3 ms·

> 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

> 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. Definition of "regardless" is "without regard or consideration for". If there is no consideration for harm, then it does not matter what the level of harm is. Therefore, "regardless of harm to others" means exactly the same thing as "regardless of any level of harm". Even if you are using your own dictionary to invent new meanings for words to win imaginary arguments inside your own head, it's not exactly clear to me how you interpret this original quote in a manner that doesn't paint democrats and republicans as polar opposites: > > 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".

CRConrad 5y ago
> Definition of "regardless" is "without regard or consideration for". If there is no consideration for harm, then it does not matter what the level of harm is. So I take it you work with computers...? Natural languages like English don't work the exact same way as programming languages like C. > Therefore, "regardless of harm to others" means exactly the same thing as "regardless of any level of harm". No it doesn't: Most people, not being monsters, wouldn't inflict immediate, grievous harm on others just because it's easier on themselves. They wouldn't, for instance, walk around with the lid off a container of nerve gas just because they can't be bothered to put it on, immediately killing all who come near. They realise and accept that they can't be free to do whatever they want regardless of any level of harm to others. Many of those same non-monster people are smokers. And many -- at a guess, a majority -- of those, in turn, being a bit of an arsehole like we all can be, do gladly put their own convenience and immediate gratification above their consideration for you and your lungs: They know the dangers of second-hand smoke, but some unknown level of possible breathing disorders at some unknown point in other people's future, and some small amount of shortening of these other people's lifespan... That doesn't count the same to them as carrying a lidless bucket of sarin gas: They'll blow smoke in your face (or at least exhale it in your vicinity, where it will sooner rather than later find its way into your lungs). So they obviously do think they should be free to do what they want regardless of some level of harm to others. What you've been saying boils down to "You're wrong in claiming that everyone would gladly nerve-gas everyone around them!". But nobody ever claimed that. The original contention was just "people do shit like smoking regardless of the harm it does to those around them". I can't even grasp how you couldn't see this. (Nor can I tell which would be the more charitable way to react to your behavior, to take it as genuine or fake. AFAICS, neither alternative is possible to interpret particularly charitably.)
- baobabKoodaa 5y ago
  > What you've been saying boils down to "You're wrong in claiming that everyone would gladly nerve-gas everyone around them!" That's literally the opposite of what I've been saying. That "everyone" in that sentence, man, do you not listen at all? I've explained to you multiple times that the topic of contention is not "degree of evil that everyone has" - the topic of contention is whether people are grouped into 1 group or 2 groups in this context. What I found offensive in the original post is that it grouped people into 2 groups instead of 1 group. And yet you're here pretending that I'm upset that someone grouped people into 1 group. No, that would have been fine, but they didn't do that. If the original post had grouped people into 1 group, like if it had claimed "everyone is an arsehole", that would've been fine by me, as I've explained to you multiple times. My issue was with a description that divided people up by party lines and described one group as saints and the other group as evil. > The original contention was just "people do shit like smoking regardless of the harm it does to those around them". No it wasn't. The sentiment in your statement is that "people are similar in this way", whereas the sentiment in the original post was "people are not similar - there are 2 groups of people, one of these is good and the other is evil". For reference, here's that original post again, which VERY OBVIOUSLY describes the existence of 2 groups which are different from each other: > > 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". I'm arguing that "two radically different" groups don't exist; that people are similar in this manner, not too different from one another. You've already conceded multiple times that you agree with this point. If you want to argue that the original post (which I copypasted above) is also saying that "two radically different groups" don't exist, PLEASE, go ahead, let's see that magic how you will twist those words into the opposite of what they actually meant. Go ahead, I'll wait.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    As to your last two paragraphs, the quoted one and your reply: You're still, after a week of arguing, reading shit into that which simply isn't there. Now you're quibbling about "radically different groups"... Hey, wake up! It doesn't say that, it says "radically different concepts"! Nobody ever said it's different groups holding those concepts; we all hold them both simultaneously -- one for ourselves, and the other for others. That's the whole damn problem. After a whole week of this, and you still so convincingly demonstrating the whole brouhaha you're raising is all due to your own inability to understand what you're reading, I've had enough and will bow out here. Thanks for the discussion; don't hold your breath for me to return to it.

CRConrad 5y ago

> Definition of "regardless" is "without regard or consideration for". If there is no consideration for harm, then it does not matter what the level of harm is. So I take it you work with computers...? Natural languages like English don't work the exact same way as programming languages like C. > Therefore, "regardless of harm to others" means exactly the same thing as "regardless of any level of harm". No it doesn't: Most people, not being monsters, wouldn't inflict immediate, grievous harm on others just because it's easier on themselves. They wouldn't, for instance, walk around with the lid off a container of nerve gas just because they can't be bothered to put it on, immediately killing all who come near. They realise and accept that they can't be free to do whatever they want regardless of any level of harm to others. Many of those same non-monster people are smokers. And many -- at a guess, a majority -- of those, in turn, being a bit of an arsehole like we all can be, do gladly put their own convenience and immediate gratification above their consideration for you and your lungs: They know the dangers of second-hand smoke, but some unknown level of possible breathing disorders at some unknown point in other people's future, and some small amount of shortening of these other people's lifespan... That doesn't count the same to them as carrying a lidless bucket of sarin gas: They'll blow smoke in your face (or at least exhale it in your vicinity, where it will sooner rather than later find its way into your lungs). So they obviously do think they should be free to do what they want regardless of some level of harm to others. What you've been saying boils down to "You're wrong in claiming that everyone would gladly nerve-gas everyone around them!". But nobody ever claimed that. The original contention was just "people do shit like smoking regardless of the harm it does to those around them". I can't even grasp how you couldn't see this. (Nor can I tell which would be the more charitable way to react to your behavior, to take it as genuine or fake. AFAICS, neither alternative is possible to interpret particularly charitably.)

baobabKoodaa 5y ago
> What you've been saying boils down to "You're wrong in claiming that everyone would gladly nerve-gas everyone around them!" That's literally the opposite of what I've been saying. That "everyone" in that sentence, man, do you not listen at all? I've explained to you multiple times that the topic of contention is not "degree of evil that everyone has" - the topic of contention is whether people are grouped into 1 group or 2 groups in this context. What I found offensive in the original post is that it grouped people into 2 groups instead of 1 group. And yet you're here pretending that I'm upset that someone grouped people into 1 group. No, that would have been fine, but they didn't do that. If the original post had grouped people into 1 group, like if it had claimed "everyone is an arsehole", that would've been fine by me, as I've explained to you multiple times. My issue was with a description that divided people up by party lines and described one group as saints and the other group as evil. > The original contention was just "people do shit like smoking regardless of the harm it does to those around them". No it wasn't. The sentiment in your statement is that "people are similar in this way", whereas the sentiment in the original post was "people are not similar - there are 2 groups of people, one of these is good and the other is evil". For reference, here's that original post again, which VERY OBVIOUSLY describes the existence of 2 groups which are different from each other: > > 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". I'm arguing that "two radically different" groups don't exist; that people are similar in this manner, not too different from one another. You've already conceded multiple times that you agree with this point. If you want to argue that the original post (which I copypasted above) is also saying that "two radically different groups" don't exist, PLEASE, go ahead, let's see that magic how you will twist those words into the opposite of what they actually meant. Go ahead, I'll wait.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  As to your last two paragraphs, the quoted one and your reply: You're still, after a week of arguing, reading shit into that which simply isn't there. Now you're quibbling about "radically different groups"... Hey, wake up! It doesn't say that, it says "radically different concepts"! Nobody ever said it's different groups holding those concepts; we all hold them both simultaneously -- one for ourselves, and the other for others. That's the whole damn problem. After a whole week of this, and you still so convincingly demonstrating the whole brouhaha you're raising is all due to your own inability to understand what you're reading, I've had enough and will bow out here. Thanks for the discussion; don't hold your breath for me to return to it.