🚀 go-pugleaf

coatta@cs.ubc.ca (Terry Coatta) writes:
>
>  [Some stuff which indicates how he is dancing around the issue.]

You keep evading my point.  All your talk about how harm comes in many
different forms ignores the fact that, unless you stick to physically
observable forms of harm, your experience of whether or not harm 
*has even occurred* is a subjective one.  By demanding that others 
respond to your subjectively felt harm, you have given yourself an 
unlimited license to manipulate and demand.

Do you deny that you expect others to respond to what you have 
subjectively decided is "harm"?

You also suggest that a "community" determine, in a joint manner, when it
has been harmed.  I claim that this provides you, and your "community", with
an even greater license to manipulate and demand.  But you haven't even said
what your "community" is.  For the *third time* I repeat:

What or who is the "community"?  The majority?  Those with "sensitive
views"?  Those who are involved in the political process?  Those with the
right connections?

You also evaded this question:

| > Certain rights,
| > which will always have priority, are fundamental to the operation
| > of a democracy.
|
| Ah ha!  What are they?

And you evaded this question:

| > There are small sets
| > which regulate a small class of interactions between people, and large
| > sets which attempt to regulate a wider class of interactions.
|
| I assume basic human rights are the former, specify the latter.

Until you address these basis questions, you really have no foundation for
your arguments.

I will now address the specifics of your latest little jig.

> > But you just said, " Certain rights, which will always have priority,
> > are fundamental to the operation of a democracy"!
> 
> Fundamental to the operation of democracy is not the same as fundamental
> to the sound operation of society.  That is, I don't believe that you
> can simply take those set of rights which are required for democracy
> and say ``thats it, we're done''.  The rights requried for democracy
> simply provide sufficient regulations that we can interact with on
> another politically, and do not address other varieties of interaction.
> The point I was trying to make is that prioritization of rights is
> sensible because there are obvious corresponding priorities in the
> structure of society.  That is, there's no point talking about rights
> at all unless we have an established mechanism for democracy. Hence,
> those rights which relate to our political interaction must
> have primacy.

Well when you get around to suggesting what these "rights which are required
for democracy" might be, we can compare them with what I would consider the
minimum necessary set of rights: human rights that protect us from each
other.  I believe that these protective rights are *exactly* the rights
required for democracy.

> > I will accept that.  I have simply not accepted your all-inclusive
> > definition as a reasonable one.  
> ...  
> > I never used the term "unscientific", nor even anything close.  That
> > style of arguing is quite passe.
> 
> While you may have not used the term, the thrust of your arguments has
> been precisely to suggest that those forms of interference which I
> am interested in regulating are ``nebulous'' or ``warm and fuzzy
> feelings.''  This strikes me as an accusation that the issues with
> which I am concerned lack a scientific (perhaps you would prefer the
> word ``objective'') basis.

No.  I agree that the types of interaction that you describe (the effects)
exist - they are more than just feelings.  But I think that your subjective
determination (using "feelings") of when they have "harmed" you and when they
have not is problematic.  Especially when you throw in a "community" and its
sense of things like "deterioration".

Yeah, I'll accept "objective".
  
> I did, of course, list some objective measures of community standards.
> I don't understand the nature of your rebuttal.  It seems to me that
> you were asserting that it is not possible to establish causal links
> between these measures and the provision of services such a daycare.
> While there is no doubt that our understading of the relationships
> between these factors is not as advanced as say our understanding of
> purely physical phenomena such as gravity, it is simply incorrect to
> suggest that we have no objective data at all.  

We have objective data on emergent characteristics (crime rate).  This 
cannot be extrapolated backward in a manner that will allow us to
successfully identify one factor that should be modified.  Have you 
heard of "chaos"?

> It may come as quite a
> surprise to you, but areas such as sociology, psychology,
> anthropology, criminology, etc.  are reasonably well-estalished
> disciplines, with research occurring at most universities throughout
> the world.  Evidence exists, your denunciations of ``warmth and
> fuzziness'' notwithstanding.

                          [and then later]

> You stated somewhere else in your
> posting that no one cared about my feelings save for my mother.
> I will extrapolate from this that you do not accept psychological
> harm as a valid phenomena.  Yet, in doing so, you are disregarding
> a large body of objective data which the field of psychology has
> accumulated on this matter.

                       [and then still later]

> If you have some proof that all sociology, etc. is bogus and need not be
> considered when analyzing interactions within society, then present it.

I have not even mentioned these disciplines and it is suddenly implied that 
I dismiss them!  I don't deny the validity of the analyses made by these
disciplines.  But they consider emergent characteristics - general trends -
not specific acts of interference.

> My definition of interference is all-inclusive because reality is
> all inclusive.  I think it should be made clear that it is your
> definition which establishes arbitrary boundaries concerning the
> nature of interference.  The only boundaries which I acknowledge are
> those imposed by our abilities to quanitfy and analyze our
> interactions with one another.

And how do you respond to my point that you have created a subjective
boundary of when you do, and do not, feel "harm"?

> > Because people effect you in a vast number of ways that do you *no
> > harm* (being ahead of you in a line-up for example), you must
> > translate some "effects" into "harm".  You do this by determining
> > "harm" based on your feelings.
> 
> This is false.  I may not have expressed myself particularly clearly,
> but I determine ``harm'' based on objective information.  Clearly,
> different domains of interaction/interfence have varying levels
> with which causlity can be ascertained.

And how do you decide, when "varying levels" of causality are ascertained,
whether the effect has "harmed" you or not?  That decision, when no physical
harm has occurred, is entirely subjective.

> I may not have expressed myself particularly clearly...  

True!

> Nowhere have I stated that the ``community'' should have a carte
> blanche to act as it pleases.  I have agreed that there are certain
> rights which the community should not be able to override (the
> priority of the concerns of the community is not higher than the
> priority of the rights).  What I have suggested is that in
> prioritizing rights the community must have input. 

Oh, just "input".  You are back-peddling full force on the importance of
community concerns here (is the good ship Collectivist sinking?).  Here are
some previous quotes:

"The community should have means to express/enforce that desire."

"If you belong to a larger pluralistic society you have implicitly entered
into an agreement to abide by that society's axioms -- not yours."

"[The number of people it takes to override the desires of a single
individual] is entirely dependent on the issues at hand."

"Because we do not possess an absolute authority to arbitrate on what forms
of interference are most harmful, there must be some role for the members of
society to make those decisions."

> Rights cannot be prioritized purely on the basis of objective data...

Yikes!

> > You are attempting to disfuse your blame on everyone, in order to
> > justify extracting from, and manipulating, everyone.
> 
> Nope.  I am just trying to establish a reasonably accurate model
> of interactions in society.  You seem to be suggesting that
> I have a hidden agenda.

No.  I think your agenda is all too clear.  I have stated it repeatedly
haven't I?

> I dunno, either I've got a sending problem or you've got a 
> receiving problem, 'cause I'm clearly not getting through to you.

Likewise I'm sure.

Ken Buckland                      Freedom.
kenb@ee.ubc.ca