[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ProgSoc] Have you registered to vote yet?



On 10/16/07, John Elliot <jj5@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Andrew Halliday wrote:
> Interesting. So really all of us non-smokers who experience displeasure as a
> result of the activity of smokers in our vicinity have taken up a
> multifaceted approach in resisting these assaults on our personal space
> because we are warding off the threatening displeasure of ill health, smelly
> clothes and stale disgusting smoky air together. Sounds like what we're
> doing alright. Glad it's working too! Smoking rates are falling, areas where
> you're allowed to smoke are shrinking and the cost of smoking is growing all
> to encourage people to not just quit but not to start to begin with.

By extension, another reason to make being gay illegal is so that we
could then close down Oxford St. That's some prime real-estate right
there. Obviously if we leave it to market forces we get gay bars. So,
what we should do is make being gay illegal, so that we (i.e. the moral
majority) can get this space back.

Interesting. I counter your pro-smoker argument that we are right in encouraging people to quit by limiting their freedom to impose their foul atmosphere on others and you counter that with making being gay illegal. I struggle to see the validity of that argument.
My being gay does not impact on your health or the health of others. Your smoking however does impact on the health of me and society.

Sorry, but if you're going to attempt to counter my argument with that kind of crap I would have thought you would have at least tried the pathetic stance of first limiting gay rights (oh wait, we don't really have any to limit do we?) and freedom of assembly first. I suppose I should counter your argument by suggesting a prohibition on tobacco related products and all smoking in public places.

My life is not defined by my sexuality. Just like not all peoples lives are defined by their faith or culture.
And although your life is not defined by your smoking habit, your habit impacts on those around you.


When are you going to figure out that life's not just about you? I don't
want to smoke in "your space". I just want to have "my space" in which I
can smoke.

I realise this. I find your frustration with the "life's not just about you" statement quite amusing considering you were the one whinging about your wanting to smoke therefore making this all "about you". The problem is that you smoking in your space is unacceptable when the smoke impacts on my space.
 

As I know Ryan enjoys them so much, here's [1] a citation.

[1] The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy

negative freedom/positive freedom: Negative freedom, 'independence of
determination by alien causes', and positive freedom, which is the same
as self-determination or autonomy, were distinguished by Kant in chapter
3 of Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals 1785.

        The contrast between these two concepts, especially as they apply in
social and political contexts, was elaborated by Isaiah Berlin in 'Two
Concepts of Liberty', originally delivered as an inaugural lecture at
Oxford in 1958. Negative freedom consists in the absence of coercion,
the absence of interference from other people. Liberty in this negative
sense means liberty *from*. Positive freedom consists in
self-determination, in being one's own master, being in charge of the
fulfilment of one's aspirations. At first sight it seems the two kinds
of freedom complement each other. But, Berlin argued, in the history of
political thought positive freedom has regularly been taken to mean that
the individual should be determined by his true, genuine self and not by
his actual self, which is imperfect because of innate shortcomings (like
original sin) or the bad influence of society. Since individuals are
often seen as being blind, ignorant or corrupt, the ideal of positive
freedom will normally imply coercion: the unenlightened individuals must
in Rousseau's words 'be forced to be free'. It is an ideal that has
served to justify much political oppression in the twentieth century:
the state acts to protect the individual from himself and to help him to
get what is good for him, rather than what he wants.

Correction. The State acts to protect the individual from itself and the rest of the society from the individual. 

Since it is the
individual's own real interests that are being promoted, what looks like
coercion is claimed to be liberation.


Indeed. The smoking individual is encouraged (but not forced -the choice is still with the individual) to be liberated from their addiction. I think that the measures currently in place reflect the fact that over 80% of the population (and growing) does not smoke and does not want to be imposed upon by those that do. You have a choice. You can smoke in your car, in your house and you can still buy tobacco products. We are limiting your ability to impact on others.

I would strongly advise you to resist any future urge to make further homophobic comments.
They are ignorant, offensive, provocative and misleading.

-Andi.