The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

I don't like this thing. Let's ban it!

Scroll to see replies

Original post by n00
Ah ok. Ban the *******s ****ing swear *****ng filter!1!!!

I don't believe that those in favour of drugs prohibition can possibly truly care about the harms drugs cause as banning them does nothing to prevent harm, it significantly increases harm, it seems they use the pretence of caring about the harms of drugs in an attempt to mask their prejudices.


Nail. Head.
Original post by chazwomaq
Well, that example was to illustrate that "automatic" is not the key issue. Self-harm vs other-harm is, and we agree on that. I think you could still argue about the ethics of saving people from themselves, especially with psychoactive and addictive substances though.

Either way, it's not to do with liking or not liking the activity, which was the point of the OP.

My personal position is much more drug-liberal than current UK policy FWIW..


Automatic can be a key issue. Too many arguments focus around tenuous correlations rather than direct actions, and propose to ban a misleading proxy for the real causative factor.
Reply 82
Avatar for Aph
Aph
22
Original post by JamesManc
The Green Party

Tories/ukip.

i want to ban LAD's and LAD culture.
Original post by n00
I don't believe that those in favour of drugs prohibition can possibly truly care about the harms drugs cause as banning them does nothing to prevent harm, it significantly increases harm, it seems they use the pretence of caring about the harms caused by drugs in an attempt to mask their prejudices.


That may be true - it's an empirical question in the end.

There is certainly psychological evidence that people use emotional heuristics to judge an issue, then try to justify them post-hoc rationally.
Original post by Viva Emptiness
"Fireworks are noisy and messy"

"Page 3 makes me uncomfortable"

"I don't like the word slut"

LET'S BAN THEM ALL.

I'm curious to get inside the mind of these people. What sort of thinking leads you to the conclusion that how you feel should impact the rest of the population?


http://www.walesonline.co.uk/whats-on/comedy-news/cardiff-university-students-union-cancels-8052634

ardiff University Students' Union cancels gig by 'sexist' Dapper Laughs after 700 students sign petition


Discuss...
Original post by chazwomaq


I'm pretty conflicted on this. I can't quite reconcile my views that the university has a right to dictate what happens on it's property with the opinion that people should (largely) be able to do/say what they like without censorship.

If this was a blanket ban on the show in general, I would obviously be completely opposed.
Original post by Viva Emptiness
I'm pretty conflicted on this. I can't quite reconcile my views that the university has a right to dictate what happens on it's property with the opinion that people should (largely) be able to do/say what they like without censorship.

If this was a blanket ban on the show in general, I would obviously be completely opposed.


Given the show was scheduled, I think we can assume there was demand for it. We live in a world in which people think that collecting enough signatures means they're right. Imagine you were planning on going to see the show, only to discover it had been cancelled because 700 people were offended by it - I'd be seriously pissed off!

The university does have a right to dictate what happens on its property, but they run the risk of setting a dangerous precedent if they cancel shows because someone asked enough people to sign their petition.

At a large university, I bet I could collect 700 signatures to oppose almost anything.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by pane123
Given the show was scheduled, I think we can assume there was demand for it. We live in a world in which people think that collecting enough signatures means they're right. Imagine you were planning on going to see the show, only to discover it had been cancelled because 700 people were offended by it - I'd be seriously pissed off!

The university does have a right to dictate what happens on its property, but they run the risk of setting a dangerous precedent if they cancel shows because someone asked enough people to sign their petition.


I agree completely, I would be totally pissed off. I was just trying to anticipate the obvious rebuttal of "Well, what if it was a Muslim hate preacher or a member of the KKK or >insert other genuinely offensive thing in here< who had been booked. It was scheduled so there was demand, why should it be cancelled because some people were offended?".
Original post by Viva Emptiness
I agree completely, I would be totally pissed off. I was just trying to anticipate the obvious rebuttal of "Well, what if it was a Muslim hate preacher or a member of the KKK or >insert other genuinely offensive thing in here< who had been booked. It was scheduled so there was demand, why should it be cancelled because some people were offended?".


I guess we are in the same boat. I would like to think I'd always support freedom of speech but the examples you gave would be tough for me to back.

It is a tricky one but I guess I'd have to support anything that remained within the confines of the law, purely because failure to do so could restrict so much more.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Viva Emptiness
I'm pretty conflicted on this. I can't quite reconcile my views that the university has a right to dictate what happens on it's property with the opinion that people should (largely) be able to do/say what they like without censorship.

If this was a blanket ban on the show in general, I would obviously be completely opposed.


Of course the union or whoever organised this chooses what to book. They don't arrive by magic! But in this case, they then cancel it because some people don't like it.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all"


Original post by Viva Emptiness
the obvious rebuttal of "Well, what if it was a Muslim hate preacher or a member of the KKK or >insert other genuinely offensive thing in here< who had been booked. It was scheduled so there was demand, why should it be cancelled because some people were offended?".


Why would it booked in the first place then? Granted it's hard to answer given that this is a hypothetical.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 90
Avatar for miser
miser
20
I think fruit flies should be banned. They're meddlesome and make me feel guilty when I swat at them.
Original post by chazwomaq
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all"


That's a great quote.
Original post by chazwomaq
Of course the union or whoever organised this chooses what to book. They don't arrive by magic! But in this case, they then cancel it because some people don't like it.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all"


Why would it booked in the first place then? Granted it's hard to answer given that this is a hypothetical.


There have been a few notable instances of Muslim speakers/debaters who have been booked, but then later cancelled because it turns out they have been associated with hate speech or other hate-preachers.

I don't think that close an eye is kept on who's performing or visiting that carefully, instead just leaving it to the discretion of the relevant department/whatever and then they find out too late.
Reply 93
Avatar for ftr
ftr
Original post by Viva Emptiness
http://www.shortlist.com/shortlists/most-ridiculous-things-banned

I particularly liked the last one.

In fairness I originally just wanted the people who actually make threads like the ones mentioned in the OP to tell me whey they thought things should be banned because they don't like them. Thankfully, I doubt these people will be in any positions of power.


Obviously because they think it has a negative effect on society.
Reply 94
Avatar for ftr
ftr
Would you be ok with someone walking around in Nazi uniform if that was what they believed in?
Original post by Viva Emptiness
"Fireworks are noisy and messy"

"Page 3 makes me uncomfortable"

"I don't like the word slut"

LET'S BAN THEM ALL.

I'm curious to get inside the mind of these people. What sort of thinking leads you to the conclusion that how you feel should impact the rest of the population?



Lets ban the act of banning then we should ban the act of banning the act of banning
Original post by ftr
Obviously because they think it has a negative effect on society.


And what does what they think have anything to do with what everyone else should do?
Reply 97
Avatar for ftr
ftr
Original post by Viva Emptiness
And what does what they think have anything to do with what everyone else should do?


They see it as a negative influence on society so they think it should be banned due to this. The people that don't want it banned think it doesn't have much of a negative effect on society so they don't see why is should be banned.

It's just a natural reaction. Am sure you have thought of some things that should be banned before?
TSR Room 101! Excellent! :yep:
Legalising drugs probably wont make any difference at all. Criminal syndicates will expand into new territories and usage will increase. The changing criminal landscape coupled with quality control will offset the increased availability

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you