, the 'harm' analysis can't just stop there. I'm looking for evidence, not just suppositions. So at that point, I'd have to see some evidence that the 'icky' or 'replaying over and over' factor would outweigh the woman's natural right to breastfeed in public.
Firstly, if you'll allow me to be picky, I don't believe women have a "natural right to breastfeed in public". I personally don't see why they shouldn't feed their wains in broad daylight, but I don't want to appeal to natural rights to show why. [/philosophical rant]

More importantly, I don't see how we can accurately gauge something like 'harm' as being credible or not. If we want to say that, as a guideline, one should act unless that action would cause harm to another, and recognise that psychological harm is possible, then we get into hot water if we also say, 'oh, but x harm doesn't cut it'.

Instead, there would have to be the clear and probable psychological harm to pretty much any 'everyday' person who saw that. (akin to a reasonable person standard, which of course is also extremely nuanced and contextual)
Is this not exactly the problem, that all (perceived) harm is "extremely nuanced and contextual"? I have doubts we can get round this.

1. Harmful to whom? If they are harmful only to those partaking of the action then even if it is harmful I don't care.

That is to say - stop trying to stop others from harming themselves. If they want to then that is their business. Pretty much...unless there is some reason that their consent is vitiated.

2. single subject Utilitarianism?? Let us weigh the benefits and costs in balance and if the costs outweigh the benefits then it is BAD.

Not for me thank you. How do you weigh the benefits and costs. Who decides ?

Na, not so much a utilitarianism outlook as a 'inertia leads me to support, or at least not care about what others do'. For me to care, an overcome inertia, I'd have to have a good reason to do so. Default position is 'go ahead'.

Would I, personally, be persuaded by a piece of evidence of 'harm'? Well that's going to depend on the strength of the evidence (where it comes from, what it entails, etc) Could I convince myself that harm exists, even if the evidence was weak? Sure. Hopefully someone would challenge that, and change my mind. I don't see it as a 'weighing' of benefits and costs so much as a good debate...allowing you to see various sides and possible effects of a certain action.

I'd like to think that the bar would be set pretty high in terms of prohibiting people from doing things...'any harm' alone probably wouldn't be enough to overcome that inertia. Also, I don't think the end result of 'harm outweighs the value of allowing that thing to be done' necessarily has to be 'that thing is bad'.

3. OK
Ok.

Ok.It's "OK", friend Neesika. :p
Not "Ok".
It's a pet-peeve of mine.

I think that Neesika was being ironic - which is hard to do without flashing lights that say "Isn't it ironic, don't you think"
She was having a shot at those that were going "Tsk! Tsk! She hasn't loved everyone she has rock and rolled with"
Maybe the gunshots were the cross-fire

:D

It's no fun if it's pointed out, and besides, the conversation has become interesting.

Thanks to the wonders of papal infallibility (http://robjo.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/pope_card.jpg) I can define myself as superior to all of you and I don't have to explain why.

In Canada? :eek2:
I live in the ghetto, baby.

What evidence can there be about whether there is harm to society or not? It's a value judgement. Good point! Well, section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states, "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

To understand what is 'demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society', we have the Oakes analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_One_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms):

1.There must be a pressing and substantial objective
2. The means must be proportional
a)The means must be rationally connected to the objective
b)There must be minimal impairment of rights
c)There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective

Ha, I don't actually want to get into a big legal analysis of anything, I just want to point out one of the ways we've come up with to have a more nuanced approach to whether something harms society or not.

Yes, it's STILL very much a value judgment...but at least there are steps to go through during the analysis that ensure some level of critical thinking goes on. An argument must be made, evidence is provided, and the balance tips one way or another. As society shifts, that issue might be revisited, with the balance tipping in the other direction.

So if the argument is, 'polygamy is harmful to society', you need to at the bare minimum, explain what that harm is, how it would manifest itself, and how serious/extensive it would be.


Right, but your model alone doesn't prevent such a law.
Of course not, I'm not in power :P

The law exists, and if it were to be challenged under say...religious freedom, or some other grounds the government via the Crown would have to explain how the prohibition is justified under s.1. A great analysis of how that argument would play out can be found here (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:FPlgz9MkIAwJ:law.queensu.ca/facultyAndStaff/facultyProfiles/beverleyBainesProfile/expandingRecognition.pdf+polygamy+challenge+SCC&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=ca).

In a more personal, and less legal context, I personally couldn't be arsed to oppose polygamy unless there was pressing evidence that polygamy was harmful to the people involved (because I really couldn't buy that it would be harmful to anyone outside the relationship...I consider offspring to be 'part of the relationship' btw).


And whether the benefit outweighs the increase in tax, increase in government intervention and the expanding of bureaucracy.
Yup.

It's "OK", friend Neesika. :p
Not "Ok".
It's a pet-peeve of mine.

I donna care.

MSN. Now.

But what's not to say that I'm (psychologically) harmed? The 'ickiness' I feel could well be psychologically harmful; for a number of reasons. Offence and harm blend together so subtly here that it's a tricky (but perhaps not impossible) distinction to make. I accept that you could be psychologically harmed by that. But again, if you are particularly prone to psychological damage because of breastfeeding, but the vast majority of people would not be, then I can't see how that possible harm could outweigh the ...I don't want to say 'right', so I'll say 'ability' of women to breastfeed in public.

And furthermore, where do we draw the line? Let's assume that we can get a majority of the population to agree that showing hardcore pornography to pre-teen children causes significant psychological harm, but only a small minority to agree that public breastfeeding causes significant psychological harm. Are we to go down the route of saying that the minority doesn't count, that their psychological harm, to some extent, doesn't matter? Then we seem to be open to abuse by the majority; discounting genuine harm.



The small minority would have to be almost certain to experience extreme psychological harm for me to care. To get out of the brambles of psychological harm, let's look at people who are extremely sensitive to scents. As in, will become hospitalised if exposed to certain scents. Now, it doesn't necessarily follow that we should have a national ban on scents...but in the workplace, reasonable accommodation could be made to shelter that employee from scents that would cause her temporary disability. The harm is so severe, that the 'benefit' of wearing scents, or of being able to access her with perfume on simply doesn't measure up.

However, that woman has to function in wider society, where scents are prevalent. At some point, she simply has to 'deal', and alter her routine as best she can to avoid contact.

Now...if the problem became more widespread...as has, for example, the issue of nut allergies...then accommodations would likely become more extensive and common. It's still contextual. It makes sense to label products with nuts, or products that have come into contact with nuts...it doesn't make sense to ban all nut products entirely.


Does the sufferer of ickiness-caused harm have to put up with it, even while we're decreeing that actions should be prevented on the basis of possible harm caused? Not just possible harm...probable, serious harm. So yes. If ickiness is what you feel, ickiness alone is not serious enough to warrant the prohibition.

Moreover, must we go over every moral issue, garnering a poll of who is harmed by what? No. I simply think that if the argument is put forward that we should prevent 'x', then the analysis needs to be very in depth, and include actual evidence of what harm allowing 'x' would do. Then the weighing is done.


Firstly, if you'll allow me to be picky, I don't believe women have a "natural right to breastfeed in public". I personally don't see why they shouldn't feed their wains in broad daylight, but I don't want to appeal to natural rights to show why. [/philosophical rant] I'm trying to avoid using the word 'right', so if I do, take it as a synonym of 'ability' or 'opportunity' or 'chance'.

More importantly, I don't see how we can accurately gauge something like 'harm' as being credible or not. If we want to say that, as a guideline, one should act unless that action would cause harm to another, and recognise that psychological harm is possible, then we get into hot water if we also say, 'oh, but x harm doesn't cut it'. Non-psychological 'harm' is going to be easier to evaluate. Psychological harm...well from a legal perspective, even though I don't want to dally long there, is something to approach with hesitancy. As in, the psychological harm would have to be very likely to occur (not just possible) and be very severe before it would be worth examining the issue in the light of possible prohibitions.


Is this not exactly the problem, that all (perceived) harm is "extremely nuanced and contextual"? I have doubts we can get round this.
No, I said the 'reasonable person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person)' standard is nuanced and contextual. As in, the 'reasonable person' looks and behaves differently depending on the situation. It's simply a way to guide us in determining whether or not a certain action would normally be expected to cause psychological harm to someone. That it might cause a specific person psychological harm would be irrelevant if it would not cause the 'reasonable man' psychological harm...absent a strange scenario where it was known that the individual was going to be harmed, and was somehow forced, or coerced into experiencing that harm.

MSN. Now.

Let me fold laundry and get a gin and tonic first, sheesh!

I got on the wrong MSN and am now conversing with Szanth, sorry!

Also, four ounces of gin is NOT better than three. Damn.

*sigh*

You have failed me. I'll be going to sleep soon anyway, as I must be in Jersey tomorrow.

Thanks to the wonders of papal infallibility (http://robjo.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/pope_card.jpg) I can define myself as superior to all of you and I don't have to explain why.

Yes, but so can the rest of us.

Could you talk to my country's Communications Minister about these points of yours? He doesn't seem to remember what acceptable losses look like.

:D

It's no fun if it's pointed out, and besides, the conversation has become interesting.

You're so predictable :D

You're so predictable :D

Oh am I now? I bet you had no idea I'd have clothespins on my nipples tonight. Ha! Didn't predict THAT, didja?

Oh am I now? I bet you had no idea I'd have clothespins on my nipples tonight. Ha! Didn't predict THAT, didja?That you would say something completely random? Sure.
That it would have to do with your nipples? Nope.

I probably should have specified what level you're predictable on... and it's not an stab or anything.

Hmmm. Basically, yes.

If people aren't harming anyone (without consent), then there is no reason to prevent them from doing a particular thing.

Example: Sexual fetishes that I find personally really gross. The fact that I think some sexual antics are disgusting doesn't justify making laws barring people from participating in such activities, provided that they're not actually harming anybody.

No offense intended toward the OP post or Neesika when I say...


I generally view anything that has to openly proclaim its superiority to unworthy.

We:

Don’t actually care what people get up to, unless there is compelling evidence that said actions are harmful.
Even with such evidence, we'd have to be convinced that the possible harm outweighed the importance of not butting in on people’s lives.
When it comes to any attempt to prevent a person from doing a thing, the onus should always been on those who wish said thing prevented to make a case based on #2.


I do really think this way of approaching life is superior. If you have another take on it, I'd love for you to explain it, and back it up.

Who's "we"?

Who's "we"?

Exactly, this "we" thing seriously complicates the whole issue. I was under the impression that it was either "us" or "them".

I accept that you could be psychologically harmed by that. But again, if you are particularly prone to psychological damage because of breastfeeding, but the vast majority of people would not be, then I can't see how that possible harm could outweigh the ...I don't want to say 'right', so I'll say 'ability' of women to breastfeed in public.
<snip>
One of the problems with accepting the "ickiness" argument -- that a person may suffer harm just by seeing someone doing something they don't like -- is that it has also been used by people to argue in favor of such things as racial segregation and gay bashing (for example) as well as the violence connected to them -- as if the "ickiness" of seeing two men kissing or of a black man speaking to a white woman is traumatic that it can break society to the point of violent assaults, and that in order to avoid such social breaks and associated violence, the races must be kept separate and gays should never show themselves in public, because how else can people be expected to respond to the damage of such ickiness?

Considering that, in my experience, the majority of people who have tried to press the "ickiness" argument in real life (outside of theoretical conversation) have been bigots trying to avoid a conviction on assault charges for having committed a hate crime -- well, it strikes me as a weak argument for which I have little patience.

It upsets Mr. Fragile to see a baby suckling on a teat? Then let Mr. Fragile find something else to look at, damn his pervy eyes.

Exactly, this "we" thing seriously complicates the whole issue. I was under the impression that it was either "us" or "them".

No it's just me and the rest of the world.

Considering that, in my experience, the majority of people who have tried to press the "ickiness" argument in real life (outside of theoretical conversation) have been bigots trying to avoid a conviction on assault charges for having committed a hate crime -- well, it strikes me as a weak argument for which I have little patience.

Public sex. Assume they clean up afterwards, and don't obstruct traffic.

Should it be legal or illegal?

Public sex. Assume they clean up afterwards, and don't obstruct traffic.

Should it be legal or illegal?

Frankly, I see no reason why there needs to be any law about it at all. And since things that are not specifically prohibited by law are, by default, legal, then I guess it should be legal, by default. But I also don't see any reason why it should be specifically declared okay, as a "right" that people have, because it isn't.

I am of the opinion that things like public sex fall under the same heading of socially controlled behavior as other natural private functions, which are controlled by cultural norms and customs of polite/impolite behavior, and which people limit based on whether they ever want other people to socialize with them, or if they'd rather be known as uncool losers with the manners of pigs.

So if I happen to be in a culture that thinks it's perfectly okay to have sex in public, then I would expect to have to steel myself for the sight of people doing it on park benches and whatnot. On the other hand, if I happen to be in a culture that thinks people should get a room for that sort of thing, then I would not have to be prepared to ignore people fucking in the park.

Now on the other hand, some behaviors that many people seem to think are perfectly okay, but which I disapprove of, include spitting on public streets and pissing in public. But I don't feel any emotional or psychological upset over those things. It's just that they are unsanitary, and it amazes me that people who do it can't figure out that maybe they shouldn't just spit or piss anywhere. Sometimes I see people spewing so freely around themselves, I wonder if they spit and piss in their own beds or on their kitchen tables, too.

But do I think there should be laws specifically banning spitting and pissing? Probably not. There are already public health laws, which probably could cover that.

But is there a "right" to spit on the street or have sex in public? No, I don't think so, but that, in and of itself, does not mean it should be illegal.

EDIT: Oh, wait, were you hoping I'd go "Eww, no, sex is ICKY!!" :p

We:

Don’t actually care what people get up to, unless there is compelling evidence that said actions are harmful.
Even with such evidence, we'd have to be convinced that the possible harm outweighed the importance of not butting in on people’s lives.
When it comes to any attempt to prevent a person from doing a thing, the onus should always been on those who wish said thing prevented to make a case based on #2.


I do really think this way of approaching life is superior. If you have another take on it, I'd love for you to explain it, and back it up.

If it isn't why we are better, it is at least why we cannot be complained about.

And by the way, I am better than you at being better than everybody else.

If it isn't why we are better, it is at least why we cannot be complained about.

And by the way, I am better than you at being better than everybody else.

Except me, as I am better than you at being better than me.

And by the way, I am better than you at being better than everybody else.

I don't know about that, she's had a lot of practice...

Except me, as I am better than you at being better than me.

But you have the unfair advantage of knowing just how good you need to be to be better than yourself. I just have to guess.

With Sin, I know how good I have to be.

I don't know about that, she's had a lot of practice...

Betterthanness cannot be learned you must be born better than everyone else.

I was.

But is there a "right" to spit on the street or have sex in public? No, I don't think so, but that, in and of itself, does not mean it should be illegal.

I'm not sure how you're drawing this distinction. Would you say that there is no wrong committed against people who want to engage in public sex when it is prohibited?

Oh, wait, were you hoping I'd go "Eww, no, sex is ICKY!!" :p

Hoping? No. Wondering if you might? Sure. Lots of people are rather inconsistent on this point.

If it isn't why we are better, it is at least why we cannot be complained about.

And by the way, I am better than you at being better than everybody else.

Except me, as I am better than you at being better than me.

And this is why I love you guys :P

No offense intended toward the OP post or Neesika when I say...


I generally view anything that has to openly proclaim its superiority to unworthy.

Sorry you missed it :P

Who's "we"?

Exactly, this "we" thing seriously complicates the whole issue. I was under the impression that it was either "us" or "them".

Well I can't be 100% certain I am completely parasite free.

One of the problems with accepting the "ickiness" argument -- that a person may suffer harm just by seeing someone doing something they don't like -- is that it has also been used by people to argue in favor of such things as racial segregation and gay bashing (for example) as well as the violence connected to them -- as if the "ickiness" of seeing two men kissing or of a black man speaking to a white woman is traumatic that it can break society to the point of violent assaults, and that in order to avoid such social breaks and associated violence, the races must be kept separate and gays should never show themselves in public, because how else can people be expected to respond to the damage of such ickiness?

Considering that, in my experience, the majority of people who have tried to press the "ickiness" argument in real life (outside of theoretical conversation) have been bigots trying to avoid a conviction on assault charges for having committed a hate crime -- well, it strikes me as a weak argument for which I have little patience.

It upsets Mr. Fragile to see a baby suckling on a teat? Then let Mr. Fragile find something else to look at, damn his pervy eyes.

I agree that 'ickiness' is not even close to being enough to make me care.

Serious psychological harm...even if I accept the premise that it could be possible for someone to experience this just from seeing a woman breastfeed a baby, I would have to question what traumatic life experiences that person has had that made them prone to psychological injury in this manner...and unless there were a fairly large number of people who were also similarly prone, I honestly couldn't support any sort of accommodation.

I don't know about that, she's had a lot of practice...

Oh hush. That's exactly the opinion of me I'm mocking:p

Nonetheless, polygamy is still prohibited, without a necessarily good argument or evidence as to what harm would be caused by allowing it.




Polygamy actually has some significant and tangible social and legal costs that gay marriage does not, but that's off topic.

Polygamy actually has some significant and tangible social and legal costs that gay marriage does not, but that's off topic.

Yes, I'm just pointing out that the onus is on the gov't to show what those social/legal costs are, and how they outweigh the arguments FOR polygamy.

But thanks for not going down that road:)

But you have the unfair advantage of knowing just how good you need to be to be better than yourself. I just have to guess.

With Sin, I know how good I have to be.

I missed this post!

I'm not sure if I should be flattered or offended.

How about both, with some eggs and bacon? Oh. Also strong coffee.

Thank the gods we turned the clock back, otherwise I'd have slept in 'till noon.

Yes, I'm just pointing out that the onus is on the gov't to show what those social/legal costs are, and how they outweigh the arguments FOR polygamy.

But thanks for not going down that road:)

We could have quite the rollicking thread on the matter, if we were. But I agree, it's not the road to go down now.


I, for one, work in an agency whose responsibility is oversight of government programs and processes, and I do think it would be better if the state had to actually think out and rationalize why they do what they do. I often see the most dimwitted, clueless behaviors out of "public servants", who have lost sight of what their job and duties are, and have instead become moral arbitrators. Especially awful are the folks who work in Medicaid/Medicare positions, their decision making process on case-by-case is abysmal, ununiform and (exceptionally tragically) undocumented.

Usually legislators and civil servants just throw up their hands, give up, and roll the twenty-sided die to make a decision.

oh hush. That's exactly the opinion of me i'm mocking:p

:)
.

I missed this post!

I'm not sure if I should be flattered or offended.

How about both, with some eggs and bacon? Oh. Also strong coffee.

Thank the gods we turned the clock back, otherwise I'd have slept in 'till noon.

I'm not sure if I meant flattery or offense, but I would love to join you for breakfast.

I'm not sure how you're drawing this distinction. Would you say that there is no wrong committed against people who want to engage in public sex when it is prohibited?
Sigh. What the fuck are you talking about, and did you even bother to read the words on the screen?

1) I just told you I see no reason why it should be specifically prohibited.

2) I just told you that I see no reason why it should be specifically allowed, either.

3) I just told you that I do not think there is a "right" to fuck in public that the law needs to concern itself with, at all, one way or the other.

So what it is, exactly, that you either (a) don't understand about that, or (b) want me to say beyond that?

Hoping? No. Wondering if you might? Sure. Lots of people are rather inconsistent on this point.
You may not be aware of this, but you seem to be a case in point. Just what are you getting at with this anyway?

I'm not sure if I meant flattery or offense, but I would love to join you for breakfast.

You only get breakfast if I get sex.

I share the precious, bacony goodness of the gods with a select few.
Sigh. What the fuck are you talking about, and did you even bother to read the words on the screen?
This, squared.

I accept that you could be psychologically harmed by that. But again, if you are particularly prone to psychological damage because of breastfeeding, but the vast majority of people would not be, then I can't see how that possible harm could outweigh the ...I don't want to say 'right', so I'll say 'ability' of women to breastfeed in public.
Let's flip the example around, just to explore this issue further; I think it's a really interesting area of moral philosophy.

Imagine a populace where the vast majority claim (truthfully) that viewing a breastfeeding mother in public causes them great distress, psychological harm. Here, the 'ick' factor outweighs the mother's ability. (Let's say most women find the idea horrible too, and that there is such a large amount of people who are minutely harmed by the 'ick' that together it constitutes great harm.)

Would we not be forced here to defer to the majority's opinion? I'm not convinced that we can dismiss 'ick' on such a vast scale; not if we're trying to prevent harm-causing actions. What I'm getting at here, rather unsubtly, is that this 'cost-benefit analysis' of harm, whichever way we do it, seems to lead us down some unsavoury roads.

We might, however, say that although the majority's overall psychological harm is great, the individual harm suffered by each person is very small (not to the 'reasonable person' standard); and thus we can discount it, as each individual women's ability trumps each individual harm.

To go back to the problem of 'ick', if we (quite rightly, IMO) want to prevent groups from banning acceptable activities that they find merely distasteful, then we can't ever appeal to grounds of taste ourselves; though it would appear that sometimes we want to. Soheran rightly brings up the case of sex in public; and it's a stumbling block for some. (I've even had a philosophy lecturer say to me that the Harm Principle should be abandoned because he didn't like the idea of sex in public, and couldn't argue against it via harm.)

To illustrate, I think it's a tough job for anyone to come up with a good reason why graffiti, sex in public, protesting at funerals and prevention of any religious mockery should be divided into two camps; one of actions that do not do enough harm to warrant prohibition, and one of actions that do do enough harm.

You only get breakfast if I get sex.


I have a feeling we won't be having breakfast and we will be lucky to have eggs and bacon for lunch.

All are equally inferior to me.

Oh am I now? I bet you had no idea I'd have clothespins on my nipples tonight. Ha! Didn't predict THAT, didja?

Hot.

I have a feeling we won't be having breakfast and we will be lucky to have eggs and bacon for lunch.

I see what you did there.

It was hawt.

Holy shit, it's Vittos.

Holy shit, it's Vittos.

Inorite? Let there be a festival to welcome back my favourite grizzled Dutchman in plaid and rubber boots!

Pharisaically feel good, pretentious ego inflation for the win...

I am curious about one thing though. Does this totally freewilling ideological monopoly you hold extend to the personal and corporate(?) economic spheres as well? (taxes, regulations etc)


Almost everyone has this approach to life, that's actually quite vague, since harm can be a very ambiguous and subjective word.
Hydesland wins.

This tends to be a debate over the what, not if. (i.e. details not concept)

Sigh. What the fuck are you talking about, and did you even bother to read the words on the screen?

Ordinarily I would clarify, but if this is the sort of response I am going to get, I see no point.

You may not be aware of this, but you seem to be a case in point.

Since you are almost certainly unaware of both (a) my position on legalizing public sex (for what it's worth, I support doing so) and (b) my views on what does and does not constitute legislatively-legitimate harm prevention, this claim is rather absurd.

Would we not be forced here to defer to the majority's opinion?

Not necessarily. "Harm" in the sense of distress or offense or disgust is not always actionable.

We might judge, for instance, that even if we are disgusted by a given action, we lack the standing to criticize it: we are not the breastfeeding mother, we are not the people having sex on the park bench, our disgust, however strong, does not constitute a good reason to restrict it.

I tend toward this analysis. In making "cost-benefit" analyses, we have to make distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate preferences--with "legitimate" ones being ones about things that are actually within our personal sphere. It seems to me to be rather authoritarian-minded to restrict other people's personal behavior even when they are in public, and more generally, I think personal autonomy is a rather empty ideal if we restrict it the moment it has effects on others.

On other hand, unlike strictly private decisions like who has sex with whom, I would recognize a democratic right to prohibit public sex or breastfeeding even as I would oppose such a decision. There's no knock-out decisive reason against such legislation, nor any good reason that behavior within the public sphere (even if it is an expression of personal autonomy) is excluded from the rightful limits of governance. I happen to prefer to not live in a such a society, but I can't see any good reason to say that it's absolutely illegitimate to have such a society.

We might, however, say that although the majority's overall psychological harm is great, the individual harm suffered by each person is very small (not to the 'reasonable person' standard); and thus we can discount it, as each individual women's ability trumps each individual harm.

This is not, however, how we generally judge actions with "externalities." The owner of a company that pollutes the air might very well profit much more from the pollution-causing practices than any single individual is harmed by them, but that is hardly a reason not to prohibit the practices.

To illustrate, I think it's a tough job for anyone to come up with a good reason why graffiti, sex in public, protesting at funerals and prevention of any religious mockery should be divided into two camps; one of actions that do not do enough harm to warrant prohibition, and one of actions that do do enough harm.

Well, just on their face these all fall into different categories.

"Graffiti" is violating someone's property rights. That's fairly direct harm. As far as public property meant for general use goes, it's harmful because it's long-term: if I walk through a public park, I don't prevent anyone else from walking after me, but if I spray graffiti on a wall, that will stay there until someone (else) removes it. This brings us into the whole "tragedy of the commons" issue; if people abuse it, there's not enough for everyone.

"Sex in public", on the other hand, doesn't strike me, in its use of public space, as particularly more egregious than routine activities people engage in all the time. The only "harm" it causes is in other people's heads, and it's not really any of their business; if it bothers them so, they should avert their eyes.

"Protesting at funerals"... well, a funeral is an essentially private and intimate event. That's worthy of protection not because of "offense" as such (which we might have reason to tolerate in public contexts) but because such kinds of events are worthy of insulation from unwanted guests. I'd probably make an exception for public figures, though.

"Prevention of religious mockery"... I think religious mockery falls under free speech, because it's essentially about the discussion and debate of ideas, and a free society interested in finding truth and right cannot legitimately restrict it. Even if it were it not for that element, I think I'd still say it should be free of government regulation for the same reason as public sex: other people's speech is not something we have standing to restrict.

Outright hate speech (attacks on, say, "Muslims" as a group of people rather than "Islam" as a body of ideas) should be prohibited as hostile to the ideal of a fully participatory society and debate, however.