I think the discussion in the 'Quotes' forum has taken over that forum, and I have therefore made this topic (Super-Admins, feel free to move said conversation/debate to this topic).
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
I'd like to make dangerous, politically destabilizing and potentialy harmful lifestyles like veganism, vegetarianism, ecologism (if that's a word), ateism, religionism, political interests, free elections, freedom of speech, sufragism, democracy, literacy and the right of ownership to be outlawed.
If all of these thing got banned and punished by death-by-public-hanging and/or public flaying, then we would not need worry about anything ever again. Our beloved leaders, who (naturally) know so much better than we normal folk how best to live our lives, may safely dictate and punish at the best of their (obviously better than our) judgemental abilities.
Problem solved, and we may all live happily ever after.
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
@jogvanth, Norlander: I'm having a hard time discerning what, if any, point you are trying to make. I wish for you all the personal freedom in the world. Do you understand that?
Actually, this brings me to my biggest issue with libertarianism. Libertarianism has a big problem with the issue of protecting minorities and the weak in society; in that it doesn't.
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
@Vuzman: My point is, that you apparently only wish for us the freedom of what you deem is the most logical and non-superstituos freedom to have.
I'm very much against veganism and ecological humbug, but if you choose to live by these (in my view) dangerous-to-others and do-as-we-say-or-else ways of life that I think are just plain stupid, then I won't bash your head in or try to outlaw it. I believe you should retain the right to live as you choose. I would like it if you would let others, who don't choose to live as you choose, to be allowed to do so.
You seem to believe (at least your posts are filled with statements to lead us to think so), that if YOU think it is stupid or dangerous, then it should be banned.
I agree with you that libertarianism is flawed, but it is still a thousand times better than any other currently available alternative.
P.S. Veganism can also be fatally harmful to other people.
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
jogvanth wrote:
@Vuzman: My point is, that you apparently only wish for us the freedom of what you deem is the most logical and non-superstituos freedom to have.
Wow. Do you have a reading disability, such as dyslexia, or are you just fucking retarded? I have repeatedly stated that I am for 100% personal freedom. Throughout the years I have been consistent in this, and in my defense of the rights of minorities and/or oppressed groups such as homosexuals and women. Their rights to be what they want to be and do what they want to to their own body. You must know this.
I have also been consistent in my insistence that harm to others is wrong, and your freedom to do certain things should be limited if they indeed are harmful to others. Murder, rape and slavery come to mind. I am certain that no one here will disagree with me on this one. This does not interfere with my 100% personal freedom A-OK as I don't consider harming others a personal freedom. In any case, I have now defined explicitly what I mean, so the semantics should be inarguable.
I'm very much against veganism and ecological humbug, but if you choose to live by these (in my view) dangerous-to-others and do-as-we-say-or-else ways of life that I think are just plain stupid
Bla bla, your opinions are always founded in the belief that whatever you do and think now is right and correct, and your arguments are always carried on the wings of Icarus.
I believe you should retain the right to live as you choose.
I believe you should too. So long as you don't do any harm.
I would like it if you would let others, who don't choose to live as you choose, to be allowed to do so.
I have never infringed on your living your life as you choose, and I am perfectly happy to let you live as you choose. So long as you don't do any harm.
You seem to believe (at least your posts are filled with statements to lead us to think so), that if YOU think it is stupid or dangerous, then it should be banned.
Stupid and dangerous to yourself, no.
Stupid and dangerous to others, yes. ME be the judge? No. Logic and science? Of course! In fact, there's no other alternative.
I have never argued that I should be the moral dictator of the universe, but have repeatedly, clearly, and explicitly stated that logic and science should be used as tools for determining guidelines and (minimalistic) laws.
So stop it already with your fucking libel!
P.S. Veganism can also be fatally harmful to other people.
1) Do you understand that there's a (pretty fucking huge) difference between fatal and malnourished?
2) Picking a study supported by the US National Cattleman's Beef Association and conducted in a poor, already malnourished African community is remarkably weak.
Let's see some official standpoints, shall we:
From the professionals:
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. --Link
From the US government (National Institutes of Health (NIH), a part of the US Dept. of Health and Human Services):
People who follow vegetarian diets can get all the nutrients they need. --Link
From the US Department of Agriculture (the evil right hand of the meat lobby ):
Vegetarian diets can meet all the recommendations for nutrients. --Link
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
@Vuzman: These treatments aren't harmful. But not seeking other treatment from "real medical science" is. I believe there is a difference.
And in the broader sense, I am not convinced that we should outlaw the "preacing" of ideas that could be harmful to its followers. I know there is a limit to what can be said, but I am just not sure where the line is.
You keep mentioning the word "libertarian". I have a rough idea of what this means but just for the record: I am not so sure the label fits me.
ps. I am not at all sure what jogvanth is trying to do with his comments. He seems to be trying to bait you, but I can't tell when he is sarcastic and when he believes in what he is writing.
Torellion wrote:
@Vuzman: These treatments aren't harmful. But not seeking other treatment from "real medical science" is. I believe there is a difference.
Of course. And if it was just harmless folly, then I wouldn't care. But very often these treatments take the place of conventional (aka proven) medicine, and at that point it becomes harmful. The practitioners of alternative (aka unproven) medicine usually have a disdain for conventional medicine and advise against it; a judgment which they are almost never qualified to do.
I realize this is a thin line, but I believe this is a bigger issue than freedom of speech, thought, and belief. This has the potential to be fatally harmful, and there is a plethora of incidents where the potential has been realized, as my surface-scratch in my previous post showed.
Additionally, not all these treatments are harmless in itself. There are several forms of alternative medicine (chelation, chiropractic, etc.) that can be directly harmful, and even fatal, in itself.
And in the broader sense, I am not convinced that we should outlaw the "preacing" of ideas that could be harmful to its followers. I know there is a limit to what can be said, but I am just not sure where the line is.
I think the line should be at the point where it becomes harmful. I think this is self-evident, but of course now we have to determine what harmful means; in what way, to what degree.
I do think that in cases where people's health and lives are at stake, and science has shown that these treatments are, at best, impotent, there's a clear-cut case.
You keep mentioning the word "libertarian". I have a rough idea of what this means but just for the record: I am not so sure the label fits me.
I know, I'm also hesitant to label myself as such, and would never do so without reservation. The problem, as I see it, is that the word liberal has been hijacked by (several) political ideologies (actually the word libertarian was crafted because of this), and there's no word left that truly describes the philosophical ideology of personal freedom as I see it that isn't hijacked by a political ideology.
ps. I am not at all sure what jogvanth is trying to do with his comments. He seems to be trying to bait you, but I can't tell when he is sarcastic and when he believes in what he is writing.
I'm pretty sure he seriously means that. Sounds like him.
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
@Vuzman: I'm saying that YOU believe certain things should be illegal, because YOU are convinced that they defy all science, logic and common sense.
I'm very much against this. I believe people should be free to do and act as they want to, save when their actions directly and intentionally have serious posibility of causing other people harm. I'm saying this should be clear-cut cases of willfull harm or reckless endangerment e.g. shooting someone, breaking their legs, driving under the influence, stealing, incest, rape, forced malnourishment etc.
One of the first things you put into this discussion is saying that:
I don't understand why that quackery is still legal. I think treatments that defy all science, logic and common sense should be outlawed.
Here is the first difference between us. You want to base our laws on science, logic and common sense. I want them based on individual freedom. If someone disagrees with your logic or common sense, then they should be free to disagree, as long as they don't intentionally harm someone in the process.
A second quote from you that caught my eye is this one:
Of course, that would pretty much make prayer illegal...
And yes, I noticed the smiley, but that still tells me, that you think religion is not applicable to be legal in accordance with your perspective on science, logic and common sense. I think the majority of the population on this planet will disagree with you. Maybe in a generation or four, Europe and maybe America are ready for this, but not yet. While you certainly despice religion and all it stands for, then you must agree with me, that people must be free to believe in whatever they choose to believe in. Every nomination of every movement, be it religious or not, has its fanatics that give the rest a bad rep. There is sadly nothing we can do about this, except accept it, and punish those who willfully or through negligence cause harm to others.
Yes, I think defrauding people should be illegal. I think treating people's illnesses with mumbo-jumbo should be illegal. I think putting people's lives in peril by promoting junk science should be illegal.
Here you are again raging about those who won't conform to (your) scientific ideals. Yes, I agree in part. I believe that deliberately and by force withholding trained medical staff from helping/saving injured or dying persons should be viewed in much the same way as murder is. But if an individual refuses to receive medical treatment, then that is his or her choice. The line (in my opinion) is when someone refuses medical treatment on someone elses behalf.
Of course, fraud and health-fraud is illegal, but quackery such as homeopathy, reflexology, et al, continues to be tolerated, probably in part because it's hard to prove a negative, and in part because of their quasi-religious nature.
Here is where I think you go awry. Here you yourself state, that it is difficult to prove these things through science, and emphacise that they probably therefore are tolerated because of religious behaviour. Your disdain for all things religious shines from most everything you write. I think vegetarians, vegans and ecologists are just as fervent in their beliefs and 'how-it-should-be'-doctrines as any theological religion. And they are just as annoying in their recruitment campaigns.
You're right we can't criminalize stupidity. We can try to explain to the stupid people why what they're doing is wrong; but seeing as that is an exercise in futility, we need to criminalize stupidity that can be fatally harmful to other people (stupid or not).
How do you define stupidity? What does your definition incorporate? Do all religious people automatically fall under your definition and whom shall we empower to create this ultimate definition of criminalized stupidity?
Additionally, not all these treatments are harmless in itself. There are several forms of alternative medicine (chelation, chiropractic, etc.) that can be directly harmful, and even fatal, in itself.
Does this only apply for religious behaviour and alternate medical practisioners, or can any form of treatment and/or lifestyle fall under this definition? Vegans also force things on their children that can be directly harmful, and even fatal. Should veganism then also be banned? Or do you also categorize this news-article as meat-loving propaganda?
It's not because they didn't know any better. Any vegan you talk to is exceptionally well aware of how much vitamin this or protein that there are in the various vegan foods. This then should fall under blatant disregard for the childs safety and well-being, and therefore veganism should be banned. Or have I just misunderstood the entire debate?
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
I believe people should be free to do and act as they want to, save when their actions directly and intentionally have serious posibility of causing other people harm. I'm saying this should be clear-cut cases of willfull harm or reckless endangerment e.g. shooting someone, breaking their legs, driving under the influence, stealing, incest, rape, forced malnourishment etc.
Congratulations! You just repeated what I said. Only, you narrowed the things that should be illegal to those that cause grievous bodily harm; so I guess you think theft, fraud, harassment, and slavery are OK. Guess you should have given that a bit more thought, eh?
You want to base our laws on science, logic and common sense. I want them based on individual freedom. If someone disagrees with your logic or common sense, then they should be free to disagree, as long as they don't intentionally harm someone in the process.
Whatever you want to base them on, I'm sure you have some arguments for why you want it so. Arguments. Sounds like the very tools of logic to me. Ahh, I love the smell of irony in the morning.
And besides, you just repeated what I said.
And yes, I noticed the smiley, but that still tells me, that you think religion is not applicable to be legal bla bla. Bla bla blablabla
So let me get this straight. You noticed I was joking, but went ahead and ignored that and made up your own mind about what you think I meant. Or something. So basically, you're just going to ignore everything I say and just tell the world what YOU think I mean. Score 1 for personal freedom, eh?
The rest of that paragraph is a weird mixture of completely ignoring everything I said, and at the same time repeating it. It's like a new art form. Really bad art, but art nonetheless.
Here you are again raging about those who won't conform to (your) scientific ideals. Yes, I agree in part. I believe that deliberately and by force withholding trained medical staff from helping/saving injured or dying persons should be viewed in much the same way as murder is. But if an individual refuses to receive medical treatment, then that is his or her choice. The line (in my opinion) is when someone refuses medical treatment on someone elses behalf.
Again, you pretend like I didn't say that very same thing (though more eloquently), and then you repeat it in your own words. Magnificent!
How do you define stupidity?
Look in a mirror
Ha! I put in a smiley, can't get angry
Does this only apply for religious behaviour and alternate medical practisioners, or can any form of treatment and/or lifestyle fall under this definition? Vegans also force things on their children that can be directly harmful, and even fatal. Should veganism then also be banned? Or do you also categorize this news-article as meat-loving propaganda?
Well, I've never seen news stories on malnourished kids unless they were veg*an or religious (in a bad way, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, not in a good way, like yours), but I am sure that there are more incidents of mistreated and/or malnourished kids among "regular" people, so what do you think?
We've discussed this subject before, and frankly, your goldfish memory is getting tiresome. Both veg*ans and meat eaters, black and white people, religious and sane people () all do wrong things every once in a while, and it has nothing to do with what category YOU'd like to put them in. Come with some statistics that show that one particular group does it more than any other group, and then we have something to discuss. And then I would like to discuss it, instead of just giving it up as definitive proof that group X is wrong/evil/etc. Sound ok?
It's not because they didn't know any better. Any vegan you talk to is exceptionally well aware of how much vitamin this or protein that there are in the various vegan foods.
To be honest, I don't think you've met any vegans. I've met a lot, and they're actually not all as informed as you might think. They're actually pretty much like regular people; eating what's convenient and tasty. I do think, however, that when veg*ans become parents, they spend an extra effort to make sure that their baby is healthy. Just like most parents. There are rotten apples around, but pointing a single child out as an example of all around veg*an malice is, again, remarkably weak. Especially since I could go to a McDonald's and point out children all day long. Maybe that's why malnourished meat-eating kids don't make it to the news, eh?
I'm saying that YOU believe certain things should be illegal, because YOU are convinced that they defy all science, logic and common sense.
So... you're saying, I think YOU should be illegal? That doesn't make sense at all, but it's still the smartest thing you've said today.
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
Congratulations! You just repeated what I said. Only, you narrowed the things that should be illegal to those that cause grievous bodily harm; so I guess you think theft, fraud, harassment, and slavery are OK. Guess you should have given that a bit more thought, eh?
Ehm! Stealing was in my list that you wrote this comment to. I did however, fail to mention emmotional (that being phsycic) harm. My bad.
My point is, if laws are to be based upon scientific studies and the results thereoff, then I believe the freedom of the individual to be in great risk. I do not object so much to the logic and common sense issue, although logic and common sense vary a lot in the world, and therefore this will inevitably cause problems. Where did you say the same thing? I've not seen it. You've stated (amidst stating your 100% pro-personal freedom) that anything that can be scientifically, logically or through common sense deemed potentially dangerous to others should be made illegal. I disagree.
Arguments. Sounds like the very tools of logic to me
And look where that has gotten us. If we can't agree on the foundation on which laws should be (and not are) based on, then how can we agree on their function in society. I think we have a very different definition (or just the implementation) of the meaning of the words logic and science.
Again, you pretend like I didn't say that very same thing (though more eloquently), and then you repeat it in your own words. Magnificent!
[
Where did you say the excact same thing (though more eloquently)?
You have been talking about 'alternate medical practises'. I have not. I've simply stated, that I think people should be free to choose. Not be forced by law.
Well, I've never seen news stories on malnourished kids unless they were veg*an or religious (in a bad way, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, not in a good way, like yours), but I am sure that there are more incidents of mistreated and/or malnourished kids among "regular" people, so what do you think?
How is the story I linked to a good one? I linked to that story to illustrate my point, that ALL ideological movements and beliefs and so on, can result in something bad happening to someone. You immediately disregard and belittle it, by pointing fingers at 'normal' children and them eating at McDonald's. Your finger pointing and namecalling look childish to me. You don't write answers to my posts. You belittle and ridicule them, demanding scientific tablets of hard data, or my arguments and reasoning are thrown away or ignored. If this is the way you would like to see our society governed, then I greatly fear for our freedom.
You been in school (both lingual and theoretical) for quite some years more than I have. It is only natural that your vocabulary is more refined and atuned to scientific jargon than mine is.
Both veg*ans and meat eaters, black and white people, religious and sane people () all do wrong things every once in a while, and it has nothing to do with what category YOU'd like to put them in. Come with some statistics that show that one particular group does it more than any other group, and then we have something to discuss. And then I would like to discuss it, instead of just giving it up as definitive proof that group X is wrong/evil/etc. Sound ok?
That is my point. I don't need any proof or statistics. You apparently require it. If you can't provide me with statistics and graphs that show that homeopathy, reflexology, et al are consistently harmful, then you have no grounds to warrant them being banned.
I am not arguing against any group of people or their freedom to be as they choose. I've not stated that I think any group of people are evil (except maybe murderers, rapists and such). Misguided and wrong perhaps, yes. But I'm not gonna work to outlaw their way of life because of it. I'd rather encourage it. Maybe I'm the one who's misguided and wrong. If I work to ban it, then how will I ever know?
To be honest, I don't think you've met any vegans. I've met a lot, and they're actually not all as informed as you might think. They're actually pretty much like regular people; eating what's convenient and tasty
Just like most people eating at McD's eat there because it's convenient and tasty. I'm not bashing vegans per se. I'm stating (once again) that any and all social ideologies contain some issues (be they by choice, misinformation or the lack thereoff) that can be potentially harmfull to others.
My point on this, is that it is wrong to try to ban some of them by law, unless any and all potentially dangerous entities, be they foods, treatments, ideas or activities be banned. We should only ban those who can be proven without any doubt to cause serious harm. Not potential harm, but actual harm.
If it's only potentially dangerous, then people should be free to try it, if they so choose. I can possibly stretch myself to allowing 'Warning' stickers or something of the likes, but to ban anything because someone, somewhere has gotten hurt by it, while thousands or millions have tried it without any harm is wrong and should never be allowed. That is to me like saying, that because some idiot caused a car-crash and killed someone, then all vehicles are promptly banned.
It is not right to punish the many, for the sins of the one.
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
):
