Now I am not talking hot button topic issues like abortion or gay rights. I am thinking of less controversial rights. Say for example, a man has the right to have long hair... and any who see him have the right to be offended. So whose rights trump the others? Are they equal? Why? Why I ask this is that many times in my life I have seen some try to oppress the freedom of another. For example if a person has a boombox (are those even around anymore?) and is listening to Heavy Metal music at a reasonable low volume in a public park... and someone walks up to them and says "Metal is the work of the devil, please turn it off"... whose rights are more important? I say so long as the music listener is not breaking any applicable laws, then the music listeners rights trump the offended persons. I find it frustrating that in a free society we are so bound by customs and social peer pressure to conform. Seems to cheapen our freedom IMO. Do whatever you want, so long as the moral majority allows it. What, you want a Mohawk! NO... you are ostracized! What, a woman will not wear a bra!! You are left to the fringe of society! What, you like Dungeons & Dragons!!! Get a real hobby, a socially acceptable hobby like golf or fly fishing else you will be invisible to society! So whose rights are more important?
I believe we should have the right to do as we please as long as it does no harm to someone else. Listening to heavy metal (or any other music) in a public place at a volume that is audible to those around you disturbs their peace and forces them to participate in your listening experience. Whether it's heavy metal they don't like, or opera, is not the point. If you someone has to listen to music wherever he goes, it's only polite to use ear buds. However, walking up to someone and telling them the music they're listening to is the work of the devil, is equally rude. I would not be opposed to walking up to someone listening to music at a volume that enabled others to hear in a public park (where presumably other people go for peace and rest) and asking them to use earbuds. Both people's rights are equally important and both should know how to act civily and adult. As far as what people wear - well, certain items of clothing bring up certain stereotypes in other people. If you don't care about other people's opinions, wear what you want. If someone came to me for a job interview with a mohawk (or if a woman, without a bra), then I would get the impression that they don't have enough respect for me or the job to dress appropriately and I would not hire them. There are certain customary standards of dress in certain places or under certain circumstances that will get you noticed if you don't follow. OTOH, if I were at the grocery store and saw someone with a mohawk or not wearing a bra I wouldn't think anything of it - well, I'd probably think they were a bit retro; mohawk's are so 80's and the braless look is so 70's. But I wouldn't draw any conclusions other than that - maybe because I was around and young for the original incarnation of both. There are customs and social pressure to conform in every society (and not just human societies: ever watch a momma dog or cat teach their little ones to behave? seen videos of gorillas or chimpanzees disciplining their kiddos?). That's why it's called "society." The trick is to balance society's expectations with personal freedoms and not to cause others harm by exercising our freedoms.
Alphas always dictate to the Betas and force them to comply. That's because humans are social animals and depend on others to survive. So people give up some of their individual freedoms and rights in order to live in a generally beneficial society. The more civilized people become the fewer individual rights and freedoms they are allowed to exercise. That's because the more civilized a society becomes the more rules it creates to regulate its members' behaviors in all aspects of their lives. That's why almost every conceivable act known to man is illegal or will be illegal in America. We are becoming too civilized to allow individuals to exercise their previously accepted individual rights and freedom.
Well, if you're listening to music in the park, and everyone can hear it, then the person playing the music is interfering with their rights. But if someone comes over and says metal is the work of the devil, and you should listen to it, and tries to do something about it, then it's this person who's interfering with the metal person's music.
I'd say the man has the right to his long hair and the other man has the right to be offended, but the offended man's right cannot trump the others. He can be offended all day long, but the man cannot be forced to cut his hair.
You're confusing rights with social acceptance. I've never seen a law against having a mohawk or playing Dungeons and Dragons. If that were true, I would have broken both of those laws. If you want to be socially accepted, you probably shouldn't be a part of the counter-culture. It's called counter-culture for a reason.
There is no right not to be offended. if someone having long hair offends you, that's your problem. Their long hair does not effect you, so it's none of your business.
My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. In other words, a person has the right to ask you to turn down your music because you are doing something that affects someone else directly and he has the right to decline to hear it. His right trumps yours in this case. You have the right to have long hair because it affects only you. If he's offended that is his problem. Your rights trump his in this case.
That's an interesting case. The laws here and in the US might be different (and the likelihood of someone actually coming up to you to tell you to turn the music off on religious grounds is quite probably different too!), but I don't see it as being quite as simple as the person having a right to play their music winning or the person having the right to not be disturbed winning as such. It's about what is a reasonable compromise between the two, rather than being about 'right or wrong'. To take a slightly different case for a moment, I have a right to play my music (whatever music that might be) in my garden, but my neighbours obviously have a right not to be 'disturbed' by it. The question is what actually constitutes a 'disturbance', and the answer must be to have some limit on the level, duration and time of day of such 'noise'. If I'm playing music quietly in the garden for an hour in the middle of the afternoon, it would be pretty unreasonable of a neighbour to demand that I turn it off, but at the same time it would be unreasonable for me to play it at full volume all night - there has to be some kind of balance between the two, and that obviously has to be agreed legally and enforcable if a dispute arises (and that is how it works in the UK). I would say the music in the park issue is similar, from the point of view of volume, at least - if the music is reasonably quiet I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that anybody who claims to be being 'disturbed' unduly to the point of it restricting their freedom is being a little over-sensitive (and I have regularly been in the park or on the beach when people have had stereos on, at reasonable levels, playing music I don't like - I've never seen that as an issue at all). If it's loud, though, it's not unreasonable for them to ask that it be turned down, and it would be unreasonable for the person listening to it to refuse. In the case of someone trying to restrict someone else's freedom to listen to their music at reasonable volume (and in a reasonable context - obviously blasting out an 'I love Satan and Jesus smells' kind of song directly outside a church as the congregation arrive on a Sunday morning wouldn't be remotely 'reasonable', and would be an act clearly designed to offend which it then wouldn't be at all unreasonable to request/demand was stopped!) on purely religious grounds, because of their opinion of the kind of music that it is, I don't see that they have any such right whatsoever. Same goes for the hair issues and so on - that is certainly none of their business. Social intolerance towards others who don't have the same opinions of how to live their own lives (how to dress, have their hair, etc.) is not in any sense a 'right', and attempts at enforced social conformity in society are worse acts of oppressive authoritarianism and liberty destruction in practise than any authoritarian government can manage, because it is far more intrusive into people's daily lives. Unfortunately, some of those who cry 'freedom' the loudest are the first to apply it only to those who look, think and act (and worship) exactly the same way they do.
While I agree with that theoretical principle to a large extent, in practise, as I said, I think it's about having a reasonable balance of compromise. The alternative otherwise becomes effectively a full draconian ban on anybody listening to any music in any public place just in case someone else is around who doesn't like it, which seems more than a little over the top to me! I guess the other option would be a total ban on music considered by those in positions of power to be 'socially unacceptable', and that would be even worse, IMO!
You meant to say "..the right not to be offended" I assume? There is no such right so there is no conflict of rights. This is a false dichotomy. One man's long hair does not violate anyone's rights.
Thatcherism over here made very many people gross-mannered and anti-social. I was staying at a quite expensive local pub in Yorkshire last week and a thatcherite couple started playing loud drivel in the breakfast room when people were trying to eat. Ordinary people have got so civilized, however, that no-one acted as our fathers would have done by kicking their selfish backsides. Instead, we just looked daggers and the next morning, the pub played its own boring but inoffensive musak from early on and the thatcherites gave up.
No, I think he really meant you do have the right to be offended, same as anyone has the right to find the colour orange offensive, or everyone has the right to be offended by....well....pretty much anything if they so choose. Which is true, a person absolutely does have the right to be offended by whatever they want, whether or not they have the right to do anything about it is another story.
Almost always when people squeal about their "rights" it's all bluster. "I have a right to listen to my stereo at full volume and keep all my neighbors awake." No, you don't. Society says you have no such right. "I have a right to say what I want, when I want, and where I want." No, you don't. Society says you don't. It is a balancing act. I went though our ordinance book and collected every ordinance that pertained to noise. One outlawed rhythmic noise and another intermittent noise. One dog bark was illegal. Once they were all collected, any noise at any time and in any place was illegal. A man called the police department and asked about nudity on private property. The police officer thought of clubs and considered the laws and regulations and said it was legal but might conflict with liquor licensing and zoning regulations. He considered the nudist resort outside of town. But, he said, in general, nudity on private property was legal. Later that day we started getting calls and found the gentleman mowing his front lawn naked--makes me cringe--and his wife was working in the flower garden--naked. When I read the thread title I also considered the liberal demand that everyone vote their own self interest. "Vote your own self interest" is libspeak for "For sale to highest bidder". Following their logic, their rights are paramount and yours are subordinate. As a conservative, I would hold that you should have some rights with which I disagree.
I disagree as polite is subjective. A person listening to their music at a low volume in a public park I would say is being polite. If people are so uptight that hearing music as they walk through the park bothers them... then that is their problem... again so long as the music is at a reasonably low level and is not in violation of any applicable laws. It is a slippery slope. Perhaps I am reading in a park and children are joyfully playing. Should I walk up to them and say, hey quiet down! Tell the parents to control their children? My opinion is so long no laws are being broken it is a Free Country and people can do as they please... and others are free to be offended as well. I prefer tolerance over trying to force my will on others. If music in a park at low levels offends... then move away from it... no laws are being broken. If laws are being broken by the music, then ask them to turn it off or call the police. Here I agree with you. When it comes to business an employer gets to set the standards, and as a customer one may have to adhere to certain rules... say a dress code at a fine restaurant. I again agree... but... causing others harm can be subjective. People could claim that a woman in public wearing a see through top is harmful in some way. But none the less there are certain States and cities in the U.S. where it is absolutely legal to do so. Did you see the story of the topless woman in NYC recently? Many could claim she was causing harm, or could cause an accident. But she was not arrested because it is legal for a woman to be topless in NYC. Others would see it as equality, if men go be seen in public without a top then so can a woman. My point is that life does not revolve around me, and as such I need to be tolerant of others. I am not talking about accepting and tolerating bad behavior or abuse. I am talking about realizing that different people, cultures, religions, and groups can see and do things different than me... and that is OK so long as no applicable laws are being broken. I obey the laws of the land... the laws of business, but I pick and choose what laws of society, or as I like to say "the moral majority" to follow.
I agreed with you until your last sentence. I am not as pessimistic I guess. Most of what you said could be quoted directly out of Psychology 101 books... and I do not mean that as a negative. You hit on some good points of human interaction as dictated by our need to be accepted into a group of people. There is an old Japanese saying "the nail that sticks out gets hammered " Meaning conform or be ridiculed and ostracized. Now Japan is a very conformist society in comparison to the West... but non the less the saying fits right into Western social psychology. Conformity is the bane of individuality and creativity. We all must conform to a degree... but I feel the rules of the moral majority take it way too far.
I disagree. If the person listening to the music is breaking no laws, then their rights over rule the offended persons. The other person has the right to be bothered or offended, but all they can do is tolerate the music or move away. Now if the music is breaking a noise law... then there is cause to confront them and or call the police and let them sort it out.
So in your opinion, why does the establishment (for lack of better words) attack the counter culture? A broad question I know.
Fair enough, but I am a man with long hair and have had over the years a number people scoff at me, look at me sideways with a disapproving sneer, and on rare occasion I receive some offhand ignorant remark. Now I take care of myself and am a clean person, so the only reason I get occasional flack is because of the length of my hair. This is shallow and stereotyping IMO. And no, I meant the right to be offended. I categorize ones right to be offended under free will and free speech. I don't always have to like what others say, but it is a free country.
you have the right to choose to have long hair, others can choose not to like it, but they can not choose for you to cut it there is no right to quite in a public park, a person can play their music as loud as the law allows, the offended can choose to move out of range of the sound I remember Palin saying the media was denying her free speech rights by criticizing here... obviously that is not how free speech works, others have the same free speech right to criticize others free speech http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/10/palin-fears-med/ "Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said." .
It's a sad fact of life that some people will absolutely 'judge a book by its cover', and that some will even expect everyone in society to conform to their opinions and ideals whether they like it or not. In a tolerant society, it really shouldn't happen, but not all people in all nominally free and tolerant societies are always as tolerant as they should be of people who choose not to meet their personal expectations of how people should look, dress or think, unfortunately. All you have to remember, most of the time, is that that is their problem, not yours! That's sometimes easier said than done at the time, though. However, there have been far more serious episodes, like the infamous case of Sophie Lancaster in the UK - it might on the face of it sound relatively trivial to some to be abused and harassed just for liking certain music, or dressing a certain way, or being seen as part of a certain 'sub-culture', but threatening and violent exhibitions of bigotry against people for those things can be very, very real (and just as real and dangerous as similarly violent exhibitions of racism, homophobia, and so on) - it is the responsibility of everyone in society not to show the kind of intolerance towards others that can encourage that kind of thinking among the violent and stupid. There's just no excuse for ignorant intolerance.
