Insurance7 mins ago
Banning
27 Answers
Hello all
I'm starting a question about a particular bugbear of mine, I hope it might interest some of you guys too.
I notice in the News section there have been a cluster of stories lately relating to efforts (successful, pending or otherwise) to ban various things (boxing, mini-skirts, burkhas etc.)
I'd just like to throw out an open question: why is the idea of banning something accepted so lightly? It's not just in these posts, I've noticed it in other topics that are relevant. When debating solutions to various problems, I quite often notice 'Ban x and follow up with y' thrown out as a suggestion.
My question stems from the fact that I really dislike the idea that the state should prevent people from doing something that it doesn't need to prevent them from doing. If I'm being completely honest, I guess it also stems from the fact that I think morality (which most proposed bans seem to be based on) is a relatively low priority for the state. As we all know, just covering the necessities of what the state does takes immense resources (financial, material and human). A lot of the bans that you hear discussed seem frankly like moral niceties (and without wishing to open that particular can of worms, I've made it clear numerous times I consider the hunting ban on this level.)
The British seem to constantly be complaining about the government or how it does its job, but do sometimes seem easily convinced on the idea of banning whatever (usually for moral reasons), when a ban is a significant logistical commitment.
What are ABers thoughts on this? Do you think there's much truth in it? If so, do you think it might apply to you or the people around you? If so, why do you think that is?
I'm starting a question about a particular bugbear of mine, I hope it might interest some of you guys too.
I notice in the News section there have been a cluster of stories lately relating to efforts (successful, pending or otherwise) to ban various things (boxing, mini-skirts, burkhas etc.)
I'd just like to throw out an open question: why is the idea of banning something accepted so lightly? It's not just in these posts, I've noticed it in other topics that are relevant. When debating solutions to various problems, I quite often notice 'Ban x and follow up with y' thrown out as a suggestion.
My question stems from the fact that I really dislike the idea that the state should prevent people from doing something that it doesn't need to prevent them from doing. If I'm being completely honest, I guess it also stems from the fact that I think morality (which most proposed bans seem to be based on) is a relatively low priority for the state. As we all know, just covering the necessities of what the state does takes immense resources (financial, material and human). A lot of the bans that you hear discussed seem frankly like moral niceties (and without wishing to open that particular can of worms, I've made it clear numerous times I consider the hunting ban on this level.)
The British seem to constantly be complaining about the government or how it does its job, but do sometimes seem easily convinced on the idea of banning whatever (usually for moral reasons), when a ban is a significant logistical commitment.
What are ABers thoughts on this? Do you think there's much truth in it? If so, do you think it might apply to you or the people around you? If so, why do you think that is?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It constantly amazes me that people who normally hold the Government and Politicians with contempt, roll over when their rights and freedoms are taken away.
The terrible rushed legislation after 7/7 which now means you are liable to be arrested for taking a photograph of a public building, or Policeman is just one example.
The other trait being displayed is selfishness. The person does not like it, so are happy to see it banned even though the dislike is not based on fact, or any threat or rational thought.
The terrible rushed legislation after 7/7 which now means you are liable to be arrested for taking a photograph of a public building, or Policeman is just one example.
The other trait being displayed is selfishness. The person does not like it, so are happy to see it banned even though the dislike is not based on fact, or any threat or rational thought.
I've been quite vocal about the Mail in the past, so yeah I'm familiar with it :)
"The Daily Mail is the source for most of the banning stories,"
I'm not sure it's that superficial. Plenty of ABers claim not to be Mail readers but are just as supportive of some proposed bans (or propose some themselves). Likewise, in ordinary life you reasonably often hear people (if politics comes up) saying 'They should just ban it' or whatever.
"The Daily Mail is the source for most of the banning stories,"
I'm not sure it's that superficial. Plenty of ABers claim not to be Mail readers but are just as supportive of some proposed bans (or propose some themselves). Likewise, in ordinary life you reasonably often hear people (if politics comes up) saying 'They should just ban it' or whatever.
-- answer removed --
yes, the proponents of bans sometimes seem to be the same people who protest about nanny states. I don't mind bans on things that do clear harm to others (smoking in public, speeding on roads, murder etc).
For the rest, a little more tolerance all round would be welcome. I hate the smell of fish and will cross the road to avoid a fish shop; but I'm not calling for them to be banned. And even if I did, I'd like to think the state would tell me it has more important things to do. Labour spent far too much time implementing kneejerk legislation demanded by tabloid editors. Whether Cameron will soon be doing the same, I don't know.
For the rest, a little more tolerance all round would be welcome. I hate the smell of fish and will cross the road to avoid a fish shop; but I'm not calling for them to be banned. And even if I did, I'd like to think the state would tell me it has more important things to do. Labour spent far too much time implementing kneejerk legislation demanded by tabloid editors. Whether Cameron will soon be doing the same, I don't know.
-- answer removed --
We all have our personal hates.
My personal hate are barbecues. It is not the barbecue itself but the stench of burnt
grease which spreads over the whole area.
When we have a lovely summer evening it is almost invariably spoilt by the smoke and smell.
So that is something I would love to have banned.
My personal hate are barbecues. It is not the barbecue itself but the stench of burnt
grease which spreads over the whole area.
When we have a lovely summer evening it is almost invariably spoilt by the smoke and smell.
So that is something I would love to have banned.
I think that's Kromovaracun's point modeller
We all have our pet hates but we should be big enough to live with them instead of expecting the big arm of the law to come down and squash what we don't like or what fightens us.
I think Kromovaracun fear is the dominant emotion in the right wing thought and that is what is behind a lot of it.
I might write a book on the subject called "Fear and loathing in East Grinstead"
We all have our pet hates but we should be big enough to live with them instead of expecting the big arm of the law to come down and squash what we don't like or what fightens us.
I think Kromovaracun fear is the dominant emotion in the right wing thought and that is what is behind a lot of it.
I might write a book on the subject called "Fear and loathing in East Grinstead"
The point is that people have thier own soap boxes and agendas don't they?
So someone who wants to ban one thing will fight to the death to prevent the banning of another. I always see these questions as an open debate and was thinking how else would you open the debate.
Where as I would see a ban on the mini skirt as an attack on choice I see the Burkha as wrong on a number of levels disguise, religion, the subjugation of women etc.
However I truely believe that we live in one of the best democracys in the world, the true land of the free or as free as you can be in the 21st century. So debates like this will never end but the chances of anything being banned are remote.
So someone who wants to ban one thing will fight to the death to prevent the banning of another. I always see these questions as an open debate and was thinking how else would you open the debate.
Where as I would see a ban on the mini skirt as an attack on choice I see the Burkha as wrong on a number of levels disguise, religion, the subjugation of women etc.
However I truely believe that we live in one of the best democracys in the world, the true land of the free or as free as you can be in the 21st century. So debates like this will never end but the chances of anything being banned are remote.
anything that annoys another has the potential to be banned as a nuisance - my opinion is an awful lot of people think it is their 'right' to live in an environment that is suitable only to them - how many times have we seen the net curtains twitch when anyone washes their car, wears a mini skirt or kisses their partner. Most people have an opinion on things which is the basis of democracy but an awful lot of people think their rules and regulations are the only ones worth enforcing. I really do think we are in danger of all becoming bland grey people, knocked into shape by a petty nanny state. What's happen to the great British eccentric - wonderful characters who brought a bit of colour and fun into the world. Seems a lack of tolerance is the overriding condition in society today. Not advocating lawlessness in any shape or form btw. Think it is difficult though to know where to draw the line between a ban which is good and a ban which is petty. Who decides?
"I might write a book on the subject called "Fear and loathing in East Grinstead" "
That is such a cool title.
It's not just the right that have the problem though - e.g. the significant number (minority? majority? I don't know) of people who brought through the hunting ban - and you could probably also cite the smoking ban as an example of a more left-wing one. Plus I've heard quite a lot of people casually suggesting banning private healthcare.
----
My question was more about why people accept the idea of bans so easily. Heaping loads of bans on a pile costs a lot, and with welfare and policing alone the govt has a hell of a lot on it's plate to deal with. Yet so often you hear people casually saying that they reckon banning something (usually as part of some other policy) do x or y and not batting an eyelid. Then when the govt isn't doing its job properly, they complain.
I know people have their pet hates, I just don't think it's the state's duty to care. I think the state's first priority is making sure society/the country/whatever you want to call it is running as smoothly as it can - that people can be left alone to live their lives, raise their families or whatever inasmuch as that's possible. Aside from obvious things like sex crimes or what have you, I don't think it's a priority of the government to care about what we find morally abhorrent (or annoying).
[Just for the record am I a hypocrite here in that I'd likely vote to keep the smoking ban purely out of selfish reasons, but that's also what I'm attacking - I'm as guilty of accepting the idea of a ban so lightheartedly as everyone else who supported it.]
[As an aside, I'd also like to say I'm a big supporter of the welfare state, which might seem to contradict what I've said above, but I just wanted to clarify as I think what I've said might look like I don't.]
That is such a cool title.
It's not just the right that have the problem though - e.g. the significant number (minority? majority? I don't know) of people who brought through the hunting ban - and you could probably also cite the smoking ban as an example of a more left-wing one. Plus I've heard quite a lot of people casually suggesting banning private healthcare.
----
My question was more about why people accept the idea of bans so easily. Heaping loads of bans on a pile costs a lot, and with welfare and policing alone the govt has a hell of a lot on it's plate to deal with. Yet so often you hear people casually saying that they reckon banning something (usually as part of some other policy) do x or y and not batting an eyelid. Then when the govt isn't doing its job properly, they complain.
I know people have their pet hates, I just don't think it's the state's duty to care. I think the state's first priority is making sure society/the country/whatever you want to call it is running as smoothly as it can - that people can be left alone to live their lives, raise their families or whatever inasmuch as that's possible. Aside from obvious things like sex crimes or what have you, I don't think it's a priority of the government to care about what we find morally abhorrent (or annoying).
[Just for the record am I a hypocrite here in that I'd likely vote to keep the smoking ban purely out of selfish reasons, but that's also what I'm attacking - I'm as guilty of accepting the idea of a ban so lightheartedly as everyone else who supported it.]
[As an aside, I'd also like to say I'm a big supporter of the welfare state, which might seem to contradict what I've said above, but I just wanted to clarify as I think what I've said might look like I don't.]
backing the smoking ban needn't be for selfish reasons: I approve because I don't want to die of secondary smoking, but also because I don't want others to do so either.
As for the hunting ban, there seem to be two lines of thinking behind it. One is animal welfare - there was a thread here the other day about a bizarre bestiality incident, in which several ABers expressed shock on behalf of the animal involved. This isn't a major concern of mine, but it's a widespread one and not selfish. The other rationale is that human cruelty, to anyone or anything, is a bad thing and should be discouraged, for the sake of humans themselves. I don't find that selfish either.
As for the hunting ban, there seem to be two lines of thinking behind it. One is animal welfare - there was a thread here the other day about a bizarre bestiality incident, in which several ABers expressed shock on behalf of the animal involved. This isn't a major concern of mine, but it's a widespread one and not selfish. The other rationale is that human cruelty, to anyone or anything, is a bad thing and should be discouraged, for the sake of humans themselves. I don't find that selfish either.
It is ironic that the people who would not like anything banned, generally come from the left of the political spectrum, and yet we all know that the 'Left' is the biggest oppressor of freedom of actions and speech..
It is obvious that there are certain things that should be banned, if there wasn't then it would be a free for all and lawless society.
I am certain that each and everyone of us have wished at sometime or other for something to be banned. Given the chance I am sure that the 'Left' would like the 'Right' to be banned.
I know this for certain because of all the times I have been called upon to be 'BANNED'.
It is obvious that there are certain things that should be banned, if there wasn't then it would be a free for all and lawless society.
I am certain that each and everyone of us have wished at sometime or other for something to be banned. Given the chance I am sure that the 'Left' would like the 'Right' to be banned.
I know this for certain because of all the times I have been called upon to be 'BANNED'.
AOG <<I know this for certain because of all the times I have been called upon to be 'BANNED'. >>
Really - how many times and how many times have I, SP, Krom and any of the other loony left defended you and said that although your views are in the most part abhorrent, you should NOT be banned.
Still, why bother with the truth when it doesn't suit your argument?
Really - how many times and how many times have I, SP, Krom and any of the other loony left defended you and said that although your views are in the most part abhorrent, you should NOT be banned.
Still, why bother with the truth when it doesn't suit your argument?
"It is obvious that there are certain things that should be banned, if there wasn't then it would be a free for all and lawless society. "
Well, yeah - this was covered in the part of my OP where I said "I really dislike the idea that the state should prevent people from doing something that it doesn't need to prevent them from doing." Obviously, it needs to prevent us from killing or raping each other.
As I said above (though I admit not very clearly), my question kind of covers the following:
Why are the British (or perhaps just people generally) so easy to persuade to ban something?
Why is a ban so often accepted so lightly as a means to an end (usually a moral one)?
Do ABers think there's much truth in my observations or do they think I'm talking nonsense?
Well, yeah - this was covered in the part of my OP where I said "I really dislike the idea that the state should prevent people from doing something that it doesn't need to prevent them from doing." Obviously, it needs to prevent us from killing or raping each other.
As I said above (though I admit not very clearly), my question kind of covers the following:
Why are the British (or perhaps just people generally) so easy to persuade to ban something?
Why is a ban so often accepted so lightly as a means to an end (usually a moral one)?
Do ABers think there's much truth in my observations or do they think I'm talking nonsense?
oneeyedvic
Don't actually see the point of your post, unless it was just another opportunity to have another *** at me.
What I said was the fact that I have been called upon to be banned.
My point was that I had been called upon to be banned, and the fact that some had also asked for me not to be banned did not arise.
So please do not accuse me of bending the truth to suit my argument.
Incidentally your's and other's generous request for me not to be banned, was rather spoilt by the usual 'Nasty Left' insults such as /// your views are in the most part abhorrent /// and Answerprancer's 'cretins'.
Just no need for this nastiness, just because you and others disagree with my point of view, can't you just outline your point of view in opposition, without the need for insults, they just don't support your argument more convincing.
Don't actually see the point of your post, unless it was just another opportunity to have another *** at me.
What I said was the fact that I have been called upon to be banned.
My point was that I had been called upon to be banned, and the fact that some had also asked for me not to be banned did not arise.
So please do not accuse me of bending the truth to suit my argument.
Incidentally your's and other's generous request for me not to be banned, was rather spoilt by the usual 'Nasty Left' insults such as /// your views are in the most part abhorrent /// and Answerprancer's 'cretins'.
Just no need for this nastiness, just because you and others disagree with my point of view, can't you just outline your point of view in opposition, without the need for insults, they just don't support your argument more convincing.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Is This Man A Good Pick For Secretary Of...
News22 mins ago
Crime Cases Still Using Cassettes
Technology56 mins ago
ChatterBank147 mins ago
