What's your opinion on the "How does it affect you personally" argument?

@Norbert the Tiger
Crap! Didn't even notice that grammatical error. Thanks for pointing that that out.

As for the rest of your post, it's not that the Government can't legislate morality, it's more about how the Government shouldn't legislate morality if it only affects yourself, but should protect the public from your debauchery if it evolves into a nuisance. Like I don't think the government should have any say in if someone decides to screw their life over with drugs (Like if someone's a retard, let them be a retard without having to go full nanny state), but if that someone ends up becoming a junkie or a pothead on the street and becomes a pubic nuisance, then the government should protect the general public from them (I guess what I'm saying here is make being a roadside druggie illegal). Similarly, if someone wants to chop off their tits/ mutilate their weiner then let them do it. However, the govt should protect people from being socially pressured into using the transvestite's preferred pronouns and should make it illegal for them to use the opposite biological gender's restroom.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Homegrown Homophobia
Hi @RybenZ999

I feel like you did not read a word of what I wrote.

RybenZ999 said:
Like I don't think the government should have any say in if someone decides to screw their life over with drugs (Like if someone's a retard, let them be a retard without having to go full nanny state),
Click to expand...
The problem is when someone fucks over his life it affects other people. Have you seen Trainspotting? Heroin addicts don't just affect their own lives. The parents suffered, the film shows those junkies breaking into cars, stealing from shops. One of their friends gets ensnared into after a breakup and dies from aids. These things are social vices for a reason, they harm both the individual who succumbs to them, the individuals around them, and society at large.
RybenZ999 said:
but if that someone ends up becoming a junkie or a pothead on the street and becomes a pubic nuisance, then the government should protect the general public from them (I guess what I'm saying here is make being a roadside druggie illegal).
Click to expand...
A person can abuse drugs and negatively affect society without being a roadside druggie. Siblings and parents will be affected. If that person the children will suffer. If that person, especially a woman, does not have children and is otherwise not genetically dysgenic, society suffers because we are that much further down in the death rate exceeding the birth rate.
RybenZ999 said:
Similarly, if someone wants to chop off their tits/ mutilate their weiner then let them do it.
Click to expand...
No. For starters, it is not in their own interest and in the interest of their own wel being. But beyond that, re-read what I wrote. For every zoomer girl does that the dating game becomes that much harder for their male counterparts. Consider how the surplus of men in China because of China's former one child policy combined with preference for men has created instability. Again, though just in terms of a psychic toll, it affects individuals in society the same way as seeing people who have purposefully disfigured themselves. It simply should not be allowed.
 
  • Dumb
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Homegrown Homophobia, Stan, RybenZ999 and 1 other person
Higgs Bonbon said:
Wait... huh? These things indirectly affecting me is specifically why I have libertarian leanings, I do not have the option of saying "fuck this I'm out" specifically because the government wants to affect me personally.

in short;
View attachment 5367571
Click to expand...
I don't get it. What is that comic supposed to represent?
 
  • Dumb
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Higgs Bonbon, Mr.Miyagi and Norbert the Tiger
My issue with the statement is it fails to accept even the smallest amount of responsibility for the world you live in because you have cumsoomed the nihilistic bullshit the glowing box in your hand was designed to disseminate.

It’s propaganda, quit repeating it. It’s easily one of the most self centered answers to anything.
 
Only caring about something if it affects you personally is the hallmark of a narcissist, if not a sociopath. I feel no need to engage with people who think that way because nothing can help them. They are broken.

Otterly said:
Arguments that start ‘but IF you woke up tomorrow in the body of a woman…’ you can frame any question like that and force a yes.
Click to expand...
Even that's a terrible argument though. If I woke up tomorrow and was magically female, I wouldn't grab the nearest kitchen knife and start mutilating myself. I'm not mentally ill, so I know that cutting off a woman's tits and putting her in a baseball cap doesn't change her sex. Best I could do is say "oh well, guess I'm female now". Anything beyond that is just desperately clawing at straws. Learning to accept the things you can't change is a vital part of growing up.
 
@Norbert the Tiger

Dammit, glossed over the affecting family members part, sorry about that. You do make a good point though. That along with your point about transitioning, I guess these are issues that aren't as clear-cut as they seem. I guess the principle behind transitioning is kind of similar to that behind incest. When you get to the bare bones of it, as long as the people engaging in it use protection, there's no argument against incest that can't be used against homosexuality either. I mean, most of the arguments made in favor of gay relationships (consenting adults, love is love yada yada) can be made for incest as well. But that's just looking at it at its basic level. Cuz in reality, if you normalize incest, it'll have far reaching societal consequences. I guess transitioning is similar in a way.
 
  • Dumb
  • Like
Reactions: Homegrown Homophobia and Norbert the Tiger
Good question, I asked myself this question a couple times. This analogy puts it best for me:

Would said:
As my neighbor, you shitting outside the shitter doesn't affect me, true.
You shitting everywhere except the shitter to the point your home smells from down the block and has begun to attract pests does affect me.

You doing drugs doesn't affect by itself, sure.
You getting high as a kite and even higher with hard substances to the point you become a public nuisance definitely affects me.
Click to expand...

I think setting boundaries for yourself is the key.
 
Megaton Punch said:
Only caring about something if it affects you personally is the hallmark of a narcissist, if not a sociopath. I feel no need to engage with people who think that way because nothing can help them. They are broken.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's probably the main thing, which I mentioned in the OP. It's a very Me-centric view. Even regarding @Norbert the Tiger 's post about families being harmed by druggies, for a fleeting moment I almost tried to rationalize it with a "Yeah but still I'M not gonna do drugs so who cares". Obviously that meant saying "Sucks to be you" to families torn apart and I quickly realized how messed up that was and that thought quickly went away. So yeah, after a certain point, that line of thinking may cross over from just not caring to borderline sociopathy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norbert the Tiger
@RybenZ999 and a few others. Another thing with this absurd mentality is that when something is tolerated, it becomes normalized and mainstream. People have a lot of absurd ideas about individuality. We are not as individualistic as you people think, especially in the Anglo-American tradition. If you have read Irreversible Damage, she discusses how transgender lunacy is a socail contagion, a craze. She discusses how girls with eating disorders when insitutionalized have to separated becaue it rubs off on others.

As I stated, even something seemingly benign as sports gambling is not just going to affect that individual.
 
  • Like
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Dumb
Reactions: Forbidden Existence, Homegrown Homophobia, Stan and 1 other person
Let me put it this way: "it doesn't affect me personally" helps as a coping mechanism for me to focus on immediate things in my life. I don't have the time or energy anymore to constantly worry about politics or whatever microaggression of the week somebody came up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KittyGremlin
Some months back (or was it last month?), there was an article posted in A&N about some lolbert suggesting America should sell farmland to China and in the event of conflict, just confiscate it.

Just pure distilled greed for someone to even suggest that. No morals or principles whatsoever. Let's make money now and fuck property and ownership when it suits us.
 
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Vecr, Higgs Bonbon and The Last Stand
No man is an island. We are meant to work together or at least be hospitable in accordance to social norms. Having people whose sole purpose is to disrupt those norms just to call it their personality are incredibly self centered. You are free to do as you like personality but I don't have to accept it
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: lanadelgay and The Last Stand
Much like any reasoning argument, it has its limits and shouldn't be used for everything with no regard for context.
 
because while people trooning out their kids voluntarily doesn't "personally" affect me right now, it soon becomes state mandated kid trooning that any son/daughter of mine would be subjected to. The idea that this stuff "doesn't affect me" just because it isn't affecting me in the present is just silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WitchfyndeGeneral and Norbert the Tiger
Society is an ever changing beast, that is regulated by top down and bottom up changes. But the top down ones are the easiest to impact as a minority; and the most resistant to the actual needs and desires of things that the people in that society actually want. The best way to make something encouraged, is to mandate tolerance of it, because society does not work on an individual level and never has. It is waves of change, crashing into sandcastles of individuality. Anyone saying 'Whatever they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is fine!' is a perfect example of this, because you can track how that statement has changed from 'Fuck no, that's disgusting!' at the start, down to their children going 'Why do I care if there's a furry twerking in the street in front of a toddler?' in the future.
Anything can be made normal and approved by a top down mandated ratchet method. People are not as immune to propaganda as they think they are, and individualism lasts until you die. Which is fine if you plan on having no children, and hate your nieces and nephews; but retarded if not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Forbidden Existence
It's like Hemmingway's quote on bankruptcy. Gradually and then suddenly.

Not many society-level catastrophes or disasters happened out of the blue, almost every time it's a gradual build up of events that might not by themselves be anything significant until it reaches a breaking point and completely falls apart. Who in 1980 thought the USSR and Warsaw Pact would be completely gone in a decade, for example?

Or in 1972 that China would become the #1 economic and geopolitical rival of the United States?

Some things can't be changed on an individual basis but it's important to be aware and not afraid to stand up for things you know are right. Every popular movement in history started with just a handful of people who were fed up with the way things were in their society.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Norbert the Tiger
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back