| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Scott S:
> > Chris:
> > > So why not just go away if you're not interested? In what way does it
> > > negatively affect your LUGNET experience?
> >
> > See above, and I am away from it, and have been for awhile.
>
> I know that you've been gone. I think that's a good decision for you. But
> what I still don't get is why, given that you had the opportunity to leave
> .debate alone, the existence of it is problematic for you personally.
I think this is a specific instance of a more general principle, one we've
stumbled over repeatedly on vastly different topics.
A says "I tolerate/enjoy X"
B says "I don't tolerate/enjoy X"
So far so good. As long as X doesn't intrude on B, B can just ignore X and
no harm done to B or to A.
But when B says "X intrudes on me and my peaceful enjoyment of other things"
or more broadly "X is bad for society as a whole and has to be banned even
if it is not violating my rights directly" then the assertion is much
stronger and much broader in implication.
B needs to *show* X is infringing on B, that is, that X cannot just be
ignored, or in the second case, that X is such a bad thing that it has to be
banned apriori.
Many small l libertarians tend to hold that the class of Xs that infringe is
much smaller than the class of X that they find annoying but can just
ignore, and further, that the class of Xs that is so bad that it has to be
banned (rather than just constrained to prevent rights infringment) is very
very small indeed, almost infinitesimal. (not nonexistent, there are some X
that fit (personally I find strategic nukes in my neighbor's back yard to
fall into that category of X), but in need of rigorous demonstration before
accepting)
Some others hold far different views, that it's appropriate for states to
ban things that they personally find objectionable, for example, or that
things that they don't personally care for, but which don't threaten rights,
are morally wrong and have to be banned.
Many of the second class don't grasp the distinction or don't find it valid,
that is, they are perfectly OK with a might makes right worldview in which
the majority impose preferences by force. Further, they don't even get that
they are *taking* this worldview, they prattle about society taking
decisions and unconstrained majority rule being fundamentally just.
Viewed in this light, I find a great deal of congruence between the
"polyamory" debate (and many other past debates) and the "is .debate
harmful" debate. But then i tend to view everything through rights colored
glasses.
Scott S., I would say that if you wish to justify (as opposed to calling for
Todd to exercise whim (perfectly OK, but different)) abolition of .debate,
you need to make the case that the very existence of .debate is so harmful
to the rest of LUGNet that the detractions outweigh the benefits.
I think that's a hard case to make.
It's easier to just make a case that you prefer it not be there. And that's
a fine case to make and Todd may well be influenced by popularity, and since
we're not dealing with a government which must NOT show preference or
discriminate, he can take whatever action he wants. But that action is
ultimately his preference rather than any moral imperative.
Once you've made that case of preference (which I think you have) your best
bet is to go back to ignoring .debate...
> > I think it is bad for LUGNET for the hostility
> > and anger it seems to produce, and it would be a more family-friendly and
> > nice place without it.
>
> OK. I think the little tid-bit about family friendliness is a good
> comment. What are the chances that our heated exchanges would drive
> potential young readers (or their censors) away? That would be a bad
> thing. If we could know how often that might happen, we could weigh it
> against the overall good that I think .debate does for LUGNET and see
> where we sat. But it sounds like a tough calculation.
Indeed. But this would be the outline of an argument to make that .debate is
more harmful than good, should one choose to make it.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) Agreed. (...) Out of curiosity, how does one show that and to whom does one make such an appeal? Use the example of strategic nuclear holdings. (And as an aside, do you feel differently about tactical nuclear weapons?) (...) I think that this (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) I'm not sure that you're actually wanting an answer to this, since you go on to sarcastically point out things that we all consider negatives, not positives, but I think it's worth exploring. The value to _me_ of .debate is a place to civilly (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
