Posted by Hammerer on 01/19/32 11:43

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6x4Wf.2457$Aa1.11@dukeread05
>
> "George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:FX2Wf.35967$jf2.14245@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> > why?
> >
>
> Because I'm that dam good?
>
> Actually that is a good question and one might ask; what reasons would one
> have for collecting things or not collecting things? When would personal
> preferences be extendable to others by trying to persuade them to also
> like this or that. When does a description become a prescription? How
> often does a suppposed fact translate to some that a person likes and
> others don't? When do these activities limit other people's rights and
> become offensive?
>
> It is sometimes suggested that we distinguish offending from harming.
>
> But surely it is implausible to think that the giving of offense is never
> harmful to the offended party. People may be deeply offended at witnessing
> what they regard as immoral or obscene acts and behavior. A deeply
> religious person may be significantly pained by seeing or hearing about
> what he regards as a sacrilegious speech or play. Virtually anyone in
> contemporary Western societies would be disgusted by public defecation.
> In at least some such cases, the offense given can be not only upsetting
> but can induce rage, affect health, and perhaps even alter the course of
> a person's life, e.g., as when someone makes it her or his life work to
> stamp out pornography.
>
> Can the claim to liberty be reconciled with the claim to be safe from
> constant offense? A first step at reconciliation would involve
> distinguishing easily avoidable from unavoidable offensive acts. If the
> act or behavior that is regarded as offensive can be avoided with a
> minimum of effort, it is not unreasonable to expect those who object to
> make the minimal effort required. Surely, liberty is of great enough
> value to outweigh the minimal effort required to avoid offense. Thus,
> having sexual relations on the subway during rush hour may be legally
> prohibited. Sex between the proverbial consenting adults in private
> should be beyond the scope of the law. Anyone should be free to watch a
> pornographic movie if they so wish but such freedom should not extend to
> lurid billboard advertisements that passers-by cannot help but witness.
>
> How exactly is the boundary between the avoidable and the unavoidable to
> be drawn. It is doubtful if any precise formula can be constructed that
> then can be applied to cases in a mechanical fashion. In practice, the
> boundary should be established by democratically enacted statute, as
> applied by the judiciary. However, there are limits on how far democracy
> may go here. These limits are set by the value of liberty itself. In view
> of the importance of individual liberty, the burden of proof is on those
> who would limit it to show at least: (a) that the allegedly offensive
> behavior cannot be easily avoided; (b) that it is not feasible to provide
> a restricted area where the behavior in question need not be witnessed by
> the general public; (c) that the behavior is widely regarded as deeply
> offensive in the community as a whole; and (d) that the allegedly
> offensive behavior is not the expression of an ideology or ideal that
> ought to be protected under the heading of free speech. We also should
> remember that since any act may offend someone, we cannot prohibit all
> offensive behavior without surrendering liberty entirely.
>
> In practice, the courts often have appealed to the standard of what the
> community in general finds offensive, obscene, or revolting. The trick,
> which has not yet been performed satisfactorily, is to characterize the
> relevant community properly. Presumably, one should not define the
> community so narrowly that the showing of the very same movie is allowed
> in one and prohibited in the other of two neighboring suburbs. Yet one
> might not want to define the community so broadly that what is
> permissible on 42nd Street in New York City must also be permissible in
> an Amish community.
>
> It is reasonable to conclude that the guidelines sketched above should be
> interpreted as placing a heavy burden of proof on those who would restrict
> liberty to minimize offense. This is a moral judgment concerning the
> importance of liberty that we hope is warranted in view of the arguments
> for liberty in Chapter Three, as developed in later sections of this
> chapter.
>
> The Individual & the Poliical Order
> An Introduction to Social & Political Philosophy
> -Norman E. Bowie & Robert L. Simon
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0847687805/
>
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=y1fWNxZwIj4
>

I wish someone would stick their boot right up your arse, mate. No offence.
No; scrub that. Yes offence.

[Back to original message]