Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #1930279 > unrolled thread

Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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> - 2015-06-23 12:15 +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> - 2015-06-23 06:51 -0700
      Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN   INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-06-24 11:13 +0200
    Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ Joe Bruno <joebruno86@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 07:07 -0700
    Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 08:01 -0700
      Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ Joe Bruno <joebruno86@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 01:41 -0700

#1930279 — Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/

On 22/06/2015 18:01, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> 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.

That depends.
In certain jurisdictions, the pendulum has swung so far that exactly 
this is being enshrined in law or policy.  There are now colleges in the 
US where art exhibits or teaching material are vetted and may be removed 
on the say-so of students who decide they feel offended.

In sex discrimination and harassment situations, too, the decisive 
factor is not an objective set of circumstances but the subjective 
decision of an individual.


>
> "Political correctness" has transformed the social discourse, but political correctness is about social pressure, not about law.

It may have started out as social pressure but it has moved well into 
the arena of law.  Just think of affirmative action and 
anti-discrimination legislation that has been expanded to cover ever 
more minority or deprived social groups.  Or colleges that enshrine 
political correctness not just in their curriculum but their campus 
policies and regulations.


>
> 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.
>

I think it's more differentiated.  Yes, it is human nature to detest 
freeloaders -- but they have to be perceived as such.  Tax evasion is a 
good example, actually, because although it is an act which is 
perpetrated by the majority of taxpaying citizens, it is only condemned 
when it is done by big corporations or the extremely wealthy.  When Joe 
Q pays his builder in cash or fiddles his tax-deductible business 
expenses, that's something very few people condemn -- indeed, most 
people happily admit to it and may even brag about it.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1930347 — Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/

On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 11:15:03 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> On 22/06/2015 18:01, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> That depends.
> In certain jurisdictions, the pendulum has swung so far that exactly 
> this is being enshrined in law or policy.  

We were discussing how I think things should be, rather than how they are. I'm not easy to convince that censorship, even of stuff I detest, is ever justified.


> There are now colleges in the 
> US where art exhibits or teaching material are vetted and may be removed 
> on the say-so of students who decide they feel offended.

I know, and it's a dangerous example to young people.

> 
> In sex discrimination and harassment situations, too, the decisive 
> factor is not an objective set of circumstances but the subjective 
> decision of an individual.
> 
> 
> >
> > "Political correctness" has transformed the social discourse, but political correctness is about social pressure, not about law.
> 
> It may have started out as social pressure but it has moved well into 
> the arena of law.  Just think of affirmative action and 
> anti-discrimination legislation that has been expanded to cover ever 
> more minority or deprived social groups.  Or colleges that enshrine 
> political correctness not just in their curriculum but their campus 
> policies and regulations.
> 

Now discrimination goes well beyond speech. And affirmative action isn't exactly in the same category.

> 
> >
> > 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.
> >
> 
> I think it's more differentiated.  Yes, it is human nature to detest 
> freeloaders -- but they have to be perceived as such.  Tax evasion is a 
> good example, actually, because although it is an act which is 
> perpetrated by the majority of taxpaying citizens, it is only condemned 
> when it is done by big corporations or the extremely wealthy.  When Joe 
> Q pays his builder in cash or fiddles his tax-deductible business 
> expenses, that's something very few people condemn -- indeed, most 
> people happily admit to it and may even brag about it.

Its a question of identification. If people are like you you have more natural sympathy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1930827

On 23/06/2015 15:51, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 11:15:03 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>> On 22/06/2015 18:01, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> That depends.
>> In certain jurisdictions, the pendulum has swung so far that exactly
>> this is being enshrined in law or policy.
>
> We were discussing how I think things should be, rather than how they are. I'm not easy to convince that censorship, even of stuff I detest, is ever justified.

Nor should one be easy to convince.

That said, I do feel that the current approach which protects any and 
all forms of free speech unless they fall foul of the "imminent danger" 
test does protect people with actively harmful intent from the 
consequences of their actions.  A peddler of hate speech may never 
actively incite someone to perpetrate a hate crime in the eyes of the 
law, but his speech may still create the mental conditions for such a 
crime to occur.  IOW, a radio shock jock who keeps saying "I hate 
niggers" should be culpable if a loyal listener one day goes forth and 
shoots up a black church.

But then, over here in Europe we have some rather different hands-on 
experiences of the effects of hate speech ...


>
>
>> There are now colleges in the
>> US where art exhibits or teaching material are vetted and may be removed
>> on the say-so of students who decide they feel offended.
>
> I know, and it's a dangerous example to young people.

Not just a dangerous example,IMO: it also forms their views and opinions 
which they then carry forth into the world.


>
>>
>> In sex discrimination and harassment situations, too, the decisive
>> factor is not an objective set of circumstances but the subjective
>> decision of an individual.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "Political correctness" has transformed the social discourse, but political correctness is about social pressure, not about law.
>>
>> It may have started out as social pressure but it has moved well into
>> the arena of law.  Just think of affirmative action and
>> anti-discrimination legislation that has been expanded to cover ever
>> more minority or deprived social groups.  Or colleges that enshrine
>> political correctness not just in their curriculum but their campus
>> policies and regulations.
>>
>
> Now discrimination goes well beyond speech. And affirmative action isn't exactly in the same category.

Affirmative action did not start out that way, but it has grown well 
past its original intentions.

And political correctness now sees discrimination everywhere, not just 
speech.  It can lead to architects having to redesign buildings to 
redress a claimed patriarchal arrangement of toilets, or the 
gender-neutral refurbishment of traffic lights, all sorts of idiocies 
like that.


>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I think it's more differentiated.  Yes, it is human nature to detest
>> freeloaders -- but they have to be perceived as such.  Tax evasion is a
>> good example, actually, because although it is an act which is
>> perpetrated by the majority of taxpaying citizens, it is only condemned
>> when it is done by big corporations or the extremely wealthy.  When Joe
>> Q pays his builder in cash or fiddles his tax-deductible business
>> expenses, that's something very few people condemn -- indeed, most
>> people happily admit to it and may even brag about it.
>
> Its a question of identification. If people are like you you have more natural sympathy.
>

It also goes towards the perceived legitimacy of legislation.  With 
certain laws and regulations, people simply do not accept them as 
equitable and justified.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1930352 — Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-7, Alex W. wrote:
> On 22/06/2015 18:01, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> That depends.
> In certain jurisdictions, the pendulum has swung so far that exactly 
> this is being enshrined in law or policy.  There are now colleges in the 
> US where art exhibits or teaching material are vetted and may be removed 
> on the say-so of students who decide they feel offended.

Even internet websites like craigslist will remove entries if someone objects to them. I ran an ad for my accounting business there several years ago and it was flagged and removed 7 times with no reason given. I suspect it was an attempt by one of my competitors to get more business for himself.
> 
> In sex discrimination and harassment situations, too, the decisive 
> factor is not an objective set of circumstances but the subjective 
> decision of an individual.
> 
> 
> >
> > "Political correctness" has transformed the social discourse, but political correctness is about social pressure, not about law.
> 
> It may have started out as social pressure but it has moved well into 
> the arena of law.  Just think of affirmative action and 
> anti-discrimination legislation that has been expanded to cover ever 
> more minority or deprived social groups.  Or colleges that enshrine 
> political correctness not just in their curriculum but their campus 
> policies and regulations.

I didn't like AA when it first began because it was racially discriminatory.
I decided not to protest publicly because I recognized that it had good intentions-to make up for years of discrimination in employment. However, it was supposed to be temporary only and should have been stopped in the 1980s when
we could see lots of minority people in medicine, law, and business.
Finally, in the 1990s, the Supreme Court  began striking down racial preferences. Numerous states and counties followed the court's example.
> 
> 
> >
> > There's the classic example of shouting "Fire" in a crowded cinema but inciting people to violence is already covered without "hate speech" laws.
> >
In the USA, hate crime laws have only a limited use. They are used only in cases of jury trials for violent crime. If the DA presents evidence that the crime was motivated by hatred and the jury agrees, the judge can add 5 years to the defendant's sentence.First, however, he must be convicted of the crime itself.

I don't know of any actual US laws that punish hate speech.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1930383 — Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 6:15:03 AM UTC-4, Alex W. wrote:
> On 22/06/2015 18:01, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> That depends.
> In certain jurisdictions, the pendulum has swung so far that exactly 
> this is being enshrined in law or policy.  There are now colleges in the 
> US where art exhibits or teaching material are vetted and may be removed 
> on the say-so of students who decide they feel offended.

And where in the rightaloon world does this happen? Name the schools, the number of instances, the problems these mostly imaginary events caused, the scholars who were muzzled, the subjects abridged and the damage done to the educational environment. 

> 
> In sex discrimination and harassment situations, too, the decisive 
> factor is not an objective set of circumstances but the subjective 
> decision of an individual.
> 
Says you. And your proof for this?
> >
> > "Political correctness" has transformed the social discourse, but political correctness is about social pressure, not about law.
> 
> It may have started out as social pressure but it has moved well into 
> the arena of law.  Just think of affirmative action and 
> anti-discrimination legislation that has been expanded to cover ever 
> more minority or deprived social groups.  

Like whom? The original laws and determinations made during the Nixon administration are still pretty much in place or in your universe has there been any radical change? By the way, like most rightaloons you know nothing about affirmative action.

Or colleges that enshrine 
> political correctness not just in their curriculum but their campus 
> policies and regulations.
> 
"Colleges that enshrine political correctness???????" Name a few. I'd like to see the shrines.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> 
> I think it's more differentiated.  Yes, it is human nature to detest 
> freeloaders -- but they have to be perceived as such.  Tax evasion is a 
> good example, actually, because although it is an act which is 
> perpetrated by the majority of taxpaying citizens, it is only condemned 
> when it is done by big corporations or the extremely wealthy. 

How unfair that the government goes after the biggest offenders!!! I had no idea the rich were being singled-out and persecuted in this manner.  Oh my God!!!  I'll light a candle for the wealthy this evening and pray that a just God will send the IRS after the typical American, the one with the median income of $60,000 per year who is trying to pau a mortgage and raise his/her children. They have to be brought to justice! 

 When Joe 
> Q pays his builder in cash or fiddles his tax-deductible business 
> expenses, that's something very few people condemn -- indeed, most 
> people happily admit to it and may even brag about it.

Are you a natural moron or do you work at it? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1931311 — Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 8:01:37 AM UTC-7, Wexford Eire wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 6:15:03 AM UTC-4, Alex W. wrote:
> > On 22/06/2015 18:01, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > That depends.
> > In certain jurisdictions, the pendulum has swung so far that exactly 
> > this is being enshrined in law or policy.  There are now colleges in the 
> > US where art exhibits or teaching material are vetted and may be removed 
> > on the say-so of students who decide they feel offended.
> 
> And where in the rightaloon world does this happen? Name the schools, the number of instances, the problems these mostly imaginary events caused, the scholars who were muzzled, the subjects abridged and the damage done to the educational environment. 
> 
> > 
> > In sex discrimination and harassment situations, too, the decisive 
> > factor is not an objective set of circumstances but the subjective 
> > decision of an individual.
> > 
> Says you. And your proof for this?
> > >
> > > "Political correctness" has transformed the social discourse, but political correctness is about social pressure, not about law.
> > 
> > It may have started out as social pressure but it has moved well into 
> > the arena of law.  Just think of affirmative action and 
> > anti-discrimination legislation that has been expanded to cover ever 
> > more minority or deprived social groups.  
> 
> Like whom? The original laws and determinations made during the Nixon administration are still pretty much in place or in your universe has there been any radical change? By the way, like most rightaloons you know nothing about affirmative action.
> 
> Or colleges that enshrine 
> > political correctness not just in their curriculum but their campus 
> > policies and regulations.
> > 
> "Colleges that enshrine political correctness???????" Name a few. I'd like to see the shrines.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > 
> > I think it's more differentiated.  Yes, it is human nature to detest 
> > freeloaders -- but they have to be perceived as such.  Tax evasion is a 
> > good example, actually, because although it is an act which is 
> > perpetrated by the majority of taxpaying citizens, it is only condemned 
> > when it is done by big corporations or the extremely wealthy. 
> 
> How unfair that the government goes after the biggest offenders!!! I had no idea the rich were being singled-out and persecuted in this manner.  Oh my God!!!  I'll light a candle for the wealthy this evening and pray that a just God will send the IRS after the typical American, the one with the median income of $60,000 per year who is trying to pau a mortgage and raise his/her children. They have to be brought to justice! 
> 
>  When Joe 
> > Q pays his builder in cash or fiddles his tax-deductible business 
> > expenses, that's something very few people condemn -- indeed, most 
> > people happily admit to it and may even brag about it.
> 
> Are you a natural moron or do you work at it?

Fool! In the 1990s, the Supreme Court began striking down racial preferences. Many states and localities have followed the court's example. AA is on the way out.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/24/us/annotated-supreme-court-decision-on-affirmative-action.html?_r=0

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web