Comments on: Toadcast #33 – The Popecast

By: Mrs Toad

Mrs Toad — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:44:37 +0000

To quote JS Mill as suggested “This conduct consists first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly, in each person’s bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. These conditions society is justified in enforcing at all costs to those who endeavour to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do. The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law. As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding).”

I think the phrase “needs not affect them if they like” is important here, there was no material loss to the fellow congregation, their reaction was disproportionate to the hurt suffered. In any case, the Catholic Church has a well used sanction of excommunication and the reaction therefore also lies without the norms set within their own greater society.

Second, whilst the wafer stealing chap may justly be punished by opinion in Mills’ view, the additional sanctions proposed by the University (a supposedly secular body) amount to further punishment by law.

I’m not sure where anonymous stands on this, its not immediately clear from the comment, but I don’t think JS Mills would be amused by the witchhunt style response.

And its always nice to have philosophy on your side. Though the somewhat Straussian undertones of the current US administration should also point to the fact that for every argument, there’s a philosopher willing to make it and that literary credentials are no substitute for exercising your noodle and expressing the outcome.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:15:50 +0000

Great podcast, though I feel you should have a look at the following:

J. Austin, ‘Lecture VIII’ in How to do things with words, ed. J. Urmson & M. Sibisa (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), 94-108.

J.S Mill, On Liberty (Yale: Yale University Press, 2003).

They will address some of your comments.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:48:54 +0000

And an over-developed sense of arrogance. Half the time when people take on someone like him I bet they think that out of all the people he’s humiliated that they will be the ones to come out of it looking superior, having put him squarely in his place. Many of them probably imagine that they have actually done it too, I’d imagine.

By: Campfires & Battlefields

Campfires & Battlefields — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:46:55 +0000

Colbert continues to get fucking interviews with these people! It’s just remarkable. He has made an entire career by exploiting the fact that conservatives have no sense of irony.

By: Mrs Toad

Mrs Toad — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:56:48 +0000

The great thing about Colbert is that some rightwingers can’t actually seem to tell he is being satirical – hence lots of arguing abouts edits on Conservapedia..

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Stephen_Colbert

Though some smart guy belatedly noticed he has a French name – just watch that French asshole eh?

By: Matthew

Matthew — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:50:21 +0000

I thought I’d edited out that version. I over-wrote the version on the server with the corrected one before I posted it – at least I thought I did. Fuck – let me check…

By: China

China — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:31:34 +0000

Ol’ man Toad, am I going out of my mind or did you play “Devil Do” twice in a row?

By: Campfires & Battlefields

Campfires & Battlefields — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:14:48 +0000

The very same. Here’s a transcript of his speech: http://www.imonthe.net/imus/ispeech.htm

By: Matthew

Matthew — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:02:37 +0000

Don Imus of ‘nappy-headed hoes’ fame?

By: Campfires & Battlefields

Campfires & Battlefields — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:39:23 +0000

I remember that right after he gave the speech he was criticized by some media outlets for ridiculing Bush and showing disrespect, etc., but it was all over youtube and of course everyone realized how completely withering it had been. Actually, this White House Correspondents’ Dinner has a history. Back in 1996 a comedian/radio talk-show host named Don Imus roasted Bill Clinton during the same dinner and caught hell for it, but in all truth he was much less funny than Colbert.