4 ms·

Liberalism is an idea that has a lot of weight on this site. For some, it's libertarian kind of liberalism where people should be left to make their won econom

by netcan 11y ago

Liberalism is an idea that has a lot of weight on this site. For some, it's libertarian kind of liberalism where people should be left to make their won economic decisions. For others its the social liberalism kind where people should be allowed to decide for themselves what is a valid marriage, or what drugs they will or won't put in their bodies. Most flavors of liberalism have at their heart the idea that "The State" is neither competent nor qualified to intervene in everything or make all decisions on behalf of its citizens. The State is usually the belligerent, but you could equally say "society" or a body like a twitter mob or a hacker group. We don't need to collectively decide whether or not this site should exist. People should make their own choices. There are a lot of things I think people shouldn't do and other people that help them do that. I don't think people should join churches. But, the only way I want to see churches close down is when people no longer choose to be members. This is a freedom issue, like speech. You don't look inside to make your judgement. There is a right and a wrong here. The wrong is not the site.

TimJRobinson 11y ago
Your style of marriage, your religion and what drugs you take are all victimless crimes. Cheating on your spouse definitely has a victim which is why it's much more of an issue than the others you've listed. Most liberals are not anti state, but pro freedom as long as it doesn't affect anyone else's life.
- Flimm 11y ago
  Style of marriage, religion, drugs and cheating all do affect other people's life, even harm, to varying degrees and definitions. There is no freedom that doesn't affect anyone else's life.
  - wutbrodo 11y ago
    Right, up to and including eating a slice of cheesecake, which is why your definition is useless. What we're discussing here is things that are harmful to others _per se_. Theft, violating agreements (like cheating), etc are obviously examples of this. Religion, drug use, open marriages are obviously not. The distinction here is kot
    - vidarh 11y ago
      Whenever someone claims something is "obvious" alarm bells goes off for me. For starters, cars are obviously harmful: People get killed in car accidents. So clearly, it is insufficient that something causes harm for us to consider them as harmful enough to argue against them on principle - at least for the vast majority of us. Are you going to argue that violating agreements is always harmful? Almost always? How do quantify that harm? Why? Do you have any basis for assuming there aren't people out there that e.g. just don't care? (because there certainly are) At the same time you claim drug use in the other category, despite the large number of deaths tied to drug use. Religion has been the catalyst for massive amounts of deaths too. To some of us religion are "obviously" harmful to others _per se_. So clearly your "obvious" statements are not objectively obvious. It becomes very hard to take your argument seriously when your "obviousness" criteria are so obviously subjective and used to avoid having to justify your claims.
      - wutbrodo 11y ago
        > For starters, cars are obviously harmful: People get killed in car accidents. This comment is a truly impressive strawman. Strawman abound in fora like HN, and everyone (unwittingly or otherwise) is probably guilty of them here or there, but this one is really worthy of note. You took a word ("obviously") that _I didn't even use in my definition_ and claimed that I'm using it as a "criteria [sic]" (as opposed to just using it with some simple illustrative examples). I usually assume that perhaps I was unclear or that someone misunderstood my comment, but you're not even attempting to pretend that you're not wholly misrepresenting my comment so that you can attack a claim no one made. My actual definition (which you completely ignored) is that the definition of harm is applied to things that are harmful _per se_. Note that I wasn't making any statement about what I believe in, I was describing a distinction which is fundamental to modern ethics and policy, all over the world. I'll ignore the half of your comment that's impotently flailing at a claim _that no one made_ (as described above); The half that actually approaches coherency is an attempt to devise a litmus test for what would fall under this definition and what wouldn't (i.e. how do you discern things that are "inherently" harmful from those that aren't, given that you can construct a scenario of harm around literally every action anyone takes ("breathing is harmful if you take the last gulp of air from someone's oxygen tank!!")). TW: Use of the word "obvious"[1] The obvious[1] litmus test here is: is it possible to conceive of an example of someone performing the action without causing harm? To put it another way, is the action separable from harm? This is quite obviously[1] true for the examples given above: drug use, religion, etc. You can dream of (and many here have probably experienced) a thousand instances of drug use and acts of religion that harmed no-one else. This is in stark contrast to theft, violating agreements, etc. > Are you going to argue that violating agreements is always harmful? Almost always?.... Do you have any basis for assuming there aren't people out there that e.g. just don't care? (because there certainly are) Are you kidding me? This is true by definition. Inasmuch as utility is expressed by people making an agreement and wanting to hold you to it, the violated party in the agreement is being harmed. Note that this makes no statement as to whether _net_ harm is being done, and of course that this entire comment is all under the assumption that the person being harmed in each case is considered to have full agency as an adult (e.g., most people wouldn't consider it harmful to remove something dangerous from your child's possession, even though in the context of an adult possessor that would be considered theft). If I'm interpreting your latter statement correctly in the quote above, you're talking about violating an agreement with the other party's consent? That's not violating an agreement by any common usage of the phrase, that's just mutually agreeing to call off an agreement.....The word violation makes it clear that it's done without the consent of all parties involved. > At the same time you claim drug use in the other category, despite the large number of deaths tied to drug use. Religion has been the catalyst for massive amounts of deaths too. To some of us religion are "obviously" harmful to others _per se_. Sigh. You can't just put the words "per se" at the end of a sentence when you don't know what they mean. Words have meaning. Use them with care. Christ. You're preaching to the choir when you talk about finding religion to be harmful overall. But again, it's not harmful _per se_. Using the litmus test described above, an act of religion that harms no-one else is me praying briefly before going to sleep. This act is easily separable from someone killing someone else in the name of religion. I honestly never thought I would have to explain this to anyone who wasn't a very small child (and even then, I probably wouldn't have cause to talk about why people murder each other). > It becomes very hard to take your argument seriously when your "obviousness" criteria [sic] are so obviously subjective and used to avoid having to justify your claims. An interesting question here is whether a grade-school level of reading comprehension unleashed in a forum full of (ostensible) adults is inherently harmful. /s [1] You apparently have an allergy to the word "obvious", so I'll clarify for your benefit here. I'm saying this is obvious because the fundamentally basic thought process described here is part of the underpinning of almost literally every single moral system in the history of mankind (even the most theocratic ones). Most of the differences between more dated moral/legal systems and today is the level of bluntness we're willing to tolerate when deciding whether an act is likely to be separable from harm.
bmj 11y ago
I think classical Liberalism and Conservatism have little to do with the political lines drawn in the United States (and other nations). Republicans and Democrats are both, at heart, classical Liberals--the difference is how that is applied. Most flavors of liberalism have at their heart the idea that "The State" is neither competent nor qualified to intervene in everything or make all decisions on behalf of its citizens. For Republicans, that means the State should stay out of the economy. For Democrats (and some flavors of Libertarians), that means the State should stay out of people's personal lives, but it can very much get its fingers in the economy, and provide a safety net when citizens make poor choices. The State is usually the belligerent I agree, but I would perhaps say it a different way: the State is always looking to shore up its power. To do this, citizens must be coerced, sometimes through violence.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Obviously on this site there are some harmful cases not involving open marriages. And while cheating may not be illegal, I'm pretty sure that many people would rather they be physically assaulted to a degree enough for the law to be involved than to be cheated on in a relationship they value. So then the question becomes, how much wrong/harm can a site promote before it is shut down? What about an anti-vaxxer site that is leading parents to make choices that will kill some number of children? What about a website hosting all the leaked data from this hack? What about a site promoting self harm directed towards children who are most vulnerable to such promotions? What about recent Tor sites that were taken down?
josinalvo 11y ago
I don't prefer this method to bring AM down. Put I would not mind a law that forces AM to search and notify the spouses of their users (and that would certainly bring the site down)
cjsthompson 11y ago
How about the choice of not having to live with those who think such sites are ok?

by netcan 11y ago

TimJRobinson 11y ago

Your style of marriage, your religion and what drugs you take are all victimless crimes. Cheating on your spouse definitely has a victim which is why it's much more of an issue than the others you've listed. Most liberals are not anti state, but pro freedom as long as it doesn't affect anyone else's life.

Flimm 11y ago
Style of marriage, religion, drugs and cheating all do affect other people's life, even harm, to varying degrees and definitions. There is no freedom that doesn't affect anyone else's life.
- wutbrodo 11y ago
  Right, up to and including eating a slice of cheesecake, which is why your definition is useless. What we're discussing here is things that are harmful to others _per se_. Theft, violating agreements (like cheating), etc are obviously examples of this. Religion, drug use, open marriages are obviously not. The distinction here is kot
  - vidarh 11y ago
    Whenever someone claims something is "obvious" alarm bells goes off for me. For starters, cars are obviously harmful: People get killed in car accidents. So clearly, it is insufficient that something causes harm for us to consider them as harmful enough to argue against them on principle - at least for the vast majority of us. Are you going to argue that violating agreements is always harmful? Almost always? How do quantify that harm? Why? Do you have any basis for assuming there aren't people out there that e.g. just don't care? (because there certainly are) At the same time you claim drug use in the other category, despite the large number of deaths tied to drug use. Religion has been the catalyst for massive amounts of deaths too. To some of us religion are "obviously" harmful to others _per se_. So clearly your "obvious" statements are not objectively obvious. It becomes very hard to take your argument seriously when your "obviousness" criteria are so obviously subjective and used to avoid having to justify your claims.
    - wutbrodo 11y ago
      > For starters, cars are obviously harmful: People get killed in car accidents. This comment is a truly impressive strawman. Strawman abound in fora like HN, and everyone (unwittingly or otherwise) is probably guilty of them here or there, but this one is really worthy of note. You took a word ("obviously") that _I didn't even use in my definition_ and claimed that I'm using it as a "criteria [sic]" (as opposed to just using it with some simple illustrative examples). I usually assume that perhaps I was unclear or that someone misunderstood my comment, but you're not even attempting to pretend that you're not wholly misrepresenting my comment so that you can attack a claim no one made. My actual definition (which you completely ignored) is that the definition of harm is applied to things that are harmful _per se_. Note that I wasn't making any statement about what I believe in, I was describing a distinction which is fundamental to modern ethics and policy, all over the world. I'll ignore the half of your comment that's impotently flailing at a claim _that no one made_ (as described above); The half that actually approaches coherency is an attempt to devise a litmus test for what would fall under this definition and what wouldn't (i.e. how do you discern things that are "inherently" harmful from those that aren't, given that you can construct a scenario of harm around literally every action anyone takes ("breathing is harmful if you take the last gulp of air from someone's oxygen tank!!")). TW: Use of the word "obvious"[1] The obvious[1] litmus test here is: is it possible to conceive of an example of someone performing the action without causing harm? To put it another way, is the action separable from harm? This is quite obviously[1] true for the examples given above: drug use, religion, etc. You can dream of (and many here have probably experienced) a thousand instances of drug use and acts of religion that harmed no-one else. This is in stark contrast to theft, violating agreements, etc. > Are you going to argue that violating agreements is always harmful? Almost always?.... Do you have any basis for assuming there aren't people out there that e.g. just don't care? (because there certainly are) Are you kidding me? This is true by definition. Inasmuch as utility is expressed by people making an agreement and wanting to hold you to it, the violated party in the agreement is being harmed. Note that this makes no statement as to whether _net_ harm is being done, and of course that this entire comment is all under the assumption that the person being harmed in each case is considered to have full agency as an adult (e.g., most people wouldn't consider it harmful to remove something dangerous from your child's possession, even though in the context of an adult possessor that would be considered theft). If I'm interpreting your latter statement correctly in the quote above, you're talking about violating an agreement with the other party's consent? That's not violating an agreement by any common usage of the phrase, that's just mutually agreeing to call off an agreement.....The word violation makes it clear that it's done without the consent of all parties involved. > At the same time you claim drug use in the other category, despite the large number of deaths tied to drug use. Religion has been the catalyst for massive amounts of deaths too. To some of us religion are "obviously" harmful to others _per se_. Sigh. You can't just put the words "per se" at the end of a sentence when you don't know what they mean. Words have meaning. Use them with care. Christ. You're preaching to the choir when you talk about finding religion to be harmful overall. But again, it's not harmful _per se_. Using the litmus test described above, an act of religion that harms no-one else is me praying briefly before going to sleep. This act is easily separable from someone killing someone else in the name of religion. I honestly never thought I would have to explain this to anyone who wasn't a very small child (and even then, I probably wouldn't have cause to talk about why people murder each other). > It becomes very hard to take your argument seriously when your "obviousness" criteria [sic] are so obviously subjective and used to avoid having to justify your claims. An interesting question here is whether a grade-school level of reading comprehension unleashed in a forum full of (ostensible) adults is inherently harmful. /s [1] You apparently have an allergy to the word "obvious", so I'll clarify for your benefit here. I'm saying this is obvious because the fundamentally basic thought process described here is part of the underpinning of almost literally every single moral system in the history of mankind (even the most theocratic ones). Most of the differences between more dated moral/legal systems and today is the level of bluntness we're willing to tolerate when deciding whether an act is likely to be separable from harm.

bmj 11y ago

I think classical Liberalism and Conservatism have little to do with the political lines drawn in the United States (and other nations). Republicans and Democrats are both, at heart, classical Liberals--the difference is how that is applied. Most flavors of liberalism have at their heart the idea that "The State" is neither competent nor qualified to intervene in everything or make all decisions on behalf of its citizens. For Republicans, that means the State should stay out of the economy. For Democrats (and some flavors of Libertarians), that means the State should stay out of people's personal lives, but it can very much get its fingers in the economy, and provide a safety net when citizens make poor choices. The State is usually the belligerent I agree, but I would perhaps say it a different way: the State is always looking to shore up its power. To do this, citizens must be coerced, sometimes through violence.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

Obviously on this site there are some harmful cases not involving open marriages. And while cheating may not be illegal, I'm pretty sure that many people would rather they be physically assaulted to a degree enough for the law to be involved than to be cheated on in a relationship they value. So then the question becomes, how much wrong/harm can a site promote before it is shut down? What about an anti-vaxxer site that is leading parents to make choices that will kill some number of children? What about a website hosting all the leaked data from this hack? What about a site promoting self harm directed towards children who are most vulnerable to such promotions? What about recent Tor sites that were taken down?

josinalvo 11y ago

I don't prefer this method to bring AM down. Put I would not mind a law that forces AM to search and notify the spouses of their users (and that would certainly bring the site down)

cjsthompson 11y ago

How about the choice of not having to live with those who think such sites are ok?