Tue, Sep. 8th, 2009, 02:40 am
WTF of the day
about a man living in the midst of tel-aviv, who has (at least) 32 wives and 89 children and the authorities are unable to do anything about it.
Thu, Sep. 10th, 2009 03:40 pm (UTC)
2. You're clutching at straws here. Planes are not buses. They aren't even subways. Nor is this important to your thesis.
3. That every individual be free to do anything he wishes as long as his actions do not harm other individuals.
3.5 Hmmm... so, a dissident is not a member of a society?
4. As low as possible.
Thu, Sep. 10th, 2009 04:11 pm (UTC)
2. Explain the theoretical difference and provide arguments for it.
3. Define "harm."
3.5. Refine definition from "impose certain rules" to "impose certain rules or at least make a bona fide attempt to impose them"
4. Yes that is clear, but I'm interested in the actual value of "low".
Thu, Sep. 10th, 2009 05:17 pm (UTC)
2. The aim of most publicly provided transportation is to assist in work-related commute. Unless enough of the population uses a plane to commute the plane is not a social necessity.
3.5 Your problem is not with "attempt", it's with "agree".
4. Circumstantial. In the case under discussion (sex and reproduction) should be 0.
Thu, Sep. 10th, 2009 05:44 pm (UTC)
2. It happens more frequently than you think, especially in USA. google "extreme commuting" and you'll find more than enough examples of people using a plane to get to work each week.
3. bad definition because, for example, restricting sex between adult, sane and consenting members of the same family will not (presumably) harm them physically or mentally.
3.5. The agreement is with being a member of a society, not necessarily with all the rules imposed.
Thu, Sep. 10th, 2009 06:21 pm (UTC)
2. Let's get back to the classical variation of this line of argument and try to decide how many rocks make up a pile.
3. Restricting sex between two consenting and desiring adults will not harm them mentally? Really?
3.5 Can I have the full definition again, please, with the corrections included?
Thu, Sep. 10th, 2009 06:34 pm (UTC)
2. And yet people who want guns in airplanes even though they may be an empty group are important enough. What is bad about this one? And yeah, really, it's a much bigger group
than the former.
3. There are a lot of people whom i probably would want to have sex with, but for various reasons can't or couldn't or won't ever have sex with, for various reasons. Somehow I didn't notice significant mental harm because of that. You will have to explain how and why those people would be hurt.
3.5. Let's try "any group of people whose members agree they belong to the group and that imposes, or at least attempts to impose some kind of a ruleset on its members."
Thu, Sep. 10th, 2009 06:42 pm (UTC)
2. I answered this one yesterday. A restriction of freedom is always for everyone.
3. The fact that you are not harmed does not mean anyone else wouldn't be. For all I know you have been permanently scarred by Stallone's lack of interest and are concealing it. Generally, people prevented from consummating love and/or desire with consenting partners do suffer because of it. Romeo and Juliet, anyone?
3.5 Nice. Still relies on voluntary membership, and still not worth protecting in itself, but much nicer.
Thu, Sep. 10th, 2009 06:52 pm (UTC)
2. Please explain why do you claim why planes aren't public transportation to the same level as trains and buses?
3. For all I know I'm much more likely to be mentally hurt by having to fill a tax declaration. Shouldn't tax declarations be abolished since people might get mentally hurt?
Thu, Sep. 10th, 2009 07:30 pm (UTC)
2. I have.
3. In general people tend to suffer more from being denied their beloved than from filling out tax declarations. However, if filling out a tax declaration hurts you - don't do it. Pay someone else to do it.
Thu, Sep. 10th, 2009 07:38 pm (UTC)
2. You claimed, in an earlier comment that:
"The aim of most publicly provided transportation is to assist in work-related commute. Unless enough of the population uses a plane to commute the plane is not a social necessity"
And I believe I have showed you wrong on this one. Please try again.
3. In general, people don't tend to believe they need their gun in an aircraft. But we aren't speaking of generalizations here. As you said: "A restriction of freedom is always for everyone." So yeah. And let's assume that paying someone to do it would mentally hurt some people even more. Now why should there be tax declarations if they might mentally hurt people?
Thu, Sep. 10th, 2009 08:05 pm (UTC)
2. No, you did not. You brought up a minor isolated case. I suggested establishing quantitative guidelines. You ignored the suggestion.
3. Let's assume that pigs can fly and leave it at that. There is no substitute for a person one loves. There are plenty of substitutes for filling out tax declarations. Comparing the two is absurd. If you are having trouble seeing the absurdity please try again.
Thu, Sep. 10th, 2009 08:26 pm (UTC)
2. Extreme commuting is not a minor isolated case, but rather a significant phenomenon. And I fail to see what quantitative guidelines you established.
3.I do see the difference, but if you claim the government shouldn't intervene in people's affairs if it may harm them, I can interpret this quite liberally and I don't see anything that prevents me from doing so.
Thu, Sep. 10th, 2009 10:15 pm (UTC)
2-3. An innate sense of absurdity should, in theory, prevent you from making both mistakes. I dislike pointless absurdity.
Thu, Sep. 10th, 2009 10:54 pm (UTC)
An innate sense of absurdity should, in theory, make one realize that "freedom to take a gun into a plane (as long as you don't use it)" is as pointlessly absurd as anything can be.
(In other words: if you don't agree with me on what I think is common sense, I won't agree with you either. Why should I?).
Fri, Sep. 11th, 2009 03:59 am (UTC)
No need. Especially since I've already ruled out common sense as a way of argumentation. However, since you're not arguing in any other way we'll stop right here. Good night :)
Thu, Sep. 10th, 2009 08:32 pm (UTC)
On the other hand what about the liberty of, pardon me, shitting in the middle of a street. I wouldn't be directly hurting anyone if I did; nevertheless I'd probably be arrested for that if I tried. I wonder why.
Thu, Sep. 10th, 2009 10:16 pm (UTC)
You are arguing law again. Personally, I see no reason why anyone shouldn't be able to shit in the middle of the street as long as they do not interfere with traffic (which is pretty difficult) and leave no stain (which is reasonably simple).
Thu, Sep. 10th, 2009 11:02 pm (UTC)
Fine. Suppose you have your ideal government. and suppose that, for some reason, some people really don't like it. So they go and protest before the parliament or whatever equivalent you have there. And they protest by shitting before it. Is that acceptable?
Fri, Sep. 11th, 2009 04:00 am (UTC)
Like I said - good night.