5 ms·

>> "Everyone should accept gays. Everyone should hate paedophiles. Marijuana is good, heroin is bad." Just looking at those issues it seems like there is one p

>> "Everyone should accept gays. Everyone should hate paedophiles. Marijuana is good, heroin is bad." Just looking at those issues it seems like there is one pretty clear moral stance to cover them all - as long as what you do does not have negative externalities go ahead and do it. Homosexuality does not have any negative impact on other people. Neither does marijuana. Pedophilia does. As does most heroin use (not all but a significant amount will lead to crime, burdening the health system etc.). Apply the moral rule above and you should only get restrictions on things that are going to negatively effect society. The problem is when you start to apply your own morals to society (religious beliefs for example). Then you start restricting behaviours which have no actual impact on your life.

lobotryas 10y ago
I'm worried you're missing the forest for the trees. As I see it, the over-arching point is not about individual issue, but the danger of debating them or, in some circles, daring to voice a dissenting opinion. What if someone disagreed with you on one of the issues you bring up? I'd like to think that here, on HN, the two of you would have an interesting discussion and, at worst, part ways agreeing to disagree. In other parts of life or the internet that other person (or you) may not be so lucky.
- gaur 10y ago
  > What if someone disagreed with you on one of the issues you bring up? What if someone disagreed with the assertion that Jews or Black people should be societally accepted? Would you really just say "Kudos to you for daring to voice a dissenting opinion!" and relish the opportunity to have an "interesting discussion" about it? Some opinions are just dumb and/or hateful and do not need to be politely debated online at every opportunity. It doesn't mean they should be censored, but it doesn't mean they should be treated with respect either.
  - k-mcgrady 10y ago
    I was in the middle of writing a similar comment to OP but I think his point was that on HN, even if someone has a reprehensible view, like those you've outlined, we will debate (or ignore), we may get angry, but we will not harass them or dox them or do anything stupid. We will not set a mob of Twitter followers on them. We will debate or ignore and move on. And I suppose it's good that someone with one of those views feels comfortable enough to voice it here as we are given the opportunity to change their mind through rational discussion. On Twitter they'll either be too scared to discuss it (no opportunity for us to change their opinion) or they'll bring it up, face the mob, and likely their belief will become hardened.
    - gaur 10y ago
      Agreed—doxxing or otherwise harassing someone just for posting a certain opinion is extremely illiberal.
  - Mendenhall 10y ago
    I think its even more important to treat them with respect. I understand how frustrating it can be and the urge to say "you idiot" but I find it counter productive. I think its best to let the light shine on that sort of ignorance, even if I am group "x". I want the contrast of cool calm and rational against the heated ignorance.
  - ams6110 10y ago
    What if said person is a young person who had been raised to believe this? Not really his fault, right? And perhaps a civil discussion with others who disagree might lead him to a personal re-evaluation of his beliefs. A response of "you are dumb and hateful" is not likly to bring that about.
tomp 10y ago
You're probably mistaking pedophilia with child molesters; the former is a sexual orientation, just like being a homosexual is - not something an individual can control; the latter is a crime, like rape.
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  I'm aware of the distinction, I was just using OP's terminology.I was talking about negative externalities to other people/society so hopefully it's clear what I meant. Thanks for the correction though.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    I think the OP meant exactly what they said. It's en vogue to hate people suffering that particular mental disorder because we're worried they might hurt someone.
    - ams6110 10y ago
      Are you saying a nonstandard sexual orientation is a mental disorder?
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        That particular one is generally classified as such. It's in the DSM. It can be quite destructive.
        tomp 10y ago
        So was homosexuality not too long ago.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Houshalter 10y ago
That's a great theory in principle, but your own comment reveals reality is more complicated. Pedophilia doesn't inherently hurt anyone by itself, and making it illegal doesn't make it go away. And most people do believe that homosexuality causes a net harm to society (probably falsely, but still.) Or that marijuana is a net harm, etc. And even if we establish what does and doesn't have externalities, the idea that they should be legal isn't universally agreed on, obviously. I mean heroin addiction causes a lot of harm and is probably a net negative utility to users. Even if it's voluntary, the world would probably be better off without it.
Taek 10y ago
Heroin can be used responsibly. Marijuana can derail lives. Areas where child porn is legal tend to have reduced rates of child abuse. The world is not black and white, and you may even find cases where legalized abuse and harm are beneficial to a society, or where it is discovered that something like responsible pedophilia could exist. We don't know, but if we ban everything we personally dislike or disagree with on a global scale, we never will find out.
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  >> "Heroin can be used responsibly. Marijuana can derail lives." My view here would be both should be legal. Any of the negative effects to society of heroin use will already be covered under current law (theft for example). You can derail your own life if you want, as long as it doesn't effect society at large. >> "Areas where child porn is legal tend to have reduced rates of child abuse." You're forgetting that children were abused to create that content in the first place. And even if no more was ever created the physiological damage to the persons who know pictures of them are out there is undeniable. >> "if we ban everything we personally dislike or disagree with on a global scale, we never will find out." I think that was my point. We should not restrict things based on our personal morals. If it causes harm to society restrict it. If not, even if you disagree with it, allow it.
  - tomp 10y ago
    > You're forgetting that children were abused to create that content in the first place Not necessarily. We could easily use technology to create virtual child porn, where older actors have their appearance digitally changed (like Avatar). Unfortunately, even that's illegal, for no good reason.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

lobotryas 10y ago

I'm worried you're missing the forest for the trees. As I see it, the over-arching point is not about individual issue, but the danger of debating them or, in some circles, daring to voice a dissenting opinion. What if someone disagreed with you on one of the issues you bring up? I'd like to think that here, on HN, the two of you would have an interesting discussion and, at worst, part ways agreeing to disagree. In other parts of life or the internet that other person (or you) may not be so lucky.

gaur 10y ago
> What if someone disagreed with you on one of the issues you bring up? What if someone disagreed with the assertion that Jews or Black people should be societally accepted? Would you really just say "Kudos to you for daring to voice a dissenting opinion!" and relish the opportunity to have an "interesting discussion" about it? Some opinions are just dumb and/or hateful and do not need to be politely debated online at every opportunity. It doesn't mean they should be censored, but it doesn't mean they should be treated with respect either.
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  I was in the middle of writing a similar comment to OP but I think his point was that on HN, even if someone has a reprehensible view, like those you've outlined, we will debate (or ignore), we may get angry, but we will not harass them or dox them or do anything stupid. We will not set a mob of Twitter followers on them. We will debate or ignore and move on. And I suppose it's good that someone with one of those views feels comfortable enough to voice it here as we are given the opportunity to change their mind through rational discussion. On Twitter they'll either be too scared to discuss it (no opportunity for us to change their opinion) or they'll bring it up, face the mob, and likely their belief will become hardened.
  - gaur 10y ago
    Agreed—doxxing or otherwise harassing someone just for posting a certain opinion is extremely illiberal.
- Mendenhall 10y ago
  I think its even more important to treat them with respect. I understand how frustrating it can be and the urge to say "you idiot" but I find it counter productive. I think its best to let the light shine on that sort of ignorance, even if I am group "x". I want the contrast of cool calm and rational against the heated ignorance.
- ams6110 10y ago
  What if said person is a young person who had been raised to believe this? Not really his fault, right? And perhaps a civil discussion with others who disagree might lead him to a personal re-evaluation of his beliefs. A response of "you are dumb and hateful" is not likly to bring that about.

tomp 10y ago

You're probably mistaking pedophilia with child molesters; the former is a sexual orientation, just like being a homosexual is - not something an individual can control; the latter is a crime, like rape.

k-mcgrady 10y ago
I'm aware of the distinction, I was just using OP's terminology.I was talking about negative externalities to other people/society so hopefully it's clear what I meant. Thanks for the correction though.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  I think the OP meant exactly what they said. It's en vogue to hate people suffering that particular mental disorder because we're worried they might hurt someone.
  - ams6110 10y ago
    Are you saying a nonstandard sexual orientation is a mental disorder?
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      That particular one is generally classified as such. It's in the DSM. It can be quite destructive.
      - tomp 10y ago
        So was homosexuality not too long ago.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Houshalter 10y ago

That's a great theory in principle, but your own comment reveals reality is more complicated. Pedophilia doesn't inherently hurt anyone by itself, and making it illegal doesn't make it go away. And most people do believe that homosexuality causes a net harm to society (probably falsely, but still.) Or that marijuana is a net harm, etc. And even if we establish what does and doesn't have externalities, the idea that they should be legal isn't universally agreed on, obviously. I mean heroin addiction causes a lot of harm and is probably a net negative utility to users. Even if it's voluntary, the world would probably be better off without it.

Taek 10y ago

Heroin can be used responsibly. Marijuana can derail lives. Areas where child porn is legal tend to have reduced rates of child abuse. The world is not black and white, and you may even find cases where legalized abuse and harm are beneficial to a society, or where it is discovered that something like responsible pedophilia could exist. We don't know, but if we ban everything we personally dislike or disagree with on a global scale, we never will find out.

k-mcgrady 10y ago
>> "Heroin can be used responsibly. Marijuana can derail lives." My view here would be both should be legal. Any of the negative effects to society of heroin use will already be covered under current law (theft for example). You can derail your own life if you want, as long as it doesn't effect society at large. >> "Areas where child porn is legal tend to have reduced rates of child abuse." You're forgetting that children were abused to create that content in the first place. And even if no more was ever created the physiological damage to the persons who know pictures of them are out there is undeniable. >> "if we ban everything we personally dislike or disagree with on a global scale, we never will find out." I think that was my point. We should not restrict things based on our personal morals. If it causes harm to society restrict it. If not, even if you disagree with it, allow it.
- tomp 10y ago
  > You're forgetting that children were abused to create that content in the first place Not necessarily. We could easily use technology to create virtual child porn, where older actors have their appearance digitally changed (like Avatar). Unfortunately, even that's illegal, for no good reason.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]