View Poll Results: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • Everything should be permitted that doesn't "harm others"

    32 68.09%
  • We should have some societal standards based on morals

    10 21.28%
  • We should have more standards than what we have now

    4 8.51%
  • Other

    5 10.64%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 147

Thread: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

  1. #121
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    I don't remember saying that. Are you one those dishonest posters who attributes arguments to people that they haven't made? If so, we can end this now because I'm not in the mood.
    Do you trouble comprehending my statement? I never attributed any argument to you. I asked you a very simple question. Would you do heroin if it was legal tomorrow? Legalizing drugs doesn't turn every member of society into a drug addict. We're not all alcoholics, are we?


    I claimed that a society of addicts would be harmful to society. The consequences of addiction alone are substantiated evidence for my claim. Do you deny that if society (including government, schools, corporations, etc.) were filled with people who were perpetually on heroin, cocaine, meth and everything else, society would be harmed?
    First of all. That is a blanket statement predicting the future actions of every member of society. Second, as a libertarian who believes in a free market, my idea of legalization doesn't include forcing employers to hire people they deem undesirable. Employers should still have the right to test for drug users and deny those who are.

    Individual drug use by many people harms society. The end. It seems like your attempting to keep individual drug use in a vacuum where it's interaction with the world does not exist. Unfortunately for you, I base my opinions on reality and individual drug use does not exist in a vacuum. On the contrary, it exists within a society and consequently, it has effects on society, effects that are harmful. And as I said, a society filled with addicts would be harmful to society.
    Again, you're making blanket, unsubstantiated statements. You need to prove how or why individual drug use harms thy neighbor.

  2. #122
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mensch View Post
    Do you trouble comprehending my statement? I never attributed any argument to you. I asked you a very simple question. Would you do heroin if it was legal tomorrow? Legalizing drugs doesn't turn every member of society into a drug addict. We're not all alcoholics, are we?
    The problem is that my comments have nothing to do with legalizing drugs. They are specifically about your question as to why individual drug use can be harmful. A nation filled with addicts is harmful whether or not drugs are legal or illegal.

    First of all. That is a blanket statement predicting the future actions of every member of society.
    I didn't predict the future actions of every member of society. My comment doesn't even talk about every member of society. You are now distorting my arguments.

    Second, as a libertarian who believes in a free market, my idea of legalization doesn't include forcing employers to hire people they deem undesirable. Employers should still have the right to test for drug users and deny those who are.
    I agree.

    Again, you're making blanket, unsubstantiated statements. You need to prove how or why individual drug use harms thy neighbor.
    I don't actually need to prove anything. If you can't understand why large scale individual drug use would harm society, then that's your own easily rectified problem. Anybody who knows what the consequences of addiction are would agree with me.

    The easiest thing for you to have responded to my comment would have been, "Yes, you're right. A nation filled with a bunch of addicts would be bad."

  3. #123
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,186
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonI View Post
    Well then, I think your rules for discussing topics are fairly immature so we'll just stop now...and you don't know whether I have the experience or not, you're just assuming...

    Good to know that since I've never been to church or read the bible, I shouldn't discuss religion...
    I understand you're need to stop.

    That would make your discussion of the religious subject rather inept?
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  4. #124
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Where pissing off the has beens here is fun...
    Last Seen
    04-07-13 @ 09:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    1,156

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    I understand you're need to stop.

    That would make your discussion of the religious subject rather inept?

    - My only argument has to be that you can't prove that any of it true...not inept, pretty conclusive actually...

  5. #125
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,186
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonI View Post
    - My only argument has to be that you can't prove that any of it true...not inept, pretty conclusive actually...
    What, that churches and bibles exist or that you want to talk about them, having no knowledge of them?
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  6. #126
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Where pissing off the has beens here is fun...
    Last Seen
    04-07-13 @ 09:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    1,156

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    What, that churches and bibles exist or that you want to talk about them, having no knowledge of them?
    Clearly any attempt at intelligent conversation with you is out of the question...I suggest you just move on...

  7. #127
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    The problem is that my comments have nothing to do with legalizing drugs. They are specifically about your question as to why individual drug use can be harmful. A nation filled with addicts is harmful whether or not drugs are legal or illegal.
    There is a major difference between the harm caused by legal drug use and that caused by illegal drug use. Legalizing drugs would actually reduce the level of crime, gang activity, and poverty associated with illegal drug use. The legality is the main issue of the thread, and it makes a difference in the harm caused by drug use.


    I didn't predict the future actions of every member of society. My comment doesn't even talk about every member of society. You are now distorting my arguments.
    "A society of addicts" implies that everyone is an addict, or at the very least, the majority.

    I don't actually need to prove anything. If you can't understand why large scale individual drug use would harm society, then that's your own easily rectified problem. Anybody who knows what the consequences of addiction are would agree with me.
    Drug addiction harms the individual. It doesn't physically or financially harm the individual's neighbors. You're assuming that legalzing drugs would automatically mean large scale drug use, as if you and your employer and your pastor would go shoot heroin tomorrow if it were legal. Large scale drug use does not even equal large scale addiction.

    The easiest thing for you to have responded to my comment would have been, "Yes, you're right. A nation filled with a bunch of addicts would be bad."
    It certainly would not be productive. But it is no more harmful to you if I smoke pot or snort coke as it would be to me if you got drunk on a Friday night.

  8. #128
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    There is no major illegal drug category that I don't have experience with.

    There is no major drug category that I can't acquire within 3 hours despite all the laws.

    If drugs were legal and required a prescription, I would have been much less likely to experience them. Legality would destroy the black market and I wouldn't have casually gone for a Doctors appointment. Indeed, my MD offered me a marijuana license recently (68 and arthritic) and I just couldn't be bothered since I can buy pot anytime I want anyway and I don't feel like paying for the license.
    Well, if things like Marijuana obtain a full legal status, you won't need a license for it anymore than you do to drink alcohol or smoke tobacco.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  9. #129
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Illegal drug use is harmful to others.
    How?

    Prostitution is harmful to others.
    I would say that human trafficking and/or PAYING for sex are far more harmful to others than prostitution itself.

    Addiction to substances is harmful to others.
    Not in any direct, universally-applicable sense. And does this harm outweigh the harm of waging a war on drugs? In fact, is this harm even mitigated at all by waging a war on drugs?

    I thought you probably meant those kinds of so-called victimless crimes. They are not victimless.
    For the most part, they are. Certainly they're victimless to the extent that the prohibition itself creates more victims than the act does.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-24-12 at 02:14 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #130
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    To answer the OP's question...I can think of a few things that don't "harm others" that should be regulated:

    - Safety/preemptive laws. Driving while intoxicated, driving on the left side of the road, having fire hazards in your workplace...These regulations don't harm others in and of themselves, but the laws are designed to prevent possible future harm.


    - Economic regulations. Operating a store that only accepts euros as payment (in the US), offering a health insurance plan that doesn't cover certain basic treatments, buying up all of the businesses in competition with you, running both a commercial bank and an investment bank using the same pile of cash...These regulations don't harm others in and of themselves, but are designed to correct market failures or economic externalities, which the free market is generally unable to correct on its own.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •