Jump to content

What does Freedom mean?


philthygeezer

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

 

Indeed, it's not about being offended or not (in fact, it's never about that, since any restrictions based on the idea of offense is a substantive violation of the freedom of speech), but about substantive harms to the rights of the individual.

 

 

There is a spectre on the horizon where organized religions are appealing to human rights commissions for the right not to be offended. This has gone to two provincial courts in Canada and also to the United Nations, whose members make up nearly every country on the planet.

 

IMO This is a very dangerous ideology that shouldn't be countenanced by any sane governing body.

 

Sometimes touchy-feely ideas that sound good wreak unintended destruction. (Repeal of the Glass-Steagal act is a good example.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

'The Blank Slate' is a fantastic book and well worth reading to understand a bit more about human nature.

 

 

I don't really whole books just to get someone's point. I'd happily read a paper or essay that sums it up. It's too easy to recommend a book knowing the other person probably won't read it.

 

 

Left-leaning ideology also brought us the idea that the individual was near meaningless in the biology of the societal organism. The idea that society was the organism with rights that were more important than the individual.

 

 

Oh god where to start. First off, this is pretty topsy turvy. If anything it's right wing/conservative ethics which value "The community" "the family" over the individual.

 

 

Umm, did you miss the 20th century?

 

 

There is so much wrong with this.

 

First off, "Communism" doesn't kill people anymore than capitalism does(maybe less if done right, who knows). It's an economic system. The policies of Chairman Mao, Stalin, were never 100% communist to begin with, for example Stalin's concept of the Vanguard was against some of the fundamental concepts - the whole point was that the people would accept communism - the idea behind the Vanguard was to ensure it stayed in place. Americans seem to equate socialism and communism with "Dictatorship" - which is just McCarthyism. Because communism was an appealing system to lower class workers, it's easy for a Dictator to use it to charm the common man into following them to begin with.

 

I'm pretty sure Che Guevara was more of a socialist than communist. Castro himself didn't describe himself as a socialist initially but a "democrat". How Cuba turned out was down to Castro's own personality and the US's trade embargo. While it's pretty annoying to see teeny boppers wearing Che shirts, you get just as many conservative smart asses using him sarcastically, if not more.

 

I am not a Communist, but this is pretty ridiculous either way. Try to get your facts straight at least.

 

Technically Left wing and Right wing describe economic systems, but in these days can also be used for libertarian and authoritarian, and liberal and conservative.

 

The left wing of economics these days tends to go hand in hand with liberal social policies - which is actually more true to how it was originally intended.

 

Actually, it's all about the individual. Do right wingers really believe that greater class divide somehow affords more individuality? How does this work? When you put people on too different a level, they all strive to become the same thing. A good example of this is the way people with mental illness or disability are treated - how many of them present themselves as crazy, quirky individuals? Not many - they're all trying to be normal to compensate for how they were born. In right wing economics - something very similar happens, for different reasons.

 

For example, and this might be interesting for Jughaid to think over, if I want to have my hair whatever colour I want - is a right wing or a left wing system going to support this?

 

In a right wing system, there is generally little "government" intervention because hurr the government is corrupt(I think you'll find much of this corruption comes from corporate influence and right wing "ethics" to begin with). In a right wing system, there is less to keep "Private ventures" such as large corporations and businesses in check - employee rights are harmed. Employers are rarely going to take a risk and employ "Edgy" people - any sign of general public prejudice, and they pander to it. In a left wing system, where there is influence, hiring or firing based on race, sexuality, appearance, social status is easier to define as "improper", because there can be more intervention - even if they can't stop it happening, they can at least make it happen less. People tend to have a better social conscience this way.

 

This is one thing I dislike. As a kid I used to like Earthworm Jim a load. Recently I've found out the guy who invented him is one of those nutty borne again dealies and has been writing all these right wing pap novels about how socialism is a hive mind and right wing is for the individuals.

 

I still don't understand how or why people believe this. I'd like to hear a clear explanation so I can debunk it.

 

Sweden for example I've found is a very individualistic country, perhaps moreso than the US which still has a strong social conservative element.

 

Again I'm not a communist, but I definitely support a lot of socialist policies, and I'm definitely "Left" as far as ethics go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Still didn't give me any examples.

 

Looking at the "rights" the right wing tends to support, they are ones that tend to infringe on others' rights. For example the gun lobby that's against any real level of gun control(to the extent where there'd be more restrictions on owning a car than a lethal weapon that's a lot quicker to aim :facepalm:) - but then, what if you're at the recieving end of it? Do criminals not deserve ANY rights at all? More importantly, more often than not an incompetent person possessing a gun is more likely to shoot a friend or family member - think about it, they hear something lurking around.

 

There was a shocking example of three unarmed kids that wandered into some guy's trailer looking for food, he had them down on the ground, kicked them, and still felt the need to shoot one of them in the back of the head. That's not self defense, it's sick. You should have a right to defend your property, but also a right not to be abused and shot in the head for making a mistake. I'm trying to find that news story, but having no luck. This isn't "self defense", it's taking advantage of and abusing a right.

 

Conservatives are big on "social responsibility" without showing any real responsibility for the consequences of implementing this idea across the board - you can't trust a bloodthirsty idiot. This is going to be pretty stupid to post on Harmony Central where nearly all forums get 23 pages of a Gun thread a week. I don't think you guys really look at yourselves from the outside.

 

A better and perhaps less controversial example would be the idea of free speech vs. minority rights.

 

For example you won't find many Pat Roberstons on the air in western europe. Our social values simply dictate that this is not very acceptable behaviour.

 

And you might say - but hold on, it's his FREE SPEECH, but there's a number of problems with this.

 

First off, a lot of the time it's not that there's a LAW against it, it's simply that it's deemed unacceptable behaviour, and rightly so. The right wing view of free speech is that you can't make laws against any part of it, even if it's wrong - so does this mean that things that ultimately do only end up hurting people shouldn't even be considered "wrong"? Conservatives too often hide behind relativism since there is often no way to logically defend their social views.

 

The thing is that nobody would stop Pat Robertson or the like from appearing on a debate program and discussing his views. The issue here is that he's trying to rally people to a hateful cause.

 

Now, while you may argue about FREE SPEECH, what about the right of a minority? Only idiots listen to Pat Roberston? I'm afraid Idiots still have the vote, and are often in greater numbers than intelligent people. Young impressionables tuning in aren't going to be able to discern their differences, and since most people hold on to the beliefs they're given, it's likely they'll hold onto this too.

 

At the end of the day protecting minorities from hateful causes is a good idea - right wingers don't believe in this, it's far too politically correct, and conveniently they're rarely minorities(though you do get a few who are incredibly smug for supporting an ideology that's contrary to their best interests).

 

If you take a Utilitarian view of things, no right is absolutely sacred. What's important is to give people the most rights overall, instead of hiding behind complex but apparently singular concepts like "Free Market", or even in some cases "Free Speech".

 

It's not really hear about the idea that Free Speech should be limited, and minorities should be protected. It's the conservtives emphasise Free Speech MORE than the protection of people. They emphasises the rights of people like Pat Robertson MORE than the rights of gay people and other minorities not to be treated poorly by people in general(I mean if the government doesn't do something - who is going to? That's what I never get about Libertarians and small government conservatives, any centralised system that can possibly do anything to cure social ills would be part of "government"), even though those are already more protected.

 

Many of the same conservatives who use "free speech" to defend their dribble would be pretty up in arms if someone for example released a major movie with anti-christian themes. This happens all the time. They think they're more mature for realising to have your rights you have to accept others, but just end up being hypocrites. They are far more absolute in this than the "Left". The thing is, the Left aren't automatically against Freedom for "attacking free speech", trying to limit hateful speech etc. - even if they are mistaken in doing so, and political correctness does often misfire - they are still only trying to do so to safeguard other areas in other freedoms they consider more important - because they recognise no right is a simplistic monolith in the way conservatives present them. Freedom can be like a U-turn rather than a two-way street, and one man's freedom can be the right to persecute another. Being against spurting out unbacked, prejudiced remarks that can easily be demonstrated to be untrue if only "free speech" was as easily countered as expressed, is not the same as being against that person simply expressing their opinion in the form of a proper argument, i.e. actually expressing their opinion and not using it as a social weapon. Conservatives need to understand this.

 

Honestly, what is the point in having a government if they don't do things like this? Conservatives are unable to view government and society as one fluid system, which is why they hate "Big" governments and don't understand where corruption comes from to begin with. If there's a problem, the government should try to counter it. Of course this can result in a "nanny state" - but the thing is, it doesn't have to. There's always moderation and intelligent usage and articulation of whatever policies they're implementing, it's just that it doesn't usually happen.

 

Conservatives hide behind buzz words that they turn into rights. What would be more logical would be to examine every right you can afford people, every law you can make, and instead of presuming society will fall apart if you can't say "Nigger" on daytime TV, actually get a bunch of intelligent sociologists, psychologists, law profressors in and seriously examine it. Maybe there's some parts of "Free Speech", "Right to bear arms" that aren't either in the original spirit of the meaning or better for people in general, who knows. We rarely ever discuss these things properly since conservatives act like nothing needs to be rationally defended from the ground up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No true freedom can exist in any quarter when men and women are restricted from the free expression of their ideas...It is upon the free exchange of ideas that all other freedoms find their foundation.


Or, in the words of far more illustrious men:

"Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself...she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them."

"Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education & free discussion are the antidotes of both"

"...as long as we may think as we will, and speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement."

-TJ-


"The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing."

"A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

-JA-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Looking at the "rights" the right wing tends to support, they are ones that tend to infringe on others' rights. For example the gun lobby that's against any real level of gun control(to the extent where there'd be more restrictions on owning a car than a lethal weapon that's a lot quicker to aim
:facepalm:
) - but then, what if you're at the recieving end of it?

 

How is preventing the infringement of an explicit Constitutional right infringing on the rights of another?

 

Whose rights are being violated if another individual purchases a firearm? What specific right is being violated?

 

Do criminals not deserve ANY rights at all?

 

Precisely what are you suggesting, that there is a right to safety while perpetrating a crime?

 

More importantly, more often than not an incompetent person possessing a gun is more likely to shoot a friend or family member - think about it, they hear something lurking around.

 

This is statistically false.

 

And you might say - but hold on, it's his FREE SPEECH, but there's a number of problems with this.


First off, a lot of the time it's not that there's a LAW against it, it's simply that it's deemed unacceptable behaviour, and rightly so. The right wing view of free speech is that you can't make laws against any part of it, even if it's wrong - so does this mean that things that ultimately do only end up hurting people shouldn't even be considered "wrong"? Conservatives too often hide behind relativism since there is often no way to logically defend their social views.

 

One, you might want to check the definition of "relativism".

 

Two, in the US, you can't make a law against it. The highest law in the land says "restrictions are prohibited". That's as absolute and unmoving a standard as you're going to find.

 

The thing is that nobody would stop Pat Robertson or the like from appearing on a debate program and discussing his views. The issue here is that he's trying to rally people to a hateful cause.

 

And the right to hate someone else is entirely protected.

 

Look at what you're suggesting, that merely thinking or agreeing with someone should be prohibited.

 

 

Actions infringe on the rights of individuals...thoughts do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think it's overly idealistic to always value the rights of the individual over that of the community. There are benefits to collectivism, just as there are to individualism. I feel it's more pragmatic to try to compromise the two, I admit often contrary, interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I think it's overly idealistic to always value the rights of the individual over that of the community. There are benefits to collectivism, just as there are to individualism. I feel it's more pragmatic to try to compromise the two, I admit often contrary, interests.



And I think I'm glad that the Constitution doesn't agree with you...:D


The rights of all cannot be secured while violating the rights of any...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
How is preventing the infringement of an explicit Constitutional right infringing on the rights of another?


Whose rights are being violated if another individual purchases a firearm? What specific right is being violated?




Precisely what are you suggesting, that there is a right to safety while perpetrating a crime?




This is statistically false.




One, you might want to check the definition of "relativism".


Two, in the US, you can't make a law against it. The highest law in the land says "restrictions are prohibited". That's as absolute and unmoving a standard as you're going to find.




And the right to hate someone else is entirely protected.


Look at what you're suggesting, that merely thinking or agreeing with someone should be prohibited.



Actions infringe on the rights of individuals...thoughts do not.



Welcome, Gurren Lagann. We haven't had a leftist idealogue to kick around in quite some time.
Pretty please, tell someone that it's not your problem that people aren't willing to do the research to prove that your argument is right. Just once.:D
C7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Looking at the "rights" the right wing tends to support, they are ones that tend to infringe on others' rights. For example the gun lobby that's against any real level of gun control(to the extent where there'd be more restrictions on owning a car than a lethal weapon that's a lot quicker to aim
:facepalm:
) - ....



And this is where personal responsibility comes into play. Most gun owners are very responsible with their weapons. If someone is irresponsible with theirs and casues harm to another, they should be held fully accountable for their actions. Cars kill WAY more people each year than guns. Do you need to pass a background check to buy a car? No. you do not. Your analogy doesn't stand. the whole "if it saves one life" argument is ridiculous. It is NOT governments responsibility to protect the populace from any POSSIBLE harm.


There was a shocking example of three unarmed kids that wandered into some guy's trailer looking for food, he had them down on the ground, kicked them, and still felt the need to shoot one of them in the back of the head. That's not self defense, it's sick. You should have a right to defend your property, but also a right not to be abused and shot in the head for making a mistake. I'm trying to find that news story, but having no luck. This isn't "self defense", it's taking advantage of and abusing a right.



i agree. He should be prosecuted to the absolute fullest extent of the law. That is not self-defense and I don't think you would find too many sane people who would disagree with you. However anecdotal evidence like this doesn't really support your position as I could find plenty of anecdotal evidence of people who were about to be raped or murdered that defended themselves and their families with firearms. Again, your point doesn't stand.


Conservatives are big on "social responsibility" without showing any real responsibility for the consequences of implementing this idea across the board - you can't trust a bloodthirsty idiot. This is going to be pretty stupid to post on Harmony Central where nearly all forums get 23 pages of a Gun thread a week. I don't think you guys really look at yourselves from the outside.



Conservatives are big on Individual responsibility. You can't legislate to the lowest common denominator.

A better and perhaps less controversial example would be the idea of free speech vs. minority rights.


For example you won't find many Pat Roberstons on the air in western europe. Our social values simply dictate that this is not very acceptable behaviour.



My values dictate the same thing. I'm not a big Robertson fan at all.

And you might say - but hold on, it's his FREE SPEECH, but there's a number of problems with this.


First off, a lot of the time it's not that there's a LAW against it, it's simply ....



he does have free speech. But again, it's about individual responsibility. he has the right to his views and opinions and he has the right to express those opinions. he doesn't have the right to an audience. I have the right to turn him off. Or rebut him. Or simply tell him to go {censored} himself. Free Speech is not absolute either. I has consequences. There are laws agains inciting to riot. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. It's not absolute. But it also doens't only apply to those you agree with.


The thing is that nobody would stop Pat Robertson or the like from appearing on a debate program and discussing his views. The issue here is that he's trying to rally people to a hateful cause.



That is your opinion. he would say the same about the pro-abortion rights crowd, now wouldn't he? And he'd have a pretty valid argument on that one. That they are killing unborn children. I'm sure he doesn't see his cause as hateul at all. It is YOUR opinion that it is hateful, but nothing more. Just as it's HIS opinion that abortions rights speech is hateful.

Now if he was saying "Kill abortion doctors" or something to that effect and advocating violence against people, that would be crossing the line.




At the end of the day protecting minorities from hateful causes is a good idea - right wingers don't believe in this, it's far too politically correct, and conveniently they're rarely minorities(though you do get a few who are incredibly smug for supporting an ideology that's contrary to their best interests).



Ah, so it's about race. Of course. It's the bad white guy. This whole racist issue is so often cloaked in false ideological arguments such as this that it's pathetice to say the least.

which is worse, the KKK stringing a black man up from a tree because he's black or a group of crips shooting a white man down because he's white? what difference does the skin color make. In both cases you have murderers and victims. The color of their skin makes absolutely no difference.

Except the law says one of those is a hate crime. :poke:


Now, while you may argue about FREE SPEECH, what about the right of a minority? Only idiots listen to Pat Roberston? I'm afraid Idiots still have the vote, and are often in greater numbers than intelligent people. .../quote]


I could say the same thing about young minds being molded by the vast majority of liberals who run our education system. Again, it's up to the individual to get all the information they can and make up their own mind. You may think that young minds need to be protected from the Pat Robertsons of the world, while others may think they need to be protected from the Al Gore's of the world. Or the Ward Churchills of the world. The only difference is whilch side of the equation you are on. They need to be exposed to all of them and make up their minds as to which is right and which is wrong (in this case they are all wrong
;)
).


If you take a Utilitarian view of things, no right is absolutely sacred. What's important is to give people the most rights overall, instead of hiding behind complex but apparently singular concepts like "Free Market", or even in some cases "Free Speech".



And this is the difference. You feel (and state) that rights are "given". I feel that they are not. My rights are not given to me by my government. My rights are inalienable.


It's not really hear about the idea that Free Speech shoul...



And the liberals care more about the free speech of people like Ward Churchill than someone like Pat Robertson. It's because the AGREE with him. Personally I support both of their right to free speech and disagree with both.

And yes, emphasise free speech more than protection. What's the old quote about giving up freedom for security......soon you will have neither????

I don't think you get ANYTHIGN about libertarians or conservatives. I don't think you have a clie what they actually stand for. you probably think GW Bush is a conservative.



Simple answer, to provide infrastructire and national defense. Things we all need.



Many of the same conservatives who use "free speech" to defend their dribble would be pretty up in arms if someone for example released a major movie with anti-christian themes. This happens all the time. T...


You need to understand that your views are very very skewed. Most of the time I see someone shouted down for their opinion it is by a "liberal" not a conservative. If I express an opinion about, say, abortion, and say I feel it is murder and the person who commits this act is a murderer, what do you think the reaction would be in Boulder? Or San Francisco?


The most intolerant people I have ever met were liberals to be honest. There have been quite a few right wing fundamentalist christians that also fall in this category, but in my experience the least tolerant people have been far left liberals. If you don't agree with their viewpoint you will be shouted down, insulted, called every slur in the book. Great example of tolerance. As long as they agree with it.
;)


Honestly, what is the point in having a government if they don't do things like this? ...

Conservatives hide behind buzz words that they turn into rights. What would be more logical would be to examine every right you can afford people, every law you can make, and instead of presuming society will fall apart if you can't say "Nigger"...



And liberals act like they know what is best for everyone. Hint: they don't. I know what is best for me and my family. I don't need a sociologist to tell me. I don't need a psychologist to tell me how to raise my family. If you do, then get one, but don't force ME to.

It doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes a family. And that child is the responsibility of that family.

So far as charity, I think you should look at who does the mmost charitable work before you start passing judgment there. We all have some measure of social responsibility, nothing is absolute. But we also do not need a communal mindset about everything in our daily lives.


And by the way, I find your entire post hateful towards conservatives. You should have your speech restricted. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

And this is where personal responsibility comes into play. Most gun owners are very responsible with their weapons. If someone is irresponsible with theirs and casues harm to another, they should be held fully accountable for their actions. Cars kill WAY more people each year than guns.

 

 

 

Stats on this? Well it would kind of make sense - people drive a heck of a lot more than they walk around looking for a gunfight. It's not a great comparison.

 

If the US does have a lot of car deaths, I'm pretty sure it's the same attitude you're displaying that leads to this - "expecting" people to be responsible, and not caring about the consequences.

 

 

Do you need to pass a background check to buy a car? No. you do not.

 

 

Uhhh... you sort of need to do a driving test, and have a driving license.

 

 

[Your analogy doesn't stand. the whole "if it saves one life" argument is ridiculous. It is NOT governments responsibility to protect the populace from any POSSIBLE harm.

 

 

This is such a stupid mentality. What is the government for? If you end up saving "one" life, what's wrong with that? You're working backwards from the idea of noninterference being da best.

 

 

That is not self-defense and I don't think you would find too many sane people who would disagree with you.

 

 

You'd be surprised. Whether you realise it or not, it's somewhat linked with what you're saying. When I read this article, it was posted on a forum and a lot of people thought he was in the right. People are insane - which is exactly my point. You can't trust people who thouht this was a good idea to make the smart choice.

 

 

Conservatives are big on Individual responsibility.

 

 

Conservatives are big on expecting responsibility - not creating more of it. Preaching it as an ideal is not the same thing as causing any level of it to increase.

 

 

My values dictate the same thing. I'm not a big Robertson fan at all.

 

 

But this, is, again, a level where expecting people to be responsible fails - there will always be people looking to abuse their rights. Do you not see that? No matter how much you emphasise personal responsibility, some people simply will not be responsible, and {censored} it up for everyone else. That's why you need stricter driving tests, and something similar for the ownership of firearms.

 

 

he has the right to his views and opinions and he has the right to express those opinions. he doesn't have the right to an audience. I have the right to turn him off. Or rebut him.

 

 

 

But it also doens't only apply to those you agree with.

 

 

But is it just about agreement? If it's rallying people to a hatred cause, isn't that just one step away from inciting riot? You have to think why these laws exist to begin with.

 

The thing is, all of Robertsons views are easily debunked - but no, I do not have equal rights to refute it - I don't have religious organisations backing me, many millions of dollars and a popular network to broadcast upon.

 

It's irrelevant if I don't have to listen to him - the social effect of him espousing his views is what I care about - again what I dislike about conservatives, it always tries to cast people as childishly disagreeing and wanting moderation based on that - it's not that, it's that bigotry COMES from somewhere. While people may naturally fear difference - it takes someone to stand up and turn that discomfort into people voting against others' rights.

 

For example of Pat Robertson and people like him were not in the airwaves, I can guarantee Proposition 8 may very well have gone quite differently.

 

Again this is one thing I dislike about right wing economics - the presumption that anyone can "make it". Poor messageboard mods use this excuse too, you don't like it, set up your own board. It rarely works out like that.

 

 

he would say the same about the pro-abortion rights crowd, now wouldn't he?

 

 

But it's not all relative. Many of his views are simply misinformed. Who is "pro abortion" exactly? It's pro-choice. The fact that he'd SAY pro-abortion and the like is what makes it hateful to begin with.

 

 

That they are killing unborn children. I'm sure he doesn't see his cause as hateul at all. It is YOUR opinion that it is hateful, but nothing more. Just as it's HIS opinion that abortions rights speech is hateful.

 

 

This is silly - this is a matter that's ongoing constant debate, amongst people who actually know what they're talking about - when does a fetus become truly "alive" and aware of itself, etc. whereas bigotry being bad isn't really something that you need to debunk.

 

It's not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination - those are two genuine opposing ideas, homophobia is very often founded in nothing but logical fallacy. You'll get smart people being against abortion from time to time, but you won't get near as many being homophobes.

 

 

Now if he was saying "Kill abortion doctors" or something to that effect and advocating violence against people, that would be crossing the line.

 

 

Or if he was, you know, helping to create an environment where abortion doctors were more likely to be killed or hated. I'm pretty sure someone tried that a week or two back.

 

 

I could say the same thing about young minds being molded by the vast majority of liberals who run our education system.

 

 

(-_-)

 

If "Liberals" run your education system maybe you should try and take a look as to why that is. From outside of the US, we don't view your education system as particularly liberal which is why the whole thing seems so insane.

 

 

Again, it's up to the individual to get all the information they can and make up their own mind.

 

 

But some people, many people in fact you just cannot leave it up to!

 

Where do you draw the line at "Personal responsibility" anyway? It's just a milder form of anarchy you're advocating here. At what point should we make a law, and should something be personal responsibiliy?

 

 

The only difference is whilch side of the equation you are on.

 

 

Middle ground fallacy. Both sides are not inherently equal. Again, there's a reason why most educators tend to be "liberal" leaning in your scale(but still not so on a more general scale).

 

 

They need to be exposed to all of them and make up their minds as to which is right and which is wrong

 

 

But they're not given the tools to do so. Heck, you're not thought critical thinking in schools, and most people show no signs of learning it afterwards. Does anyone really know what "fallacious reasoning" means?

 

 

Ah, so it's about race. Of course. It's the bad white guy. This whole racist issue is so often cloaked in false ideological arguments such as this that it's pathetice to say the least.


which is worse, the KKK stringing a black man up from a tree because he's black or a group of crips shooting a white man down because he's white? what difference does the skin color make. In both cases you have murderers and victims. The color of their skin makes absolutely no difference.

 

 

God this point of view makes me happening.

 

Yes, it does matter.

 

If someone is MUCH MORE LIKELY to be strung up and killed by the KKK, how are they equal? If you are more likely to be killed, then why should the government not protect you?

 

I don't think you realise how bigotted what you just said is. The fact is - people are not all the same! They all have different circumstances that need to be taken into account.

 

When you smugly state that people should be all treated the same, PC is bull{censored}, etc. what you fail to realise that your society caters primarily to neurotypical straight white people. What you're basically saying is that a person coming from a different cultural background, that is treated differently to others by society, should be happy with only the same kind of protection as the average straight white male? How is that equality? Surely everyone should be treated according to who they are, and not the majority?

 

The whole point of laws, and rights, is to try and ensure people don't rip each other apart and are on a fairly equal ground.

 

Maybe they don't work as well as they should, but they're not "ethically" wrong, just inefficient.

 

I am sorry, but this is one of the reasons I cannot respect the intelligence of the average conservative. I find it hard to respect you as a person if you think nothing should be done about the fact that someone is potentially many times more likely to be killed by a particular group than another.

 

Discrimination doesn't just get better if you pretend everyone the same. That's not diversity, that's homogeny, and creating a mould for the majority and expecting the minority to fit.

 

 

And this is the difference. You feel (and state) that rights are "given". I feel that they are not. My rights are not given to me by my government. My rights are inalienable.

 

 

I think you're confusing legal rights with philosophical rights, or rather thinking that I'm doing the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

And the liberals care more about the free speech of people like Ward Churchill than someone like Pat Robertson. It's because the AGREE with him.

 

 

No, I gave some good reasons. It's not just about what he's saying - it's how he's saying it. He's not saying, in his honest opinion, homosexuality is incorrect behaviour. He's saying it's the MARK OF THE DEVIL, responsible for 9/11 and all that.

 

THAT is how you distinct speech, from hatespeech. If someone was saying that Christians were all detestable dogs that needed to be kicked in the side, that'd be hate speech too. But not ONLY that, the "opinions" of people like Robertson and co. are nearly always much less researched(i.e. not at all) compared to their Liberal counterparts - for example it wouldn't be "Hate speech" if someone came up with a good reason as to how a religious group affected the rights of a minority.. It is not about "agreement" - Robertson just has nothing logically coherent to say to begin with. Again - most people do not have the capability of distincting this, including yourself. "Personal Responsibility" fails when you're not even teaching your kids logic.

 

Ultimately, when it comes down to it, you have no regard for the issues of the minority, in the slightest. You CANNOT apply the same standards to a group of people who are treated differently to begin and act like it's appropriate. It's like disabled people - is it discrimination if you have a policy handing out wheelchairs to only people who can't walk?

 

You can claim skin colour "doesn't matter", but at the end of the day, the fact is you just don't want to give a toss about the issues of people you don't understand.

 

People from different cultural backgrounds are often treated differently - and it IS the governments' job to try and diffuse that.

 

 

Most of the time I see someone shouted down for their opinion it is by a "liberal" not a conservative.

 

 

That's because Liberals actually hold things to standard, instead of presuming anything someone pulls out of their ass is a valid viewpoint.

 

 

If I express an opinion about, say, abortion, and say I feel it is murder and the person who commits this act is a murderer, what do you think the reaction would be in Boulder? Or San Francisco?

 

 

Not very good since you're purposely using sensationalist language. You are entitled to that opinion, but voicing it in that manner isn't really going to get you anywhere.

 

 

The most intolerant people I have ever met were liberals to be honest.

 

 

You know, this is such bull{censored}, and this is exactly WHY. Most Liberals including myself simply fume at arrogant remarks like this - you meet "Intolerance" because you're practically asking for it.

 

Again - who has the most homophobes? The most racists? Who's more likely to look down at me for dressing differently? Who is more understanding of mental illness, and who insists that conditions like aspergers are just the result of "Lazy children"?

 

Conservatives are CERTAINLY not more tolerant than liberals. Liberals may be intolerant of poorly reasoned opinions - and rightly so. I don't believe I've ever met a genuinely, truly kind person that has also been conservative. After all - how's that going to work out? You get Liberals that even meet your ditzy standards for "tolerant", but you'll rarely get a conservative that will be 100% open to things like homosexuality, subcultures, etc.

 

The problem is you only seem to care about opinions - not logic and reason. There is more to the world than opinions. America needs to learn this.

 

 

If you don't agree with their viewpoint you will be shouted down, insulted, called every slur in the book. Great example of tolerance. As long as they agree with it.

 

 

This is the problem - you are delusional. It is not about "agreement" again, I am telling you this. It is possible that a viewpoint is simply poorly backed up or reasoned, as tends to be the case more often with conservatives than "liberals". There is a reason most academics are liberal leaning.

 

 

And liberals act like they know what is best for everyone. Hint: they don't. I know what is best for me and my family. I don't need a sociologist to tell me.

 

 

Anti-intellectual horse{censored}. Why exactly would you know how to raise a family better than someone who also most likely has raised a family, and actually understands how people work? Where do you get this knowledge from?

 

This is the problem - you are actually guilty of what you say. YOU think you know what's best. Liberals also think they know what's best - but more often than not, they have the qualifications, or side with the people that do. People who actually study the world for a living versus people who study the bible is what it tends to come down to in religious arguments - it's similar here. People only study their own ethics.

 

Again, another reason why I cannot respect the intelligence of the average conservative. And I'm giving REASONS for it, good ones, so no it is not "hate speech".

 

 

And by the way, I find your entire post hateful towards conservatives. You should have your speech restricted.

 

 

It's alright to hate someone or a group or people if you have an actual good, defined reason, usually being that they hate someone for a reason that is not very good or well defined.

 

Honestly, "hate" is not always a bad thing. It's not so much "Hate" against minorities as bigotry and ignorance and a will to homogenise everything in sight. Hate can be healthy - you hate, it you change it. But if you hate something for an illogical reason you end up trying to change something, that does not need to be changed.

 

Answer me this exactly, how is it fair that you get to be a "Normal" guy who isn't very likely to be strung up by the KKK? This is where "Liberal" and "Conservative" fail to be equal viewpoints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is the problem - you are actually guilty of what you say. YOU think you know what's best. Liberals also think they know what's best - but more often than not, they have the qualifications, or side with the people that do. People who actually study the world for a living versus people who study the bible is what it tends to come down to in religious arguments - it's similar here. People only study their own ethics.

 

He's claiming only that he knows what's best for himself. He makes no claim regarding others.

 

Do you really think the best form of life is if your choices are dictated to you by experts? Where your self-determination is overriden because someone else declares "I know what's best for you"?

 

 

As for qualifications, I can only assume you don't personally know many professional academics/scholars...if you did, I imagine your opinion of their suitability to run the lives of others would be somewhat different... ;)

 

Also:

 

It's alright to hate someone or a group or people if you have an actual good, defined reason, usually being that they hate someone for a reason that is not very good or well defined

 

Ah, very clear...It's okay when you hate someone, because you have an "actual good, defined reason". ("good", of course, being a subjective term that you are leaving undefined)

 

But when others do it, and you don't like their reason (and have decided it is thus "not very good"), then it's not okay to hate...

 

 

I forget, precisely whom were you decrying as relativistic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Our conceptions of human nature affect every aspect of our lives, from the way we raise our children to the political movements we embrace. Yet just as science is bringing us into a golden age of understanding human nature, many people are hostile to the very idea. They fear that discoveries about innate patterns of thinking and feeling may be used to justify inequality, to subvert social change, to dissolve personal responsibility, and to strip life of meaning and purpose.


In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker, bestselling author of The Language Instinct and How the Mind Works, explores the idea of human nature and its moral, emotional, and political colorings. He shows how many intellectuals have denied the existence of human nature by embracing three linked dogmas: The Blank Slate (the mind has no innate traits), The Noble Savage (people are born good and corrupted by society), and The Ghost in the Machine (each of us has a soul that makes choices free from biology). Each dogma carries a moral burden, so their defenders have engaged in the desperate tactics to discredit the scientists who are now challenging them.

Pinker tries to inject calm and rationality into these debates by showing that equality, progress, responsibility, and purpose have nothing to fear from discoveries about rich human nature. He disarms even the most menacing threats with clear thinking, common sense, and pertinent facts from science and history. Despite its popularity among intellectuals during much of the twentieth century, he argues, the doctrine of the Blank Slate may have done more harm than good. It denies our common humanity and our individual preferences, replaces hardheaded analyses of social problems with feel-good slogans, and distorts our understanding of government, violence, parenting, and the arts.




 

 

Hope this helps.

 

EDIT: PDF Article by Pinker in General Psychologist, Vol. 41, No.1, Spring 2006

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A couple of references to the Blank Slate ideology:

 

 

''It is on a blank page that the most beautiful poems are written.''

 

 

These are a couple of examples of how wrong left-wing ideologies coupled with the ideology that 'the society is greater than the individual' can help murder millions. Right wing stuff can be just as damaging.

 

Give Pinker a shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Given that it is upon precisely that idea that the United States is founded, is it surprising that a US citizen would hold it as a premise?

 

 

It shouldn't matter one way or the other - a priori reasoning is still poor.

 

 

He's claiming only that he knows what's best for himself. He makes no claim regarding others.

 

 

Actually he did - he made a claim regarding his family. This family are not his preoprty.

 

 

Ah, very clear...It's okay when you hate someone, because you have an "actual good, defined reason". ("good", of course, being a subjective term that you are leaving undefined)


But when others do it, and you don't like their reason (and have decided it is thus "not very good"), then it's not okay to hate...



I forget, precisely whom were you decrying as relativistic?

 

 

What you did there is bull{censored} relativism.

 

Is it acceptable to disrespect rapists, extortionists, corrupt politicans?

 

I want to hear your reply to this, since it sounds like you're getting very smug. The difference is that bigotry isn't based on actions or ethics. There will always be archetypes that people disrespect - why is it so wrong that the people I disrespect, based on their actions towards others, and how they regard others, is different to the list that society as a whole may do?

 

I don't think you're intelligent enough to understand the idea that all ethics aren't blankets you can throw over every situations. They apply in some situations, and not in others. It makes sense to view a rapist as a shady character, but it would be poor form to do the same to a person who merely dresses differently.

 

Otherwise the distinction would have no meaning.

 

 

These are a couple of examples of how wrong left-wing ideologies coupled with centralized society management can help murder millions. Right wing stuff can be just as damaging.

 

 

I don't believe these ideologies have much to do with left or right ideologies, I can imagine both upholding them. Not everything is left vs. right, some issues are dotted along more evenly.

 

If anything, the opposition to the idea of a blank slate isn't far off from what I'm saying - people are simply not "equal", they all have their own strengths and weaknesses and to treat them as equal, you need to take this into account. This includes protecting minorities that are targetted more than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is definitely interesting stuff, though I don't agree with all of it.

 

The "Noble Savage" is exactly what I'm trying to argue against here - people simply have tendancies towards certain behaviours and personal responsibility isn't going to cut it, to keep society stable. I'm not sure how he resolves this, but I'll keep reading.

 

The main thing I disagree with is that there isn't a "Ghost in the Machine", obviously something more people on the Right would agree with, but not exactly in an intellectual way but a religious way, so it doesn't really count.

 

Neuroscientists always stick to thoughts, emotions, things we've known happen in the brain for hundreds of years. But what is the final receptor of all of this? Even if you can cut away parts of someone's brain, it's still the same train of thought, the same point of view viewing it. Two apparent consciousnesses by dividing the brain isn't the same as two actual consciousnesses, though who knows maybe it is. I think consciousnesses is an indivisible(after all it's always the same singular one point of view), inherent property of the universe, rather than anything mystical, that attaches itself to a sufficiently complex system. Maybe the idea of "thought" and "emotion" is actually a lot simpler and our brains mostly rationalise those ideas in terms of the physical world around us, so when a bit goes a bit daft, we'll no longer be able to do that, even if it's in inate property of a conscious entity. When we sleep, I think it's more our perception of time that changes - after all, our dreams don't happen at the same speed as real life.

 

That's not to say I know better than the Neuroscientist at Neuroscience and how my brain works, of course I don't. But there's something in there that's not quite in their field to begin with, as it stands.

 

Now that I think of it, I think I have heard of Pinker before. I remember reading an article that was partially a rebuttal, can matter be explained in terms of consciousness. Wish I still had that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...