4 ms·

> Smoking in public? Fracking? Are you saying that people who smoke openly state that they "should be free to profit regardless of harm to others"? Who said th

> Smoking in public? Fracking? Are you saying that people who smoke openly state that they "should be free to profit regardless of harm to others"? Who said that? Where? I already asked you to point to a single example to support this claim that certain people think this way, and you couldn't do that. That's because there's literally no people who think like that.

CRConrad 5y ago
The act of smoking is the statement. And so is your insistence on pretending not to understand that. Not a pretty one.
- baobabKoodaa 5y ago
  > The act of smoking is the statement. And so is your insistence on pretending not to understand that. Not a pretty one. You're the one pretending. There's a difference between these 2 things: 1) Taking actions (like smoking) that put others at some level of risk 2) Thinking that placing any level of harm onto others is justifiable as long as it's profitable You know very well there's a difference between those things, and yet you're pretending to not understand, while claiming that I'm "pretending not to understand". Or are you claiming that the average smoker cares so little about fellow humans that they'd be willing to push a person over a cliff ("any level of harm") in order to steal a half-empty beer can from them ("a profit")? Even if we assume a situation where they would be guaranteed to profit the half-empty beer can, I think it's safe to say almost no-one would think this level of harm would justify this level of profit. Yes, a smoker will put your life at risk by smoking near you. In related news, a driver will put your life at risk by driving near you. Doesn't mean that smokers or drivers will do literally any level of harm to humans in order to gain the tiniest of profit to themselves.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    > Doesn't mean that smokers or drivers will do literally any level of harm to humans in order to gain the tiniest of profit to themselves. For a guy who is very eager to accuse others of straw manning, you seem to be working very hard to invent things so that you can dismiss them.
    - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
      The original quote from you was "I should be free to do as I want, regardless of harm to others". That paints a picture of people as monsters. As you later acknowledged, people are not monsters. Everyone is willing to cause some harm/risk to others in order to gain something for themselves, but you would be hard pressed to find people who are willing to place extreme levels of harm/risk onto others in exchange for a tiny gain. I used an extreme example to demonstrate this very obvious point.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        > The original quote from you was "I should be free to do as I want, regardless of harm to others". That paints a picture of people as monsters. As you later acknowledged, people are not monsters. People may not be monsters, but quite a lot of them are just ordinary arseholes. You know, the kind of ordinary arsehole people who would thoughtlessly -- or, if they happened to come to think of it, wilfully -- do as they want, regardless of harm to others... As people so often do. Because, while they may not be monsters, many of them -- of us -- are certainly arseholes. One gets the feeling someone has just realised this, and is on a desparate quest to convince themselves they aren't actually an arsehole... By convincing everybody else that no such arseholes exist. This is doomed to fail, because everybody knows they do. > Everyone is willing to cause some harm/risk to others in order to gain something for themselves Yup. Which makes us all more or less arseholes, because "some" harm/risk to others still is harm/risk to others. And which was also all that was claimed to begin with -- there never was any original claim of "any level of harm"; that was always a windmill your fevered mind conjured up all on its own. So, how foolish do you feel now that it (and with it, your attempt at convincing yourself) has gone up in a puff of smoke?
        baobabKoodaa 5y ago
        >> Everyone is willing to cause some harm/risk to others in order to gain something for themselves > Yup. Which makes us all more or less arseholes, because "some" harm/risk to others still is harm/risk to others. And which was also all that was claimed to begin with This was not "all that was claimed to begin with" - in fact the opposite of such was claimed. The original claim paints a very clear picture of 2 groups as polar opposites in their regard for harming other humans. This is in stark contrast to my claim (which you conceded to above) that most of us are similar (not polar opposites) in regard to harm. For reference, here's that claim again: >> America has two radically different concepts of freedom that travel under the same name. Both start with "I should be free to do as I want". One ends with "as long as I don't harm others". The other ends with "regardless of harm to others". Continuing on: > One gets the feeling someone has just realised this, and is on a desparate quest to convince themselves they aren't actually an arsehole... By convincing everybody else that no such arseholes exist. This is doomed to fail, because everybody knows they do. Yeah no, I don't care about that. If you want to say "all of us are more or less aresholes", instead of saying "all of us are more or less empathetic", that's fine. Both of those statements are true. I'm also somewhat of an arsehole by risking other peoples' lives by actions such as driving a car, sure, fine. That's not the point. My point was: people are mostly similar in their relation to harm, as opposed to being polar opposites. You have already conceded to this, and now you're just trying to reframe the original argument as somehow meaning the same thing, when in fact it meant the opposite. > there never was any original claim of "any level of harm"; that was always a windmill your fevered mind conjured up all on its own. So, how foolish do you feel now that it (and with it, your attempt at convincing yourself) has gone up in a puff of smoke? I'm not sure what exactly you think has gone up in a puff of smoke. Definitions for well-established English words still exist, they haven't gone up in smoke. This includes the definition for the word "regardless", which doesn't change at your whim. For example, here's the Cambridge dictionary definition for it: "despite; not being affected by something". If my decision to do something is "not affected by harm/risk to others", then clearly the level of said harm has no bearing on my decision. Thus, the words "regardless of harm", and "regardless of any level of harm" mean the same thing. You're trying to make a big deal out of me using slightly different words in reference to the original claim, even though those words mean exactly the same thing. Furthermore, even if we don't get stuck on definitions of individual words, but instead look at the general sentiment expressed in the claim, it's very clear that the claim is painting these 2 groups as polar opposites, and I'm painting them as similar to each other (and you have already conceded that the groups are similar, in your message where you said that all of us are "more or less arseholes").
  - yibg 5y ago
    I really don’t understand your insistence here. Firstly the original claim isn’t “regardless of any level of harm”, and I’ve already given examples of profiting despite harm to others. Secondly even if you insist on an extreme level of harm there are still examples. We can use any of a number of dictators that are literally willing to kill millions to stay in power. Do they actually say out loud “I am willing to profit regardless of how much I harm others”? No, probably not. But actions speak louder than words here.
    - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
      > Firstly the original claim isn’t “regardless of any level of harm” Yes it is. Here is the full statement copypasted without modifications: > America has two radically different concepts of freedom that travel under the same name. Both start with "I should be free to do as I want". One ends with "as long as I don't harm others". The other ends with "regardless of harm to others". You were dealing with the latter. According to the original claim, there are two groups in America. One group (hint: democrats) can not justify any level of harm in exchange for their freedoms, while another group (hint: republicans) will justify any level of harm in exchange for their freedoms. The original claim paints these 2 groups as polar opposites, while in reality both groups are willing to accept various levels of harm in exchange for various levels of freedom. They merely disagree about some tradeoffs. > Secondly even if you insist on an extreme level of harm there are still examples. We can use any of a number of dictators that are literally willing to kill millions to stay in power. Sure, I accept this example. Yes, there are some rare individuals who truely are monsters and are willing to cause extreme levels of harm in exchange for their own personal benefit. I don't think half of America is like that, though.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        > > Firstly the original claim isn’t “regardless of any level of harm” > Yes it is. Here is the full statement copypasted without modifications: > > America has two radically different concepts of freedom that travel under the same name. Both start with "I should be free to do as I want". One ends with "as long as I don't harm others". The other ends with "regardless of harm to others". You were dealing with the latter. No it isn't. "Regardless of harm to others" is not the same as "regardless of any level of harm". Just bloody look at them: Is there any mention of levels in the first? No, there isn't. Now please do us all a favour and stop this -- we're all too excrutiatingly embarrassed on your behalf just from seeing you make such a spectacle of yourself.
yibg 5y ago
Of course people don’t say those words exactly. But pushing for the ability to smoke indoors for example is basically saying my right to smoke should trump your right to have smoke free air. Ditto for fracking. My ability to profit off the oil I get trumps your right to have clean environment. I don’t really understand how these can not be seen as “I should be free to profit regardless of harm to others.”

CRConrad 5y ago

The act of smoking is the statement. And so is your insistence on pretending not to understand that. Not a pretty one.

baobabKoodaa 5y ago
> The act of smoking is the statement. And so is your insistence on pretending not to understand that. Not a pretty one. You're the one pretending. There's a difference between these 2 things: 1) Taking actions (like smoking) that put others at some level of risk 2) Thinking that placing any level of harm onto others is justifiable as long as it's profitable You know very well there's a difference between those things, and yet you're pretending to not understand, while claiming that I'm "pretending not to understand". Or are you claiming that the average smoker cares so little about fellow humans that they'd be willing to push a person over a cliff ("any level of harm") in order to steal a half-empty beer can from them ("a profit")? Even if we assume a situation where they would be guaranteed to profit the half-empty beer can, I think it's safe to say almost no-one would think this level of harm would justify this level of profit. Yes, a smoker will put your life at risk by smoking near you. In related news, a driver will put your life at risk by driving near you. Doesn't mean that smokers or drivers will do literally any level of harm to humans in order to gain the tiniest of profit to themselves.
- wpietri 5y ago
  > Doesn't mean that smokers or drivers will do literally any level of harm to humans in order to gain the tiniest of profit to themselves. For a guy who is very eager to accuse others of straw manning, you seem to be working very hard to invent things so that you can dismiss them.
  - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
    The original quote from you was "I should be free to do as I want, regardless of harm to others". That paints a picture of people as monsters. As you later acknowledged, people are not monsters. Everyone is willing to cause some harm/risk to others in order to gain something for themselves, but you would be hard pressed to find people who are willing to place extreme levels of harm/risk onto others in exchange for a tiny gain. I used an extreme example to demonstrate this very obvious point.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > The original quote from you was "I should be free to do as I want, regardless of harm to others". That paints a picture of people as monsters. As you later acknowledged, people are not monsters. People may not be monsters, but quite a lot of them are just ordinary arseholes. You know, the kind of ordinary arsehole people who would thoughtlessly -- or, if they happened to come to think of it, wilfully -- do as they want, regardless of harm to others... As people so often do. Because, while they may not be monsters, many of them -- of us -- are certainly arseholes. One gets the feeling someone has just realised this, and is on a desparate quest to convince themselves they aren't actually an arsehole... By convincing everybody else that no such arseholes exist. This is doomed to fail, because everybody knows they do. > Everyone is willing to cause some harm/risk to others in order to gain something for themselves Yup. Which makes us all more or less arseholes, because "some" harm/risk to others still is harm/risk to others. And which was also all that was claimed to begin with -- there never was any original claim of "any level of harm"; that was always a windmill your fevered mind conjured up all on its own. So, how foolish do you feel now that it (and with it, your attempt at convincing yourself) has gone up in a puff of smoke?
      - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
        >> Everyone is willing to cause some harm/risk to others in order to gain something for themselves > Yup. Which makes us all more or less arseholes, because "some" harm/risk to others still is harm/risk to others. And which was also all that was claimed to begin with This was not "all that was claimed to begin with" - in fact the opposite of such was claimed. The original claim paints a very clear picture of 2 groups as polar opposites in their regard for harming other humans. This is in stark contrast to my claim (which you conceded to above) that most of us are similar (not polar opposites) in regard to harm. For reference, here's that claim again: >> America has two radically different concepts of freedom that travel under the same name. Both start with "I should be free to do as I want". One ends with "as long as I don't harm others". The other ends with "regardless of harm to others". Continuing on: > One gets the feeling someone has just realised this, and is on a desparate quest to convince themselves they aren't actually an arsehole... By convincing everybody else that no such arseholes exist. This is doomed to fail, because everybody knows they do. Yeah no, I don't care about that. If you want to say "all of us are more or less aresholes", instead of saying "all of us are more or less empathetic", that's fine. Both of those statements are true. I'm also somewhat of an arsehole by risking other peoples' lives by actions such as driving a car, sure, fine. That's not the point. My point was: people are mostly similar in their relation to harm, as opposed to being polar opposites. You have already conceded to this, and now you're just trying to reframe the original argument as somehow meaning the same thing, when in fact it meant the opposite. > there never was any original claim of "any level of harm"; that was always a windmill your fevered mind conjured up all on its own. So, how foolish do you feel now that it (and with it, your attempt at convincing yourself) has gone up in a puff of smoke? I'm not sure what exactly you think has gone up in a puff of smoke. Definitions for well-established English words still exist, they haven't gone up in smoke. This includes the definition for the word "regardless", which doesn't change at your whim. For example, here's the Cambridge dictionary definition for it: "despite; not being affected by something". If my decision to do something is "not affected by harm/risk to others", then clearly the level of said harm has no bearing on my decision. Thus, the words "regardless of harm", and "regardless of any level of harm" mean the same thing. You're trying to make a big deal out of me using slightly different words in reference to the original claim, even though those words mean exactly the same thing. Furthermore, even if we don't get stuck on definitions of individual words, but instead look at the general sentiment expressed in the claim, it's very clear that the claim is painting these 2 groups as polar opposites, and I'm painting them as similar to each other (and you have already conceded that the groups are similar, in your message where you said that all of us are "more or less arseholes").
- yibg 5y ago
  I really don’t understand your insistence here. Firstly the original claim isn’t “regardless of any level of harm”, and I’ve already given examples of profiting despite harm to others. Secondly even if you insist on an extreme level of harm there are still examples. We can use any of a number of dictators that are literally willing to kill millions to stay in power. Do they actually say out loud “I am willing to profit regardless of how much I harm others”? No, probably not. But actions speak louder than words here.
  - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
    > Firstly the original claim isn’t “regardless of any level of harm” Yes it is. Here is the full statement copypasted without modifications: > America has two radically different concepts of freedom that travel under the same name. Both start with "I should be free to do as I want". One ends with "as long as I don't harm others". The other ends with "regardless of harm to others". You were dealing with the latter. According to the original claim, there are two groups in America. One group (hint: democrats) can not justify any level of harm in exchange for their freedoms, while another group (hint: republicans) will justify any level of harm in exchange for their freedoms. The original claim paints these 2 groups as polar opposites, while in reality both groups are willing to accept various levels of harm in exchange for various levels of freedom. They merely disagree about some tradeoffs. > Secondly even if you insist on an extreme level of harm there are still examples. We can use any of a number of dictators that are literally willing to kill millions to stay in power. Sure, I accept this example. Yes, there are some rare individuals who truely are monsters and are willing to cause extreme levels of harm in exchange for their own personal benefit. I don't think half of America is like that, though.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > > Firstly the original claim isn’t “regardless of any level of harm” > Yes it is. Here is the full statement copypasted without modifications: > > America has two radically different concepts of freedom that travel under the same name. Both start with "I should be free to do as I want". One ends with "as long as I don't harm others". The other ends with "regardless of harm to others". You were dealing with the latter. No it isn't. "Regardless of harm to others" is not the same as "regardless of any level of harm". Just bloody look at them: Is there any mention of levels in the first? No, there isn't. Now please do us all a favour and stop this -- we're all too excrutiatingly embarrassed on your behalf just from seeing you make such a spectacle of yourself.

yibg 5y ago

Of course people don’t say those words exactly. But pushing for the ability to smoke indoors for example is basically saying my right to smoke should trump your right to have smoke free air. Ditto for fracking. My ability to profit off the oil I get trumps your right to have clean environment. I don’t really understand how these can not be seen as “I should be free to profit regardless of harm to others.”