Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Heh. I'm thinking you just hate the fact that the law is piecemeal. I don't much like it either, but that's the philosopher in me who prefers fewer rules with some kind of core theoretical basis
I agree with your position. I have the same theoretical preference, and the same resignation that that just ain’t how things work. I agree that in practice we need to make cases against many arbitrary prohibitions that remain, and I applaud the work of people who played a part in getting rid of laws against homosexuality, for example. But when someone advocates for a prohibition, I think it appropriate to point out that they need to make the case first, and do more than just hint at an anecdote.
you seemed to be saying that defining infinite numbers of things is difficult.
No, but I did ask if it would be easy “In the terms we're speaking of?" If we agree it would not be easy in practice, in this sense, then fine.
But that’s not the same thing. If prohibiting things is just wrong, then onus of evidence doesn’t even come into it.
But is it wrong? What's your argument?
I’m not saying it is wrong (see next comment). It was your contention that I should make my argument from the stand that prohibiting things is “wrong”. I responded that that would be a different case.
It’s not necessarily wrong to prohibit per se. It is wrong to justify a prohibition only on the basis of a lack of reasons against the prohibition.
I agree with that.
If you agree with that then I can’t see what the disagreement is. My point isn’t that “the freedom to do X” should be considered proven to be a good thing without argument, just that we shouldn’t ban it without reason.
-
I didn't say there weren't problematic cases,
Sure, which is why I’m saying the issue doesn’t seem “easily surmountable”, as was part of your claim. (I’d be willing to agree to “theoretically surmountable”, if that helps.) The full “set of all possible restrictions” must contain contradictions. You seem to be saying there is the possibility of a smaller, but still infinite, set of restrictions that do not contradict. I agree with that, but it wouldn’t be so easy to establish what that set was.
Look, at the end of the day, it seems to me that you're coming from the position that freedom from prohibitions is best argued for because anything else is impractical.
I don’t believe in freedom from all prohibition as a general rule, if that’s what you mean. I am saying any given prohibition needs to be argued for first, before any argument in defence of the freedom is required.
... it's always possible to just make more laws to cover up whatever holes you find.
It’s always possible to find more holes.
If you want to say that prohibiting things has more onus on it than allowing freedom, then you really need to do it from a standpoint that prohibiting things is wrong ,
But that’s not the same thing. If prohibiting things is just wrong, then onus of evidence doesn’t even come into it. It’s not necessarily wrong to prohibit per se. It is wrong to justify a prohibition only on the basis of a lack of reasons against the prohibition.
No, I think they should justify themselves. I just don't think that gives ME a free pass to not have to justify myself.
So if they give no justification for the proposed prohibition, you still feel the need to justify the freedom from such prohibition?
Your laziness or mine? I'm genuinely confused.
Mine! The prospect of having to argue for every conceivable notion that someone might decide should be prohibited is concerning. I clearly hate arguing.
-
With the clause "where this does not contradict x", where x is a list of laws of equal or higher importance. So whatever you've described covers non-overlapping areas of activity. You leave the overlapping ones for more specific laws that resolve the conflicts.
But wouldn’t that require presumptions about the value of a given law (“equal or higher”) that cannot be decided within the paradigm you outlined? And if you resolve the conflicts with more specific laws, how do you resolve disputes around those laws?
... I don't feel I can just lay the onus on people who disagree with any/all of them to prove every single prohibition. Certainly there is an onus, but it's both ways. I'm required to lay out my points above more clearly in any particular case...
This is what I find odd about your approach. For every advocate of a particular prohibition (potentially infinite in number that they are) you feel an argument is required specific to that case, even if they offer nothing in the way evidence themselves. Even putting aside the philosophical reasons, I object on grounds of laziness.
-
I'm all in favour of arguing for the value freedom with any number of positive arguments. That's another issue. I was saying it is valid to point out the onus is on the person arguing for a prohibition to, well, argue for that prohibition. If they're arguing that it's 'for the benefit of society', they can't just point to the lack of evidence that freedom from that prohibition will benefit society. They need to provide evidence that the restriction will benefit: that there'll be less crime, or less abuse or what have you. Just as if they argue you shouldn't be able to do something because God says so, they need to argue that there is a God with such a stipulation; they can't leave the onus on you to show the opposite.
The other points you raised seem digressive to me, but what the hey...
This kind of difficulty is easily surmountable. It is simple to describe infinite sets.
In the terms we're speaking of? How simple is it to describe an infinite set of legal prohibitions that do not contradict?
And it's also not a difficult thing to write copious amounts of law. Don't encourage it!
Hah, true. But I don't think my argument really encourages the prohibitive minded.
...the point is that freedom is generally, in itself, good
Why do you think so?
-
The reason for these freedoms sometimes needs to be given, it is not natural to assume they are good without discussion.
Nothing wrong with discussing it, but when someone advocates a specific imposition on our freedom, then they can't rely on a supposed lack of evidence for the freedom to support their call for imposition. So in that sense, they have an onus of evidence.
Basically there is no automatic "default" position. I've got my position, but I can't just put onus on other people because of it. All positions need to be argued for.
I doubt we hold an infinite number of discrete positions of 'Freedom to do...'. I doubt many people have a specific position that we hold a Freedom to Put Vegemite on Scones. As a society it is currently accepted we can do what we want, except where it is specifically prohibited. Your example of being read rights is illustrative of this: people are read their rights precisely because the arrest inverts the usual presumptive freedom. I think that's the right way to look at this issue. Put another way, an argument for the freedom to be able to do something can simply be: "you don't have any good reason to prohibit it". For the reason mentioned earlier, that doesn't work the other way around.
-
The Departed
"The Rat stands for obviousness!”
I thought it was so divorced from a coherent meaningfulness that I can't really feel that it even deserves much analysis.
Well, the critic at Amoeblog is of a different view.
I’ve linked to it last time Inglourious Basterds was discussed. I don’t agree with every point he makes, but it’s interesting and takes on the common criticisms of the film (morally dubious, the title characters aren’t in it enough etc).Landa appeals to the Americans' utilitarian ethos by cutting a deal: he'll let the bombs go off, thereby ending the war a little sooner, if he gets to live out the rest of his life as a war hero on Nantucket Island, instead of the war criminal that he is. Thus the Clark Gable/Gary Cooper hero role played by the movie's big star, Brad Pitt, is morally reduced to sitting on the sidelines, brokering a deal with the narrative's most evil Nazi. Not quite "hooray for our boys."
-
It could be worked. A large list of what's allowed,
Each point on such a list would surely have to be argued for in the first place.
Can't see the equivalence, really. You might have to elaborate.
The objection to following that approach is that it is not reasonable to be expected to believe in something (be it God or whatever else) just because it might be difficult or impossible to prove it doesn’t exist. We’d be left believing in everything. The onus of proof is on the person making the positive contention, and it’s accepted they can’t just turn that around. Advocating a particular law restricting certain behaviour seems the same to me: to argue for its justification only by pointing out it hasn’t been refuted is analogous to saying: “well you tell me why God doesn’t exist, then.” By that thinking, any law would be justified until proven otherwise. It’s impractical, and illogical, as some laws would contradict others (‘all people shall work to gain income for six days and pray on Sunday’ contracts ‘all shall work to gain income six days and pray on Saturday’, and both contradict ‘women shall not work at all except in the home’.)
-
I think you also hit another nail on the head with regard to my comparison to those banned films,
video featuring the consequence-free slaughter and dismemberment of women.
in that the idiom generally requires the wronged victim to enact brutal revenge.The difference is that the 'revenge' stories at least address questions around justice, justifiable actions, the purpose behind violence etc. The Last House on the Left features depictions of misogynist violence at least as nasty as those in King's video. It at least has something to say about the issue, though (well, arguably). King's video is pointless. Maybe no one will watch it and decide to kill a woman as portrayed in the video, but equally no one will watch it and reconsider their treatment of women either. He's "holding a mirror to society"? Lame.
But still, it is likely that he thinks he's being 'edgy' and pushing the limits, or what have you. He may not be sexist. Depicting something doesn't mean you approve of it. He's being artistically puerile (at least in this case) but that isn't a crime.
For the record, I don't think any of those works (King's video, or the movies Chris mentioned) should be banned.
-
Yes, but he carried it on afterward with particular relish too.
He carried on killing Nazis. There are worse characters depicted in film, I think. One of Tarantino’s protagonists was German, and a strongly anti-Nazi German at that. I just find that hard to reconcile with the idea that Tarantino was only hiding behind the anti-Nazi theme and was really just being anti German.
German was conflated with Nazi.
Except with the two examples we’ve mentioned already: Stiglitz (the Nazi-killing German), and Bridget von Hammersmark (the actress and traiter, another German who wasn’t a Nazi). There was a scene in chapter 2 (I think) where it was mentioned that the screening of the “Nation’s Pride” film would be moved to the smaller theatre run by Shossanna, in order to have a more elite Nazi high command audience.
... and the woman [von Hammersmark] undermined her own moral sanctity by killing the man after he had surrendered, taking advantage of the fact that he had just had a son and most likely wished to at least see him before he died. But again, that was OK because he was a German.
If you’re saying the audience are meant to find it OK for the character to be killed, wouldn’t that elicit sympathy with the character doing the killing, who also German? Anyway, that scene was classic Tarantino – he loves ‘little twists’ and melodramatic payoff. I’m sure Pitt’s character (Aldo Raine, thanks IMDb) would have stood by his word. But that deal was made on behalf of him and his men. The German traitor was free to show the soldier the same consideration he would have liked to show her.
Or they might even go so far as to say the it is liberties, not restrictions, that need to be justified.
They might, but it wouldn’t make much sense. There are virtually infinite liberties, so how do you argue from a position of “full restrictions”? Each prohibition would need to be argued for. After all, many prohibitions are contradictory (the Taleban and the conservative Christian right may share a general belief that liberty is over rated, but they have some different ideas about what should be prohibited). It seems to me a bit like saying that someone could establish God must exist because you don’t have an argument to prove he doesn’t.
-
I think the burden of proof is on the person arguing for increasing criminalisation though.
I personally would like it to be so in this case, but as with all moral issues, this assumes a moral position all of it's own, the idea of the maximization of liberty. Plenty of people are not subscribers and never will be. I actually think a lot of socialists are like this, as plenty heaps of conservatives.
First, it assumes the maximization of liberty only in the sense that by default you have liberty if no convincing reasons are given for any particular restriction. Laws aren’t there by default: if you want a law, make your case; if you want to restrict some behaviour, make your case.
Secondly, note the “I think” that begins my statement. I’m saying it is my position (as it appears to be yours), and honestly, I suspect it is Jolisa’s too, in most circumstances. In other words, I doubt I really have to convince Jolisa of the importance of liberty. I could be wrong, but I don’t think I’m arguing with a moral conservative here.
Wasn’t one of the ‘Basterds’ a German who killed Nazis?
Yes, he was especially ruthless and vicious. That was OK though because he did it when Brad Pitt told him to.
Actually, he did it before he met Pitt’s character. His Nazi killing is what attracted the ‘Basterds’ to him. He made a moral decision to be anti-Nazi without any intervention from the Americans.
But I was mainly saying I suspected there was at least “one single German character in it who was not a Nazi” contra to your statement. I wasn’t meaning to be pedantic either. It just happens that I then had to rush out and could not even check if I was right, but it turns out I was.
I have had a number of German acquaintances, and I like almost all of them. I’ve been to Germany twice and enjoyed it both times (the second in particular was one of my favourite times in my life). I like Germany, and German people, culture, and language. I was a tad disquieted by what seemed to be anti-German (as opposed to anti-Nazi) sentiments in another PAS thread not that long ago.But, having watched this movie twice, I’m fairly sure Tarantino made it clear enough that the subject of this revenge fantasy was Nazis, and not Germans in general. (If anything, my reservation is more that “wives of” were lumped in with Nazi high command.)