Wave of Muslimphobia?

[Feba]

Re: Wave of Muslimphobia?

Or are you saying public masturbation isn't harmful, just risky?

Hi, my name is Feba.

Most people on these forums know me as a pretty sarcastic guy. I tend to use allegories and analogies to make a point, or point out how poorly thought through someone else's argument is.

I'm sorry for any confusion caused by you being apparently the only person who has failed to understand this.

[Rodin]

Re: Wave of Muslimphobia?

Hi, my name is Feba.

Most people on these forums know me as a pretty sarcastic guy. I tend to use allegories and analogies to make a point, or point out how poorly thought through someone else's argument is.

I'm sorry for any confusion caused by you being apparently the only person who has failed to understand this.

No, I understood it completely. It's just not a very good analogy. Especially one that's being brought into what so far has been a somewhat intelligent discussion. Guess I thought too hard about it and actually tried to believe you were bringing something constructive into the conversation.

[Raydeus]

Re: Wave of Muslimphobia?

Guess I thought too hard about it and actually tried to believe you were bringing something constructive into the conversation.

[Rodin]

Re: Wave of Muslimphobia?

Guess my sarcasm is funnier. =P

[Armando]

Re: Wave of Muslimphobia?

Who are you to say which right takes precedence? It's an arbitrary designation.

It's not. It's a simple concept: you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect others negatively. If your calling in life is music, that's all fine and dandy as long as your garage band doesn't play so loud it gets in the way of my life. If your calling in life is racing, do so in an environment where people won't get hurt (i.e. not the streets.) If you want get drunk, don't put others' lives in danger by driving. And if you want to smoke, don't do it in closed places that I need to be in (e.g. shops.)

And the comparison to environmental pollution is a pretty big stretch. Smoking is 1) a luxury and 2) a recreational activity. Nothing more. A lot of pollution comes from irresponsible corporations putting greed first, but some of it also comes from the production of things that at this point are basic and indispensable (e.g. food and clothing.) Cigarettes are NOT indispensable.

Besides, the whole thing is a wash since health is a basic human right; smoking is not. So we ARE in a position to decide "you're infringing on my liberties, bro."

[Feba]

Re: Wave of Muslimphobia?

No, I understood it completely.

So then you were only pretending to be an idiot? Ok.

[Malacite]

Re: Wave of Muslimphobia?

Besides, the whole thing is a wash since health is a basic human right;

Sadly there's quite a lot of folks out there who don't believe that.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Wave of Muslimphobia?

It's not. It's a simple concept: you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect others negatively. If your calling in life is music, that's all fine and dandy as long as your garage band doesn't play so loud it gets in the way of my life. If your calling in life is racing, do so in an environment where people won't get hurt (i.e. not the streets.) If you want get drunk, don't put others' lives in danger by driving. And if you want to smoke, don't do it in closed places that I need to be in (e.g. shops.)

I guess I need to do a better job of articulating my point, because it is indeed an arbitrary designation. It's all based around perceptions rather than absolutes, and these perceptions are largely fabrications of our society or cultural surroundings.

Everyone keeps claiming that we can do whatever as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, and then goes right ahead and contradicts themselves.

The thought process behind wanting to not have to deal with people smoking in public is not foreign to me. I understand it very well, but allow me to play devil's advocate a bit longer here.

Here's the scenario as I see it being presented. I have the right to smoke and enjoy it. My enjoyment is contingent upon being able to do so while on a walk, which necessarily takes place in public rather than the privacy of my own home. You have a right to a clean bill of health. For this to happen you need to not come in contact with my second-hand smoke.

So we have a dilemma on our hands. My smoking infringes on your right to a clean bill of health. Likewise your need for me to not smoke in public infringes on my right to enjoy a smoke. The two rights are mutually exclusive, so we cannot allow one without infringing on the other. Your ban to ensure your right to good health negatively affects me by denying me the ability to enjoy my smoke.

You guys can bang on all day about how it's oh so simple, but it isn't. Wherever two people's rights come into conflict, one will always be deposed and affected negatively. Which one takes precedence? The excuse "your rights end where someone else's begin" doesn't hold true at all when one of the two is being denied while the other is allowed. That just means one right was designated as more important than the other.

You're right that the whole thing is a wash, but for the wrong reason. Rights are perceived things, usually defined by society rather than inherent truths, much as we'd like to believe otherwise.

[Mhurron]

Re: Wave of Muslimphobia?

So we have a dilemma on our hands. My smoking infringes on your right to a clean bill of health. Likewise your need for me to not smoke in public infringes on my right to enjoy a smoke. The two rights are mutually exclusive, so we cannot allow one without infringing on the other.

There is no dilemma, your rights end when they infringe or harm another. This is why smoking bans cover public places, not your home.

Wherever two people's rights come into conflict, one will always be deposed and affected negatively. Which one takes precedence?

Since you do not have the right to harm another, your rights are not infringed. You have the right to do just about anything to yourself, not others.

By your argument driving drunk is a right that the state can not infringe upon.

[Armando]

Re: Wave of Muslimphobia?

I have the right to smoke and enjoy it.

You do not have an explicit right to smoke. Smoking is not a universally recognized human right. Health is. It's like getting convicted and saying "Murder/voyeurism/rape/theft makes me happy and I have the right to be happy."

My enjoyment is contingent upon being able to do so while on a walk, which necessarily takes place in public rather than the privacy of my own home. You have a right to a clean bill of health. For this to happen you need to not come in contact with my second-hand smoke.

Suppose talking walks in the park makes me happy. However, for me to enjoy my walk I have to do it naked. Would it be allright for me to streak in park (that isn't part of a nudist community)? If everyone could do whatever they wanted regardless of others, the concept of "rights" wouldn't make any sense.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Wave of Muslimphobia?

There is no dilemma, your rights end when they infringe

You're still looking at it as a one way street when it goes both ways. Your right to health(and the bans instituted as a result) infringes on me and my activities the same as my activities infringe on your right to good health. When the two are mutually exclusive it means someone is getting the short end of the stick and being imposed upon.

We can certainly bicker about what is and is not a right in a given society, but stop using that phrase. Public smoking ban to secure your right to good health infringes on me and my enjoyment of smoking somewhere other than inside my own home. Your rights will step on other people's toes, so let's stop pretending they don't.

[Armando]

Re: Wave of Muslimphobia?

our rights will step on other people's toes, so let's stop pretending they don't.

They always will. But that's not what we're saying. We're saying our right to health does not infringe on any of your rights. Only on your convenience.

[Mhurron]

Re: Wave of Muslimphobia?

Your rights will step on other people's toes, so let's stop pretending they don't.

They don't. Your rights END the moment they infringe upon or harm another. Since you do not have the right to harm another, your rights to harm another are not infringed upon.

For instance, yell "Fire" in a crowded theater in the US and try and claim First Amendment protections. Or argue human rights violations when you're picked up for a DUI.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Wave of Muslimphobia?

Smoking is not a universally recognized human right. Health is.

Last I checked, freedom was also a right, but I hear the government's working on that. Many places seem to manage to prevent it. Like China, for example. You don't even have a right to the truth there. Ask Google.

Sadly there's quite a lot of folks out there who don't believe that.

That's because sane people have come to realize throughout history a centralized government program for anything never ends up doing any good. Dress it up with "basic human right" all you want, it will win points with bleeding hearts like yourself, but don't think for a second it makes you more morally sound than those that disagree with you.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Wave of Muslimphobia?

They always will. But that's not what we're saying. We're saying our right to health does not infringe on any of your rights. Only on your convenience.

So basically we're arguing over what is or is not defined as a right. That sounds correct and I'm content to leave it at that since that's all defined at a cultural level and is entirely subjective.

---------- Post added at 12:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 AM ----------

Your rights END the moment they infringe upon or harm another.

Right to good health infringes on someone who wants to smoke in public. BAM, your right to good health ends. You're only looking at it from one direction Mhurron. Stop using that flawed line of reasoning and get back to hammering me on how I'm pretending that smoking is a right in our society.