[WMCoolmon]

Because in that case airlines are taking on the responsibility for the safety of their passengers, and interfering with the communications of the airline would be endangering the citizens aboard the airplane, and in turn their rights and liberties.

Unless you believe in applying a double-standard to those citizens, you can't get away with that. But you could apply the double standard, in which case you forfeit the idea of a 'fair' government.

[karajorma]

You're still not getting my point WMC. What right have they got to the frequency in the first place. If we're all living in a world where we're free to masturbate on trains because otherwise we're being oppressed by the man what right does the government have to say you can't use this frequency?

It's nothing to do with interfering with the plane. My whole point is that if you're saying you have the freedom to do anything as long as it doesn't endanger anyone what right do the airlines have to say "You can't use this frequency" in the first place? For the sake of this argument I don't care if using a frequency results in grounding all the airplanes in the US in the same way that you don't care if the underground becomes a no go area for anyone who doesn't want to emerge looking like a bukkake actress.

The airlines can just find another way to communicate same way as commuters have to find a mode of transport not full of dirty old men doing the five finger shuffle.

[WMCoolmon]

But on a plane you can't simply ignore the loss of radio; it's used for coordinating things safely, and would basically ground flights at any airports that get much traffic.

Plus it doesn't say that this guy was not, err, cleaning up after himself. It seems the mere act of starting was enough.

How is it any different from me having a law passed that ugly people shouldn't be able to ride a train? I'm sure there are some people out there who would strike me as 'disgusting', I can probably look up the wikipedia entry on shocker sites and find some right now. If 51% of the population says that "ugly" people shouldn't be allowed on trains, is that fine?

After all, they can just bus or drive or hitchhike or walk or fly or even possibly ride a boat to wherever they're going.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
But on a plane you can't simply ignore the loss of radio; it's used for coordinating things safely, and would basically ground flights at any airports that get much traffic.

So? As I've already said you would turn the underground into a perverts whacking off zone. If we're taking this freedom to do anything you want to do to the logical conclusion that's the result. Your whole point was why shouldn't this guy be allowed to play with himself on the train if he wants to. Why should he be stopped because the majority don't want to see that.

Well why should the airlines have an exclusive right to a section of the radio spectrum? You keep pointing at the danger but you're missing the point.

You're saying that just because the majority of people don't want something that shouldn't mean that they can pass a law to prevent it. Well why should the fact that the majority of people want the airlines to have the radio frequencies so that they can operate flights mean that I should be prevented from doing whatever the f**k I like with that frequency?

You can talk all you like about the dangers or the economic factors all you like but you'll be completely missing the point I'm making.

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
How is it any different from me having a law passed that ugly people shouldn't be able to ride a train? I'm sure there are some people out there who would strike me as 'disgusting', I can probably look up the wikipedia entry on shocker sites and find some right now. If 51% of the population says that "ugly" people shouldn't be allowed on trains, is that fine?

See that's what happens when you think of the world in black and white terms. My whole point is that there is a spectrum of behaviour running from what's acceptable, through unacceptable all the way to downright illegal.

If you think in black and white terms you then have to include other stupid things like the whole radio frequency argument I'm making. The world isn't black and white. You can't simply write down "This is a universal truth" for every situation. That's why we have judges and juries to determine guilt rather than feeding the data into a computer.

A more sensible answer is to say that you can't screw, pee or play with yourself on a public train but that ugly people can ride the train as much as they like.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma

A more sensible answer is to say that you can't screw, pee or play with yourself on a public train but that ugly people can ride the train as much as they like.

I'd heard London Underground was bad, but........

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by karajorma
See that's what happens when you think of the world in black and white terms. My whole point is that there is a spectrum of behaviour running from what's acceptable, through unacceptable all the way to downright illegal.

Define 'unacceptable'.

Also, a black, white, and grey view of the world isn't a whole lot better than a black and white view.

And actually, I think you're missing the point I'm making. I'm not saying laws are bad if they exist if there's an opposition, I'm saying they're bad if they exist, there's an opposition, and there's no point to them existing in the first place. You seem to be saying that because you've given their behavior a term (unacceptable) that now you can call it bad and take away their liberty to do it so long as you're in the majority.

That's really not what a country with some sort of constitution that defines 'human rights' is about.

Edit: I'm reminded of an episode of That 70's Show, where Hyde is told that sex is like a protest against 'the institution'. Perhaps an ACLU-sponsored demonstration is in order here. "Yank for your right to wank!"

[karajorma]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Define 'unacceptable'.

Unacceptable is when you do something that people think is bad but can't or won't prosecute you for it. Being noisy, being smelly etc. Generally the worst thing that will happen to you for that is the police will warn you to stop it unless you are a serial offender.

Unacceptable is when a smelly tramp start harrassing people on the train by sitting down and shouting obsenities. Police generally move someone on for doing that and don''t arrest arrest them but if the police simply ignored it would you want to have to deal with that on every train ride to work?  

You're classifying public masterbation as being even less offensive. The police should just let people masturbate on the train and turn a blind eye to it. Personally I think it's goes beyond unacceptable and into illegal. I put it in the same category as making threats as it is distressing and is behaviour that you can choose to curtail (Unlike your example of simply being ugly).

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Also, a black, white, and grey view of the world isn't a whole lot better than a black and white view.

Who said just black, white and gray? I'm saying that you should see the world as it is rather than trying to define it with a narrow rule like you want to do that allows public masterbation in order to preserve freedom. Frankly I consider the idea that people should be able to whip it out and play with it whenever they want on the underground to be a ludicrous example of what happens if you take a principle too far.
 (Unless of course you only allow hot women to play with themselves on the underground. In that case I'd pay extra for a ticket )

*Waits five minutes for all the people on HLP to stop imagining so that I can continue the discussion*

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
And actually, I think you're missing the point I'm making. I'm not saying laws are bad if they exist if there's an opposition, I'm saying they're bad if they exist, there's an opposition, and there's no point to them existing in the first place. You seem to be saying that because you've given their behavior a term (unacceptable) that now you can call it bad and take away their liberty to do it so long as you're in the majority.

So you're saying that people should be free to play with themselves on public transport if they wish? That's a basic human right which should never be curtailed in any way?

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
That's really not what a country with some sort of constitution that defines 'human rights' is about.

So what about the rights of people not to see public masturbation? Do  they have to remain prisoners in their own homes because they could come across someone doing it at any time?

And you still haven't explained why the thing with the radio frequencies is any different. You're saying that because 99.9% of the population want to use some radio frequencies for airplanes that the 0.1% of the population who don't want that and instead want to use if for something else should lose their right to use it just because they are in the minority. How is that not analogous to the public masterbation thing?

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by karajorma
Unacceptable is when you do something that people think is bad but can't or won't prosecute you for it. Being noisy, being smelly etc. Generally the worst thing that will happen to you for that is the police will warn you to stop it unless you are a serial offender.

Interesting. The police are there for people who won't speak up for themselves? Does that mean I can get a police officer to ask a girl out for me if I consider it unacceptable that she's not with me?

Unacceptable is when a smelly tramp start harrassing people on the train by sitting down and shouting obsenities. Police generally move someone on for doing that and don''t arrest arrest them but if the police simply ignored it would you want to have to deal with that on every train ride to work?

That's actually an interesting question. Technically it's freedom of speech. Do the police actually have legal grounds to do it?

You're classifying public masterbation as being even less offensive. The police should just let people masturbate on the train and turn a blind eye to it. Personally I think it's goes beyond unacceptable and into illegal. I put it in the same category as making threats as it is distressing and is behaviour that you can choose to curtail (Unlike your example of simply being ugly).[/b]

That's disturbing. I would much rather have to cope with ignoring someone masturbating in public than have someone start sending me death threats.

(Unless of course you only allow hot women to play with themselves on the underground. In that case I'd pay extra for a ticket )

*Waits five minutes for all the people on HLP to stop imagining so that I can continue the discussion*

So you're okay with people being on the train, but only as long as it's the people that're doing what you want them to be doing?

You're okay with people having freedom of speech, but only as long as it's the people that're saying what you want them to say?

The government is okay with people having freedom of speech, but only as long as it's the people that're saying what they want them to say?

Such a simple progression.

So you're saying that people should be free to play with themselves on public transport if they wish? That's a basic human right which should never be curtailed in any way?

As stupid as it may seem, I'd say it's somewhere along those lines. If you have so little rights over how you can interact with your own body, somewhere along the line something's wrong.

So what about the rights of people not to see public masturbation? Do  they have to remain prisoners in their own homes because they could come across someone doing it at any time?

I guess if they really want to they can. No one would be forcing them to stay in their homes, it'd be their choice.

And you still haven't explained why the thing with the radio frequencies is any different. You're saying that because 99.9% of the population want to use some radio frequencies for airplanes that the 0.1% of the population who don't want that and instead want to use if for something else should lose their right to use it just because they are in the minority. How is that not analogous to the public masterbation thing?

Read my posts.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon

Read my posts.

I've read every one of your points and you're still not getting it. You go on and on about the dangers of allowing people to use the airplanes radio frequencies but not once have you addressed why the airlines should have those frequencies just because they want them.

I don't care about the danger. I don't care about the implications. What you've said is that just because the airlines want those frequencies they should have them and that should override the wishes of anyone who wants them for something else.

When you go on about the danger of someone else using those frequencies or that it would cause air traffic to grind to a halt you're using exactly the same arguments that I'm using (I.e that the majority want it that way).

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Interesting. The police are there for people who won't speak up for themselves? Does that mean I can get a police officer to ask a girl out for me if I consider it unacceptable that she's not with me?

I have no idea what on Earth you are on about.

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
That's actually an interesting question. Technically it's freedom of speech. Do the police actually have legal grounds to do it?

Technically it's also threatening behaviour and disturbing the peace. Of course you probably think that threatening behaviour and disturbing the peace are also laws that should be struck down.

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
So you're okay with people being on the train, but only as long as it's the people that're doing what you want them to be doing?

You're okay with people having freedom of speech, but only as long as it's the people that're saying what you want them to say?

The government is okay with people having freedom of speech, but only as long as it's the people that're saying what they want them to say?

Such a simple progression.

Very well lets try a progression of your own arguments. You're basically saying that people can do anything as long as they aren't actually causing harm to someone else.

Fine. Lets say I move next door to you and proceed to play loud rock music from 11pm till 11am. Don't like it? Well why should noise pollution laws apply. The logic there is no different. The majority of people sleep during the night. If I want to play loud music then why shouldn't I?

When you go somewhere I follow you. You go into the supermarket I take everything out of your trolley and put it back on the shelves. I insult you and call you names everywhere you go. When you go home I park so close to your car that you'll never get it out again. I sign you up to recieve half a ton of junk mail every day and whenever you post on HLP I register an alt nick to flame you.

In general I make your life a living hell with tons of petty little annoyances, all of them legal based on the rules you've set.

Now usually I'd be prosecuted for harassment but seeing as how harrassment is just a way of preventing freedoms based on your arguments you can't do that and have to put up with it or take the law into your own hand and do something I can actually arrest you for.

[WMCoolmon]

Fine. I'll lay it out in as simple and straight out terms as possible, and see where that gets me.

You are thinking within a simple little box defined by society. That box defines masturbating in public as wrong. It defines public nudity as wrong. It defines swearing as wrong, to a certain extent. It defines all sorts of things as right and wrong, in different situations, even if there's no logical justification for it.

From an early age you've been raised to buy into this and react a certain way to these things. Thus it is self-perpetuating, as certain things are wrong because everybody says they're wrong.

Or nearly everybody.

The result of buying into this box is that one, you get a bunch of allies. But two, you end up being more closedminded the more you accept things as reality. Lesson one of any kind of ethics lession, I'm sure, is that morality is relative, because without that kind of realization it's impossible to understand any other ethics set than your own.

I see government as an equalizer, of sorts. At least, I think that's how our government was intended to be set up, even if that's really not the way it's turned out. Everybody gets an equal say.

I do not think that the law should be used for something as stupid and petty like protecting people from their own self-built prejudices. If people dislike it, they can always say something. They can leave. If the owner of the subway notices them leaving, then s/he can demand that the people masturbating leave as well - it's their property.

Why the hell should anyone's tax dollars go towards paying for something that would be wholly unneccessary if someone grew a backbone and did something about it themselves?

That's probably what I hate about this story. The woman is painted as the victim; when really the only thing she's a victim of is her own emotions. Perhaps she tried to get the guy to stop - asking him to stop, for example...but then she wouldn't be a helpless victim, as she attempted to stand up for herself.
But perhaps not. In which case she really wasn't a victim, she simply didn't make an effort.

Edit:

Why the hell should anyone's tax dollars go towards paying for something that would be wholly unneccessary if someone grew a backbone and did something about it themselves?

That is my entire point with the police officer asking out a girl. I can do something about it myself. Why should I flee to the authorities? Why is it that when our neighbor does something we don't like, or even someone standing next to us, we have to go and get someone else to arbitrate the dispute? Have we truly lost that ability of interpersonal communication, or are we so obsessed with our self-image that we'd rather suffer than risk swallowing our pride to admit that we aren't eternally tolerant of others?

Edit 2: Or is it simply that a lot of us never grow out of that adolescent fear of talking to strangers?

[karajorma]

You've dodged my argument though. We're also told that playing loud music and taking stuff from peoples trolleys and all these other ways of being inconsiderate are also wrong. Does that mean that we should feel free to do them and shout "Woo hoo! I'm thinking outside the box" the whole time?

If you feel that the law should not be used to protect people from their own prejudices then everything I described in my last post should be allowed. After all it's only your prejudice that "nice" people don't do stuff like that which created the laws that prevented it.

As for how the media have portrayed this story, what the f**k does that have to do with anything! Since when has how the media portrays a story become a yardstick for how we should dispense justice?

[pyro-manic]

WMC: So the bloke is free to jack off over women on the tube, But the woman isn't free to ride the tube without having this lech jack off over her?

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by pyro-manic
WMC: So the bloke is free to jack off over women on the tube, But the woman isn't free to ride the tube without having this lech jack off over her?

Hey, I'm not free from ads and commercials and all sorts of things I find offensive, even if I'm not using whatever service they help pay for.

Legislating laws to make sure that nobody has to see or hear anything they don't want to is a fast way to create a stagnant society.

Karajorma
You've dodged my argument though. We're also told that playing loud music and taking stuff from peoples trolleys and all these other ways of being inconsiderate are also wrong. Does that mean that we should feel free to do them and shout "Woo hoo! I'm thinking outside the box" the whole time?

Well, in both of those cases I see that as infringing upon others' right to 'own' property. In a house, it's not a public setting; if someone decides they don't like people with some totally trivial trait (eg eye color), they still have a right to kick them out of their house because it's private property.

Similarly with music it will A) harm the welfare of the person, and B) intrude upon the person's house as much as if the person were in their living room, playing the music at a much quieter level.

In the case of light rays it's less practical, since you can look away or close the blinds, wheras in the case of music, at a loud enough volume the only way to ignore it would be to drug yourself.

In any sort of hypothetical situation you hold up, I'm not going to so much apply a 'is it out of the box?' litmus test as 'does it directly harm other people or hinder their expression of their rights?' and 'is there significant evidence that harm is intended?' In neither case does masturbating on a train (or even exposing oneself, for that matter) qualify.

As for how the media have portrayed this story, what the f**k does that have to do with anything! Since when has how the media portrays a story become a yardstick for how we should dispense justice?

I didn't say the media should be a yardstick. I'll assume you're referring to this:

That's probably what I hate about this story. The woman is painted as the victim; when really the only thing she's a victim of is her own emotions. Perhaps she tried to get the guy to stop - asking him to stop, for example...but then she wouldn't be a helpless victim, as she attempted to stand up for herself.
But perhaps not. In which case she really wasn't a victim, she simply didn't make an effort.

My point in that "the woman was painted as a victim" was to show that I realize that there may some element in this particular instance that the media chose not to print to promote some other agenda (eg get people interested in the story).

[Ford Prefect]

Damn, wrong thread again! What's wrong with me?

[WMCoolmon]

Freudian slip?

[Ford Prefect]

Don't make fun of my evening clothes.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Well, in both of those cases I see that as infringing upon others' right to 'own' property. In a house, it's not a public setting; if someone decides they don't like people with some totally trivial trait (eg eye color), they still have a right to kick them out of their house because it's private property.

Similarly with music it will A) harm the welfare of the person, and B) intrude upon the person's house as much as if the person were in their living room, playing the music at a much quieter level.

I think you're splitting hairs now. But fine. Let's leave the loud music argument. There are plenty of ways I can make your life a living hell without having to interfere with you at home.

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
In the case of light rays it's less practical, since you can look away or close the blinds, wheras in the case of music, at a loud enough volume the only way to ignore it would be to drug yourself.

So you're suggesting that if someone is leering at you and playing with themselves you should stop paying attention to them? *Watches rape statistics rise from women who weren't paying enough attention to give the assailant a quck swift kick in the nuts when he started*

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
In any sort of hypothetical situation you hold up, I'm not going to so much apply a 'is it out of the box?' litmus test as 'does it directly harm other people or hinder their expression of their rights?' and 'is there significant evidence that harm is intended?' In neither case does masturbating on a train (or even exposing oneself, for that matter) qualify.

Lets drop the loud music argument for the moment. Why can't I deliberately block you car in with two of my own. Why can't I take stuff from your trolley as long as the supermarket don't stop me? Why can't I follow you around town calling you a stupid w**ker just cause I feel like it?

I'm not quite following your argument. Are you claiming that the only reason I can't do that is because I'm deliberately trying to annoy you? Or are you saying that it's perfectly reasonable to do those things.*

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
My point in that "the woman was painted as a victim" was to show that I realize that there may some element in this particular instance that the media chose not to print to promote some other agenda (eg get people interested in the story).

Such as. I'm not following you in the slightest.





*Cause if so I'm on the first plane with a camcorder. I reckon I could get a sweet TV deal out of the "Drive WMCoolmon mad show" I reckon FOX or MTV would buy it in a heartbeat. Hell even BBC2 might be interested in it if I can pitch it in a "I'm Dave Gorman" fashion  

[WMCoolmon]

Believe me, that's probably true. On the other hand, just for once, there might be a significant number of people actually sympathetic to me, due to the show. Maybe I should sponsor it myself.

Lets drop the loud music argument for the moment. Why can't I deliberately block you car in with two of my own. Why can't I take stuff from your trolley as long as the supermarket don't stop me? Why can't I follow you around town calling you a stupid w**ker just cause I feel like it?

I'm not quite following your argument. Are you claiming that the only reason I can't do that is because I'm deliberately trying to annoy you? Or are you saying that it's perfectly reasonable to do those things.*

It's late so this may not make much sense.

To the first question I'd say 'yes'. The goods are technically the supermarket's property at that point, until you purchase them at the register. If the supermarket says "Don't take stuff out of other people's trollies", that should be as valid as "You break/open it, you buy it." Still, the first thing that people do shouldn't be to report them to the police. (I assume you're talking about "carts" in supermarkets)

Following me around town, I'd wonder why that person was going to waste their time doing that. But I would say it lies in a dark grey area too, as long as I'm in public places and/or the owner of the establishment I'm in is indifferent to that person's presence. On the one hand, they technically have the right to call me a stupid wanker. On the other hand, they're obviously abusing that right to harass me.

To provide an analogy to the masturbation thing, you'd have to have the guy following her around town masturbating. For the sake of the argument, I'll assume that does happen. Obviously my first thought is "Eww". But I can't think up any good reason to demand that he stop other than I don't want to see it. And while I would love for things to go my way in the world (at least for a little while) I know it's not going to happen, and it's unreasonable to expect the same of everyone all the time, because I'm not going to do it for them either.

I think I've gotten my idea across. (If not, I probably won't, ever) Now let me totally destroy my arguement for public masturbation.

On the other hand, the guy's spreading bodily fluids, which is a known way to spread such fun diseases like Herpes and AIDS. Even if he goes to wash his hands, he's going to have to touch the faucet, the door handle, etc etc. If the guy were to actually have one of those diseases, he could pass it on to an unknown number of people. Say, the person who used the bathroom after him. The actual probability is probably VERY small of that actually happening, but the types of diseases usually spread are usually of the life-threatening variety.

If public bleeding constitutes a health hazard, then so will public masturbation.

However, my point here is, even if there is a public feeling that something is 'bad' or 'wrong' or 'unacceptable' or what have you, it should not mean that people should run out and legislate a law for it so they can prosecute other people. If there's a good reason for it...but otherwise I think that personal liberty should take precedence rather than freedom from liberty.

[Wild Fragaria]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon


However, my point here is, even if there is a public feeling that something is 'bad' or 'wrong' or 'unacceptable' or what have you, it should not mean that people should run out and legislate a law for it so they can prosecute other people. If there's a good reason for it...but otherwise I think that personal liberty should take precedence rather than freedom from liberty.

A true freedom is  freedom with restrain.  We should all have freedom and enjoy it but not to used it your right to hurt anyone in any way whether it's something physical or emotional.   You are free to think what you like, but certain things you just can't act as the same way you think, like in the case.

You could argue that guy just 'enjoyed' his freedom and didn't hurt any of the victims as loudly as you want, but that doesn't mean your argument's correct.  It does not matter how 'indirectly' and 'oppositely' you want to see this case , that guy had clearly violated these victims by one of the most horrible ways he could do mentally.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma


*Cause if so I'm on the first plane with a camcorder. I reckon I could get a sweet TV deal out of the "Drive WMCoolmon mad show" I reckon FOX or MTV would buy it in a heartbeat. Hell even BBC2 might be interested in it if I can pitch it in a "I'm Dave Gorman" fashion  

*buys tickets*