You absolutely crack me up
You are actively sabotaging your own thread by tying yourself in knots to discredit other people's views through semantics without actually paying any attention to the substance of what they are saying.
I could say prove it but I wont tax you on that. And whilst that has been the effect/outcome Its not important to me. I mean come on - smoking issues, was that really going to stay on track. I am surprised it has not degenerated into religion by now. I even tried for a laugh to make it happen but you didnt bite. I didnt miss anything at all. But you have to reach a level playing field of understanding first. Sort out the nitty gritty before true debate can begin. So you have to pick a side. You claim devils advocate and not for the first time. Ok fair enough, but that is not a place to debate from. Well I dont think so. It is neither for nor against. The purpose of debate is to reach a conclusion that all may agree on. Whether they do or not is down to the level of debate. What you cant do is play both sides. Thats not debate. Thats your choice and you are perfectly welcome to it. But it isnt debate. Whats worse muddying the waters with views from both sides, stating them as
fact and
doubtless(implying there is no doubt at all, which implies a superior position in that debate, which you clearly do not have). When you do that, I cant let it go, because you are speaking with an imagined (on your part), authority. I can see why you would think I am being picky, but then don't say things in open debate that you do not want taken literally or as part of your standpoint. I dont call that "sabotaging my own thread" or "tying myself in knots", I call that getting you, to get your facts from your opinions right. Else you lose credibility. I hope that you can see that.
The sad thing is that you miss quite a few important points that would support your own view because you are too busy focussing on whether my comments about Mill accurately represent what he said.
Doubtless ....... I say sloppy you say picky.
any course of action should be chosen based on an assessment of the likely outcome of that action.
So you see here you are doing it again. You are very good at using the English language to strengthen your view and give you authority. BUT I would say replace
likely with
possible outcomes and you get a far more accurate statement that is less authoritative and - well, know all ish.
- If the action causes harm then it should be avoided.
Well agreed ish, to a point, as long as it would not infringe on peoples free choice.
The action taken should bring about the greatest 'happiness' for the greatest number of people.
Sentimental twoddle speak says I. TAX etc ... but seriously that is not correct. If it pleases most of the UK for me to not have a smoke if I want to, I should accede... good luck with that. I should be Christian instead of pagan. Or be a donor. Eat only veg. I mean its not going to happen.
So, it seems fair to say that a utilitarian might consider a smoking ban would fit nicely with their principles. But it is by no means certain, and would vary from person to person.
See you can do it lol.
Your assertion, mistaken as far as I can see, is that utilitarians only act when there is irrefutable evidence that an action would cause harm. I would suggest that, as a school of thought, they would be much more likely to err on the side of caution. They would be weighing up evidence about health of children Vs human rights of smokers.
Nope most people in authority would prefer to stay there. So they will err on the side of, whatever facilitates that. Usually. There are exceptions. I would be one.
And yes, my opinion often changes from post to post. Would you prefer that everyone was a blinkered, narrow-minded, immovable luddite, who shouts the first thing that pops into their heads then sticks to it despite evidence to the contrary?
Bitchy, but o,k ill let that slide. I think I have explained what you do and how it detracts from your credibility in debate to the best of my ability. To quote Hivemaker "you wanna make your mind up mate".
And anyway, I thought you had me on ignore?
Like small cell carcinoma, your there. And you're growing on me. lol.
