Is refusal to support something you wouldn't do yourself a good philosophy?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It was part of the thing that made me oppose the death penalty, I figured it'd be hypocritical to support something when I'd never be willing to be an executioner myself. I think it kind of applies as a good philosophy for the most part.

[patrick1]

This is flawed on a # of levels.  However, just curious if by extension: Were you qualified would you perform abortions?

[dead0man]

No, it's a pretty dumb philosophy.  There are a lot of things I support that I wouldn't do myself.  I wouldn't want to be a nurse, but I support nursing.  I wouldn't want to use a prostitute, but I support prostitution.  I don't want to go to the opera, but I'm cool with other people going (as long as it's not subsidized by the govt).  I'm not going to go handgliding anytime soon, but I support it's legality.  I don't want to be a warden or a guard, but I support prisons.

[Gustaf]

I think this explains exactly what is wrong with BRTD'd political views in general.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, it's a pretty dumb philosophy.  There are a lot of things I support that I wouldn't do myself.  I wouldn't want to be a nurse, but I support nursing.  I wouldn't want to use a prostitute, but I support prostitution.  I don't want to go to the opera, but I'm cool with other people going (as long as it's not subsidized by the govt).  I'm not going to go handgliding anytime soon, but I support it's legality.  I don't want to be a warden or a guard, but I support prisons.

I'm talking more about having the state carry something out than merely have it be legal. So based on your bit about opera you basically kind of agree with me.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Absolutely not. I think philosophy is precisely trying to go beyond one's individuality and set rules that are better for everybody.

[patrick1]

I think this explains exactly what is wrong with BRTD'd political views in general.

Yeah, it is been pretty obvious from the start that the foundation of BRTD's views are narcissism. Perhaps he is becoming self aware to this.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think this explains exactly what is wrong with BRTD'd political views in general.

Yeah, it is been pretty obvious from the start that the foundation of BRTD's views are narcissism. Perhaps he is becoming self aware to this.

Howso? As stated above I'm not talking about legality but what the state is doing. It's hypocritical for me to promote the state doing something I wouldn't do myself. If I'm not willing to execute people, I'm not going to ask anyone else to do it. It's not hypocritical to say that people can go to the opera even if I don't want to on the other hand.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think this explains exactly what is wrong with BRTD'd political views in general.

Yeah, it is been pretty obvious from the start that the foundation of BRTD's views are narcissism. Perhaps he is becoming self aware to this.

Howso? As stated above I'm not talking about legality but what the state is doing. It's hypocritical for me to promote the state doing something I wouldn't do myself. If I'm not willing to execute people, I'm not going to ask anyone else to do it. It's not hypocritical to say that people can go to the opera even if I don't want to on the other hand.

...but despite that, you are still right. Especially the part about becoming self aware to this.

[Gustaf]

I think this explains exactly what is wrong with BRTD'd political views in general.

Yeah, it is been pretty obvious from the start that the foundation of BRTD's views are narcissism. Perhaps he is becoming self aware to this.

Howso? As stated above I'm not talking about legality but what the state is doing. It's hypocritical for me to promote the state doing something I wouldn't do myself. If I'm not willing to execute people, I'm not going to ask anyone else to do it. It's not hypocritical to say that people can go to the opera even if I don't want to on the other hand.

So...since I would never want to be a doctor or nurse (I don't like blood and stuff) I have to advocate abolishing state-funding of hospitals?

And I think Deadoman's point is highly relevant since you do seem to argue from this exact perspective on issues of legality - you don't smoke, so you want to illegalize that but you like prostitutions so you want to legalize that. It's a pretty dumb way to construct political opinions, imo.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I see a difference between something you find merely not to your liking and would have moral issues and issues of conscience over.

When have I ever said I support illegalizing smoking?

[Gustaf]

I see a difference between something you find merely not to your liking and would have moral issues and issues of conscience over.

When have I ever said I support illegalizing smoking?

I could have sworn you did, but if not I suppose I was mistaken. My apologies in that case.

But, ok, I would have moral issues with being a public defence attorney. Especially for, say, rapists or murderers. Must it then follow that I think these people should be denied legal representation?

Besides, my aversion to being a doctor is partly about the fact that I don't want to have to make those kind of moral calls about peoples' lives. Which is an issue of conscience.

[Gustaf]

It appears that this Hamilton sock was not banned after all.

Thanks for bumping this.

BRTD, I live in Colorado and we can still smoke in bars in the same way that strippers give you hand jobs. The law is rarely enforced and many places have found ways to circumvent the ban. Of course Boulder has its own fascistic public smoking restrictions but that is a whole nother story. Stop being a know-it-all.

Anyways I've been meaning to ask how you feel about cigarette stores. So do tell.

Wow Hamas does something right for once. They need to ban men from it as well though.

I think it's pretty cool how smoking marijuana in bars in San Francisco is very tolerated when smoking tobacco in them is banned and not tolerated.

Liberal places BY FAR.  Firstly I will say that judging a place on its politics is one of the most moronic things I've ever heard of.  Also I find that the places that tend to be conservative tend to be exclusively and militantly conservative.  It's more of a cultural thing while in liberal places it tends to be simply inclusiveness.  Conservative areas are usually rural and in many cases hot-beds for insanity.  Liberal areas are also hot-beds for insanity, but also many, many other lifestyles.  They are far more populated and diverse.  Remember that Manhattan has the highest density of Republicans in the country.  Any kind of person can live in a liberal area, but only very specific people are welcome in many conservative areas.  I'm speaking apolitically of these areas remember, not based on their political leanings, just a general correlation between what types of places attract certain people and certain politics.  Ideally politics would be irrelevant in a place I live as they only serve to divide people.  Thankfully most places I would even consider living in are diverse enough that considering politics shouldn't be an issue.

What about people who want to exercise the social and economic freedoms that "liberal" areas deprive their citizens of?

"Liberal" states like New York, California, and Illinois have among the most burdensome restrictions on individual rights and freedoms.

Um no, such places have far more freedom in alcohol sales than conservative dry counties or places that ban or heavily restrict strip clubs not to mention they have pretty lax marijuana laws. The "freedom" they lack is only in public smoking, which I find disgusting and don't do, so I'm perfectly fine with public smoking being banned.

I emphasized the last one which is the best for highlighting my exact point.

 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes, PUBLIC smoking.

[Gustaf]

Yes, PUBLIC smoking.

Yeah, that's not really a major point. You are clearly fine with public smoking of marijuana because you smoke it yourself. Or the public consumption of alcohol, I assume.

[Torie]

Yes, PUBLIC smoking.

Yeah, that's not really a major point. You are clearly fine with public smoking of marijuana because you smoke it yourself. Or the public consumption of alcohol, I assume.

I assume BRTD would refer to studies evidencing the negative health effects of second hand tobacco smoke as opposed to cannabis smoke. And I am pretty sure that there is no study indicating that breaking [breathing] alcohol fumes from someone's booze container is to be avoided.

Yes, BRTD tends to be considerably more aggressive than I in banning that which he finds aesthetically distasteful or otherwise, but I don't consider him as rising to the level of being a narcissist about it. Now Opebo on the other hand ...  

Oh, my answer to the poll is "no."  That didn't take long to decide.

[Gustaf]

Yes, PUBLIC smoking.

Yeah, that's not really a major point. You are clearly fine with public smoking of marijuana because you smoke it yourself. Or the public consumption of alcohol, I assume.

I assume BRTD would refer to studies evidencing the negative health effects of second hand tobacco smoke as opposed to cannabis smoke. And I am pretty sure that there is no study indicating that breaking alcohol fumes from someone's booze container is to be avoided.

Yes, BRTD tends to be considerably more aggressive than I in banning that which he finds aesthetically distasteful or otherwise, but I don't consider him as rising to the level of being a narcissist about it. Now Opebo on the other hand ...  

Oh, my answer to the poll is "no."  That didn't take long to decide.

Of course, but the fumes isn't the only thing that matters. Just the other day I found that the hallway to my building was plagued by the unbearable stench of vomit. Anyway, my point wasn't really to argue the specific merits of banning the public consumption of one or the other substance, but rather that he says himself that the reason he is fine with public smoking being banned is precisely that he doesn't do it himself (as evidenced by the quote below that I posted).

The interesting thing is of course the opposite position - I have a friend who likes to smoke pot but who also thinks it should be illegal.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The interesting thing is of course the opposite position - I have a friend who likes to smoke pot but who also thinks it should be illegal.

Interesting, but not at all unusual.  Some addicts know that they should stop, but feel the need to have someone else make them stop.  Perhaps that explains what happened with SvenssonRS yesterday.

[Gustaf]

The interesting thing is of course the opposite position - I have a friend who likes to smoke pot but who also thinks it should be illegal.

Interesting, but not at all unusual.  Some addicts know that they should stop, but feel the need to have someone else make them stop.  Perhaps that explains what happened with SvenssonRS yesterday.

Oh, but he isn't addicted. Nor does he want to stop. If either of those were the case I would agree with you.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So he either thinks legalization will ruin the quality or gets a thrill out of the illegality.

Gustaf I am not a stoner. I only use marijuana if I'm at a party and it's being passed around or whatever. I wouldn't mind banning public use if legal (as in in bars and whatever.) Public alcohol consumption is fine, it doesn't hurt anyone, drunk driving or being a drunken asshole can just as easily happen if you're drinking the alcohol indoors and then leave. Not to mention it's legal in most places (though I remember Lewis saying it was apparently illegal in Sweden like most of the US, though it's not illegal everywhere in the US and often isn't enforced in some places.)

[Gustaf]

So he either thinks legalization will ruin the quality or gets a thrill out of the illegality.

Gustaf I am not a stoner. I only use marijuana if I'm at a party and it's being passed around or whatever. I wouldn't mind banning public use if legal (as in in bars and whatever.) Public alcohol consumption is fine, it doesn't hurt anyone, drunk driving or being a drunken asshole can just as easily happen if you're drinking the alcohol indoors and then leave. Not to mention it's legal in most places (though I remember Lewis saying it was apparently illegal in Sweden like most of the US, though it's not illegal everywhere in the US and often isn't enforced in some places.)

No, no, it isn't about the thrill either. It's rather that he thinks society is better off having it illegal but he still thinks it is fine for himself. Or something along those lines.

Anyway, I'm not accusing you of being a stoner. That isn't the point. It still appears as if you're fine banning stuff you don't like but oppose banning stuff that you like. Hence, why you're so libertarian when it comes to prostitution and alcohol and yet authoritarian when it comes to tobacco (or, say, private schools). I think it's a bad way to construct policy, personally.

(And of course, the ban on public drinking isn't enforced here either. It serves a simple purpose, namely to let the police legally take care of people who should be taken care of but can't be proven to have done anything illegal yet).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Aren't most people like that? I'd be more people who don't smoke tobacco are in favor of marijuana legalization than those that do, considering how conservative tobacco smokers tend to be.

[Gustaf]

Aren't most people like that? I'd be more people who don't smoke tobacco are in favor of marijuana legalization than those that do, considering how conservative tobacco smokers tend to be.

The point isn't whether a lot of people are, but whether they should. Of course a lot of people are bigoted and egoistical, that's hardly new, I'm merely saying that one's own prejudices and tastes isn't a good foundation for constructing public policy.