Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #1926717 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-06-18 00:51 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-06-18 10:30 -0700 |
| Articles | 12 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism
aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2015-06-18 00:51 -0700
Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2015-06-18 03:07 -0700
Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-06-18 17:53 +0200
Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-18 20:42 +0000
Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-06-21 12:46 +0200
Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-21 22:37 +0000
Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-06-22 11:04 +0200
Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2015-06-22 09:01 -0700
Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> - 2015-06-18 08:49 -0400
Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 06:47 -0700
Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ Paul <papa_fox@cybertown.com> - 2015-06-18 07:35 -0700
Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ wryan1776@gmail.com - 2015-06-18 10:30 -0700
| From | hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 00:51 -0700 |
| Subject | aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ |
| Message-ID | <cf32e8af-60cd-4e73-92d2-0a37ed657669@googlegroups.com> |
This is an aa thread for atheists only, as per all the alt.atheism FAQs. Lurker atheists are welcome. PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. I know it's hard, since they deliberately ask upsetting questions or lie about us, but please try. I'm trying, too, and it ain't easy. #16. How would you draw the line between the rights of an individual vs. society's right to make restrictive laws?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 03:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7264d746-cae0-4610-b975-513cb6211a4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1926717 |
On Thursday, 18 June 2015 08:51:06 UTC+1, hypatiab7 wrote: > This is an aa thread for atheists only, as per all the alt.atheism FAQs. > Lurker atheists are welcome. PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. I know it's > hard, since they deliberately ask upsetting questions or lie about us, > but please try. I'm trying, too, and it ain't easy. > > #16. How would you draw the line between the rights of an individual vs. > society's right to make restrictive laws? On the basis of quantifiable harm. The harm prevented by a law must demonstrably exceed the harm done by enforcing it. (And enforcing criminal law is always doing harm). Then, of course, there's the often contentious question of defining harm. For example not paying your taxes causes harm, but its not so easily quantified as shooting your wife.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 17:53 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ |
| Message-ID | <cug7s2Fk05mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1926758 |
On 18/06/2015 12:07, Malcolm McMahon wrote: > On Thursday, 18 June 2015 08:51:06 UTC+1, hypatiab7 wrote: >> This is an aa thread for atheists only, as per all the alt.atheism FAQs. >> Lurker atheists are welcome. PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. I know it's >> hard, since they deliberately ask upsetting questions or lie about us, >> but please try. I'm trying, too, and it ain't easy. >> >> #16. How would you draw the line between the rights of an individual vs. >> society's right to make restrictive laws? > > On the basis of quantifiable harm. The harm prevented by a law must demonstrably exceed the harm done by enforcing it. (And enforcing criminal law is always doing harm). That does not clarify matters much. Harm is often hugely subjective and determined by the individual. Take free speech: a joke about Jews or blacks may be ethnic assertiveness, racist cant or just observational humour -- it all depends on the listener. > > Then, of course, there's the often contentious question of defining harm. For example not paying your taxes causes harm, but its not so easily quantified as shooting your wife. > Quite so. Not paying taxes may cause harm to the state by withholding funds the state requires to discharge its duties. On the other hand, the money not paid in taxes is spent or invested which then benefits others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 20:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ |
| Message-ID | <mlvaf8$eoa$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1926905 |
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:53:38 +0200, Alex W. wrote: > On 18/06/2015 12:07, Malcolm McMahon wrote: >> On Thursday, 18 June 2015 08:51:06 UTC+1, hypatiab7 wrote: >>> This is an aa thread for atheists only, as per all the alt.atheism >>> FAQs. >>> Lurker atheists are welcome. PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. I know it's >>> hard, since they deliberately ask upsetting questions or lie about us, >>> but please try. I'm trying, too, and it ain't easy. >>> >>> #16. How would you draw the line between the rights of an individual >>> vs. >>> society's right to make restrictive laws? >> >> On the basis of quantifiable harm. The harm prevented by a law must >> demonstrably exceed the harm done by enforcing it. (And enforcing >> criminal law is always doing harm). > > That does not clarify matters much. > Harm is often hugely subjective and determined by the individual. Take > free speech: a joke about Jews or blacks may be ethnic assertiveness, > racist cant or just observational humour -- it all depends on the > listener. It also depends on the teller of the joke and the joke itself. A Jew telling Jewish jokes or a Nigerian telling black jokes would be Ok. A Jew telling black jokes or a Nigerian telling Jewish jokes would be NOT be Ok. >> Then, of course, there's the often contentious question of defining >> harm. For example not paying your taxes causes harm, but its not so >> easily quantified as shooting your wife. >> >> > Quite so. Not paying taxes may cause harm to the state by withholding > funds the state requires to discharge its duties. On the other hand, > the money not paid in taxes is spent or invested which then benefits > others. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-21 12:46 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ |
| Message-ID | <cunj09FfaerU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1927019 |
On 18/06/2015 22:42, Smiler wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:53:38 +0200, Alex W. wrote: > >> On 18/06/2015 12:07, Malcolm McMahon wrote: >>> On Thursday, 18 June 2015 08:51:06 UTC+1, hypatiab7 wrote: >>>> This is an aa thread for atheists only, as per all the alt.atheism >>>> FAQs. >>>> Lurker atheists are welcome. PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. I know it's >>>> hard, since they deliberately ask upsetting questions or lie about us, >>>> but please try. I'm trying, too, and it ain't easy. >>>> >>>> #16. How would you draw the line between the rights of an individual >>>> vs. >>>> society's right to make restrictive laws? >>> >>> On the basis of quantifiable harm. The harm prevented by a law must >>> demonstrably exceed the harm done by enforcing it. (And enforcing >>> criminal law is always doing harm). >> >> That does not clarify matters much. >> Harm is often hugely subjective and determined by the individual. Take >> free speech: a joke about Jews or blacks may be ethnic assertiveness, >> racist cant or just observational humour -- it all depends on the >> listener. > > It also depends on the teller of the joke and the joke itself. > A Jew telling Jewish jokes or a Nigerian telling black jokes would be Ok. > A Jew telling black jokes or a Nigerian telling Jewish jokes would be NOT > be Ok. Agreed. That also offers the delightful scenario of making people quite uncomfortable: having been conditioned to disapprove of such humour, they cannot really object when a member of the targeted group starts telling such jokes....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-21 22:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ |
| Message-ID | <mm7eae$dvg$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1928935 |
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 12:46:33 +0200, Alex W. wrote: > On 18/06/2015 22:42, Smiler wrote: >> On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:53:38 +0200, Alex W. wrote: >> >>> On 18/06/2015 12:07, Malcolm McMahon wrote: >>>> On Thursday, 18 June 2015 08:51:06 UTC+1, hypatiab7 wrote: >>>>> This is an aa thread for atheists only, as per all the alt.atheism >>>>> FAQs. >>>>> Lurker atheists are welcome. PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. I know >>>>> it's hard, since they deliberately ask upsetting questions or lie >>>>> about us, >>>>> but please try. I'm trying, too, and it ain't easy. >>>>> >>>>> #16. How would you draw the line between the rights of an individual >>>>> vs. >>>>> society's right to make restrictive laws? >>>> >>>> On the basis of quantifiable harm. The harm prevented by a law must >>>> demonstrably exceed the harm done by enforcing it. (And enforcing >>>> criminal law is always doing harm). >>> >>> That does not clarify matters much. >>> Harm is often hugely subjective and determined by the individual. >>> Take free speech: a joke about Jews or blacks may be ethnic >>> assertiveness, racist cant or just observational humour -- it all >>> depends on the listener. >> >> It also depends on the teller of the joke and the joke itself. >> A Jew telling Jewish jokes or a Nigerian telling black jokes would be >> Ok. >> A Jew telling black jokes or a Nigerian telling Jewish jokes would be >> NOT be Ok. > > Agreed. > That also offers the delightful scenario of making people quite > uncomfortable: having been conditioned to disapprove of such humour, > they cannot really object when a member of the targeted group starts > telling such jokes.... I've been brought up with Jewish jokes and recently went to a comedy night where a Nigerian comedian was telling black/African jokes. Neither phase me. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-22 11:04 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ |
| Message-ID | <cuq1d2F3ofmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1929275 |
On 22/06/2015 00:37, Smiler wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 12:46:33 +0200, Alex W. wrote: > >> On 18/06/2015 22:42, Smiler wrote: >>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:53:38 +0200, Alex W. wrote: >>> >>>> On 18/06/2015 12:07, Malcolm McMahon wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, 18 June 2015 08:51:06 UTC+1, hypatiab7 wrote: >>>>>> This is an aa thread for atheists only, as per all the alt.atheism >>>>>> FAQs. >>>>>> Lurker atheists are welcome. PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. I know >>>>>> it's hard, since they deliberately ask upsetting questions or lie >>>>>> about us, >>>>>> but please try. I'm trying, too, and it ain't easy. >>>>>> >>>>>> #16. How would you draw the line between the rights of an individual >>>>>> vs. >>>>>> society's right to make restrictive laws? >>>>> >>>>> On the basis of quantifiable harm. The harm prevented by a law must >>>>> demonstrably exceed the harm done by enforcing it. (And enforcing >>>>> criminal law is always doing harm). >>>> >>>> That does not clarify matters much. >>>> Harm is often hugely subjective and determined by the individual. >>>> Take free speech: a joke about Jews or blacks may be ethnic >>>> assertiveness, racist cant or just observational humour -- it all >>>> depends on the listener. >>> >>> It also depends on the teller of the joke and the joke itself. >>> A Jew telling Jewish jokes or a Nigerian telling black jokes would be >>> Ok. >>> A Jew telling black jokes or a Nigerian telling Jewish jokes would be >>> NOT be Ok. >> >> Agreed. >> That also offers the delightful scenario of making people quite >> uncomfortable: having been conditioned to disapprove of such humour, >> they cannot really object when a member of the targeted group starts >> telling such jokes.... > > I've been brought up with Jewish jokes and recently went to a comedy night > where a Nigerian comedian was telling black/African jokes. Neither phase > me. > It does faze and discomfit the politically correct brigade. They combat the scourge of -isms wherever they may rear their ugly heads (real, imagined, or suspected), so it's a big problem for them when members of the "affected" group start using such material themselves. There's a reflex reaction to ethnic jokes or nomenclature which they have to consciously suppress because their PC ideology does not allow them to be critical of members of ethnicities. I've seen Alex Brooker in action, cracking jokes about thalidomide deformity ... watching the audience was at least as funny as the bloke himself....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-22 09:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2d0a1116-8f29-4a69-90e2-0ec35ab969a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1926905 |
On Thursday, 18 June 2015 16:53:41 UTC+1, Alex W. wrote: > On 18/06/2015 12:07, Malcolm McMahon wrote: > > On Thursday, 18 June 2015 08:51:06 UTC+1, hypatiab7 wrote: > >> This is an aa thread for atheists only, as per all the alt.atheism FAQs. > >> Lurker atheists are welcome. PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. I know it's > >> hard, since they deliberately ask upsetting questions or lie about us, > >> but please try. I'm trying, too, and it ain't easy. > >> > >> #16. How would you draw the line between the rights of an individual vs. > >> society's right to make restrictive laws? > > > > On the basis of quantifiable harm. The harm prevented by a law must demonstrably exceed the harm done by enforcing it. (And enforcing criminal law is always doing harm). > > That does not clarify matters much. But it does provide a general framework. > Harm is often hugely subjective and determined by the individual. Take > free speech: a joke about Jews or blacks may be ethnic assertiveness, > racist cant or just observational humour -- it all depends on the > listener. > I think most would agree that no-one has a legal right not to be offended, or disgusted. "Political correctness" has transformed the social discourse, but political correctness is about social pressure, not about law. There's the classic example of shouting "Fire" in a crowded cinema but inciting people to violence is already covered without "hate speech" laws. > > > > > Then, of course, there's the often contentious question of defining harm. For example not paying your taxes causes harm, but its not so easily quantified as shooting your wife. > > > > Quite so. Not paying taxes may cause harm to the state by withholding > funds the state requires to discharge its duties. On the other hand, > the money not paid in taxes is spent or invested which then benefits > others. But it's part of human nature (primate nature actually) to detest freeloaders. Too many freeloaders and _everyone_ stops cooperating.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 08:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <l2f5oa9o1r3enn4vh9h31p8k5nfd484bq0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #1926717 |
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 00:51:04 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote: >This is an aa thread for atheists only, as per all the alt.atheism FAQs. >Lurker atheists are welcome. PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. I know it's >hard, since they deliberately ask upsetting questions or lie about us, >but please try. I'm trying, too, and it ain't easy. > >#16. How would you draw the line between the rights of an individual vs. >society's right to make restrictive laws? Does it break someone's leg, pick someone's pocket, or otherwise injure a party without their consent? If yes, then society has an interest in restricting it. If not, it shouldn't be anyone's business. (And no, merely offending someone is not an injury).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 06:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d13965a-0c67-4f0c-b50a-8e964d3d297c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1926717 |
On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 3:51:06 AM UTC-4, hypatiab7 wrote: > This is an aa thread for atheists only, as per all the alt.atheism FAQs. > Lurker atheists are welcome. PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. I know it's > hard, since they deliberately ask upsetting questions or lie about us, > but please try. I'm trying, too, and it ain't easy. > > #16. How would you draw the line between the rights of an individual vs. > society's right to make restrictive laws? Impossible question. Study English case law, contract law, constitutional law, and comparative law and get back to us in twenty or thirty years with your own take on this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <papa_fox@cybertown.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 07:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee4b3296-5b82-4a67-91a1-91fae20d790f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1926717 |
On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 3:51:06 AM UTC-4, hypatiab7 wrote: > This is an aa thread for atheists only, as per all the alt.atheism FAQs. > Lurker atheists are welcome. PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. I know it's > hard, since they deliberately ask upsetting questions or lie about us, > but please try. I'm trying, too, and it ain't easy. > > #16. How would you draw the line between the rights of an individual vs. > society's right to make restrictive laws? I generally go by the phrase coined by Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." That being said, I generally view individual liberty as the default position. I think people should be able to follow any belief system they want, but not to the point of forcing their views on other people. As far as "restrictive" laws go, there should be a real need to protect individuals as well as society. Your company can sell cars, but it can't sell cars without seat belts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wryan1776@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 10:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0da0297e-0880-4f1d-bc98-0cb45bf51c9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1926863 |
On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 10:35:26 AM UTC-4, Paul wrote: > On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 3:51:06 AM UTC-4, hypatiab7 wrote: > > This is an aa thread for atheists only, as per all the alt.atheism FAQs. > > Lurker atheists are welcome. PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. I know it's > > hard, since they deliberately ask upsetting questions or lie about us, > > but please try. I'm trying, too, and it ain't easy. > > > > #16. How would you draw the line between the rights of an individual vs. > > society's right to make restrictive laws? > > I generally go by the phrase coined by Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." > > That being said, I generally view individual liberty as the default position. I think people should be able to follow any belief system they want, but not to the point of forcing their views on other people. > > As far as "restrictive" laws go, there should be a real need to protect individuals as well as society. Your company can sell cars, but it can't sell cars without seat belts. Even more serious that that, a company can sell pharmaceuticals, but they can't sell nostrums that are unproven or that will do harm.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web