We all know Charles Dickens was thoroughly opposed to the Livesey's abstinaence movement of the 19th century. The main thrust of his arguments against the movement was that it was treating people like babies and being nanny-ish. However I think this is a poor argument as people chose to join the movement. Discuss.
Dickens against abstinence
- Thread starter Velcro
- Start date
S
swarfrat
Guest
It would help if we knew the word count target and due date for this assignment.
Velcro said:
To actually answer the argument, however, is Dickens not correct? Is it not the responsibility of individuals to make choices as they see fit, accounting for the impact upon others? For example, if I have a glass of wine or 3 with my dinner how does this affect anyone else at all? If I then drive-sure, that has an affect, but the actual consumption of the booze is my business alone. And we see countless examples of government inserting itself where it doesn't belong, for no reason besides the fact that they have the power to do so.
Cletus said:
Well, people are stupid. As can be seen for example by looking at all the morons who go driving after they've had some/lots of alcohol and kill others and/or themselves in accidents. Clearly law enforcement is necessary here until everyone everywhere learns not to DUI?
Jusatele
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,953
what a man does that does not affect others is his business
it is when it affects others that things need to be governed
Telling me I cannot drink is wrong, now If I drive drunk, or beat on people, well then arrest me and make me answer for what I do. But telling me I cannot drink because you think I might do such, that is wrong.
It has been proven in history that forced abstinence does not work, that it does in fact cause crime to go up supplying the product deemed illegal.
it is when it affects others that things need to be governed
Telling me I cannot drink is wrong, now If I drive drunk, or beat on people, well then arrest me and make me answer for what I do. But telling me I cannot drink because you think I might do such, that is wrong.
It has been proven in history that forced abstinence does not work, that it does in fact cause crime to go up supplying the product deemed illegal.
JaySwear said:
Yep, hard to disagree with that. The problem lies in the fact that policing drunk driving is to basically treat the symptom, not what is actually wrong (however sobering it is to lose your driver's license or get fined or what-have-you). I have no answer, but I don't believe it's a binary situation.
And just to keep this thread on track, I should be clear about the fact that I generally reject most absolute thinking and reasoning. It's been my experience that life and the world we live in are much more complex than that.
[quote author=Cletus]Let's assume you're gay (haha, sorry kboman, you've walked into this one). Is it the govt's right to control who you sleep with? [/quote]
Of course not (and no need to be sorry). And then again, yes. Because what if someone has a sexual attraction to, say, children? Psychologically, it's just another sexuality. In practical terms, it's child abuse. Clearly child abuse should not be legal and the safety of our children has precedence over pretty much everything, but it's still legislating sexuality.
Incidentally, while I'm not gay many people would frown on my current choice of partner. It's not illegal anywhere that I know of but culturally suppressed in many places.
(this was written at work, semi-distractedly)
Jusatele
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,953
Unfortunately the current society view of the situation is guilty until proven Innocent.kboman said:
So what they are saying is that just because I drink, I will drive drunk, and that without prior history of driving while drunk I should be treated as if I am guilty?
Nope, I have no history of it, so why should I be treated like I have a problem because someone else does? That is like saying everyone who owns a gun will murder someone just because a gun owner did.
Jusatele
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,953
kboman said:
Of course not (and no need to be sorry). And then again, yes. Because what if someone has a sexual attraction to, say, children? Psychologically, it's just another sexuality. In practical terms, it's child abuse. Clearly child abuse should not be legal and the safety of our children has precedence over pretty much everything, but it's still legislating sexuality.
Incidentally, while I'm not gay many people would frown on my current choice of partner. It's not illegal anywhere that I know of but culturally suppressed in many places.
(this was written at work, semi-distractedly)
[/quote]Because, with a child you are affecting someone else, the child. so there is a reason to govern, again the premise is that it has no effect on anyone else. So drawing a line between sex it adults and sex with kids is valid as the adult is mature enough to choose. Being gay should not be a crime but we treat it as such, having sex with kids is a crime and I do not think anyone here would argue for the right to sleep with kids.
Superlizard
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,514
Jusatele said:
Speaking of -
The founder (more like "fabricator") of islam had a 9 year old wife (consummated), and he is
revered and looked upon as the shining example for all male muslims to pattern their
lives after (not to mention all the murdering of dissenters, forced conversions, looting and military conquests).
This is a cult designated as a world-wide "official religion"... what do we do then with its inherent
pedophilia and the practitioners who emulate said founder? Turn our backs and pretend it doesn't exist
because it's a "religion"?
Jusatele
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,953
Religion, Politics
lets leave there out of the arena
both are something volatile as both are PURE BELIEF and have no basis in Fact
if there was a fact about either then we would have a answer to whom is correct and either the Republicans or Democrats would be correct or Communist etc, and religion also has not facts as every religion out there claims to be the truth and it's followers believe they are the correct chosen few as much as any other religion. Problem is they are all based on their own writings and none of them, Bible, Koran, Eddas etc are anything but books written to prove that belief is correct.
so until we have proven fact on those two subjects, leave them off the board please
lets leave there out of the arena
both are something volatile as both are PURE BELIEF and have no basis in Fact
if there was a fact about either then we would have a answer to whom is correct and either the Republicans or Democrats would be correct or Communist etc, and religion also has not facts as every religion out there claims to be the truth and it's followers believe they are the correct chosen few as much as any other religion. Problem is they are all based on their own writings and none of them, Bible, Koran, Eddas etc are anything but books written to prove that belief is correct.
so until we have proven fact on those two subjects, leave them off the board please
Superlizard
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,514
AutoBat said:
:icon_scratch:
We're talking religion? Really? :doh:
And here I thought we were talking pedophilia; specifically the version found in islam and how it is tolerated... whereas it
was pointed out previously that it is wrong (which it is). Along with the whole "don't do things which hurt others" discussion.
Why is it tolerated in islam, then? Is my point.
Jusatele
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,953
SL, I do not know if the statement about the founder of Islam is true or not.
So I cannot comment, If it is truth then it is wrong, If it is a fabrication or urban legend to slam the religion then it is wrong
I try to keep out of discussion based on or about religion because I find so little is truthful and most is lies.
So I cannot comment, If it is truth then it is wrong, If it is a fabrication or urban legend to slam the religion then it is wrong
I try to keep out of discussion based on or about religion because I find so little is truthful and most is lies.