|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted April 29, 2009 07:26 AM |
|
|
Where do we draw a line?
In my sociology class a very interesting subject came up. Personal freedoms. Now I for one am a strong supporter of personal freedoms, but what about if they infringe apon somebody elses personal freedom? Where is the line drawn? This may be possibly the most contriversal thread in the OSM, even more so then the "I gave up believing in god." thread
What brought the subject up in the class was immunizations. On one side there is the parents right to decide what is best for their child, on the other is what happens if that personal choice cost somebody else their life. Now the example was the measles, but I don't want to limit this discussion in such a way. (I think one of the class had seen the Law and Order:Criminal Intent version of the subject and let it color their perceptions). So let us broaden the spectrum a bit.
What personal freedoms should be limited, if any, due to the possible infringement of somebody elses personal freedom. How do we decide who's 'personal freedom' is more important?
There are a lot of hot topics this could touch, that may be best left to another thread. Like discipline, and the difference between discipline and abuse..religion (there is a thread already there)..and such. However, I would like to know what lines each person here draws for themselves.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 08:39 AM |
|
Edited by Shares at 09:00, 29 Apr 2009.
|
Good question Mytical
Quote:
What personal freedoms should be limited, if any, due to the possible infringement of somebody elses personal freedom. How do we decide who's 'personal freedom' is more important?
I try not to go further than the person in question (the one I am/am not infringing) personal border. The hard part is knowing where there border really is, and until I know that I never do anything that my hurt them in any way. So I would never insult or hit any one I don't know would have or already have in a similiar situation.
EDIT: But this only go to a certain limit. I wouldn't feel justified to rape some one who has raped some one. Or murder. I guess my line would go... close to assault. I could hit some one if it was needed, but I would not try to actually hurt them. So I wouldn't kick some one or keep hitting them if he/she's on the ground.
____________
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 08:43 AM |
|
Edited by Lexxan at 08:44, 29 Apr 2009.
|
I have a quite obvious opinion: People have the right to do whatever they want, as long as they don't break the rights of others (IE: Stealing someone's property, taking someone's life - phyisically or Mentally - traumatizing someone (any reason or way), etc...) . Then they should lose they own. For example a Pedophile would be completely exposed to the public, so that parents KNOW who we is or has been. Murderer's should be imprisoned for a long time or be executed (depending on their crime). If they ever get free, they get limited freedoms, as a result of their past crimes. That's how I see it.
But apart from this, people should do whatever they want (with a few tiny exeptions)
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 08:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I have a quite obvious opinion: People have the right to do whatever they want, as long as they don't break the rights of others (IE: Stealing someone's property, taking someone's life - phyisically or Mentally - traumatizing someone (any reason or way), etc...) . Then they should lose they own. For example a Pedophile would be completely exposed to the public, so that parents KNOW who we is or has been. Murderer's should be imprisoned for a long time or be executed (depending on their crime). If they ever get free, they get limited freedoms, as a result of their past crimes. That's how I see it.
So you want to "punish" people that has crossed a border and have taken some ones rights. Yes, I understand that, but where's the border? Should I be punished if I tease a friend of mine? If I tease a younger kid in school? If I bully a younger kid in school? If I take his lunch afterwards? If I hit some one(hard)? If I get involved with a fight that sombody else started, but then hurt some one (brake some ones arm?)?
____________
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 08:51 AM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 08:52, 29 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
People have the right to do whatever they want, as long as they don't break the rights of others
How is a pedophile breaking the rights of others? Your idea would actually legalize Pedophilia.
Oh and yeah criminals would become second class citizens, not even criminals everyone who once in his life has done something against the law, lol? You seriously believe that people should forever be branded for what they did in the past, no such thing as remorse, bettering oneself ? But yeah this'll turn into a discussion of behaviour mentality and stuff if I elaborate.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 09:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
How is a pedophile breaking the rights of others? Your idea would actually legalize Pedophilia.
ROFL. Pedophilia is definately breaking the rights of the Children they abuse. They are traumatized by the pedophilia (and I'm not talking about a 14-YO having sex with a 20-YO, rather 12 and 30 or so), they have immedeately lost a part of their potential future life due to the trauma, which they will carry with them for the remainder of their life. It limits their freedom, which breaks their right to be free. Aside from rights, like I've (clumsily) said, you cannot underestimate the mental damage done to these children. It's horrible.
(Okay, but enough about Pedophiles, let's talk about Rights instead)
Quote:
Oh and yeah criminals would become second class citizens, not even criminals everyone who once in his life has done something against the law, lol? You seriously believe that people should forever be branded for what they did in the past, no such thing as remorse, bettering oneself? But yeah this'll turn into a discussion of behaviour mentality and stuff if I elaborate.
Tell that to the victims, or their family and friends. They will love to hear that.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 09:07 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 09:09, 29 Apr 2009.
|
I am suprised the firearms matter has not been brought up. My stance on that subject is pretty well known, only the non-criminals would be affected by any laws passed unfortunately. Now before somebody's veins in their head explode, I am not saying all criminals have guns..nor all criminals know how to obtain illegal guns..nor all criminals would break the law about guns IF there was such a law.
What I am saying is that criminals could still get weapons, should they want, regardless of what law is passed. The only people who would have any trouble with obtaining weapons would be people who would do not wish to break the law. People who would have no trouble breaking a law, would have no trouble getting weapons. So only the LAW Obeying Citizens would be harmed by banning all weapons. Take the banning of drugs for instance, has not been effective at all in keeping drugs out of the hands of criminals.
However, if a child gets to that weapon and harms itself or another, how much should the parents be responsible?
As to pedofiles the people who's rights they are violating would be the children who have not matured enough yet to make an informed decision. There is a grey area as the people mature..about what age informed consent is acceptable, but would you say a 8 year old or younger be a grey area? I doubt that anybody would.
Edit : I happen to agree with Lex on this. The criminals rights have become greater then the victims or victims family rights in most instances, which seems warped and twisted in my person opinion.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 09:22 AM |
|
|
Pretty dead centre issue.
So define "freedom". No, seriously.
The discussion of this always works with the intrinsic prerequisite of individual freedom WITHIN the (safe) womb of society as a whole. If you want to discuss freedom, the INDIVIDUAL freedom is the freedom you'd have if you were alone: while you could do anything you want, there would be a lot you simply couldn't do BECAUSE you were alone.
Born into a society, an individual can enjoy a lot of freedom they wouldn't have otherwise. Naturally, this will be bought with a loss of freedom in other areas - which is only logical and natural.
If you take immunization as an example - if you were alone, neither would there be an immunizer nor would one be necessary.
_________________________________________________________________
Personal freedom is a fine thing, but in general it should be limited by the loss or even potential loss of the rest of the people that comes with it.
If you take the example of immunization: the personal freedom to say no to it is one thing, but using that freedom is a risk for the rest of society since it would give the plague or whatever it is a potential host(s) to survive.
Most ideas about freedom wouldn't exist or be even possible if the individual was alone. That means, the individual has no natural right to make use of everything that is possible only because a society - or a community of many - exists. Instead this is a PRIVILEGE granted and not a freedom to be taken.
So my freedom ends where it starts to cost or hurt society. In this case society includes another individual, but only if it's part of that society.
Breaking the law will always cost or hurt society, since it undermines the foundation of it (even though there are exceptions, but in this case always the good a break of law does will outweigh the cost or hurt).
Example: speeding.
Driving as fast as you want would be a (maximum) personal freedom. You could obviously do it if you were alone - except there were neither cars nor roads for it. This means, obviously and naturally, that personal freedom will be inhibited where it endangers others. Which is, why there's a speed limit of 20 miles or so in pure residential streets where children can be expected to play on the sidewalk (making use of a freedom or privilege granted to THEM).
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 09:34 AM |
|
|
Good posts so far.
@JJ - You ask a very valid question, and one that I can not easily answer. Some of the issues would be Gun Control, Immunazation, Freedom of Speech, and there are hundreds of others. As for a deffinition of personal freedom ... many societies define it differently so that too is a hard question. I am not sure I personally have the answer. That is one of the objects here is to define what exactly personal freedoms should mean. Where does 'me' end and 'we' begin in a society? Who defines it? Why should they be the ones to define it?
____________
Message received.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 09:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Tell that to the victims, or their family and friends. They will love to hear that.
I do.... How exactly is that an argument? Your idea is all that supremacy bs I hate. I'm not so naive as to believe that criminals are all better after jail but some are. And in a civilized world only the ones that are back to normal would be released. And it's utter idiocy to punish them for the rest of their lives for something they did in the past. Besides you're not just talking about jail-criminals.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 09:48 AM |
|
|
@ Mytical
I tried one. 
I'm pretty ok with it. People tend to forget that they own most of their freedoms to the fact there IS a society. They own society for that.
Anyway, about weapons I disagree. As far as I know of even in countries where the ownership of weapons is illegal normal people CAN obtain a weapon, legally.
A weapon falls under the same category than a car. If you can buy a gun freely and put it somewhere in your flat, just in case, it will do you about the same good for defense than a car you have in the garage (without a driving license) just in case you need some day to get to a hospital as fast as possible.
So you should not be able to buy a weapon without a weapon license, for your own good and for that of the rest of society.
I mean, just because a criminal won't have a problem stealing a car and speed with it, it's no reason to let people drive any way they want, right?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 09:58 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 09:59, 29 Apr 2009.
|
We will agree to disagree on the Gun issue. I feel it is everybody's right to be able to protect themselves and their property, but I also realise that that is not all guns are used for.
Though I might regret this question (not because of you, but because of the slippary slope) where do you stand on people's right to punish their own children. Also, where does punishment turn into abuse?
Edit : I do agree some type of permit or way of knowing what weapon belongs to who is absolutely needed.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 10:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Edit : I do agree some type of permit or way of knowing what weapon belongs to who is absolutely needed.
In that case we do not disagree (all that much, since I'd not allow every kind of weapon: what about tommy guns and grenade launchers, for example? Flame throwers can be handy as well AND they have a plethora of other uses for good measure.)
People's right to punish their own children? Depends on the punishment, obviously. In general, yes, parents have a right to punish their children. For example forbidding to watch TV is a punishment, obviously, and I don't think that anyone can constitue a birthright on watching TV for children is ok.
But I have an inkling that you mean a specific kind of punishment. In that case I'd like you to specify.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 10:24 AM |
|
|
Actually none specific. I am more inquisitive about others views on things, but for enlightenments sake lets go with spanking. Or what you would personally consider the 'worst' acceptable punishment? When does spanking become abuse in your eyes?
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 10:30 AM |
|
|
Spanking is always abuse - there is no acceptable spanking. Using physical violence is akin to an admittance of utter failure in the education of a child. It wants to teach a lesson by creating fear of physical pain, and what it creates as well is a sense of helplessness and humiliation.
How will you teach a child to resist pressure, violence, dictatorial authority and so on and be a a self-assured adult when you spank them? If the kid will make it, then probably out of sheer spite.
So, no, children are no thing, and if it's not right to hit grown-ups (who could defend themselves, at least), if it's frowned upon to hit women, then how the hell can you justify spanking children?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 10:37 AM |
|
|
So what would you consider the worst acceptable punishment? Personally I was 'whupped' as a child, didn't turn out all that bad (ok maybe a bit crazy and chaotic..but). However, I agree there are better ways. I never did fear my parents, but did have a very healthy respect for them.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 11:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So what would you consider the worst acceptable punishment? Personally I was 'whupped' as a child, didn't turn out all that bad (ok maybe a bit crazy and chaotic..but). However, I agree there are better ways. I never did fear my parents, but did have a very healthy respect for them.
Mytical, that's the problem with these things: most of the people that got spanked as a child will say something like, well, it didn't hurt me all that much, or something like that - but they have no way of actually knowing that, haven't they? After all, they don't know what kind of person they would be, if not. So the only thing they CAN say, is, it didn't kill me.
Spanking children is simply abuse of power.
That doesn't mean that a slap should lead to jail or something; it's just that "it didn't hurt me" isn't all too helpful when it comes to getting rid of parental violence.
Punishment is so purpose in itself and used to teach a lesson. This lesson is actually always the same: if you want to enjoy the advantages of a working community you have to do something for that community and respect the rules. If you don't do that you lose the advantages, simple and easy. No TV, no sweets or extras, no "work" for the child, except what is necessary, and so on, because that's what it's all about. Everything is give-and-take, and if you start taking too much without giving anything, you won't get anything anymore.
Another "punishment" is additional duties (duties seem to be a necessary accompaniment of "rights": allowance, TV, bring in friends, go out and so on).
Remember, you don't want a child to OBEY. You want a child to learn lessons: from nothing comes nothing, and most things have to be earned. However, if you really want something and are prepared to pay the price - do it. You don't teach that by pummeling your child into obedience.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 12:00 PM |
|
|
A child can behave in a way that is totally unacceptable. It may be very difficult to reason with a 6 year old as they don't understand verbal reasoning well enough and they are keen to test their (and their parents) limits. One very fundamental aspect of every living being is the avoidance of pain. Universal communication. I think snapping to the forehead with your finger can be effective. It is a very short term pain. But gives you the child's attention for sure. After that you need to explain yourself.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 12:19 PM |
|
|
I'm sure, pressing a burning cigarette onto the arm will have the same effect.
As I said, you don't want a child to torture into submission. If the child's behaviour is indeed unacceptable, the parents don't need to put up with it. Unacceptable behaviour leads to loneliness and isolation in real life which is the lesson to learn.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 12:20 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 12:21, 29 Apr 2009.
|
I remember one punishment effective for me was being sent to my room, simply because at the time there was absolutely NOTHING to do there. With video games, internet, etc being sent to ones room is not a deterant now, unless you remove all such devices. With how many their are, it is almost more of a punishment for the parents (who have to physically remove everything and then put it back) then the teens anymore.
However, I think it may even be more effective in today's age if you do so. At least in America where everybody is pretty used to getting what they want instantly.
Again I do have to ask though, how much responsibility a parent has to take when their child does something wrong (or causes an incident through no fault). How much does a child have to take responsibility? Where is the age line for when they might know the difference?
I will give a couple examples.
The immunization issue. You do not give your child a certain immunization, the child catches it and passes it to others. The child survives, but somebody elses child doesn't. Who is to blame? How much blame? What should be done?
Handgun issue. Child is smart enough to find it, and hurts somebody else. Same questions as the immunization issue questions.
Edit : And please do not use current 'laws' in your arguments. Unless you agree with it totally. I want people's own opinion on the matter.
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 1 
