When is it appropriate to intervene in a situation that doesn't directly affect you? Or I guess you could ask at what point do you consider certain things to affect you sufficiently to warrant sticking your nose in them.
This line of thought was sparked both by the conversation over Matt Taylor's wardrobe going on in the other thread right now and this article that I recently read: http://nypost.com/2014/11/18/just-ignor ... wn-please/
On the one hand, I feel like people have a lot of personal responsibility, but I also think they have a right to privacy and self-determination. You can in fact be dressed inappropriately for a situation, or fail to discipline your kids properly, but when should strangers be allowed to tell you how to run your life? How much of an excuse is "people will be people"?
I'm certain that we will disagree on what the objectively "right" answer is, but I'm kind of curious on what points people feel justified telling someone they don't know to change their behavior.
Feel free to provide any examples you want, especially non-traditional ones, so yet another thread doesn't start repeating the same old arguments.
Outside intervention
Re: Outside intervention
Parents are responsible for disciplining their kids when those kids harm others. (And I don't mean crying babies. Those are annoying, but not harmful).
Same with everything else. Your freedom stops where other people's freedom begins. As for dressing inappropriately, most countries all over the world agree that the genitals should be covered. Trying to force other people to cover themselves up more than that is trying to limit their freedom. (And no, female nipples are not more inappropriate than male nipples.)
Hatespeech on clothes, however ... if a man proclaims on this T-Shirt that he hates women, or considers women inferior (which is the same, just for clarification), he shouldn't complain about being critisized. He should be thankful he doesn't get jailtime for this. And the "I didn't mean to be hateful towards women" excuse should not be believed. Men know full well what "those evil feminists" wouldn't like, and if they do it nonetheless, well, they should be prepared to bear the consequences.
Same with everything else. Your freedom stops where other people's freedom begins. As for dressing inappropriately, most countries all over the world agree that the genitals should be covered. Trying to force other people to cover themselves up more than that is trying to limit their freedom. (And no, female nipples are not more inappropriate than male nipples.)
Hatespeech on clothes, however ... if a man proclaims on this T-Shirt that he hates women, or considers women inferior (which is the same, just for clarification), he shouldn't complain about being critisized. He should be thankful he doesn't get jailtime for this. And the "I didn't mean to be hateful towards women" excuse should not be believed. Men know full well what "those evil feminists" wouldn't like, and if they do it nonetheless, well, they should be prepared to bear the consequences.
Re: Outside intervention
And if the shirt had the words "I hate women." on it, we'd probably agree with you.
-
Deepbluediver
- Posts: 909
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:50 pm
Re: Outside intervention
Ok, while I appreciate any and all feedback I'm not looking to turn this thread into yet another debate over the shirt-that-shall-not-be-described; I was really just trying to explain where the genesis of this thought-process came from.
What about some other kinds of activities- suppose a father brings his son to the playground, and then lights up a cigarette to pass the time. Would you feel justified in telling him to put it out? (at least some cities now ban smoking in public places)
For that matter, why do we not outlaw something that we know drastically increases the risk to the individual?
Where do we draw the line on reasonable inconvenience, acceptable risk, and legitimate harm for any number of potentially dangerous activities?
What about some other kinds of activities- suppose a father brings his son to the playground, and then lights up a cigarette to pass the time. Would you feel justified in telling him to put it out? (at least some cities now ban smoking in public places)
For that matter, why do we not outlaw something that we know drastically increases the risk to the individual?
Where do we draw the line on reasonable inconvenience, acceptable risk, and legitimate harm for any number of potentially dangerous activities?
Re: Outside intervention
If his son is the only child on the playground, I wouldn't feel the need to do so, but if there are other children, I would certainly feel justified in telling him to put it out and throw it into a wastebin (and not in the sandbox ...).Deepbluediver wrote: What about some other kinds of activities- suppose a father brings his son to the playground, and then lights up a cigarette to pass the time. Would you feel justified in telling him to put it out? (at least some cities now ban smoking in public places)
I am in favor of outlawing smoking in public completely. If people want to harm their own health, they can do so in the privacy of their own homes.
What potentially harmful activities do you mean? Those dangerous activities which are potentially dangerous to bystanders, such as driving in cars, are those in which most if not all people partake. And as for things like bungee jumping or eating chlorinated chickens ... well, there should be a ban on antibiotics in meat, as an epidemia caused by those is likely to spread to vegans, too, and on genetically engineered soy, for the same reasons, but if some people want to eat unhealthy stuff and die of heart disease when they're 40, that's their problem.
Re: Outside intervention
I think for me the most important factors (outside of ability) are:
1) How likely do I think it is they are unaware of the coming consequences
2) If they are aware, how likely do I think it is that a repeat informing might cause them to think twice
and
3) How bad the consequences are
So if someone has no clue what they're doing, I'm in. If they are being stubbornly but only incrementally self-destructive, I'm out. If they are being very self-destructive, I might get involved at higher levels of stubbornness than not.
So if someone has their fly open: Yes
If an adult is smoking: No
If a teenager is just starting smoking: Yes
If someone is standing on a ledge thinking about jumping: Yes
1) How likely do I think it is they are unaware of the coming consequences
2) If they are aware, how likely do I think it is that a repeat informing might cause them to think twice
and
3) How bad the consequences are
So if someone has no clue what they're doing, I'm in. If they are being stubbornly but only incrementally self-destructive, I'm out. If they are being very self-destructive, I might get involved at higher levels of stubbornness than not.
So if someone has their fly open: Yes
If an adult is smoking: No
If a teenager is just starting smoking: Yes
If someone is standing on a ledge thinking about jumping: Yes
Re: Outside intervention
If it were legal to, I'd snatch the fucking cigarette out of his mouth and tell him if I caught him risking a child's health again, I'd light a whole pack and see if he can smoke it with his asshole... I don't like people who fuck with kids... So yes, I think it's justified, but I wouldn't do it because I'd get in trouble.Deepbluediver wrote: What about some other kinds of activities- suppose a father brings his son to the playground, and then lights up a cigarette to pass the time. Would you feel justified in telling him to put it out? (at least some cities now ban smoking in public places)
If I saw a guy smoking on a playground and no one was near him, I'd let him fuckin' kill himself as slow as he likes. Happy lung cancer to him, it's not my problem.
"Yamete, oshiri ga itai!"