The logic of this, basically, libertarian post quickly becomes absurd when taken even a step further. Sometimes, when the thing we dislike is sufficiently bad, public policy needs to ban it.
Programs: AF Gold, BA EC Blue, LH FTL, HH Gold, A|Club Silver
Posts: 4,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckDuckSwan
Don't like rape? Don't commit one.
The logic of this, basically, libertarian post quickly becomes absurd when taken even a step further. Sometimes, when the thing we dislike is sufficiently bad, public policy needs to ban it.
I think that logic is a little off base. All of Spiff's listed activities were personal choices to do or not to do. To be raped is not a personal choice, and committing a rape is a violent crime against another person.
Europe has much more lax views on sex, porn, prostitution, and in some case drugs. The overall impact of these choices is that those who want to use the services of a prostitute will use them, in a regulated and somewhat safer context. When it is outlawed, the underground or black market will thrive, and be more likely to engage in human slavery or indentured servitude instead of people doing it voluntarily.
Besides, who is the approval authority on what is moral or not moral? The religious right, Pat Robertson, the Taliban? Or is it the American people?
The logic of this, basically, libertarian post quickly becomes absurd when taken even a step further. Sometimes, when the thing we dislike is sufficiently bad, public policy needs to ban it.
Rape involves another. None of the listed acts do.
The logic of this, basically, libertarian post quickly becomes absurd when taken even a step further. Sometimes, when the thing we dislike is sufficiently bad, public policy needs to ban it.
This sort of extremist reasoning is the result of more problems than an in-hotel porn channel could ever produce. Really amazing.
Rape involves another. None of the listed acts do.
I respectfully disagree.
- Today, especially in developing countries, literally thousands of women are forced into the production of pornography. Even in the United States and Europe, reports of forced involvement in pornography are rampant. Additionally, marriages and relationships break up rather frequently because of the very real problem of pornography addiction. So yes, the first of the listed acts involve others.
- In many regions of the United States, upwards of 85% of property crime is directly attributable to usage and production of meth. Last year alone, the property of millions of Americans was burglarized because meth addicts sought goods to sell for their next hit. Furthermore, especially in urban areas, many babies are born with high levels of crack cocaine in their systems. This oftentimes causes permanent disability and learning challenges. So yes, the second of the listed acts involve others.
- Thousands of Americans are killed accidentally every year because of guns. Even when not used in the commission of crime, guns are intrinsically dangerous. So yes, the third of the listen acts involve others.
- My opinion aside, a very sizeable chunk of the American population thinks that fetuses, insofar as they are alive, are distinct individuals. These people would conclude that yes, the fourth of the listen acts involve others.
Last edited by DuckDuckSwan; Aug 29, 06 at 2:34 pm.
This sort of extremist reasoning is the result of more problems than an in-hotel porn channel could ever produce. Really amazing.
First let me note that I am not opposed, either morally or pragmatically, to pornography.
As a professor of law and sociology, I welcome constructive dialogue as I believe that it furthers our understanding of the human condition. With that, I would like to read explained, justified analysis and not blanket, warrantless condemnation.
I think you mean, "This sort of extremist reasoning is the CAUSE" of problems. How? Why? Would you be so kind as to explain clearly your position?
Would you also explain how my initial post is "extremist?" Laws are derived from generally accepted social norms. Society doesn't much care for the idea of widespread armed robbery...so we ban it. Society doesn't much care for the idea of FGM... so we ban it. Society doesn't much care for the idea of rape...so we ban it.
Spiff's morally libertarian post, while commonplace, quickly becomes unwieldy. Without violating any implied brightline, my initial post, with similar structure, showed this unworkability. Indeed my initial post was blunt...as it was intended to be. Obviously, the intention wasn't to prove the acceptability of rape; rather, it was to show the unacceptability of a fully hands-off moral paradigm.
I do honestly hope that you will continue this dialogue. I would only ask that you dedicate additional efforts to explain your argument.
The logic of this, basically, libertarian post quickly becomes absurd when taken even a step further. Sometimes, when the thing we dislike is sufficiently bad, public policy needs to ban it.
Wow! Even Philosophy 101 students don't make this kind of logical fallacy.
DDS, You're conflating sovereign acts with coercive ones. You insult your own capacity for elementary reasoning by asserting such a proposition.
By the way, the justification of absurdity predicated on one's political party registration doesn't wash either. Logical fallacies transcend politics. But you knew that ...
__________________
I haven't lost my mind......I sold it on eBay!!
Wow! Even Philosophy 101 students don't make this kind of logical fallacy.
DDS, You're conflating sovereign acts with coercive ones. You insult your own capacity for elementary reasoning by asserting such a proposition.
By the way, the justification of absurdity predicated on one's political party registration doesn't wash either. Logical fallacies transcend politics. But you knew that ...
My initial post was a very basic reductio ad absurdum and contains no specific fallacy. The distinction between sovereign and coercive acts is at best an artificial one and is widely rejected by most political theorists. (Feel free to call the second clause of the last sentence a blatant appeal to authority...it is.) I'd appreciate it if you could explain both why this distinction is a valid one and if it is, why my example, specifically, falls victim to it.
Please note that in my initial post I refrain from capitalizing "libertarian." Just as "republican" and "Republican" (and "democratic" and "Democratic") mean different things, so does "libertarian" and "Libertarian." I very intentionally sought to avoid making this a partisan issue.
On a personal level, I'd ask that you refrain from ad hominem language. There is no productive value in saying- especially without ample explanation- that I insult my own capacity for elementary reasoning. Engage the argument...not the person making the argument. I'd appreciate the respect.
Programs: AF Gold, BA EC Blue, LH FTL, HH Gold, A|Club Silver
Posts: 4,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckDuckSwan
I respectfully disagree.
- Today, especially in developing countries, literally thousands of women are forced into the production of pornography. Even in the United States and Europe, reports of forced involvement in pornography are rampant. Additionally, marriages and relationships break up rather frequently because of the very real problem of pornography addiction. So yes, the first of the listed acts involve others.
- In many regions of the United States, upwards of 85% of property crime is directly attributable to usage and production of meth. Last year alone, the property of millions of Americans was burglarized because meth addicts sought goods to sell for their next hit. Furthermore, especially in urban areas, many babies are born with high levels of crack cocaine in their systems. This oftentimes causes permanent disability and learning challenges. So yes, the second of the listed acts involve others.
- Thousands of Americans are killed accidentally every year because of guns. Even when not used in the commission of crime, guns are intrinsically dangerous. So yes, the third of the listen acts involve others.
- My opinion aside, a very sizeable chunk of the American population thinks that fetuses, insofar as they are alive, are distinct individuals. These people would conclude that yes, the fourth of the listen acts involve others.
1. I absolutely condemn forced pornography, as well as violent images. But voluntary, tastefully done pornography is in my opinion fine. And, it is protected under Free Speech. My thoughts are that if adults wish to view legal pornography, that is their business. When we start to ban art, where does it end. I don't need others to tell me what is or isn't tasteful in art. If I don't like something, I won't look at it. For marriages that are broken up by porn addiction, that is usually an indicator of other problems that go far deeper than looking at porn. Outlawing porn will just drive it underground and people will still continue to pursue it.
2. Drugs. No real argument, but what is going to keep other drugs off the hit list, such as alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, non prescription medications. Anything can be abused. I drink alcohol responsibly, and I'll be damned if someone is going to outlaw it. It's another reason I'm glad I don't live in Saudi or Pakistan.
3. Guns. Accidental shootings do kill people. So do people who drive recklessly (among others). By that rational, cars should be outlawed, and buses, and trains. The problem with guns is stupid people who fail to follow basic common sense safety precautions, like locking it up around kids. My favorite line: "I was cleaning my gun, and it just went off" Hey pal, even if that were true, who cleans a weapon with the ammunition still inside it?
4. Abortions. A religious argument. I don't personally agree with abortions, but I do believe that the mother of the child should be allowed to choose what grows inside her body. If we start outlawing abortions, why should we allow people to do other dangerous elective surgeries? I can empathize with both sides on this issue, however.
Location: Between Caltech and JPL (very seldom in BNA now)
Programs: AAdvantage Pt, Delta Ag (demoted), Hyatt Pt (demoted), Marriott Au (demoted), BevMo Club Bev
Posts: 4,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by CO FF
That is the single biggest hassle with hotel TVs -- the automatic startup on the marketing channel. But not having Comedy Central is grounds for finding a new hotel.
My client gets too good a deal on the hotel for me to switch--it is their dime after all. I just need to lobby this particular Hyatt to make the change. They carry the Disney Channel and ABC Family for the kids/families, and the History Channel for the WWII buffs; I guess they don't get as much of the Comedy Central or Adult Swim demographic, which would be single males 18-35, I guess?
This kind of thing can always backfire. I.e., negative publicity becomes positive publicity, from the point of view of those who WANT X-rated movies when they stay in hotel rooms!
Kathy
Kathy, this begs the question, are you going to start a new thread, "Which Hotel has the best inroom porn?"
