Why is so popular for people to define one's "personal morality" by saying "As long as it doesn't harm anyone, you can do what you like?"
Is there a single negative action we can perceivably take that doesn't affect at least one person negatively? Because I sure as hell can't think of one...
>>66493819
When did British politicians stop being respectable statesmen like Enoch Powell and start being cuckservatives like Boris? The 60s?
>>66493995
But Enoch was at his best when he was in Northern Ireland in the 1980's
>>66493995
Actually, though he looks like a fool, Boris is pretty fucking smart. He takes part in quite a lot of debates about Hellenic and ancient literature, knows his classics better than most lecturers do, and has a very sound political mind.
You only really hear of him when he does something buffoonish though, because the public is literally too stupid to comprehend him otherwise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8
>>66493995
when mossad started recruiting pedos.
>>66493819
Well if negative actions are ones that harm people, according to that "personal morality" no. Some might say that doing gay shit is immoral, but that usually doesn't harm anyone.
>>66495188
Homosexuality could count. People find it distasteful, but it does no actual harm that I can think of.
A few other sexual acts might count, too.
>>66494341
What are we meant to take away from that? He's got a great memory.
I wish he'd end the act, it really doesn't work outside London.
He's still a Zionist faggot. I actually like this Boris.
>>66496192
Well I think finding something distasteful is different from being harmed.
The original question is dependent upon one's moral framework and how we define what being negatively effected means. For example, some feminists would get mad at you for holding open a door for them. To most holding open a door is not a bad thing, but to some it is. Is getting your feelings hurt a negative action?
>>66496805
>Well I think finding something distasteful is different from being harmed.
Well, yes. Or we come to hilariously subjective conclusions where we can't do anything because someone, somewhere will have hurt feelings. So, we should perhaps use physical harm? That seems too narrow. If we kill ourselves, we don't cause physical harm, but emotional harm. We can cost someone millions, which is harmful, but no physical pain is done.
>>66497109
Well what would be a negative action? If a group of people get together and all consent to an activity, but someone on the outside doesn't like what they are doing, does that make it a negative action? I am reading negative action as 'immoral,' but I don't know what the original intention was.
>>66497612
It might be better clarified if I make an example. Let's take drug abuse. People often say that you can't frown on drug use because "what someone does with their own body is their business", but that's not true.
They have to get those drugs from somewhere, which often means funding organised criminals somewhere down the line. Drug dependency clinics cost society a LOT of money, and drug addicts don't exactly make great employees, so are often unemployed. There's no question that these are negative effects that exist outside of themselves.
Yeah, it's a stupid myopic argument by ~free spirit~ type people who don't understand concepts like personal accountability, personal integrity or mental health.
Jerking off to depraved shit is totes fine cause it doesn't hurt anyone (except that by going to the dodgy as fuck websites that stream or provide the shit you're giving them hits and ad revenue), but the dependency on degenerate shit to get me off, the complacency with life it instils and the terrible habits it forms are all part of the aftermath in the vicious cycle of degeneracy.
Every action you take affects you AND others. You should always strive to be the most upstanding, most noble, most integral and most honest version of yourself, regardless of who is there to witness or the not immediately discernible side-effects. Fuck what anyone else is doing, taking a page out of their book just continues the hellish existential fucking misery mire they've created in the first place.
>>66497884
What if the government of a country stepped in and nationalized the drug trade, making pure, safe(er) drugs at a price that organized crime couldn't compete with, then they could (try) to wean those addicted to the drugs off, and help them readjust to normal society.
>>66497884
Yea ultimately unless you are extremely isolated, your actions will affect someone else negatively, like what >>66497952 said. Although for example drug addiction doesn't necessarily lead to those things you described, but is often the case.
>>66498752
Well that would lessen some of the "harm", perhaps. But we'd still have plenty of people addicted to drugs, just as much money would be spent on rehab and detox requirements, and the death toll would still remain relatively high..
>>66498879
To add however, no matter what your moral system is you will never avoid this problem.
>>66498893
I don't mean to de-rail your conversation by focusing it on a specific problem, I just wanted to say that with clever management, certain aspects of "harm" can be alleviated, not to the point of non-existence, but possibly enough to re-evaluate one's stance on an issue.
