>Giving up luxuries to avoid hurting others.
Why would I want them if they hurt people? It;'s just fucking ridiculous

>>38

If you smoke cigarettes or drink too much, and the people around you are beginning to worry about your health, and they are very unhappy with the way you are treating yourself, should you stop smoking or drinking because they are unhappy?

Or should the people around you grow up and learn to deal with you smoking and drinking?

(I am not purposely arguing from any one side, I really want to know which is correct)

>>39
>you smoke cigarettes or drink too much . . . people around you . . . worry about your health
In this example, these luxuries are only hurting others indirectly. They want what is good for you and the luxuries are directly harming you. So they try to get you to stop harming yourself.

>should the people around you grow up and learn to deal with you smoking and drinking?
Odds are that they are being "grown up" and trying to get you to do the thing that will be best for you. If anyone is being childish, it's the person that wants to wreck their body to enjoy themselves.

So:
Should they "grow up" and let you do what you want regardless of how it may hurt you?
Or should you grow up and do what is best for them and yourself?

SAGE has been used.

>>41
Perhaps people should stop calling actions of others that they don't agree with "childish" and instead realise that everyone's different. If someone wants to smoke or drink (in reasonable quantities) then their friends and family shouldn't have to make them stop.

The argument that it hurts the smoker's/drinker's own body is ridicilous when you consider that a lot of things that are enjoyable are bad for you in one way or another. Some people want to take that risk, and there's nothing childish about it.

>In this example, these luxuries are only hurting others indirectly.
This I believe is the big difference. In the case that your luxuries are only hurting indirectly (or that it's really their own fault and some cognitive psychology really could help them) then no, you don't have to get rid of your luxuries. If they are hurting people directly - say a radio that causes very real and physical pain and discomfort to a random individual every time it's turned on - then yes, you should get rid of it.

>>42
And what about a microwave, that has a desirable warming effect on the body, while causing cancer and destroying cell tissue? The microwave causes real physical damage, much as alcohol and tobacco do, only maybe quicker.

If you're using a microwave on yourself for the warmth despite knowing that the microwave causes cancer, and the people around you would like you to stop microwaving yourself because they don't want to lose you to a microwave...

You think that you shouldn't stop microwaving yourself because the people that care for you aren't being hurt directly by the microwave.

>>43
Wether you want to microwave yourself or not is your own business. It is also your own business if you want to put a bullet in your head. Your friends and family are free to be concerned, but in the end it's your life and therefore your decision.

>>44

So then your best answer to OP's question is:

>it is worse to give up your personal luxuries than it is to hurt other people.

>>45
As long as the pain caused to others is an indirect result caused by their own thoughts, then yes.

If the pain caused is direct and physical, then no.

>>46

Can you please explain how indirect and direct causes are actually different to the person who is experiencing them?

Also, does this mean that it is acceptable to physically damage people so long as they don't physically feel the pain of the damage? Are you not at fault for poisoning someone because they never felt the pain of what you were doing to them.

>>47
>Can you please explain how indirect and direct causes are actually different to the person who is experiencing them?
It doesn't really matter much how they're percieved by the person in question but what they actually are. Direct damage inflicted by an object is just that, direct. It's the exact consequence of the object in question regardless of perspective or emotions.

An indirect consequence is - in this case at least - not actually a result of the object in question but a result of the subject's own thoughts and emotions of which he or she is, ultimately, responsible for.

Saying otherwise - that people are indeed have a responsibility to make others feel good all the time - is ridicilous. I for example hate slugs and moths. I'd say that my level of enjoyment goes down by a fair 87% or so as soon as I see one, but I know people who like both slugs and moths and their level of joy would likely go down by a fair bit if they never could a slug statue in their jard again because it might cause me some discomfort.

>Also, does this mean that it is acceptable to physically damage people so long as they don't physically feel the pain of the damage?
No, and that assumptions seems like the definition of reaching for a straw. Or rather, pretending that there is a straw and then reaching for it. As soon as you involve yourself in someone else's life you should do so on terms of voluntary consent.

( cont. from >>41)
>>42
>The argument that it hurts the smoker's/drinker's own body is ridicilous when you consider that a lot of things that are enjoyable are bad for you
Aside from eating shitty food, what else might you do that will harm your body as much as does smoking and drinking? There are certainly few enough of such things that the consequences of regular smoke and heavy drink are not "ridiculous", especially when it has reached a point where "the people around you are beginning to worry about your health".

>Perhaps people should stop calling actions of others that they don't agree with "childish"
I was going off of the wording in >>39 "should the people around you grow up and learn to deal", complain to him/you/whomever.

>>44
>it's your life and therefore your decision
Yes, but the way in which your actions affect others is one of the factors that must be considered in such a decision. Moreso considering how it's very hard to see yourself accurately especially when you might have a problem you may not want to confront.

Basically, the OP question comes down to:
Do you care about whether your actions harm others or not (indirect or not, you are still causing it) more than you care about enjoying yourself when said enjoyment may also be harmful to you personally?

The thing is that this is a question only you can answer for yourself. If you are every other post in this thread, then it seems you've already made up your mind and are looking for vindication. But this is important: if you don't get it, consider that the other option just may be more correct.

SAGE has been used.

>>56
>Aside from eating shitty food, what else might you do that will harm your body as much as does smoking and drinking?
Literally everything is detrimental to your health in great enough amounts. That does not mean that you, me, or anyone else has the responsibility of controlling what everyone else puts into their bodies. Individuals are responsible for their own lives.

>I was going off of the wording in >>39 "should the people around you grow up and learn to deal", complain to him/you/whomever.
I was calling you both out on it. It's a stupid argument regardless.

>Yes, but the way in which your actions affect others is one of the factors that must be considered in such a decision.
I agree, given that the consequence is a real, physical one rather than a emotional response from an otherwise unrelated person. Someone might take offense that I have choosen to wear a black shirt, for example, does that mean that I shouldn't wear a black shirt? Someone might take offense that I have a dog, does that mean I should get rid of my dog? Someone might take offense that I eat meat, does that mean I should stop eating meat? If your answer was "no" to all of these questions, then I ask you: what's the difference between any of these instances and the fact that someone might take offense at the fact that I drink or that I smoke? If your answer was "yes", then clearly we have no common ground to continue this discussion on.

>>127
>Literally everything is detrimental to your health in great enough amounts.
That is an entirely unrelated and piss-poor argument. My point is that the damages of smoking and drinking are not ridiculous, especially when it has reached a point where "the people around you are beginning to worry about your health" (your words, not mine). I never said "Smoking and drinking are the only bad things ever". How you made that leap I don't know.

>Individuals are responsible for their own lives.
I never claimed otherwise. But your actions have consequences beyond your selfish self, and you are responsible for those too. If people say to you that they think you should quit because they are worried that you are hurting yourself, then you turn around and keep doing whatever, you are showing them that your habits are more important to you than preventing suffering for them.

>I was calling you both out on it. It's a stupid argument regardless.
Oh, go fuck yourself. And what sort of quality argument is "everything is bad for you hurrrrr" especially when it's completely unrelated?

>Someone might take offense that I have choosen to wear a black shirt, for example, does that mean that I shouldn't wear a black shirt?
>what's the difference between any of these instances and the fact that someone might take offense at the fact that I drink or that I smoke?
If we were in person I would ask if I were on "Candid Camera", because that shit is just retarded. Terrible comparison.
Anyway, to answer your question: if someone is worried about your health because you are smoking/drinking so much, they are not taking offense. They are worried about you. These are two different things. taking offense is not the same as wanting something better for someone else. The fact that you even make the comparison speaks volumes about you.

>>129
>That is an entirely unrelated and piss-poor argument.
No. You asked what other things are as detrimental to your health as smoking and drinking, and I answered that anything could be. Sure, you might argue that alcohol will cause long term damage on your liver, but small amounts of alcohol are actually good for your health and will prolonge your life and if we're talking about drinking several bottles of wine at once and the health issues that causes the same could be said about water - try drinking three gallons at once and tell me how you feel afterwards.

>especially when it has reached a point where "the people around you are beginning to worry about your health"
People worrying is a shitty scale for determining what's right and wrong. People worry about all kinds of irrelevant stuff that in they really shouldn't worry about. In the 40's people were worrying about teenagers dancing - it would supposedly lead them to do drugs and have sexual orgies on the dance floor - and in the 70's people worried again about metal music. Neither of these things turned out to be dangerous, but the worrying was there still, you're arguing that we should act upon emotions rather than facts.

>But your actions have consequences beyond your selfish self, and you are responsible for those too.
And I agree as long as those consequences are physical ones. Hitting someone in the head with a wrench has immediate and physical consequences which you are responsible for. Your mother being worried that you might be a nazi because you shaved your hair (or being a hippie because you've let it grow long) is not.

>Oh, go fuck yourself.
Emotional leads of that type typically indicates a lack of arguments or desperation. Your feelings are, in either case, irrelevant to our discussion, so please keep them to yourself.

>if someone is worried about your health because you are smoking/drinking so much, they are not taking offense.
You are so stuck on people being worried about your health, that's not the only reason would want you to stop drinking or smoking - some people actually take offense at others enjoying themselves with a cigarette or a beer. But sure, if you want to keep talking about worry you can change the examples to the historical ones I provided earlier in this post.

>I answered that anything could be.
No. Read and comprehend, THEN answer. I asked "what else might you do that will harm your body as much". What MIGHT you do, not what COULD you do. The list of things you COULD do is near-infinite. Yes, shoving forks up your nose will be bad for you if you do it enough, but no one is concerned about that because it doesn't happen. Alcoholism, however, is often a serious problem.

Even if we put that aside, I'd make the same arguments if you were spending 20 hours per day playing video games or reading (and this is very important): "Listen to the people who care about you because they might see things about you that you don't."

>but small amounts of alcohol are actually good for your health
By your own statement, we are not talking about small amounts. We are talking about enough to noticeably damage you. Remember the "worry about your health" part?
>drinking several bottles of wine at once . . . drinking three gallons [of water] at once
The point is that a lot of people DO drink alcohol to excess, but things like water or pasta or milk or whatever are never consumed in such amounts that they harm you.
Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
It doesn't say "thousands died" or even "hundreds died", the exceptions notable enough for mention are 11 deaths and a survivor over 17 years. Compare that to how many people died during that time because of alcoholism and you can extrapolate how much more dangerous one is than the other.

>People worrying is a shitty scale for determining what's right and wrong.
I never said anything about right and wrong, just what is better for YOU. What you should do for yourself. And it IS useful to have an external opinion of you because you might not always see yourself as clearly as you think you do. People with problems (including heavy drinking especially) are notorious for thinking they're fine because they can't see how they've become.
>In the 40's . . . in the 70's . . . Neither of these things turned out to be dangerous
>you can change the examples to the historical ones I provided
There is an important distinction between such trends as you describe and smoking/drinking. Both of your examples (and movies, comics, video games, etc.) are things that were feared/disliked decades ago, but are now non-issues at absolute worst. People became more familiar with both and saw that they weren't so bad. Maybe they don't like them, but the "They'll ruin the country!" argument isn't made anymore.
But with smoking/drinking it is the opposite. They used to be thought of as fine and harmless until we got to know them. Now that we DO know them, we know they can easily kill or cancer a person.

>[you are not responsible for] Your mother being worried that you might be a nazi because you shaved your hair (or being a hippie because you've let it grow long)
Again, completely different argument. Changing your hair is not the same as drinking yourself stupid 5 nights/week or whatever. But I'll answer anyway: if you know your mother is worried like that and you do nothing to diminish that worry, then you are responsible since (again) you made a choice that you can't be bothered to simply say "Don't worry I'm not a nazi (hippy)". Which in turn shows that you care so little about this person who is worried about you that you can't even take a few seconds to calm their fears. So while you may not be responsible for the initial assumption, you are responsible for how you do or don't handle it.

>your health . . . that's not the only reason . . . some people actually take offense at others enjoying . . . a cigarette or a beer
Again: YOU said they were worried not because you are enjoying an occasional cigarette or beer, but because your health had suffered for it.

"Your feelings are, in either case, irrelevant to our discussion, so please keep them to yourself." Yes, definitely "Go fuck yourself" with the addition of "you self-righteous hypocritical jackass". Unlike you, I am able to make coherent and on-topic arguments, so I don't care what my opinion of you indicates as my arguments speak for themselves.

Saging because I'm hoping more and more that you're a troll and not completely retarded.

SAGE has been used.

>>131
>"Listen to the people who care about you because they might see things about you that you don't."
And I am saying that there's no moral reason to do so, cause their feelings is not your responsibility.

>By your own statement, we are not talking about small amounts.
You have no idea. My girlfriend is so deathly afraid of me becoming an alcoholic that she goes berserk if I even so much as drink one beer - and I only rarely drink at all.

People worrying is again, a shitty scale, because people don't always become worried because there's an immediate danger, but often because there MIGHT be some sort of danger linked to the event several years from now or simply because that particular event makes them uneasy for no particular rational reason.

>I never said anything about right and wrong, just what is better for YOU. What you should do for yourself.
I'm confused, first you say it's not about right and wrong, then you say it's what you should do - implying a right thing to do. Are you even listening to what you're saying?

>Both of your examples (and movies, comics, video games, etc.) are things that were feared/disliked decades ago, but are now non-issues at absolute worst.
How is that relevant? You're talking about people worrying, and these people were worrying. Your argument seems to be that because it was years ago their worry was less real - something that don't have to be accounted for because it won't happen again. Regardless of wether it will happen again, or is happening right now, that's a stupid line as it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Disregard the time and assume that the rage against dance bands was happening today - people seriously believe that teenagers will become sexual devil worshipping drug addicts by going out dancing to jazz bands; does their worry mean that you shouldn't go out and having a good time? Your line so far has been that since these people worry you are shitting in their face by going against their wishes and you cannot argue that "it's not the same because there's no actual detrimental consequences caused by it" as in this example, for all you know, there could be - all the science indicates it and politicians are debating about banning jazz and public dancing for the public good.

Go.

>YOU said they were worried not because you are enjoying an occasional cigarette or beer, but because your health had suffered for it.
I said no such thing, I merely stated that they were worrying. You assumed the rest - which was quite a giant logical leap I might add. Also, fun fact, the first post which mentioned this >>39 wasn't mine and he didn't say that either, though he did add the statement "too much" which I assume you base this entire argument around.

Again, quite a giant logical leap.

>132
Read this again: "Listen to the people who care about you because they might see things about you that you don't." There is no mention of morals. I am advising that listening to someone that cares about you is likely in your best interest because, due to selective perspective, everyone has a skewed view of themselves. You see only those things about yourself that you want to see because your ego depends on it. On the other hand, others can see you for who you are because they don't have your ego in the way of seeing the kind of person you really are.

>People worrying is again, a shitty scale
I never said that it should BE a scale or that you should use it to make all your decisions. That got pulled right out of your own ass from left field. I said only that you should actually listen to them because they are more likely to have good points than not.

"I'm confused" Yeah, you've made that abundantly clear throughout this thread.
>first you say it's not about right and wrong, then you say it's what you should do
Not everything that is right or wrong is about morality. Math questions have right and wrong answers, but no connection to morality. Same thing with keeping yourself healthy. There are right and wrong ways to, let's say, go running. That doesn't mean that one is especially moral or immoral.

>Your argument seems to be that because it was years ago their worry was less real
Really? Really? Ok, I'll assume you're not retarded here and re-explain. As people became familiar with things like teenage dancing, they worried about it less because they learned about it and saw that it was not so bad. But in total contrast, smoking and drinking became more and more reviled as we came to know more about them because we found out that they DID have enormous negative effects. Next time, don't take shit out of context.

>Disregard the time and assume that the rage against dance bands was happening today
Been there, done that. Just because you have no life experience, don't assume as much about me.

>Your line so far has been that since these people worry you are shitting in their face by going against their wishes
When someone tries to help you and you blatantly ignore them, then yes. You are "shitting in their face". It's like trying to hand a bum a dollar bill only to have him scream at you that he only takes twenties.

>You assumed the rest - which was quite a giant logical leap
Again, fuck you too Ms. "Makes logical leaps over tall buildings".
>the first post which mentioned this >>39 wasn't mine
Yes, I assumed that it was you because I didn't think there would be two people that were as childish (selfish, self-righteous, spoiled, so yes: childish) as you seem to be. If you knew I had made that assumption then you should have said so initially, but I guess you were happy misleading me.

I'm giving you one more chance to change my mind about you.

SAGE has been used.

>>133
>Read this again: "Listen to the people who care about you because they might see things about you that you don't." There is no mention of morals.
Morals are the right thing to do is, i.e. what you should do. If you claim that one should listen to the people around oneself because they're worried you're making the claim that it's moral to do so.

>I never said that it should BE a scale or that you should use it to make all your decisions.
But you do claim that it is the scale in this case. It is therefore also easily assumed that it either should be scale in all cases or that there should be a logical reason for why this particular case is unique in that regard. So far you have not provided any such reason.

>I said only that you should actually listen to them because they are more likely to have good points than not.
So now you're saying that one should merely listen and not actually do? Or is the doing implied because otherwise "one wouldn't really be listening?" If it's the first you've completely changed stance on this issue, if it's the latter then you are still claiming that it is the scale one should be basing ones actions on.

>Not everything that is right or wrong is about morality.
But we're discussing right and wrong human actions in a philosophical context - it is about morality.

>As people became familiar with things like teenage dancing, they worried about it less because they learned about it and saw that it was not so bad.
So what? Why was that worry less relevant at the time than the worry about drinking and smoking today? Should teenagers back then have stopped dancing because their parents were worried? If not, where does the difference stem from?

>Been there, done that. Just because you have no life experience, don't assume as much about me.
I am not assuming anything about you, I'm trying to get you to make an actual argument connected to the discussion at hand. Regardless of wether you have thought in those hypothetical terms before you are not laying out that argument now.

>It's like trying to hand a bum a dollar bill only to have him scream at you that he only takes twenties.
No, not at all. A more appropiate metaphor would be handing a bum a dollar and having him say "thanks, but no thanks I'll handle it myself".

>Yes, I assumed that it was you because I didn't think there would be two people that were as childish
Dumb mistake. And no, I didn't actually figure out that you didn't understand that until now. I only assumed that you were trying to twist my arguments against me - a tactic I'm used to seeing but that doesn't work as well when one actually is consistent.

>I'm giving you one more chance to change my mind about you.
I am not gonna agree to your irrational arguments because you're threatening to dislike me, if that's what you're asking.

>>135
Ok, you've convinced me. You are either trolling or simply not intelligent/matured enough to formulate arguments "So now you're saying that one should merely listen and not actually do?" way to try to cloud things with semantics and/or drive things further off-topic. Either you know this and are trolling or you should avoid similar conversations in the future. Strike that, you should just avoid future discussion regardless. "where does the difference stem from? " one is harmful, the other is not. Just like I said earlier. Twice. Whether you're trolling or deficient, or even if you do believe what you are saying, then I can rest assured that your behavior will, through interactions with other people, bring about sufficient punishment for your flaws. "I am not assuming anything about you" Yes, you are. You assumed I hadn't been thorough the dance thing or something like it. hence your paragraph starting with "Disregard the time and assume".

If you seriously do think that you should ignore people that do care about you, then they soon won't. But whatever, fuck your life up however, I'm done with you. You deserve whatever shit comes your way.

The End.

>>136
>one is harmful, the other is not. Just like I said earlier. Twice.
At the time people didn't know this. You're avoiding the actual question. At the time science actually claimed that this was harmful, science claimed that teenagers would perform sexual orgies and take heavy drugs because they were dancing, science claimed that jazz and dance turned you into a violent jungle-monster with no feeling for anyone else but youself.

The question was wether or not it would have been correct to correct yourself after these concerns at that time. Not what science has concluded since then.

OP here, I haven't stopped by in a while.

If your parents are the ones that are being harmed by watching you harm yourself with your luxuries... can't this be seen as a direct harm. The average child raised to 18 years of age costs them $124,000-$250,000.

If you were to hurt yourself in any serious way, or die, you are taking their quarter million dollars and flushing it down the toilet. If I were the parents I would feel as if it *is* my responsibility to make sure that my child isn't harming him/herself.

OP again, disregard this post.
>>137

When you have a child you are sort of gambling, you should understand that you are investing your time and money into something (someone*) that has it's own free will.

>>138
>>139
Am I the only one not understanding what is happening here?

SAGE has been used.