On moral imposition and being a good person - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

TexanAvenger · 09-20-2006, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Why can't children drink? State imposed morality. Why can't people smoke indoors? State imposed morality. Bam, there is your equivalence.

I guess my real standing between the two was more the over and underage status of the two, though I see the inherent flaw in both that reasoning and that part of my arguement now.

You won me that far.

ngdawg · 09-20-2006, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooseMan3000

A well reasoned and coherent response to an interesting question if ever I read one. Thank you for your rational, respectful reply.

Not to mention that your entire post is about smoking, not about the topic actually being discussed in this thread. So if I may, let me sum up your entire response to this article:

"Politicophile, you make me really mad."

There. That's all you said in relation to the thread. But thanks for that information on smoking in Colorado and getting hummers from hookers on dirty toilet seats.

World's King is not, however, the only one to respond in such a manner. It's only the most blatant. Most of the responses I've read in this thread have been either a) completely irrelevant to the original question (i.e. lambasting Politicophile for his particular morals) or b) just plain irrelevant.

In response to the original question: I believe that society by its nature must impose a certain set of morals in order to exist. There are some absolutes, some of which have been mentioned, namely "don't intentionally harm others who are not harming you." If you can't agree with this, then you have no place in a society that provides you any sort of protections or freedoms. You are an anarchist.

If you do agree with this, and you enjoy the safety and stability of government and society at large, then you agree with the original poster. Of course there are different shades of grey between the two standpoints, but I think most of you are getting caught up in the emotions of disagreeing with Politicophile's lofty opinion of himself. Ultimately, that is irrelevant to the argument.

Allow me to recap the general idea, for the many of you who either forgot or intentionally skipped that part of the post:

Moral imposition and direction is necessary for a society to remain stable. Without laws and directives based in an agreed upon code of morality, society cannot exist.

The large portion of you arguing about everything else, you're missing the point.

I agree in a large part with the original point, mainly for the reasons already stated: a society, by its definition, must have laws. Those laws, in order to be effective at keeping the peace, must be based on something, and that something is moral imposition. Morality will shift with time, as will laws. There is no end to this game, no one right answer. The answer is, instead, to continue to challenge everything, to continue to share, learn, and grow as a society.

That was really a small part of a post designed to proclaim the 'I'm right/you're wrong' view held; by saying the society has morals, therefore laws, so I have morals, therefore, rules, that are correct. Other statements were meant to be inflammatory and argumentative, but then the OP pulls back and says, 'that's not what I meant'. Uh, yea...it was and it was reiterated as things progressed.
The society we live in takes the middle road when it comes to the majority of lawmaking and does so with at least a modicum of research. The laws do not finger point. That task is taken up by individuals.
Wanna live with 4 women? No law says you can't, it's a personal, moral choice. If it goes against my values, who cares?
Yes, secondhand smoke can affect people, specially if they're unhealthy to begin with. But here's a little hint: stay away from things that make you sick. I can't handle perfumes, so I don't wear any and if someone comes near me marinating in it, I leave quckly. I don't stand on the NJ turnpike because it might kill me to do so...same thought. But, dumb as it may be, I won't tell someone else not to do it unless it's my kid or anyone else I truly care about.
The OP is not saying stay away from his asthmatic child, please...he did, in essence, compare smokers to killers and rapists and morally corrupt individuals.
That's his own judgment and knowing many smokers, I can assure you they are no more 'morally corrupt' than anyone else and I dare say, some, if not most, are damn cool people. *winks at Shanifaye*
It's not what we put in our mouths that make us good or bad, it's what we give from our hearts.

Willravel · 09-20-2006, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexanAvenger

I guess my real standing between the two was more the over and underage status of the two, though I see the inherent flaw in both that reasoning and that part of my arguement now.

You won me that far.

Your ability to admit that puts you ahead most people in the world. If even 1% of people in TFPolitics were able to self reflect and admit anything even close to being partially incorrect, fire would rain from the heavens, women would scream and men would gnash their teeth.

FoolThemAll · 09-20-2006, 06:28 PM

eh, I don't actually have anything to add.

NoSoup · 09-20-2006, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by World's King

Jesus Fuckin' Christ...

Did your daddy not play catch with you? Mommy not tell you that she loved you as much as you'd have liked? Sister touch you in a wierd way in the bathtub at a young age?

You know politicophile, I'm pretty impressed with all the big words you've used. And just because you can use thoes word in the right place and at the right time doesn't mean people actually care about what you have to say.

I don't really consider myself to be easily offended, but this post is rather uncalled for, don't you think?

Although I doubt we'll never be certain, I imagine if anyone other than a moderator had posted this, it would have been edited and done away with - accompanied by either a warning or at the very least a PM to the poster...

I'm all for people discussing things and having opposing viewpoints, but attacking the OP like this is ridiculous. I mean, obviously, with the viewpoint he has he MUST HAVE either had a disfunctional family life or been molested by his sister. And, of course, we should be very proud that the idiot -especially because of how he was raised - since we're so shocked that he can use big words.... (note the sarcasm, please)

As far as the original post is concerned, personally, I disagree. I believe that morality is a completely gray area - and although most people - myself included - do make moral judgements on others, we should keep in mind that our "morality" is based solely on our environment and our own life experiences. We can argue what is right and wrong till we are blue in the face, but at the end of the day our words don't hold water.

Rape, Murder, Assault? Terrible. How about cannibalism? Is that also wrong? Is it up to anyone other than those cannibalizing others to decide? What if it's their religion, their tradition, their heritage. The only way of life that they know? Who am I to decide what is "moral" for someone I've never met, whose culture I've never experienced, whose life I've never lived?

My point is, I feel that Murder, Rape, and Assaulting others is "Morally wrong" - but I also understand, and accept, that my morals don't apply to anyone else other than me. It's a good thing that I live in a country that shares the majority of my morals, but if I was traveling abroad and stumbled into an area where something I believed was morally wrong was socially acceptable there, I certainly wouldn't feel offended or think that the society as a whole were morally bankrupt or less of a people...

analog · 09-21-2006, 12:35 AM

I chimed in, in another thread, about this subject... and thought I should post it here for all to read...

Quote:

Originally Posted by me, in another thread

What we have, politicophile, is you flaming smokers from a gleaming pillar of moral superiority... and then those you looked down upon and scolded with such determination, responded in kind.

Again, this is not to condone the acts resulting from your posts...

...but you can't look down on others, without some of them reaching up to pull you down off the pedestal.

For my part, I can think of few things more insulting than a person asserting ultimate moral superiority over others, and indicating specifically that we are lesser persons than they are.

EDIT: I'd also like to quickly make note that we're all human, and we can all make mistakes. For this, some of you want King's head on a pike.

While we're held to a higher standard as enforcers of the rules, we're still human- and a good couple of members here are hall-of-fame repeat offenders for flaming and trolling. Put this single act in the proper context. Calm down. Breath. Thank you.

Nisses · 09-21-2006, 02:34 AM

Judge me all you want, by your morals. I'll repay in kind with mine.

As long as you are not trying to get your selection of morality applied to others, I have no problem with you, in fact, since your selection differs enough form mine, I hardly even take it into account.

People can make judgements like that, only, they should expect to be judged right back, cuz here's the kicker:

a judgement is rarely backed by 100% logic & facts, gut-feeling and emotions play a big part.

Glory's Sun · 09-21-2006, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If I decide to take my wife and 2 year old daughter - a 2 year old girl who has asthma just as badly as her father - to a nice dinner and a show, I would consider it extremly rude if someone were to light up. If you want to smoke while eating, you have a home where you can't bother anyone. If I am going to bring my family to a resturant and you endanger our health by smoking, it is you who are treating us like crap. You are polluting an environment that you have to share with other people.

Do you know why aminals are made to be left outdoors? It's simple. The animals are unable to behave in a mannor that follows social norms.

How am I supposed to know that you two have asthma?? Wear a sign or something.

Really, if I am in my designated "slow-suicide" area then guess what? I'm not responsible for you having an asthma attack. I am in my kennel and you came too close. If I have asthma and I'm walking down the street while you're cutting your grass should I make you stop so I don't have an attack? No because you are in your area. If I'm in mine, then anything harmful that happens to you is not my fault.

Also, the social norms bit. That changes constantly. People can't make up their minds what is or isn't acceptable.

/end thread mutation

Obviously this thread and the other thread were done in a time period too close together so they are becoming mixed. So I'll try to get back to the OP.

I more closely agree with what Hal said. I find the whole idea of morality a bit off kilter. Morality is unique with each individual. You may think its amoral to have premarital sex. I say good, more for me. There can be no absolute in morality and when you try to impose some sort of absolute in this realm, you're left with nothing but drones.

Willravel · 09-21-2006, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

How am I supposed to know that you two have asthma?? Wear a sign or something.

Really, if I am in my designated "slow-suicide" area then guess what? I'm not responsible for you having an asthma attack. I am in my kennel and you came too close. If I have asthma and I'm walking down the street while you're cutting your grass should I make you stop so I don't have an attack? No because you are in your area. If I'm in mine, then anything harmful that happens to you is not my fault.

I'm in California, there are no slow suicide zones in public or buisness buildings anymore. It's the law. How are you supposed to know if someone has asthma? If you're in a room of 30 people, 2 people could have asthma. 20 million Americans have asthma. Those odds go up in metropolitan areas, espically LA. You'll also notice that we have inhalers and very uncomfortable looks on our faces when you light up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

Also, the social norms bit. That changes constantly. People can't make up their minds what is or isn't acceptable.

This social norm has been in place since the late 80s. That's most of my life.

politicophile · 09-21-2006, 06:05 AM

Take a look at my "defense" (not that I should need one) over here. I would appreciate your support.

FoolThemAll · 09-21-2006, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoSoup

My point is, I feel that Murder, Rape, and Assaulting others is "Morally wrong" - but I also understand, and accept, that my morals don't apply to anyone else other than me. It's a good thing that I live in a country that shares the majority of my morals, but if I was traveling abroad and stumbled into an area where something I believed was morally wrong was socially acceptable there, I certainly wouldn't feel offended or think that the society as a whole were morally bankrupt or less of a people...

You know, I can buy all this for the purpose of argument, but then here's where I go with it. Here's my personal morality.

I don't respect cultures that tolerate murder, rape, and assault. I fully support the decision of other cultures to disregard such cultural mores. As far as my moral sensibilities go - resources and tactical situations may say otherwise - I'm perfectly okay with the idea of cultures that don't support murder, rape, or assault invading those cultures that do and putting a stop to those practices. If I were, for some reason, vacationing in a culture that condoned/promoted the punishment of rape victims, I would have no twinge of conscience preventing me from attempting to prevent said punishment.

(It'd be the cowardice that would prevent me from acting, most likely.)

It sounds like you'd be morally opposed to intervention of this kind, and that's fine for you, but that morality doesn't apply to me.

Ustwo · 09-21-2006, 06:24 AM

The problem in this thread started with one word, 'morals'.

Its somewhat amusing to see just how easily people get offended if they even think what they do is being questioned. I'm guessing its in part due to insecurity over what they do.

Mention morals and you see moral outrage by those who think you are going to take their porn, take their cigarettes, take their out of the norm sex practices away, or whatever they feel is under attack or on shaky ground.

There is some justification to this fear. In the past, porn was mostly illegal, it wasn't illegal to own it but illegal to ship it, based on the professed morals of the day. My guess in some states its still illegal on paper for a man to stick his penis in another mans anus. Many cities are passing smoking bans in public places, my own is trying to do so this November, and odds are it will pass.

The problem here is that such judgements or miss judgements need not be the focus of reply to the original post. People are so afraid of their personal fetish or bad habit is going to be attacked that they strike out, crudely and without much fore thought, ironically passing moral judgements. It reminds me of the 'intolerant of intolerance' threads of a while back.

One needs to just look around them to see the original post is correct and not in a bad way. Look at wheelchair ramps, handicapped toilets, affirmative action, progressive taxes, social security, indecency laws, etc. All were moral decisions by part of society, imposed on others. If you don't think handicapped toilets are an imposition you never had to pay for one and use up extra space for one that will never be used by a handicapped person, I did.

Is it wrong to support a smoking ban? Is is less wrong to support affirmative action? Both are moral decisions, both have people who are negatively affected by it, both have people who are benefited by it, so how do you choose which is the correct thing to do unless you rely on your morals of what is right and wrong?

Glory's Sun · 09-21-2006, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm in California, there are no slow suicide zones in public or buisness buildings anymore. It's the law. How are you supposed to know if someone has asthma? If you're in a room of 30 people, 2 people could have asthma. 20 million Americans have asthma. Those odds go up in metropolitan areas, espically LA. You'll also notice that we have inhalers and very uncomfortable looks on our faces when you light up.

This social norm has been in place since the late 80s. That's most of my life.

I understand the numbers of people with asthma. However, I'm still not going to know who has it. Am I supposed to walk into a building that still allows smoking, grab the PA and ask "Does anyone here have asthma?". No. All I'm saying is that if you walk into a place that still has "suicide zones" then be prepared to inhale smoke. You are free to go elsewhere. I had asthma as a child. I know how bad it can suck to have an attack. Hence, the reason I am generally polite about my smoking.

Social norms can be in place for many years, that doesn't mean it can't change quickly.

roachboy · 09-21-2006, 06:37 AM

to say that you would use moral criteria to make an evaluation, ustwo, is not the same as saying that a particular issue is a moral one. the first is about judgment. the second is a statement about the kind of argument that is appropriate to a given issue.

on the first, you assume that right/wrong is exclusively a moral matter.
that does not seem to me to be accurate.
it could just as easily be a true/false evaluation. or an aesthetic evaluation. or any number of other kinds of judgment--there are many ways to yeild a right/wrong response.

on the second, arguments from morality have failed to garner much support for anti-smoking bans where they have been implemented. the dominant argument is worker health--the effects of prolonged exposure to lots of smoke on bar and resto workers. that is why i have no problem with smoking bans, actually---and i smoke. it hasnt the first thing to do with morality.

one problem that conservative political discourse has created for itself is that it loves loves loves morality as a framing move. loves it. uses it for everything. you use it for everything it ends up signifying nothing.

this is why i argued above that the primary problem is tactical--even if politicophile's arguments in favor of using this language were compelling (and they are not to me at least) the static generated by the move is such that it is counterproductive to go that route.

Ustwo · 09-21-2006, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

to say that you would use moral criteria to make an evaluation, ustwo, is not the same as saying that a particular issue is a moral one. the first is about judgment. the second is a statement about the kind of argument that is appropriate to a given issue.

on the first, you assume that right/wrong is exclusively a moral matter.
that does not seem to me to be accurate.
it could just as easily be a true/false evaluation. or an aesthetic evaluation. or any number of other kinds of judgment--there are many ways to yeild a right/wrong response.

I never claimed all decisions were moral ones.

I will claim that wheel chair ramps are most definately a moral decision imposed by law.

roachboy · 09-21-2006, 06:51 AM

maybe.....but if memory serves (it is early and who knows about that...) wheelchair ramps were advocated and implemented as civil rights matters --which has to do with equal protection and what it means---and so were not presented as involving a moral question.

i am not saying that these issues *cannot* be seen as moral--just that they typically are not framed that way, particularly not if groups are trying to get legislation actually passed. same reason as i have been talking about here explains it--tactical considerations preclude the usage of that language.

the issues where this language continues to operate are generally among the most polarizing politically.

a side note: i took the right/wrong question from the logic of your post rather than from its contents---i dont think i misrepresented your position in it, but since i cant reach around the post and see into your mind, maybe i did.

Cynthetiq · 09-21-2006, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

I think I have explained my position to the best of my ability, so I'm more or less done here. If you don't understand why having a moral objection to individuals having moral objections is self-contradictory, I can't help you. This isn't about tu quoque fallacies because the point I am trying to prove is that people do (and should) make moral judgments about others. By pointing out that other people make moral judgments in the same way I do, I was attempting to directly advance that argument. The inapplicability of this term will become clear if you reread the acticle from which I quoted when I introduced it.

Although the group's general moral judgments towards me have been harsh, they have nonetheless reinforced my claim that everyone makes such judgments. In fact, the general concensus seems to be that moral judgments should be morally judged to be inappropriate. If nothing else, the entire situation has given me a new appreciation for irony.

Ignoring ndawg's continued, repeated attacks on my intelligence and character, I would like to clarify an earlier statement that has recently been misconstrued: When I said "I don't have to be perfect to know that what you're doing is wrong. You are a worse person because you smoke. Period." what I meant was "You are a worse person because you smoke than you would be if you did not. Period." I did NOT mean "You are a worse person than me because you smoke. Period."

You may resume your insults now.

well then you should have totally understood my quote below since it is EXACTLY what you were trying to point out. I pointed out the absurdity of it with my sarcasm "What can I insert into there and not live and let live, imposing my morality and code among others." To me that's just as obvious as pointing out that water is wet.

Apparently you now are stating that this is exactly the point you were trying to make in the other thread AND in this one. Am I wrong in that observation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Interesting to be able to inject morality into anything.

You are a worse person because you [insert thing you don't like here]. Period.

That's pretty cool.

What can I insert into there and not live and let live, imposing my morality and code among others.

Homosexuality
Multiple Sex Partners
Anal Sex
Oral Sex
Bad Thoughts
Vegatarians
Meat Eaters
Sugar Eaters
Wheat Eaters
Hunters
Fishers

wow politicophile, this is cool. Thanks for that sentence. It's going to come in handy one day.

FoolThemAll · 09-21-2006, 07:27 AM

Cynthetiq, politicophile is certainly making a moral judgment about smokers, but I'm not seeing where in this thread he argued for imposing that judgment on others. Could be that I missed it.

Otherwise, "live and let live" and your laundry list of possible judgments are not mutually exclusive. One can make the judgment that hunting is immoral, and yet tolerate its existence.

And if it's judgment without the imposition, well, then I don't quite see the absurdity. It may be incorrect to judge all those things immoral - most of them I'm morally okay with - but it's not absurd.

Glory's Sun · 09-21-2006, 07:32 AM

There's something else I'd like to mention. I have no idea if it's relevant to this thread as I don't even know what this thread is about anymore. It's undergone many mutations and not all of them are welcome in my eyes.. anyway.

About the societal norm thing.. Where were morals when this country was immersed in segregation? I live in an area that is still dominated by ignorance and racism yet, it's called part of the bible belt and is supposedly a conservative state. People here talk about morals, yet they are quick to judge based on nothing but color. Am I just supposed to go with the social norm here?? No of course not.

Why should I make judgements about people?? Whether they be moral or otherwise I still do it but it shouldn't be overwhelming to where I consider the person something they aren't just because of what I first perceive. I think the best area to address this is in the legal sense. If selected for a jury, some will automatically make up their mind before any defense or prosicution is presented. Why? Because they have made a moral judgement based on that person and it blinds them to anything else. A judge instructs to look at all evidence to determine the character of a person. How often does this really happen? I don't think it happens as often as it should. So on that note, I don't think people should make pre-noted subjections about a person. People are just people. You do your thing and I'll do mine. You may not like smoking and think I'm a worse person for doing it, I may not like your choice of lifestyle (although that would be hard to come by for me) but I'm not going to think that you are a bad person. If you physically harm me or my wife, then yes I might think you are a bad person. That's inevitable. If I walk through a crowd on non-smokers and I know that 3 seconds of smoke won't hurt them, I won't fault them for saying smoking is wrong. I will only fault them if they allow me to do what I find pleasureable in an area that doesn't really affect them. Only and only when I encroach in areas that I shouldn't be should they be vindicated for their feelings and vise-versa.

Like I said I don't know if this is relevant, but there it is I put it out there. Do with it what you shall.

Charlatan · 09-21-2006, 08:10 AM

Interestingly I find myself agreeing with Politicophile and Ustwo.

We ALL make moral judgements of some sort (despite your various protestations to the contrary). They key here, and this is what most people in this thread are missing, is what you do with that judgement.

Politico suggests that while he does feel someone is doing something morally wrong he will not stop them insofar as it does not effect him.

I would suggest that that is entirely in keeping with the largely Libertarian attitudes of many on this board.

I also agree that this thread should have been closed. Instead, I am moving it out of General Discussion and into Philosophy where it belongs.

I am really disappointed in many here.

Glory's Sun · 09-21-2006, 08:54 AM

IN all fairness, I don't think the thread should have been closed. I think that some editing should have been done, but not closed.

politicophile · 09-21-2006, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

IN all fairness, I don't think the thread should have been closed. I think that some editing should have been done, but not closed.

I agree with this in principle, but I'm not sure what sort of editing would have salvaged the thread, considering the editors were part of the problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Interestingly I find myself agreeing with Politicophile and Ustwo.

We ALL make moral judgements of some sort (despite your various protestations to the contrary). They key here, and this is what most people in this thread are missing, is what you do with that judgement.

...

I am really disappointed in many here.

Yep, that's pretty much it. As I have said over and over and over again, my legitimate OP attracted all sorts of angry, irrational responses. If nothing else, this thread tells a story about the caliber of people who frequent TFP. The story is not a good one.

I was let down by the community on this one, big time. For a second time, I am beginning to doubt the value of my membership in this community.

jorgelito · 09-21-2006, 09:41 AM

Politico,

I had been hoping to stay away from this whole debacle. For what it's worth, I support you. I am still a bit in shock over this thread (and the other one) in how it degraded so rapidly and viciously. This is not what TFP is all about (at least that's what I thought anyways). I definitely find myself posting less and less these days despite an earlier effort to post more. It just doesn't feel right anymore. What happened to you was definitely uncalled for and out of line. Disagreements are natural and healthy but this was just a vicious unwarranted attack on you. Ultimately, I believe it boils down to misunderstandings. Morals are always a tricky issue to discuss but I guess people took your argument too personally and got emotional. I don't know that I agree with your premise, but I did find the layout and construction to be ok. Certainly it was presented for civil discourse. I was ready to grab a coffee and sit down and debate/discuss/wax with you a bit on it before the whole thing went up in flames. for what it's worth.

Oh, and Happy Birthday.

Glory's Sun · 09-21-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

I agree with this in principle, but I'm not sure what sort of editing would have salvaged the thread, considering the editors were part of the problem.

Just out of curiousity, was I part of the problem? I mean I can edit posts and such. However, tbh, I didn't see anything until this morning.

kurty[B] · 09-21-2006, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

I was let down by the community on this one, big time. For a second time, I am beginning to doubt the value of my membership in this community.

I hope you don't doubt your value of membership. I personally enjoyed your first post (I didn't bother reading the other thread, wasn't interested). I saw the options for a good debate. Maybe wording could have been different, but it's there, it's debatable.

I think the thread quickly devolved into a pissing match. Usually, with pissing match threads I stop reading, and move on to a different post. I actually wanted to see where this one went, and get the opinions from both sides. I'll go to the bathroom in the restroom now, instead of all over this thread.

politicophile · 09-21-2006, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

Just out of curiousity, was I part of the problem? I mean I can edit posts and such. However, tbh, I didn't see anything until this morning.

No, you were not part of the problem. It would have been reassuring to have a mod (any mod at all) start splashing some yellow writing around to those who deserved it, but (as you say) your passivity was not willful neglect, so it would be silly to hold you accountable.

My disappointment is directed at the community as a whole, not just the handfull of asshats who created this mess.

ngdawg · 09-21-2006, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The problem in this thread started with one word, 'morals'.

Its somewhat amusing to see just how easily people get offended if they even think what they do is being questioned. I'm guessing its in part due to insecurity over what they do.

Mention morals and you see moral outrage by those who think you are going to take their porn, take their cigarettes, take their out of the norm sex practices away, or whatever they feel is under attack or on shaky ground.

There is some justification to this fear. In the past, porn was mostly illegal, it wasn't illegal to own it but illegal to ship it, based on the professed morals of the day. My guess in some states its still illegal on paper for a man to stick his penis in another mans anus. Many cities are passing smoking bans in public places, my own is trying to do so this November, and odds are it will pass.

The problem here is that such judgements or miss judgements need not be the focus of reply to the original post. People are so afraid of their personal fetish or bad habit is going to be attacked that they strike out, crudely and without much fore thought, ironically passing moral judgements. It reminds me of the 'intolerant of intolerance' threads of a while back.

One needs to just look around them to see the original post is correct and not in a bad way. Look at wheelchair ramps, handicapped toilets, affirmative action, progressive taxes, social security, indecency laws, etc. All were moral decisions by part of society, imposed on others. If you don't think handicapped toilets are an imposition you never had to pay for one and use up extra space for one that will never be used by a handicapped person, I did.

Is it wrong to support a smoking ban? Is is less wrong to support affirmative action? Both are moral decisions, both have people who are negatively affected by it, both have people who are benefited by it, so how do you choose which is the correct thing to do unless you rely on your morals of what is right and wrong?

I find most of those examples to be more of 'fairness' than morality. In my mind, they are different entities, although not always mutually exclusive.
Putting in access for the handicapped portion of society is fair. It really doesn't hit on morals. However, banning porn is a morality issue. It's only really fair to do so in the case of child pornography.
Affirmative action falls under both fairness and morals, or at least righting the immorality and unfairness done so long ago.
What's perceived as wrong to you might be perfectly ok to me and vice versa-our senses of fairness and morals will never be equal. In making laws, a middle line has to be met, they can't be made simply because the action is unpleasant to some. Fairness balanced against morality. We accuse politicians and others of being immoral when they pass or even suggest laws that we deem unfair. But if we get past the personal affect of such a law and drop the morality quotient, we're able more to see the fairness of it.
I don't think a subject such as smoking falls into morality so much, but others do and hence, attack the character of the person lighting up. There are total immoral, unlawful cads lighting up as much as there are upstanding, churchgoing community leaders. They're being unfair to themselves and to others around if they're being rude about it, but it's not a moral issue unless you're a Mormon. And in that sense, caffeine is immoral as well.

World's King · 09-21-2006, 12:38 PM

You know, it wasn't long ago that I could have made a post like I did and people would have laughed right along with me. What the fuck happen?

Morals. What a funny little word. It has a different meaning to each and every one of us. Some make sense and some don’t. I guess I’m one of the ones that has a meaning very different from most. Most things that people see as being moral or immoral are things that I see as basic common sense. Don’t kill people. Don’t cheat on your wife. Don’t touch little girls behind a bush in the park. These are things that should just go without saying. Which is why I don’t understand the point of having a huge discussion about it. Getting all angry about people smoking indoors. If you don’t like it. Go away. There are plenty of places that don’t allow smoking. Hospitals. Government buildings. Saying that you can’t take your family to a nice restaurant because it’s all smoky is a giant pile of horse shit. And I know this cause I work in the service industry. There are two different sections. Smoking. Non-Smoking. Pick one.

Okay, back on topic. All I see happening here is that everyone is stating what they think ‘being moral’ is and then trash talking everyone else’s meanings. We don’t like discussions like that here.

Do I have a moral responsibility to society to be kind and gentle? No. I don’t. I can choose to be. And I’m sorry if you don’t agree with my choice but I’m not forcing you to pay attention to me and I sure as fuck will never ask you to. So all in all. Mind your own fuckin’ business and live your life how you feel you should and let me live mine how I think I should. And if our lives should ever cross in a not-so- nice way… we’ll discuss the problem like adults and come to a conclusion that benefits all parties involved.

I’m sure as fuck not gonna try to force my ‘morals’ on anyone and because of that people tend to think they have the right to force theirs on me. It’s almost like they think I don’t have any ‘cause I’m not shouting them from a fuckin’ mountain.

Use common sense. You’re not alone here. Mind your own business. If someone wants to know how you feel about something, they’ll ask.

Ustwo · 09-21-2006, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Provided there is no official condemnation or disciplinary action related to this incident, I will leave TFP for good in one week's time. This is precisely the sort of bullshit I came here not to deal with. What the hell happened to this place? Have you all forgotten about the importance of civil discourse?

You aren't a member of TFP until you have been trolled by a mod.

Congraulations and welcome to the club!

I found those were best handled by a PM to one of the better mods.

Its more fun when you are banned for no reason because a mod logs on and doesn't check his facts

Been there too.

Trick is to lighten up, with the diversity of opinions, education levels, sanity, and IQ's found on TFP its surprising there isn't more of this. Seperate the wheat from the dross and ignore those who would make you angry.

If for nothing else to see them write 'As much as I hate to agree with Ustwo'....If I had a few bucks for every time that was said....well...I'd have a pretty nice dinner at least at a steak house by now.

Cynthetiq · 09-21-2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Provided there is no official condemnation or disciplinary action related to this incident, I will leave TFP for good in one week's time. This is precisely the sort of bullshit I came here not to deal with. What the hell happened to this place? Have you all forgotten about the importance of civil discourse?

You aren't a member of TFP until you have been trolled by a mod.

Congraulations and welcome to the club!

I found those were best handled by a PM to one of the better mods.

Its more fun when you are banned for no reason because a mod logs on and doesn't check his facts

Been there too.

Trick is to lighten up, with the diversity of opinions, education levels, sanity, and IQ's found on TFP its surprising there isn't more of this. Seperate the wheat from the dross and ignore those who would make you angry.

If for nothing else to see them write 'As much as I hate to agree with Ustwo'....If I had a few bucks for every time that was said....well...I'd have a pretty nice dinner at least at a steak house by now.

I'm going to say simply that if you have any issue with any mod about anything; Halx is the person to direct your complaint to. PM him directly. Halx has the final say in anything regarding this board.

politicophile · 09-21-2006, 02:22 PM

I've received my answer.

Goodbye, everyone.

09-20-2006, 06:28 PM	#44 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	eh, I don't actually have anything to add. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. Last edited by FoolThemAll; 09-20-2006 at 06:33 PM..

09-21-2006, 02:34 AM	#47 (permalink)
Nisses Shade Location: Belgium	Judge me all you want, by your morals. I'll repay in kind with mine. As long as you are not trying to get your selection of morality applied to others, I have no problem with you, in fact, since your selection differs enough form mine, I hardly even take it into account. People can make judgements like that, only, they should expect to be judged right back, cuz here's the kicker: a judgement is rarely backed by 100% logic & facts, gut-feeling and emotions play a big part. __________________ Moderation should be moderately moderated.

09-21-2006, 06:05 AM	#50 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	Take a look at my "defense" (not that I should need one) over here. I would appreciate your support. __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

09-21-2006, 06:24 AM	#52 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	The problem in this thread started with one word, 'morals'. Its somewhat amusing to see just how easily people get offended if they even think what they do is being questioned. I'm guessing its in part due to insecurity over what they do. Mention morals and you see moral outrage by those who think you are going to take their porn, take their cigarettes, take their out of the norm sex practices away, or whatever they feel is under attack or on shaky ground. There is some justification to this fear. In the past, porn was mostly illegal, it wasn't illegal to own it but illegal to ship it, based on the professed morals of the day. My guess in some states its still illegal on paper for a man to stick his penis in another mans anus. Many cities are passing smoking bans in public places, my own is trying to do so this November, and odds are it will pass. The problem here is that such judgements or miss judgements need not be the focus of reply to the original post. People are so afraid of their personal fetish or bad habit is going to be attacked that they strike out, crudely and without much fore thought, ironically passing moral judgements. It reminds me of the 'intolerant of intolerance' threads of a while back. One needs to just look around them to see the original post is correct and not in a bad way. Look at wheelchair ramps, handicapped toilets, affirmative action, progressive taxes, social security, indecency laws, etc. All were moral decisions by part of society, imposed on others. If you don't think handicapped toilets are an imposition you never had to pay for one and use up extra space for one that will never be used by a handicapped person, I did. Is it wrong to support a smoking ban? Is is less wrong to support affirmative action? Both are moral decisions, both have people who are negatively affected by it, both have people who are benefited by it, so how do you choose which is the correct thing to do unless you rely on your morals of what is right and wrong? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-21-2006, 06:37 AM	#54 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	to say that you would use moral criteria to make an evaluation, ustwo, is not the same as saying that a particular issue is a moral one. the first is about judgment. the second is a statement about the kind of argument that is appropriate to a given issue. on the first, you assume that right/wrong is exclusively a moral matter. that does not seem to me to be accurate. it could just as easily be a true/false evaluation. or an aesthetic evaluation. or any number of other kinds of judgment--there are many ways to yeild a right/wrong response. on the second, arguments from morality have failed to garner much support for anti-smoking bans where they have been implemented. the dominant argument is worker health--the effects of prolonged exposure to lots of smoke on bar and resto workers. that is why i have no problem with smoking bans, actually---and i smoke. it hasnt the first thing to do with morality. one problem that conservative political discourse has created for itself is that it loves loves loves morality as a framing move. loves it. uses it for everything. you use it for everything it ends up signifying nothing. this is why i argued above that the primary problem is tactical--even if politicophile's arguments in favor of using this language were compelling (and they are not to me at least) the static generated by the move is such that it is counterproductive to go that route. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-21-2006, 06:51 AM	#56 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	maybe.....but if memory serves (it is early and who knows about that...) wheelchair ramps were advocated and implemented as civil rights matters --which has to do with equal protection and what it means---and so were not presented as involving a moral question. i am not saying that these issues cannot be seen as moral--just that they typically are not framed that way, particularly not if groups are trying to get legislation actually passed. same reason as i have been talking about here explains it--tactical considerations preclude the usage of that language. the issues where this language continues to operate are generally among the most polarizing politically. a side note: i took the right/wrong question from the logic of your post rather than from its contents---i dont think i misrepresented your position in it, but since i cant reach around the post and see into your mind, maybe i did. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-21-2006, 07:27 AM	#58 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	Cynthetiq, politicophile is certainly making a moral judgment about smokers, but I'm not seeing where in this thread he argued for imposing that judgment on others. Could be that I missed it. Otherwise, "live and let live" and your laundry list of possible judgments are not mutually exclusive. One can make the judgment that hunting is immoral, and yet tolerate its existence. And if it's judgment without the imposition, well, then I don't quite see the absurdity. It may be incorrect to judge all those things immoral - most of them I'm morally okay with - but it's not absurd. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

09-21-2006, 07:32 AM	#59 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	There's something else I'd like to mention. I have no idea if it's relevant to this thread as I don't even know what this thread is about anymore. It's undergone many mutations and not all of them are welcome in my eyes.. anyway. About the societal norm thing.. Where were morals when this country was immersed in segregation? I live in an area that is still dominated by ignorance and racism yet, it's called part of the bible belt and is supposedly a conservative state. People here talk about morals, yet they are quick to judge based on nothing but color. Am I just supposed to go with the social norm here?? No of course not. Why should I make judgements about people?? Whether they be moral or otherwise I still do it but it shouldn't be overwhelming to where I consider the person something they aren't just because of what I first perceive. I think the best area to address this is in the legal sense. If selected for a jury, some will automatically make up their mind before any defense or prosicution is presented. Why? Because they have made a moral judgement based on that person and it blinds them to anything else. A judge instructs to look at all evidence to determine the character of a person. How often does this really happen? I don't think it happens as often as it should. So on that note, I don't think people should make pre-noted subjections about a person. People are just people. You do your thing and I'll do mine. You may not like smoking and think I'm a worse person for doing it, I may not like your choice of lifestyle (although that would be hard to come by for me) but I'm not going to think that you are a bad person. If you physically harm me or my wife, then yes I might think you are a bad person. That's inevitable. If I walk through a crowd on non-smokers and I know that 3 seconds of smoke won't hurt them, I won't fault them for saying smoking is wrong. I will only fault them if they allow me to do what I find pleasureable in an area that doesn't really affect them. Only and only when I encroach in areas that I shouldn't be should they be vindicated for their feelings and vise-versa. Like I said I don't know if this is relevant, but there it is I put it out there. Do with it what you shall.

09-21-2006, 08:10 AM	#60 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Interestingly I find myself agreeing with Politicophile and Ustwo. We ALL make moral judgements of some sort (despite your various protestations to the contrary). They key here, and this is what most people in this thread are missing, is what you do with that judgement. Politico suggests that while he does feel someone is doing something morally wrong he will not stop them insofar as it does not effect him. I would suggest that that is entirely in keeping with the largely Libertarian attitudes of many on this board. I also agree that this thread should have been closed. Instead, I am moving it out of General Discussion and into Philosophy where it belongs. I am really disappointed in many here. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-21-2006, 08:54 AM	#61 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	IN all fairness, I don't think the thread should have been closed. I think that some editing should have been done, but not closed.

09-21-2006, 09:41 AM	#63 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Politico, I had been hoping to stay away from this whole debacle. For what it's worth, I support you. I am still a bit in shock over this thread (and the other one) in how it degraded so rapidly and viciously. This is not what TFP is all about (at least that's what I thought anyways). I definitely find myself posting less and less these days despite an earlier effort to post more. It just doesn't feel right anymore. What happened to you was definitely uncalled for and out of line. Disagreements are natural and healthy but this was just a vicious unwarranted attack on you. Ultimately, I believe it boils down to misunderstandings. Morals are always a tricky issue to discuss but I guess people took your argument too personally and got emotional. I don't know that I agree with your premise, but I did find the layout and construction to be ok. Certainly it was presented for civil discourse. I was ready to grab a coffee and sit down and debate/discuss/wax with you a bit on it before the whole thing went up in flames. for what it's worth. Oh, and Happy Birthday.

09-21-2006, 12:38 PM	#68 (permalink)
World's King Here Location: Denver City Denver	You know, it wasn't long ago that I could have made a post like I did and people would have laughed right along with me. What the fuck happen? Morals. What a funny little word. It has a different meaning to each and every one of us. Some make sense and some don’t. I guess I’m one of the ones that has a meaning very different from most. Most things that people see as being moral or immoral are things that I see as basic common sense. Don’t kill people. Don’t cheat on your wife. Don’t touch little girls behind a bush in the park. These are things that should just go without saying. Which is why I don’t understand the point of having a huge discussion about it. Getting all angry about people smoking indoors. If you don’t like it. Go away. There are plenty of places that don’t allow smoking. Hospitals. Government buildings. Saying that you can’t take your family to a nice restaurant because it’s all smoky is a giant pile of horse shit. And I know this cause I work in the service industry. There are two different sections. Smoking. Non-Smoking. Pick one. Okay, back on topic. All I see happening here is that everyone is stating what they think ‘being moral’ is and then trash talking everyone else’s meanings. We don’t like discussions like that here. Do I have a moral responsibility to society to be kind and gentle? No. I don’t. I can choose to be. And I’m sorry if you don’t agree with my choice but I’m not forcing you to pay attention to me and I sure as fuck will never ask you to. So all in all. Mind your own fuckin’ business and live your life how you feel you should and let me live mine how I think I should. And if our lives should ever cross in a not-so- nice way… we’ll discuss the problem like adults and come to a conclusion that benefits all parties involved. I’m sure as fuck not gonna try to force my ‘morals’ on anyone and because of that people tend to think they have the right to force theirs on me. It’s almost like they think I don’t have any ‘cause I’m not shouting them from a fuckin’ mountain. Use common sense. You’re not alone here. Mind your own business. If someone wants to know how you feel about something, they’ll ask. __________________ heavy is the head that wears the crown

09-21-2006, 02:22 PM	#71 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	I've received my answer. Goodbye, everyone.