Trevor Watkins
Stephen vJ
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2Lk6mX6sE6JLMCwVo%2BLDKQCQ57%2B_9c91i_UX95jSHbxRKA%40mail.gmail.com.
Jim Powell
Statements and Responses
This first thing to do is to take an attitude towards the person of questioning
Statement: F**k off. Reply with who and where?
Statement: I don’t give a s**t. Reply: you will put on weight, hmmmmm
Statement: You are such a smart arse. Reply: I would never reveal my arse to you, you must have been looking at someone else’s
There are others that do not come to mind immediately. Take a neutral and comedic stance to the abuser.
I would like to expand repertoire, any ideas?
From: indivi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:indivi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen vJ
Sent: Sunday, 06 October 2024 19:56
To: indivi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: IM: Can words alone cause sufficient harm to require consent from listeners
Words can definitely harm. The primary cause of anorexia is words. Words are a contributing factor in depression and suicide. A plethora of issues stem from or are fueled on by words, including many addictions and compulsive behaviors. A school friend of mine stuttered and it was quite obvious that his stutter was caused by his father's words.
Do or should the people affected by harmful words have any legal recourse ? Maybe, but how do you prove it ? Sometimes it is not the words as such, but the tone, the repetition or the accompanying hand gestures. Proof is extremely hard and looking at woke culture the harm word do can easily be blown out of proportion and turn into a witch hunt.
Like the difference between rape and rough sex, the harm words do can make for several compelling episodes of Law & Order. There sure is a stack of ambiguity, subjectivity and grey are to work with.
Should we ask for consent before uttering words ? I don't think that is even a valid question. My stuttering friend's father was thoroughly convinced that his words were true and just and necessary. He would say that they came from a place of caring and he would not have thought for a second that they could cause harm... yet they did.
Sometimes people do harm unknowingly or by accident. Consent is not relevant in those cases.
An interesting debate arose on the Libertarian whatsapp group regarding the "harm" of words. Like most discussions on whatsapp, the subject quickly moved on and was forgotten without adequate exploration.
I think it would be useful to try and come to a consensus on whether words alone may require the consent of listeners before being uttered, or may be punished by some sanction after being uttered.
Viv Vermaak had this to say: "I don’t like this ‘how did I harm you? Sue me!’ argument of you guys. It doesn’t feel well thought through. How do you define ‘harm’? =Honestly. It can’t just all be;”Well, nobody held a gun to your head.” arguments. Being human is nuanced. Words count, ideologies count. Honesty, dignity, compassion, FREEDOM, respect., authenticity. These are valuable to humans, to defend and protect without ‘HARM’ coming into an argument.
Trevor responded: "Harm: For an action resulting in harm against another to require the consent of the other, then that action must be immediate in time and space, must have significant consequences for the other, and must have physical reality.
Words do not constitute harm, no matter how snowflakey the recipient. Your ideolology does not constitute harm, no matter how dumb or repugnant. I might say the intellectual sloppiness of your position caused me actual harm, really, but that is BS. If words caused actual harm, the Ukrainians would probably be much more shouty."
| Virus-free.www.avg.com |
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2Lk6mX6sE6JLMCwVo%2BLDKQCQ57%2B_9c91i_UX95jSHbxRKA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/C8661897-945F-4150-B7E8-C180871E51D8%40gmail.com.
bas...@gmail.com
bas...@gmail.com
Sid Nothard
Words can cause immense damage to young people.
If parents and/or teachers keep telling a kid he is no good, his subconscious will eventually absorb that as a truth, and that’s most likely the way his life will turn out. Completely wrecked. So how does one get justice for that?
From: indivi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:indivi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of bas...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 9:25 AM
To: Individualist Movement
Subject: Re: IM: Can words alone cause sufficient harm to require consent from listeners
The issue is whether the use of words alone can cause material harm. No one disputes that words can annoy, or embarass, or enrage others. They can also inspire, motivate and stimulate. But can the words cause material harm, as opposed to the ACTIONS of the dumb-asses who hear them?
Virus-free.www.avg.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2Lk6mX6sE6JLMCwVo%2BLDKQCQ57%2B_9c91i_UX95jSHbxRKA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/8ca194d0-dfc0-4c67-97d4-efdaed7dd18fn%40googlegroups.com.
Gabri Rigotti
There is a massive real world difference between direct physical harm, and emotional harm.
Yes, emotional harm may be considered to manifest indirectly as physical harm, such as a bullied tormented nerd in an American high school reaching a point where he (almost always a biological male “white”, but still a he even if with pronouns) uses a gun or rifle to take out his “tormentors”.
That is one example.
Another is stuttering as a result of being emotionally abused by a parent or teacher or by the bullies in the school yard, jocks and popular girls alike.
However, a real world solution firstly should require dealing with the vast ascertainable harm, the prevailing physical harm.
This occurs in theatres of war or in daily life, Cape Town being the homicide capital of Africa, and one of the dozen or so most violent cities in the world.
South Africa arguably one of the world leaders in rape.
Worrying about words right now is merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic instead of ensuring there is no flotilla of icebergs in its way.
To push the cliche, a world where physical harm is allowed only with consent of the individual enduring the physical harm is where our Titanic should rather be steering for, seeking to avoid the mass of floating icebergs that would otherwise sink us.
We can ascertain in a substantially objective observable way when physical harm is taking place.
For example, smoking is harm but with consent. The smoker agrees to purchase the potentially cancer inducing cigarettes.
Drinking is the same, the individual who chooses to have, be it a glass of red wine or a bottle of meths, is consenting to the risk of harm.
The HCR (Harm Consent Rule) is not contravened by the voluntary act of smoking or drinking.
However, by scientifically sampling ourselves, in an ongoing discovery of the “Nature of Us”, the NoU, it can be shown that the vast majority of us will succumb to the physical harm of say , an identifiable threshold of asbestos fibres in the air that we breathe.
The sample will yield a mean, a standard deviation and a standard error.
A real world achievable ethical, moral and legal standard can be thus established from the NoU, that a threshold of asbestos fibres in the air that will cause say 95% of us to get cancer, about twice the standard deviation from the mean, should be considered as harm without consent if we do not have a choice about whether or not we wish to breathe in these fibres.
Thus your next door neighbour setting up an asbestos product manufacturing plant with workers who consent to the harm that they will potentially incur is violating the HCR, your right to not be physically harmed without your consent.
The HCR coupled to the NoU provides the basis for a real world enforceable solution to deterring physical harm without consent.
Thus to argue that the neighbour is acting within the permissible scope of the “free market” is disingenuous.
The free market, the genuine enforced version thereof instead of the myriad of false instances claimed by a myriad of vested interests, would not ethically or morally or legally allow the neighbour to spew asbestos fibres into your lungs without your consent.
Relative to physical harm, HCR coupled to the NoU is objective.
What about words and emotional harm?
The NoU would also show that the vast majority of us are neither outlier uber egoists nor outlier uber altruists.
Compassion is a natural selection attribute, it stimulates collaboration, and is what it is because Nature shaped us so.
Whether one is egotistically inclined or altruistically inclined is neither sin nor virtue.
We are a bell shaped curve when it comes to Compassion, uber egoists to the right and uber altruists to the left.
That is where Ayn Rand is wrong, with her “Nature of Man”, the NoM, and her insistence that any instance of altruism is ethically and morally wrong.
She however did have the courage to stand up against the collective madness of altruism, the support of violent altruism, and to state that acting in one’s rational self interest, even if it be egoist, is neither unethical or immoral (... provided the HCR is not violated of course).
She regrettably over-corrected by then declaring that any instance of altruism, even if not violent, is immoral.
What she effectively did is project herself, as but a mere instance of us, as the nature of us.
With Ayn Rand the challenge however is to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. How she lived her life is her business, but that she erred with her “NoM” is business that we all have skin in.
Why I am pointing this out is that in a genuine free market, the jocks and popular girls and otherwise slimgatte who torment and bully others would tend to find that schools with rules against both their physical and mental bullying would be in demand and the popular girls and their jocks would have far fewer victims to prey upon as the tormented abandon their school yards for kinder alternatives.
The popular girls and jocks are mostly products of their parents, in the sense of biology and upbringing, and also of culture e.g. a white racist would consider blacks inferior, an Islamist would consider infidels inferior. Both examples would be supremacists viewing inferiors with contempt and as targets for emotionally hurtful words if not direct physical harm.
However, most of us have a sufficiency of compassion in us, purely a prevailing outcome of natural selection, and we would not encourage the rampant behaviour of the popular girls and their jocks in schools where our children go to, these emotional predators would be in time expelled and sent to the schools that the free market would provide because their parents would have to pay for their behaviour to be tolerated if not encouraged … or we would send our children to schools that would not tolerate their bullying.
There would thus arguably be far fewer, if any, armed “white” Incels massacring their fellow learners.
The free market shakes it all out … the genuine version only, of course, not the diluted faux versions that typically are shaped to advance specific interests.
There would thus be no need to go down the “rabbit hole” of words and harm …
All one needs for a real world outcome is the HCR coupled to the NoU …
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000501db188f%2434e5d8b0%249eb18a10%24%40mweb.co.za.
" It is not the water in the fields that brings true development, rather, it is water in the eyes, or compassion for fellow beings, that brings about real development. "
—Anna Hazare
Trevor Watkins
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAGXOEN1%3D0F9CC%2B8q%2BNg86%2Bzsjtss66%2BvN2eMmP6OZfRHFnNMtw%40mail.gmail.com.
Gabri Rigotti
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LkBTWA%3DYbAQFO_mM2nyr04THKZapZC1a2RpAyKD7N%2B3Lw%40mail.gmail.com.
Trevor Watkins
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAGXOEN2HJTjf02jfnQS3-V1U3e-%3D3UM6UmxihRcMX-73pgB0AQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2L%3DPyd2%3DmLTVZSsb%2Bm8TvfFJawEwyo3uxhCQcCkWX3mrLQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000501db188f%2434e5d8b0%249eb18a10%24%40mweb.co.za.
Gabri Rigotti
Hi Stephen
I think that you have conclusively proven that this forum is no echo chamber 😂 …
“Holy cow ! What bullshit !” should leave no doubt of that!
I think we ironically have some common points of agreement though.
Your grandfather for example. His despicable view of persons with mental disabilities.
Our daughter suffered vaccine damage from her MMR plus the Hepatitis B that was administered to her when she was about a year old.
She is mentally challenged and has a rare form of light sensitive epilepsy as a result that confined her to our home indoors for years during the daylight.
A compassionate Soul, the wife of an optometrist, as well as his business administrator conceived of an optical solution for her, sort of like a Lorenzo’s Oil story …
Compassion like this lady has is a beautiful energy, even if it leads one to act altruistically which is anathema for Ayn Rand cult followers.
Fortunately our daughter is full of joy, she has a musical appreciation ear second to none and enjoys a spectrum of music from Boccelli to gangsta rap.
Of course there is a lot of hurt that comes with this, the stares, the look downs, the contempt from many who do not immediately realise the condition … you see, our daughter is beautiful and looks very “normal”.
Hypothetically your grandfather could have been there restraining her as she ran into a major food retail store one day and grabbed muffins for a dear friend of ours and started running out without paying.
The store attendant that intervened was wonderfully Compassionate but I think your grandfather would have been the type to have physically restrained her and called the police on the basis that her condition was no excuse.
I absolutely detest people like that.
I am not sure about you but I endured the popular girls and jock taunts and ridicule in primary school and also for a couple of years into high school as well.
I was a fat wop or eyetie until then you see, a spaghetti muncher and we had lost the war and Italian tanks only had reverse gears …
In Standard 6 I came second to last in the school cross country, only ahead of the fattest boy.
Two years later I came second in a far far bigger high school.
I ended up marrying the most beautiful girl of that school, but really she is probably one of the most beautiful women who have ever walked this planet.
Some of the members here have met her so they can attest that this is not just more “bullshit” on my part.
I guess it was the weight training and the fitness regime that helped me prevail against my tormentors at school.
Like a male version of the Ugly Duckling.
Yes words hurt, I know too well how hurtful words are, no question about that … I totally agree with you on that, another common point of agreement between us.
Fortunately for me I took to weights and running and eating healthily and the jocks ended up having to stare at my six pack and my wings and my deltoids and basically they had to shut the fuck up.
As for the popular girls that I recall, the ones that have ended up with plastic surgery look horrific and the others are fat or wrinkled.
Oh, schadenfreude can be such a sweet beautiful thing … 😀
My mother suffered from an extremely debilitating depression, and another dear family member has an even worse one.
Your grandfather would not have tolerated us at dinner parties for sure! We would have been his worst Christmas dinner nightmare … 😂
But it is not your fault that you had the grandfather you did, I was just lucky to have the kind and gentle ones I had.
And yes, public places with family members who are either suffering from depression or who have disabilities are not great … it is not only the words by the way but the looks too, maybe the looks are worse, they really get to you, the entire body language of these critics deliver the put down with sheer utter contempt.
So, body language should also have been included in this subject, actually. Trevor, please note.
You will notice that I referred to not only jocks and popular girls but also to slimgatte.
Slimgatte can be nerd looking but even so they are not nerds.
Typically they are who they are because they just feel superior, innately. It comes with their DNA, they just know they are superior.
They can be quick on the turn of the word, and they will make statements like ““Holy cow ! What bullshit !”.
They love the putdown, and in their own way they are far more malicious than the jocks and the popular girls.
Jocks and popular girls do end up getting fat and ugly and their reign of terror in the school yard eventually comes to an end.
But the slimgatte, no, they continue with their school yard bullying well after the jocks and popular girls have ended up as insignificant have-beens.
I feel for the Incels, their tormented lives at the hands of cruel human DNA.
That is also why I cannot get into the Ayn Rand “virtue of selfishness”, especially if a choice I make ends up hurting someone horribly.
Not physically, just emotionally.
So after trying to be an egoist in line with Ayn Rand and failing spectacularly at that I simply have embraced who I am, altruistic leaning, perhaps closer to the standard deviation than the mean, ok maybe on my way out there towards the altruistic outlier edge … yes, Ayn Rand will not have me in her heaven.
Fair enough, Nathaniel Brandon retreated out of her heaven too …
In your “Holy cow ! What bullshit !” slimgat put down you however then say to Sid that you do not have answers!
In fact if I look at the general line of your thinking there is never an answer in any of your views, just nebulous maybe and what ifs and you have not realised that what awaits that world view is not individualism or libertarianism or some safe pseudo liberalism but the “red tooth and claw” of Nature.
I hear especially people from the Left refer to those they disagree with on the Right as “morons”, “idiots”, and other disparaging terms for those who are mentally challenged.
And they are supposed to be people of compassion?
Do you have any idea what it must feel like to me as a father of a daughter with mental challenges when some contemptuous person uses the word idiot or moron?
In your ignorant arrogance you never even stopped to think about who I might be.
Some jerk who cares not for feelings?
I do not think you actually applied your mind to what I wrote, goodness knows what you understood, effectively comparing me to your despicable grandfather.
The incredible irony however is that maybe you are your grandfather, you hurl insults and taunts at others, you manifest your contempt … and yet here you are pretending you care about the hurt of words … 😂 … do you not get that, can you not see that, you are one of the malicious!
Yes, along with the likes of your grandfather I totally and utterly despise jocks and popular girls and slimgatte precisely because they hurt people badly, very badly, but extremely badly with their words …
You admitted you have no solution to propose to Sid, whereas I have … a society that will tend towards ostracising and cancelling the cruel, where being jocks and popular girls and slimgatte like you is incrementally not sexy at all … 😀
Jeez, I hope I have not hurt your feelings ... naagh, to hell with that, not this time around ... 😂
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S6%3Dip0koemJRa3Lt%3D7YryZSPfut-Vm-O_CBLKp%3DWjs%2BJQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Stephen vJ
Virus-free.www.avg.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2Lk6mX6sE6JLMCwVo%2BLDKQCQ57%2B_9c91i_UX95jSHbxRKA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/8ca194d0-dfc0-4c67-97d4-efdaed7dd18fn%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000501db188f%2434e5d8b0%249eb18a10%24%40mweb.co.za.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S6%3Dip0koemJRa3Lt%3D7YryZSPfut-Vm-O_CBLKp%3DWjs%2BJQ%40mail.gmail.com.
" It is not the water in the fields that brings true development, rather, it is water in the eyes, or compassion for fellow beings, that brings about real development. "
—Anna Hazare
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
Jim Powell
Let us start with the grandfather. To be pitied because he lacks the humanity. This is along with all those who seek superiority. Racists, homophobes etc. They lack the ability to interact on a human to human basis. If you pity someone they cannot hurt you emotionally.
The education systems around the world were hijacked by governments to produce skilled, subservient people. I have been cancelled a number of times because I did not go with the flow. Within me there is an inner strength that responds to unwarranted criticism with a neutral stance and questioning
It works
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAGXOEN39rgy6wa8JRgQNzBUqaZ2gwqJSp5YNwHuYr9NxHPRkeg%40mail.gmail.com.
Jim Powell
Elisabeth Kübler-Ross emphasized the importance of personal responsibility in processing emotions, especially in the context of grief and loss. While she is well-known for her five stages of grief (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance), the idea that "we are responsible for our own emotions" highlights a few key points:
- Awareness: Recognizing our emotions is the first step toward understanding and managing them.
- Ownership: Taking responsibility means acknowledging that our reactions to situations are influenced by our choices and perspectives.
- Empowerment: By understanding that we have control over our emotional responses, we empower ourselves to take constructive actions toward healing and growth.
- Coping Strategies: Kübler-Ross’s work encourages developing healthy coping mechanisms to deal with difficult emotions rather than being passive victims of our feelings.
This perspective encourages individuals to actively engage with their emotional experiences, leading to personal growth and resilience. (Chat GBT)
From: indivi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:indivi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of bas...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, 07 October 2024 09:25
To: Individualist Movement
Subject: Re: IM: Can words alone cause sufficient harm to require consent from listeners
The issue is whether the use of words alone can cause material harm. No one disputes that words can annoy, or embarass, or enrage others. They can also inspire, motivate and stimulate. But can the words cause material harm, as opposed to the ACTIONS of the dumb-asses who hear them?
Virus-free.www.avg.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2Lk6mX6sE6JLMCwVo%2BLDKQCQ57%2B_9c91i_UX95jSHbxRKA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/8ca194d0-dfc0-4c67-97d4-efdaed7dd18fn%40googlegroups.com.
viv...@iafrica.com
To: "individualist" <indivi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 6:45:47 AM
Subject: Re: IM: Can words alone cause sufficient harm to require consent from listeners
Hi Stephen
I think that you have conclusively proven that this forum is no echo chamber \uD83D\uDE02 …
“Holy cow ! What bullshit !” should leave no doubt of that!
I think we ironically have some common points of agreement though.
Your grandfather for example. His despicable view of persons with mental disabilities.
Our daughter suffered vaccine damage from her MMR plus the Hepatitis B that was administered to her when she was about a year old.
She is mentally challenged and has a rare form of light sensitive epilepsy as a result that confined her to our home indoors for years during the daylight.
A compassionate Soul, the wife of an optometrist, as well as his business administrator conceived of an optical solution for her, sort of like a Lorenzo’s Oil story …
Compassion like this lady has is a beautiful energy, even if it leads one to act altruistically which is anathema for Ayn Rand cult followers.
Fortunately our daughter is full of joy, she has a musical appreciation ear second to none and enjoys a spectrum of music from Boccelli to gangsta rap.
Of course there is a lot of hurt that comes with this, the stares, the look downs, the contempt from many who do not immediately realise the condition … you see, our daughter is beautiful and looks very “normal”.
Hypothetically your grandfather could have been there restraining her as she ran into a major food retail store one day and grabbed muffins for a dear friend of ours and started running out without paying.
The store attendant that intervened was wonderfully Compassionate but I think your grandfather would have been the type to have physically restrained her and called the police on the basis that her condition was no excuse.
I absolutely detest people like that.
I am not sure about you but I endured the popular girls and jock taunts and ridicule in primary school and also for a couple of years into high school as well.
I was a fat wop or eyetie until then you see, a spaghetti muncher and we had lost the war and Italian tanks only had reverse gears …
In Standard 6 I came second to last in the school cross country, only ahead of the fattest boy.
Two years later I came second in a far far bigger high school.
I ended up marrying the most beautiful girl of that school, but really she is probably one of the most beautiful women who have ever walked this planet.
Some of the members here have met her so they can attest that this is not just more “bullshit” on my part.
I guess it was the weight training and the fitness regime that helped me prevail against my tormentors at school.
Like a male version of the Ugly Duckling.
Yes words hurt, I know too well how hurtful words are, no question about that … I totally agree with you on that, another common point of agreement between us.
Fortunately for me I took to weights and running and eating healthily and the jocks ended up having to stare at my six pack and my wings and my deltoids and basically they had to shut the fuck up.
As for the popular girls that I recall, the ones that have ended up with plastic surgery look horrific and the others are fat or wrinkled.
Oh, schadenfreude can be such a sweet beautiful thing … \uD83D\uDE00
My mother suffered from an extremely debilitating depression, and another dear family member has an even worse one.
Your grandfather would not have tolerated us at dinner parties for sure! We would have been his worst Christmas dinner nightmare … \uD83D\uDE02
But it is not your fault that you had the grandfather you did, I was just lucky to have the kind and gentle ones I had.
And yes, public places with family members who are either suffering from depression or who have disabilities are not great … it is not only the words by the way but the looks too, maybe the looks are worse, they really get to you, the entire body language of these critics deliver the put down with sheer utter contempt.
So, body language should also have been included in this subject, actually. Trevor, please note.
You will notice that I referred to not only jocks and popular girls but also to slimgatte.
Slimgatte can be nerd looking but even so they are not nerds.
Typically they are who they are because they just feel superior, innately. It comes with their DNA, they just know they are superior.
They can be quick on the turn of the word, and they will make statements like ““Holy cow ! What bullshit !”.
They love the putdown, and in their own way they are far more malicious than the jocks and the popular girls.
Jocks and popular girls do end up getting fat and ugly and their reign of terror in the school yard eventually comes to an end.
But the slimgatte, no, they continue with their school yard bullying well after the jocks and popular girls have ended up as insignificant have-beens.
I feel for the Incels, their tormented lives at the hands of cruel human DNA.
That is also why I cannot get into the Ayn Rand “virtue of selfishness”, especially if a choice I make ends up hurting someone horribly.
Not physically, just emotionally.
So after trying to be an egoist in line with Ayn Rand and failing spectacularly at that I simply have embraced who I am, altruistic leaning, perhaps closer to the standard deviation than the mean, ok maybe on my way out there towards the altruistic outlier edge … yes, Ayn Rand will not have me in her heaven.
Fair enough, Nathaniel Brandon retreated out of her heaven too …
In your “Holy cow ! What bullshit !” slimgat put down you however then say to Sid that you do not have answers!
In fact if I look at the general line of your thinking there is never an answer in any of your views, just nebulous maybe and what ifs and you have not realised that what awaits that world view is not individualism or libertarianism or some safe pseudo liberalism but the “red tooth and claw” of Nature.
I hear especially people from the Left refer to those they disagree with on the Right as “morons”, “idiots”, and other disparaging terms for those who are mentally challenged.
And they are supposed to be people of compassion?
Do you have any idea what it must feel like to me as a father of a daughter with mental challenges when some contemptuous person uses the word idiot or moron?
In your ignorant arrogance you never even stopped to think about who I might be.
Some jerk who cares not for feelings?
I do not think you actually applied your mind to what I wrote, goodness knows what you understood, effectively comparing me to your despicable grandfather.
The incredible irony however is that maybe you are your grandfather, you hurl insults and taunts at others, you manifest your contempt … and yet here you are pretending you care about the hurt of words … \uD83D\uDE02 … do you not get that, can you not see that, you are one of the malicious!
Yes, along with the likes of your grandfather I totally and utterly despise jocks and popular girls and slimgatte precisely because they hurt people badly, very badly, but extremely badly with their words …
You admitted you have no solution to propose to Sid, whereas I have … a society that will tend towards ostracising and cancelling the cruel, where being jocks and popular girls and slimgatte like you is incrementally not sexy at all … \uD83D\uDE00
Jeez, I hope I have not hurt your feelings ... naagh, to hell with that, not this time around ... \uD83D\uDE02
Graeme Bland
Sent: Sunday, October 6, 2024 11:20 AM
To: Individualist Movement <indivi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: IM: Can words alone cause sufficient harm to require consent from listeners
Trevor Watkins
At root, this is about freedom of speech. NOT freedom from offense. As Rickey Gervais said recently, all humour is deliberately offensive to someone. That is not sufficient reason to restrict or ban it.
Harm: For an action resulting in harm against another to require the consent of the other, then that action must be immediate in time and space, must have significant consequences for the other, and must have physical reality.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/AM8P193MB12670F47FABB898D8AAF4595AE7E2%40AM8P193MB1267.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/0c1a01db1962%24b7641300%24262c3900%24%40mweb.co.za.
viv...@iafrica.com
To: "individualist" <indivi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 9:59:17 PM
Sid Nothard
Immediate emotions are beyond a person’s direct control. You can only choose how to react to them
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S5bDR0o7aRYnswc0F99kraq5imywqet7ETQpWt%2BtP%2BEfA%40mail.gmail.com.
Jim Powell
It is not as brutal as snap out of it. It is engaging with the victim and helping them through the trauma. The first step is to get the victim to not see the abuser as superior. My son has depression and he is overseas. He is coming up. When his supervisor is abusive he asks questions about the best for the company. Every case is different
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S5bDR0o7aRYnswc0F99kraq5imywqet7ETQpWt%2BtP%2BEfA%40mail.gmail.com.
Fred Hassani
--
Charl Heydenrych
I have not been a fan of the "crimen injura" principle in the South African legal system. Words may be interpreted as being harmful but I have never seen the physical harm caused by words, I have only seen harm caused by individuals as a response to the feelings engendered by the words and mostly when they acted upon those feelings. Penny Sparrow is not my hero, she should not however have been fined by the HRC, I do also believe that she eventually died as a result of her inability to deal with the venomous words of others! So words do have consequences but we (as individuals or society) should never physically retaliate on the basis of non-physical stuff that may offend.
I am not going to use phrases/words that may open me up to legal action, so I am just going to relate the following story: "You boers are a dumb lot" I still wonder whether the soutpiel had a point?
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAE--%2Bb1fojcLkks1xkrhK1MhenT7Q-12vBSNXfyfBi8JKGPmXQ%40mail.gmail.com.
mark....@imaginet.co.za
If I was being interrogated against my will, I would sure hope that my captors used unkind words to try to extract information from me, rather than pulling my fingernails out.
From: indivi...@googlegroups.com <indivi...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Charl Heydenrych
Sent: Wednesday, 09 October 2024 16:56
To: indivi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: IM: Can words alone cause sufficient harm to require consent from listeners
I have not been a fan of the "crimen injura" principle in the South African legal system. Words may be interpreted as being harmful but I have never seen the physical harm caused by words, I have only seen harm caused by individuals as a response to the feelings engendered by the words and mostly when they acted upon those feelings. Penny Sparrow is not my hero, she should not however have been fined by the HRC, I do also believe that she eventually died as a result of her inability to deal with the venomous words of others! So words do have consequences but we (as individuals or society) should never physically retaliate on the basis of non-physical stuff that may offend.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAFDzsf1qTNy6y%2B3dKSSuCLC5DwqdtG606vBsVkPrwFrCP%2Bnawg%40mail.gmail.com.
Mike Hull
Where words have financial consequences, like slander or lies about products or persons relying on a good public image, these can be settled in the civil court. Fortunately almost anything goes when commenting on government, they are game for all criticism, even if they haven’t openly done whatever, they probably thought about it.
From: indivi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:indivi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Charl Heydenrych
Sent: 09 October 2024 04:56 PM
To: indivi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: IM: Can words alone cause sufficient harm to require consent from listeners
I have not been a fan of the "crimen injura" principle in the South African legal system. Words may be interpreted as being harmful but I have never seen the physical harm caused by words, I have only seen harm caused by individuals as a response to the feelings engendered by the words and mostly when they acted upon those feelings. Penny Sparrow is not my hero, she should not however have been fined by the HRC, I do also believe that she eventually died as a result of her inability to deal with the venomous words of others! So words do have consequences but we (as individuals or society) should never physically retaliate on the basis of non-physical stuff that may offend.
I am not going to use phrases/words that may open me up to legal action, so I am just going to relate the following story: "You boers are a dumb lot" I still wonder whether the soutpiel had a point?
On Wed, 09 Oct 2024, 16:07 Fred Hassani <fr...@teslagovernment.com> wrote:
In the U.S. assault is a crime:
A couple of definitions provided by AI:
In law, assault is the act of intentionally causing another person to fear imminent harmful or offensive contact. It can involve physical violence or threats of violence, and can be committed with or without a weapon.
Assault is generally defined as an intentional act that puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.
I think this a good red line, but still relies on judgment of what is meant by intentional, reasonable, and imminent.
Fred Hassani
On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 5:21 AM Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:
An interesting debate arose on the Libertarian whatsapp group regarding the "harm" of words. Like most discussions on whatsapp, the subject quickly moved on and was forgotten without adequate exploration.
I think it would be useful to try and come to a consensus on whether words alone may require the consent of listeners before being uttered, or may be punished by some sanction after being uttered.
Viv Vermaak had this to say: "I don’t like this ‘how did I harm you? Sue me!’ argument of you guys. It doesn’t feel well thought through. How do you define ‘harm’? =Honestly. It can’t just all be;”Well, nobody held a gun to your head.” arguments. Being human is nuanced. Words count, ideologies count. Honesty, dignity, compassion, FREEDOM, respect., authenticity. These are valuable to humans, to defend and protect without ‘HARM’ coming into an argument.
Trevor responded: "Harm: For an action resulting in harm against another to require the consent of the other, then that action must be immediate in time and space, must have significant consequences for the other, and must have physical reality.
Words do not constitute harm, no matter how snowflakey the recipient. Your ideolology does not constitute harm, no matter how dumb or repugnant. I might say the intellectual sloppiness of your position caused me actual harm, really, but that is BS. If words caused actual harm, the Ukrainians would probably be much more shouty."
Virus-free.www.avg.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2Lk6mX6sE6JLMCwVo%2BLDKQCQ57%2B_9c91i_UX95jSHbxRKA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAE--%2Bb1fojcLkks1xkrhK1MhenT7Q-12vBSNXfyfBi8JKGPmXQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAFDzsf1qTNy6y%2B3dKSSuCLC5DwqdtG606vBsVkPrwFrCP%2Bnawg%40mail.gmail.com.
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000001db1a40%24ead1aac0%24c0750040%24%40mweb.co.za.
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAE--%2Bb1fojcLkks1xkrhK1MhenT7Q-12vBSNXfyfBi8JKGPmXQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAFDzsf1qTNy6y%2B3dKSSuCLC5DwqdtG606vBsVkPrwFrCP%2Bnawg%40mail.gmail.com.
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000401db1a5c%24e70c2d90%24b52488b0%24%40imaginet.co.za.
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/008d01db1a5f%24e3ef2ec0%24abcd8c40%24%40iafrica.com.
Jim Powell
I find that in conversation there is a natural flow. Think of our brains as Christmas tree with candles. When we talk we take a candle and light the other person’s candle and back and forth. When there is negative language the aim is normally to extinguish any reply. Do not allow the response to be extinguished. Simply ask a question
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S7Z8sTwfcoxKjtdo6Crx6zzT9D4HD07pzzFv2owHQ71DQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Sid Nothard
Right
From: indivi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:indivi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 4:12 AM
To: indivi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: IM: Can words alone cause sufficient harm to require consent from listeners
I don't know that I would necessarily take guidance from the legal system of a country which still uses feet and inches. If we did, I think that law would completely miss the biggest number of cases where words do harm i.e. parental - child relationships and the hurt that many spouses inflict on each other. Quite often it is exactly the unintentional, repetitive and long term unrelenting nature of the words that do the greatest damage. You can spot people who were married for 20 years and just came out of a divorce from 50 feet away - they're broken in a way that radiates 18 refrigerator lengths away.
S.
Op Wo. 9 Okt. 2024 om 08:07 het Fred Hassani <fr...@teslagovernment.com> geskryf:
In the U.S. assault is a crime:
A couple of definitions provided by AI:
In law, assault is the act of intentionally causing another person to fear imminent harmful or offensive contact. It can involve physical violence or threats of violence, and can be committed with or without a weapon.
Assault is generally defined as an intentional act that puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.
I think this a good red line, but still relies on judgment of what is meant by intentional, reasonable, and imminent.
Fred Hassani
On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 5:21 AM Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:
An interesting debate arose on the Libertarian whatsapp group regarding the "harm" of words. Like most discussions on whatsapp, the subject quickly moved on and was forgotten without adequate exploration.
I think it would be useful to try and come to a consensus on whether words alone may require the consent of listeners before being uttered, or may be punished by some sanction after being uttered.
Viv Vermaak had this to say: "I don’t like this ‘how did I harm you? Sue me!’ argument of you guys. It doesn’t feel well thought through. How do you define ‘harm’? =Honestly. It can’t just all be;”Well, nobody held a gun to your head.” arguments. Being human is nuanced. Words count, ideologies count. Honesty, dignity, compassion, FREEDOM, respect., authenticity. These are valuable to humans, to defend and protect without ‘HARM’ coming into an argument.
Trevor responded: "Harm: For an action resulting in harm against another to require the consent of the other, then that action must be immediate in time and space, must have significant consequences for the other, and must have physical reality.
Words do not constitute harm, no matter how snowflakey the recipient. Your ideolology does not constitute harm, no matter how dumb or repugnant. I might say the intellectual sloppiness of your position caused me actual harm, really, but that is BS. If words caused actual harm, the Ukrainians would probably be much more shouty."
Virus-free.www.avg.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2Lk6mX6sE6JLMCwVo%2BLDKQCQ57%2B_9c91i_UX95jSHbxRKA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAE--%2Bb1fojcLkks1xkrhK1MhenT7Q-12vBSNXfyfBi8JKGPmXQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S4Xe_bPax9E9gTYH26VKQayCoZoqL%3DagobnLOaTu%3DZemg%40mail.gmail.com.
Sid Nothard
Precisely
That is the harm that words can do – they can utterly destroy a life. Response no negative influences when young are virtually
Impossible to rectify, as the victim has no idea how to do it. So the nervous reactions persists for life.
But there will never be any compensation for that.
The most important decision a person can make is to choose the right parents – ones who love him/her and help him/her to grow.
From: indivi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:indivi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 4:28 AM
To: indivi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: IM: Can words alone cause sufficient harm to require consent from listeners
Charl: "I have never seen the physical harm caused by words".
Virus-free.www.avg.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2Lk6mX6sE6JLMCwVo%2BLDKQCQ57%2B_9c91i_UX95jSHbxRKA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAE--%2Bb1fojcLkks1xkrhK1MhenT7Q-12vBSNXfyfBi8JKGPmXQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAFDzsf1qTNy6y%2B3dKSSuCLC5DwqdtG606vBsVkPrwFrCP%2Bnawg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S7t2BHYg3rq33G-cyT1XGtds82R6Hisa7DdMfs%2BEcnFHw%40mail.gmail.com.
viv...@iafrica.com
To: "individualist" <indivi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 8:12:57 AM
Subject: RE: IM: Can words alone cause sufficient harm to require consent from listeners
viv...@iafrica.com
To: "individualist" <indivi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 5:28:26 PM
Subject: RE: IM: Can words alone cause sufficient harm to require consent from listeners
Trevor Watkins
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/2042804372.14316688.1728541861394.JavaMail.zimbra%40iafrica.com.
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LmAYJtZwpksR-RpyjEnhXdGi00QwBdHbbUAr7TJqLbQ0A%40mail.gmail.com.
Jim Powell
I used to be the eternal victim. The last thing an abuser wants is to explain what he is doing and keep questioning. Powerful
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000001db1a40%24ead1aac0%24c0750040%24%40mweb.co.za.
Jim Powell
Let us start with the grandfather. To be pitied because he lacks the humanity. This is along with all those who seek superiority. Racists, homophobes etc. They lack the ability to interact on a human to human basis. If you pity someone they cannot hurt you emotionally.
From: indivi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:indivi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gabri Rigotti
Sent: Monday, 07 October 2024 22:07
To: indivi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: IM: Can words alone cause sufficient harm to require consent from listeners
Hi Stephen
I think that you have conclusively proven that this forum is no echo chamber 😂 …
“Holy cow ! What bullshit !” should leave no doubt of that!
I think we ironically have some common points of agreement though.
Your grandfather for example. His despicable view of persons with mental disabilities.
Our daughter suffered vaccine damage from her MMR plus the Hepatitis B that was administered to her when she was about a year old.
She is mentally challenged and has a rare form of light sensitive epilepsy as a result that confined her to our home indoors for years during the daylight.
A compassionate Soul, the wife of an optometrist, as well as his business administrator conceived of an optical solution for her, sort of like a Lorenzo’s Oil story …
Compassion like this lady has is a beautiful energy, even if it leads one to act altruistically which is anathema for Ayn Rand cult followers.
Fortunately our daughter is full of joy, she has a musical appreciation ear second to none and enjoys a spectrum of music from Boccelli to gangsta rap.
Of course there is a lot of hurt that comes with this, the stares, the look downs, the contempt from many who do not immediately realise the condition … you see, our daughter is beautiful and looks very “normal”.
Hypothetically your grandfather could have been there restraining her as she ran into a major food retail store one day and grabbed muffins for a dear friend of ours and started running out without paying.
The store attendant that intervened was wonderfully Compassionate but I think your grandfather would have been the type to have physically restrained her and called the police on the basis that her condition was no excuse.
I absolutely detest people like that.
I am not sure about you but I endured the popular girls and jock taunts and ridicule in primary school and also for a couple of years into high school as well.
I was a fat wop or eyetie until then you see, a spaghetti muncher and we had lost the war and Italian tanks only had reverse gears …
In Standard 6 I came second to last in the school cross country, only ahead of the fattest boy.
Two years later I came second in a far far bigger high school.
I ended up marrying the most beautiful girl of that school, but really she is probably one of the most beautiful women who have ever walked this planet.
Some of the members here have met her so they can attest that this is not just more “bullshit” on my part.
I guess it was the weight training and the fitness regime that helped me prevail against my tormentors at school.
Like a male version of the Ugly Duckling.
Yes words hurt, I know too well how hurtful words are, no question about that … I totally agree with you on that, another common point of agreement between us.
Fortunately for me I took to weights and running and eating healthily and the jocks ended up having to stare at my six pack and my wings and my deltoids and basically they had to shut the fuck up.
As for the popular girls that I recall, the ones that have ended up with plastic surgery look horrific and the others are fat or wrinkled.
Oh, schadenfreude can be such a sweet beautiful thing … 😀
My mother suffered from an extremely debilitating depression, and another dear family member has an even worse one.
Your grandfather would not have tolerated us at dinner parties for sure! We would have been his worst Christmas dinner nightmare … 😂
But it is not your fault that you had the grandfather you did, I was just lucky to have the kind and gentle ones I had.
And yes, public places with family members who are either suffering from depression or who have disabilities are not great … it is not only the words by the way but the looks too, maybe the looks are worse, they really get to you, the entire body language of these critics deliver the put down with sheer utter contempt.
So, body language should also have been included in this subject, actually. Trevor, please note.
You will notice that I referred to not only jocks and popular girls but also to slimgatte.
Slimgatte can be nerd looking but even so they are not nerds.
Typically they are who they are because they just feel superior, innately. It comes with their DNA, they just know they are superior.
They can be quick on the turn of the word, and they will make statements like ““Holy cow ! What bullshit !”.
They love the putdown, and in their own way they are far more malicious than the jocks and the popular girls.
Jocks and popular girls do end up getting fat and ugly and their reign of terror in the school yard eventually comes to an end.
But the slimgatte, no, they continue with their school yard bullying well after the jocks and popular girls have ended up as insignificant have-beens.
I feel for the Incels, their tormented lives at the hands of cruel human DNA.
That is also why I cannot get into the Ayn Rand “virtue of selfishness”, especially if a choice I make ends up hurting someone horribly.
Not physically, just emotionally.
So after trying to be an egoist in line with Ayn Rand and failing spectacularly at that I simply have embraced who I am, altruistic leaning, perhaps closer to the standard deviation than the mean, ok maybe on my way out there towards the altruistic outlier edge … yes, Ayn Rand will not have me in her heaven.
Fair enough, Nathaniel Brandon retreated out of her heaven too …
In your “Holy cow ! What bullshit !” slimgat put down you however then say to Sid that you do not have answers!
In fact if I look at the general line of your thinking there is never an answer in any of your views, just nebulous maybe and what ifs and you have not realised that what awaits that world view is not individualism or libertarianism or some safe pseudo liberalism but the “red tooth and claw” of Nature.
I hear especially people from the Left refer to those they disagree with on the Right as “morons”, “idiots”, and other disparaging terms for those who are mentally challenged.
And they are supposed to be people of compassion?
Do you have any idea what it must feel like to me as a father of a daughter with mental challenges when some contemptuous person uses the word idiot or moron?
In your ignorant arrogance you never even stopped to think about who I might be.
Some jerk who cares not for feelings?
I do not think you actually applied your mind to what I wrote, goodness knows what you understood, effectively comparing me to your despicable grandfather.
The incredible irony however is that maybe you are your grandfather, you hurl insults and taunts at others, you manifest your contempt … and yet here you are pretending you care about the hurt of words … 😂 … do you not get that, can you not see that, you are one of the malicious!
Yes, along with the likes of your grandfather I totally and utterly despise jocks and popular girls and slimgatte precisely because they hurt people badly, very badly, but extremely badly with their words …
You admitted you have no solution to propose to Sid, whereas I have … a society that will tend towards ostracising and cancelling the cruel, where being jocks and popular girls and slimgatte like you is incrementally not sexy at all … 😀
Jeez, I hope I have not hurt your feelings ... naagh, to hell with that, not this time around ... 😂
On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 4:52 PM Stephen van Jaarsveldt <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Good question Sid. I hope we find an answer, because this has me stumped. It looks like therapy and medication helps, but those are applied after the fact. I think what we're looking for is some way to avoid and prevent the damage done by words before it happens. I have no idea how one would do that... but I do get the sense that the world is becoming a softer and more accommodating place, so maybe the damage done by words is being naturally reduced as a side-effect or coincidental consequence of material improvement in the world. Maybe having more things allows us to develop also in non-material ways which eventually make us more demure and mindful.
S.
Op Ma. 7 Okt. 2024 om 02:05 het Sid Nothard <sg...@mweb.co.za> geskryf:
Words can cause immense damage to young people.
If parents and/or teachers keep telling a kid he is no good, his subconscious will eventually absorb that as a truth, and that’s most likely the way his life will turn out. Completely wrecked. So how does one get justice for that?
From: indivi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:indivi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of bas...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 9:25 AM
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000501db188f%2434e5d8b0%249eb18a10%24%40mweb.co.za.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S6%3Dip0koemJRa3Lt%3D7YryZSPfut-Vm-O_CBLKp%3DWjs%2BJQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
" It is not the water in the fields that brings true development, rather, it is water in the eyes, or compassion for fellow beings, that brings about real development. "
—Anna Hazare
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAGXOEN39rgy6wa8JRgQNzBUqaZ2gwqJSp5YNwHuYr9NxHPRkeg%40mail.gmail.com.
Trevor Watkins
In red below
Sorry Trevor, but I cannot agree to that. You seem to see the harm done by words to be separate to and different from the harm done by knives, bombs and tax collectors. It is not - harm is harm.
There is no difference between me shooting you in the chest or mailing you a bomb - in the second case I am nowhere near and I am not taking any immediate action, but the result is the same - dead is dead. If I make a living as a professional draad-trekker and you cut of my right arm and I lose my livelihood, that's clearly harm,
but at least I can get a prosthetic and maybe have some diminished part of my career... but if you keep telling me my profession will get me to go blind, grow hair on my palms and eventually burn in hell, I could also become unable to work. Is this some weird attempt at humour? Sure, viagra, but there is some evidence to suggest that it works by suppressing emotions, so I can screw but without passion... is that really a life ? Sounds even worse than losing an arm. Harm is harm, no matter how you inflict it.
If I slowly feed you small doses of rat poison over a period of three years until it eventually kills you, that is no different than me telling you you're worthless over a period of three years until your life has no joy or purpose anymore. Profoundly different. In the latter case I can just stop taking your phone calls. Both cause actual, real, physical harm. Trevor: "but I do not agree that words which may cause distress should be banned"... and that is the point. I don't think anybody here implied that if words cause harm that it follows... well, that anything follows. Nobody suggested banning anything, not even implicitly, from what I can see.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S63CyNoNvkb7hyhdM8zpsXS3HAywSq%3DnTkKuAQtWkcJ4g%40mail.gmail.com.
viv...@iafrica.com
To: "individualist" <indivi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 5:07:05 PM
Subject: RE: IM: Can words alone cause sufficient harm to require consent from listeners
Leon Louw
One of the most problematic
examples (of very very many) for libertarians has always been instigation or
incitement of others to commit heinous acts, such as gang rape and lynchings. 'War'
crimes under instruction (maybe with threat of execution if disobeyed) is
another. Extreme harm by words alone has been pointed out in some examples in
this exchange, and many remain.
All have exercised the minds of some of the world's greatest geniuses in jurisprudence for millennia.
One of my frustrations is how easy it is to turn eyes away from the most challenging examples and confine debate to ones where answers are easy. How about shouting in someone's ear to cause (a) headache (b) broken eardrums (c) slipping and falling off a cliff (d) ….. whatever?
How about telling a blind person that it's safe to walk when they do not see the approaching bus?
Or telling someone that something is medication when it is deadly poison?
And so on.
A good libertarian game would be to compile, in Part 1, lists of hypothetical challenges, and then, in Part 2, arguments why none (being just words) are rights violations.
In the early libertarian years -- there were just a dozen or so in SA then -- we met every Friday night for debates like this. The group was divided arbitrarily in two. One side would argue 'for' and the other 'against' until dinner. After dinner, roles reversed.
Amongst the benefits were that no one knew in advance where others stood, so egos were devoted to presenting the best arguments rather than defeating adversaries. All gave their best arguments both ways. The best person to argue against anyone is usually themself. No one knows the arguments, for instance, against Adrew Kenny on climate better than he. He would not win arguments as easily against himself as he does against others.
By that method of discourse, we got the very
best philosophically. Our topics were all the toughest libertarian questions,
and often also non-libertarian questions.
A valuable adjunct was that one of us was tasked to research the issue and brief us to ensure that we were all familiar with the established literature and state-of-the-art arguments.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/004c01db1adb%2474c5c640%245e5152c0%24%40mweb.co.za.
Leon Louw
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LmAYJtZwpksR-RpyjEnhXdGi00QwBdHbbUAr7TJqLbQ0A%40mail.gmail.com.
Stephen vJ
S.
Virus-free.www.avg.com
Gabri Rigotti
1. When Trevor says that "physical harm should be banned, stopped, limited by whatever means necessary" the context within which he is speaking is totally relevant.
As the originator of the HCR, the Harm Consent Rule, he means that any physical harm without consent should be limited by whatever means necessary.
The HCR is akin to a yin/yang construct.
The HCR specifies no (physical) harm without consent, nhwc.
The physical is implicit in the term harm as used in the HCR.
The corollary to that is (physical) harm with consent, hwc.
For the HCR to not be violated, both these two conditions, one the mirror image of the other, must not be violated.
We could postulate this as a simple equation:
HCR = hwc + nhwc
There can be a far more rigorous mathematical way to describe this as an equation, but most readers here should find this sufficient as an understandable equation for explanation purposes.
In the case of say smokers, they consent to the harm that cigarettes may cause them.
HCR = hwc + nhwc is thus not violated.
The part of Trevor’s phrase "... limited by whatever means necessary" is also loaded with implication.
He is really saying that whatever it takes to ensure a non violation of the HCR is moral.
Conscription for example, even if the outcome were to be an eventual minimization of HCR violations, is however in itself a violation of the HCR.
Ukraine for example uses conscription albeit to seek a minimization of violations of the HCR.
That Putin violates the HCR is not in question, and there is a mass of empirical evidence to argue that Putin is not only a war criminal but relative to the volumes and severity of violations he is responsible for, he may be in the international legal territory of having committed crimes against humanity.
But the means of conscription is in itself a violation of the HCR.
Hence, conscription is not a moral means to counter violations of the HCR.
However, using volunteers is moral, and the agreed to terms of the contract whereby volunteers sign up are instances of hwc.
Therefore, a call to arms of volunteers is the appropriate means to defend the HCR.
2. There is however far more to this seemingly simple construct of the HWC = hwc + nhwc
The question of “collateral damage”.
Any deliberate instance of violation of the HCR is a violation of the HCR.
For example, if volunteers see the enemy among civilians and deliberately and indiscriminately spray a sufficiency of machine gun fire that eliminates the enemy but also the civilians then that is a violation of the HCR.
However, even if the volunteers sought to minimise “collateral damage” but nonetheless killed or maimed innocent civilians, that is still an instance of violation of the HCR, albeit not deliberate.
We could state two principles below regarding this:
If a violation of the HCR is deliberate then in terms of a society embracing the HCR it is criminal.
If a violation of the HCR is not deliberate then in terms of a society embracing the HCR it should require compensation.
Currently international law regulating warfare would effectively indict for deliberate violations of the HCR but it provides little or no compensation of the victims of “collateral damage”.
There is little or no deterrence to prevent or minimise collateral damage because the enemy hiding among civilians is a legitimate target, and then it is a matter of interpretation of proportionate force.
For the time being, libertarians and individualists are not in any significant level of power globally speaking, so the current international law regulating warfare is what it is, not to the standard that libertarianism or individualism would have it be.
Tragically inadequate, but Western militaries nowadays at least seek to stay within its literal bounds, albeit imperfectly, and My Lai incidents are a relatively infrequent manifestation of Western armies (post WW2 and the Berlin firestorms bombings and the gross criminality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki of course).
Even so Julian Assange is a victim of the USA denying its culpability in either deliberate or non deliberate killings and maimings.
It is however bad, but far worse in non Western militancy.
Especially among “revolutionary” groups inspired by Frantz Fanon.
3. The HCR also provides for a variety of harms that are not obvious.
For example if someone deliberately screams into your ear with intent to cause harm and does cause you physical damage, like say a burst eardrum, an example indicated by Leon Louw, that is a violation of the HCR.
On the other hand attending loud music festivals, and disco clubs, and other musical noisy places is an example of hwc.
Less obvious, if your neighbour sets up an asbestos products manufacturing factory and a sufficiency of asbestos fibres that would otherwise not have been in the air cause you cancer, then that is also a violation of the HCR.
The fibres not being otherwise in the air leads us to the coupling of the HCR with the NoU, the “Nature of Us”.
Evolution as a scientific model remains the prevailing scientific model for who we are, shaped by Nature, by the process of natural selection.
If we consider the NoU a set of attributes of us, each attribute a bell shaped curve with a mean and standard deviation and standard error defined by the sampled population size, among these attributes would be the attribute of how much asbestos fibre can our naturally evolved bodies inhale before we succumb to cancer.
The mean and twice the standard deviation on either side of the mean will account for about 95% of the sampled population and the threshold of asbestos fibre in the air that will cause cancer in this nominal 95% of us is a significant and reasonable real world standard for us to embrace, pragmatically, as an interim towards an as yet undefined “something better” as a standard.
Therefore introducing asbestos fibre into the air to a level corresponding to such a probability of inducing cancer in others can be argued as being an initiation of the physical use of force, aka violence, if those who breathe the fibres in have not consented to the harm.
This negative externality of the market is actually not the fault of a genuine free market in that within a genuine free market the HCR coupled to the NoU would not only be in place, but also enforceable.
What is crucial is that these instances of violations of the HCR are reasonably provable i.e. via scientific evidence.
Hence the asbestos manufacturer is unlikely to just spew asbestos fibres into the air external to the manufacturing environment as that would lead to sanction, and the would be screamer into ears would similarly tend to not risk doing so unless there was hwc.
(The slap championships that cause massive damage to the willing competitors is another example of hwc).
In conclusion, the explicit statement that Trevor made is actually “physical harm should be banned, stopped, limited by whatever means necessary … provided of course that the means in themselves do not violate the HCR".
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/59F1F388-D41E-4126-826B-4B9F202349A7%40gmail.com.
Stephen vJ
Stephen vJ
Virus-free.www.avg.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2Lk6mX6sE6JLMCwVo%2BLDKQCQ57%2B_9c91i_UX95jSHbxRKA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAE--%2Bb1fojcLkks1xkrhK1MhenT7Q-12vBSNXfyfBi8JKGPmXQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAFDzsf1qTNy6y%2B3dKSSuCLC5DwqdtG606vBsVkPrwFrCP%2Bnawg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S7t2BHYg3rq33G-cyT1XGtds82R6Hisa7DdMfs%2BEcnFHw%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/004c01db1adb%2474c5c640%245e5152c0%24%40mweb.co.za.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
Trevor Watkins
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAGXOEN2udn2Bq5CO7sF9XcmTmiOM71vBKCT1MUdDXsK0NFDZLA%40mail.gmail.com.
Gabri Rigotti
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2L%3D7VNoZN-Guae-mpPd0ojZ9nZS9y0EOK%3DkvhZnfxT3smw%40mail.gmail.com.
Trevor Watkins
Sorry, I got nothing new from all that. I guess the original subject deserves revisiting... so after several thesis on the topic, "Can words alone cause sufficient harm to require consent from listeners" ? Ok, so we're all agreed, and have been from the start apparently, that words do cause harm. How very woke of you - keep repeating a fallacy until the world thinks its a reality. We are NOT agreed that words cause physical harm, as per the definition in the manifesto. We also seem to agree the government should stay out of it. So far so good.It also seems the only recourse under consideration is explicit and preceding consent... which I find problematic because it assumes explicit and preceding consent is the only option (which it is not) AND that the only criteria is the magnitude of the harm not true or even discussed (which is weird and lends itself to arbitrary and subjective argument)Essentially the question is, on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is a Buddist monk wearing asbestos underwear completely immune to harm and 10 is someone devastated by verbal abuse... and presumably somewhere inbetween is a score, lets say 3, where if you intend to say something that could be hurtful, to ask for permission first. Freedom of speech and the 1st amendment do NOT require you to ask anyone's permission before uttering words, even quite offensive ones. After all, I don't recall you asking my permission for a bunch of your words which I found offensive. The fact that your words damaged your reputation (which resides with me) is a consequence.The number of levels on which that is wrong are so many I'm not sure where to start. The score is subjective. The scorer and the speaker will not assess their words the same. Knowing if you should consent to something you have not heard yet is impossible. Good point, wish I had made it... Etc., etc... the question is loaded and has no sensible answer.Consider a billboard on private property next to a busy highway where parents drive past with children in the car on the way to school. Can the owner post anything on that billboard so long it has an offensiveness score below 7 ? And what of the poor souls who are sensitive to scores as low as 2 ? Should the billboard owner ask them each for consent before putting up the billboard ? Does he even know who they are ? Years ago Leon and Frances stayed in Glenhove Road abutting the M1 motorway. Leon famously asked if he was entitled to put a giant poster of a donkey doing unspeakable things to a young woman facing the highway on his property. I don't recall his exact answer. My opinion is that it is a free speech issue, it is a rare event, peer pressure (loss of friends, public humiliation, etc) will quickly curtail it, pay him to take it down if you really hate it, and it is a poor reason to abandon our free speech principles. There will always be a Jimmy Carr willing to say outrageous things for profit that challenge our sense of propriety.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/D0959B49-B792-4FDB-935D-ABD1BF0D8198%40gmail.com.
Leon Louw
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAGXOEN2udn2Bq5CO7sF9XcmTmiOM71vBKCT1MUdDXsK0NFDZLA%40mail.gmail.com.
Leon Louw
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2L%3D7VNoZN-Guae-mpPd0ojZ9nZS9y0EOK%3DkvhZnfxT3smw%40mail.gmail.com.
Stephen vJ
Stephen vJ
Sorry, I got nothing new from all that. I guess the original subject deserves revisiting... so after several thesis on the topic, "Can words alone cause sufficient harm to require consent from listeners" ? Ok, so we're all agreed, and have been from the start apparently, that words do cause harm. How very woke of you - keep repeating a fallacy until the world thinks its a reality. We are NOT agreed that words cause physical harm, as per the definition in the manifesto. I did not say "physical" did I ? We also seem to agree the government should stay out of it. So far so good.It also seems the only recourse under consideration is explicit and preceding consent... which I find problematic because it assumes explicit and preceding consent is the only option (which it is not) AND that the only criteria is the magnitude of the harm not true or even discussed I'm commenting on the Subject line of this thread, not making a point. (which is weird and lends itself to arbitrary and subjective argument)Essentially the question is, on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is a Buddist monk wearing asbestos underwear completely immune to harm and 10 is someone devastated by verbal abuse... and presumably somewhere inbetween is a score, lets say 3, where if you intend to say something that could be hurtful, to ask for permission first. Freedom of speech and the 1st amendment do NOT require you to ask anyone's permission before uttering words, even quite offensive ones. After all, I don't recall you asking my permission for a bunch of your words which I found offensive. The fact that your words damaged your reputation (which resides with me) is a consequence. You're missing my point completely. I'm not making an argument yet - I'm simply elaborating on the parameters set by the Subject line. In the next paragraph I go on to say how wrong the above is, because it comes from the subject line, it is not my argument. Disagreeing with the above is to disagree with yourself, not with me. Subject line above, my view on it below.
The number of levels on which that is wrong are so many I'm not sure where to start. The score is subjective. The scorer and the speaker will not assess their words the same. Knowing if you should consent to something you have not heard yet is impossible. Good point, wish I had made it... Etc., etc... the question is loaded and has no sensible answer.
Consider a billboard on private property next to a busy highway where parents drive past with children in the car on the way to school. Can the owner post anything on that billboard so long it has an offensiveness score below 7 ? And what of the poor souls who are sensitive to scores as low as 2 ? Should the billboard owner ask them each for consent before putting up the billboard ? Does he even know who they are ? Years ago Leon and Frances stayed in Glenhove Road abutting the M1 motorway. Leon famously asked if he was entitled to put a giant poster of a donkey doing unspeakable things to a young woman facing the highway on his property. I don't recall his exact answer. My opinion is that it is a free speech issue, it is a rare event, peer pressure (loss of friends, public humiliation, etc) will quickly curtail it, pay him to take it down if you really hate it, and it is a poor reason to abandon our free speech principles. There will always be a Jimmy Carr willing to say outrageous things for profit that challenge our sense of propriety. Ok, so no explicit consent and no jury ? We seem to be headed for the same page.
Stephen vJ
Trevor Watkins
In green.
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 at 03:21, Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, I got nothing new from all that. I guess the original subject deserves revisiting... so after several thesis on the topic, "Can words alone cause sufficient harm to require consent from listeners" ? Ok, so we're all agreed, and have been from the start apparently, that words do cause harm. How very woke of you - keep repeating a fallacy until the world thinks its a reality. We are NOT agreed that words cause physical harm, as per the definition in the manifesto. I did not say "physical" did I ? We also seem to agree the government should stay out of it. So far so good.
It also seems the only recourse under consideration is explicit and preceding consent... which I find problematic because it assumes explicit and preceding consent is the only option (which it is not) AND that the only criteria is the magnitude of the harm not true or even discussed I'm commenting on the Subject line of this thread, not making a point.OK (which is weird and lends itself to arbitrary and subjective argument)
Essentially the question is, on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is a Buddist monk wearing asbestos underwear completely immune to harm and 10 is someone devastated by verbal abuse... and presumably somewhere inbetween is a score, lets say 3, where if you intend to say something that could be hurtful, to ask for permission first. Freedom of speech and the 1st amendment do NOT require you to ask anyone's permission before uttering words, even quite offensive ones. After all, I don't recall you asking my permission for a bunch of your words which I found offensive. The fact that your words damaged your reputation (which resides with me) is a consequence. You're missing my point completely. I'm not making an argument yet - I'm simply elaborating on the parameters set by the Subject line. In the next paragraph I go on to say how wrong the above is, because it comes from the subject line, it is not my argument. Disagreeing with the above is to disagree with yourself, not with me. Subject line above, my view on it below.The number of levels on which that is wrong are so many I'm not sure where to start. The score is subjective. The scorer and the speaker will not assess their words the same. Knowing if you should consent to something you have not heard yet is impossible. Good point, wish I had made it... Etc., etc... the question is loaded and has no sensible answer.
Consider a billboard on private property next to a busy highway where parents drive past with children in the car on the way to school. Can the owner post anything on that billboard so long it has an offensiveness score below 7 ? And what of the poor souls who are sensitive to scores as low as 2 ? Should the billboard owner ask them each for consent before putting up the billboard ? Does he even know who they are ? Years ago Leon and Frances stayed in Glenhove Road abutting the M1 motorway. Leon famously asked if he was entitled to put a giant poster of a donkey doing unspeakable things to a young woman facing the highway on his property. I don't recall his exact answer. My opinion is that it is a free speech issue, it is a rare event, peer pressure (loss of friends, public humiliation, etc) will quickly curtail it, pay him to take it down if you really hate it, and it is a poor reason to abandon our free speech principles. There will always be a Jimmy Carr willing to say outrageous things for profit that challenge our sense of propriety. Ok, so no explicit consent and no jury ? We seem to be headed for the same page.OK
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/FE4412AF-1C4A-4B7A-96C7-02B9DBF7FD7F%40gmail.com.
Trevor Watkins
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/93E7F95B-BAFD-4054-8D33-A1D0536BC351%40gmail.com.
Trevor Watkins
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAOWz41T0%2BXZ%3DpZv184n-xNGM040MUvsFzYkxqR-Y%2BJCr83r%3Drg%40mail.gmail.com.