First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Freedom to choose, as long as it does not affect others should be a person's right.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 1/7/15 , edited 1/7/15
Freedom to choose, as long as it does not affect others should be a person's right.

What is meant by that statement?

Example: if a person does not want to wear a seatbelt wile driving he she should not have to. It should be their choice if they wish to take risk that harm them selves.

Example: Not wearing clothing, again if you feel better walking around naked, it should be your right to do just that.


Freedom of choices should be a normal thing, as long as your Ideals do not affect others, and others will not be affected by your choices, you should be free to do it.

61159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 1/7/15
Unfortunately, it's not so black-and-white. If you don't wear your seatbelt, and by not wearing your seatbelt you die in a car accident, and your family is left behind to grieve for you, you have obviously affected others.

If you're a hot chick walking around naked in broad daylight causing male hormones to accumulate, you have affected others. If you're a hot chick walking around CLOTHED in broad daylight causing male hormones to accumulate, you have affected others.

Basically, nearly every action you take affects others in some way. Just by making this topic, you affected me by inciting a response. Should making topics be outlawed because they affected me?

It's more important to analyze the effects of choices and determine whether they are considerably more positive or negative to both individuals and society. Only then can you begin to determine what should or should not be acceptable.
Posted 1/7/15
Is this thread made because of the terrorist attack on the french mag?
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 1/7/15

severticas wrote:

Is this thread made because of the terrorist attack on the french mag?


No this is my personal opinion " do to the fact I do not agree with all the odd laws America has fines for, such as not allowing people to ride in the back of a truck bed. or forcing people to where clothing in public. I find those laws to be outright outlandish wen it should be a persons right to choose if they want to do that or not. Not the states! Or Countries right to forbid people from doing such.
Posted 1/7/15
Freedom is an illusion as all choice is within some kind of boundary.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 1/7/15 , edited 1/7/15

staphen wrote:

Unfortunately, it's not so black-and-white. If you don't wear your seatbelt, and by not wearing your seatbelt you die in a car accident, and your family is left behind to grieve for you, you have obviously affected others.

If you're a hot chick walking around naked in broad daylight causing male hormones to accumulate, you have affected others. If you're a hot chick walking around CLOTHED in broad daylight causing male hormones to accumulate, you have affected others.

Basically, nearly every action you take affects others in some way. Just by making this topic, you affected me by inciting a response. Should making topics be outlawed because they affected me?

It's more important to analyze the effects of choices and determine whether they are considerably more positive or negative to both individuals and society. Only then can you begin to determine what should or should not be acceptable.


All actions have side affects for them, to even what you choose to eat, but I am not going to outlaw food just because it might have negative affects for others. Its not directly hindering their lives they have no say in what I do my self. Now if I was to die do to not wearing a seat belt, I died, this might make family sad, but it does not physically affect them, it was my right and my choice.


dredulus wrote:

Freedom is an illusion as all choice is within some kind of boundary.


The Boundary is simple affecting strangers, or doing direct physical or mental harm to family. That way you are not affecting the rights of others wile applying ones own rights.
61159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 1/7/15 , edited 1/7/15

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


staphen wrote:

Unfortunately, it's not so black-and-white. If you don't wear your seatbelt, and by not wearing your seatbelt you die in a car accident, and your family is left behind to grieve for you, you have obviously affected others.

If you're a hot chick walking around naked in broad daylight causing male hormones to accumulate, you have affected others. If you're a hot chick walking around CLOTHED in broad daylight causing male hormones to accumulate, you have affected others.

Basically, nearly every action you take affects others in some way. Just by making this topic, you affected me by inciting a response. Should making topics be outlawed because they affected me?

It's more important to analyze the effects of choices and determine whether they are considerably more positive or negative to both individuals and society. Only then can you begin to determine what should or should not be acceptable.


All actions have side affects for them, to even what you choose to eat, but I am not going to outlaw food just because it might have negative affects for others. Its not directly hindering their lives they have no say in what I do my self. Now if I was to die do to not wearing a seat belt, I died, this might make family sad, but it does not physically affect them, it was my right and my choice.


Grievance has a chemical effect on the brain. It can cause stress and damage a person's health if they aren't able to cope.

As for "outlawing food", it's pointless to even consider. How do you even define food? There are plenty of consumables which are harmful if swallowed. I hear discussions all the time about what chemicals have harmful long-term effects and whether they should be outlawed as ingredients in food products.

I'll say it again. Only by weighing the positive and negative effects of actions can you begin to determine whether they should or should not be acceptable. It may seem simple to you, but that's because you've probably already (possibly unconsciously) weighed the positives and negatives and decided for yourself what you think is right or wrong. It's up to you to get others to see your point of view, or to get educated and to change your point of view, as the case may be.
31160 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 1/7/15
The short answer regarding such laws is that society benefits more economically from making people wear seatbelts than the individual loses in freedom to be stupid.

For example, per Wikipedia:
"A University of Wisconsin study demonstrated that car accident victims who had not worn seatbelts cost the hospital (and the state in the case of the uninsured) on average 25% more."

As for cases where the individual in question dies.. Society put all that time and effort into them, especially with that public K-12 education, and now they've gone and killed themself without paying income taxes for the next fifty-odd years? Tsk-tsk.
61159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 1/7/15
Of course, if we're talking about human rights, every human has the right to break civil law and suffer the consequences.
17225 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 1/7/15
Your friends will only come to you for the riskiest and most unhelpful advice. Some moron decides not to buckle up, ends up crashing through their window into someone elses car then later demands for insurance coverage after body slamming the other person in the front seat, like a fucking moron.
30070 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/25/16
Can you say you really care or like something enough to let the choice be? What if you are forced or pressured? Is that really choice?
3143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 4/25/16
Pikachu or Babulsaur
Posted 4/25/16

Aoikihen wrote:

Can you say you really care or like something enough to let the choice be? What if you are forced or pressured? Is that really choice?


I don't get what you're trying to say. I thought OP stated that even when an individual has made a choice, others don't threaten that decision?
Banned
21034 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 4/25/16 , edited 4/25/16
Reminds me of how i heard some parents say they would cure there child of Autism (high functioning not low functioning) if they could and that bothered me greatly as someone who is happy he is Autistic.

Your right to choose should end at the point when it's a choice someone else should make.

Changing someones neurology / curing Autism when it's not needed should be a choice for the person with it to make not the parents.

Same for things like circumcision also that's the childs choice no the parents.


NSFW Below


Posted 4/25/16
If someone else dies as a consequence of their car being hit by a dead body, inconveniencing others, traffic, or in a worse case scenario it ties up emergency services, police, fire, ambulance, that's a problem affecting others, as is exposing any random person, possibly children to your genitailia or a guy who ruined his tux losing his lunch.
There could be so many possibilities as to why those would be bad, time and money-wise. :c
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.