• The American Gun Control Debate
    How so? I fail to see how giving same-sex couples the same legal protections as different-sex couples and referring to same-sex unions using the word "marriage" has any effect on freedom of religion. — Michael
    Legal protection is not at issue.

    If the issue is with being forced to officiate same-sex marriages, would it bother you if such unions weren't called "marriage" but were instead called "civil partnership"? — Michael
    No.

    If so then the opposition has nothing to do with what is or isn't the definition of "marriage" and everything to do with same-sex unions, which makes the earlier remark on the "correct" definition of "marriage" a red herring. — Michael
    If you define that as marriage - which is the same word used to designate the religious institution - there's a problem. Sooner or later religious institutions will be forced to adopt the secular definition of marriage, which infringes upon freedom of religion. Ideas have consequences.

    So this has nothing to do with the traditional definition of marriage being "a union of a man and a woman" and everything to do with opposing homosexuality? — Michael
    No, that point was unrelated. It explained why the religious institutions have a moral prohibition against homosexuality. Has nothing to do with the law and with secular partnerships.

    Unless the real real reason for the opposition is being opposed to granting same-sex couples the same legal protections that marriage offers different-sex couples? Then this has nothing to do with freedom of religion at all, and everything to do with thinking that the law should discriminate based on sexuality. — Michael
    No, homosexual people should have the same legal protections as other people are granted.

    I have no idea what this means. — Michael
    I can see that.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    The religious prohibition against homosexuality is in truth the prohibition of rivalry because homosexuality is itself a fascination with the rival.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    It is strange to me that people have such strong convictions over a (supposed) misuse of a word. — Michael
    Becuase the misuse of the word can have repercussions on their own freedom of religion, obviously. Ideas matter.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    Then I guess the whole debate against same-sex marriage is pretty pointless, as from what I understand, religious institutions aren't required to officiate same-sex marriage ceremonies (at least not in the UK or the US). — Michael
    Some ministers/priests were obliged in the US.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    Would it be a problem if same-sex couples are allowed to be issued so-called-but-not-really-marriage licenses but that religious institutions are not required to officiate such unions? — Michael
    No, people are free to associate as they wish, and live together with whoever they wish.

    What does it mean to recognise a couple as married? — Michael
    Recognising a couple as married (from the point of view of religious institutions) means according them the status of married in a religious sense - meaning holding religious ceremonies to recognise their marriage.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    Are they obliged to say "you two are married"? — Michael
    Yes, they are obliged (or can be obliged) to officiate marriage ceremonies or recognise the couple as married.
  • Reconciliation and Forgiveness
    You seem to be saying that novelty grows out of imitation in varies way or whatever, which is saying that it isn't all imitation. I'm not disagreeing with that. — Wosret
    Hmm okay.
  • Reconciliation and Forgiveness
    As power goes up, so does responsibility. — Wosret
    Exactly! But this is precisely to say that the leader is actually on the path to becoming the sacrificial victim. Because the sacrificial victim is also held responsible for both the crisis that divides the community and the aftermath of healing and regeneration (and hence it is seen as powerful). The victim is held responsible for the internal conflicts that arise out of imitation, and, paradoxically, for their resolution, because the community becomes polarised around the victim and responsibility for their own violence is transferred to the victim. When this happens the community unites once again - this time against the victim. This return of unity is, after the victim is killed, attributed once again to the victim, who is seen as a god.

    Because to do something new, is to no longer be imitating something in existence. — Wosret
    I can see how what you say would be applicable if it was an imitation of actions, which were copied identically. But if this is seen as an imitation of desires, then I can see how new actions can emerge out of the intensification of desire for the same object on both sides.
  • Reconciliation and Forgiveness
    I never said that. I said that they aren't opposed. — Wosret
    True, but you did say it isn't all imitation - that it can't be all imitation. So my question was why do you think it can't be all imitation?

    If desire is imitated then desire has a mechanism of spiralling out of control. The more the rival desires the object, the more you desire the object, and hence the more the rival desires it and so on. This leads to both you and the rival becoming fascinated with each other (because it is your desires which make the object valuable and desirable in the first place), and hence a decoupling of desire from the object to the rival, which, in sexual matters, for example, can lead to homosexuality, a form of novelty. That's why I think imitation by itself can lead to novelty as it spirals and grows. Just like in nuclear physics, there is a critical mass beyond which a new phenomenon can emerge.
  • Reconciliation and Forgiveness
    Well, I didn't mean to imply that I thought that imitation was opposed to originality, or novelty. I don't think that it is wise, or likely that you'll both reinvent the wheel, and do it better than ever from scratch or anything. I think that you have to move through influences, and surpass them for sure, but my point was only that it isn't all imitation, and can't be, but not that it totally isn't involved or anything. — Wosret
    Why do you think originality cannot emerge from imitation? Imitation involves a triangular relationship of self, model/rival and object. What is imitated is the desire of the model/rival for the object. But as this double bind between the model as something to be imitated and the model as rival - someone to be eliminated - is tightened, the emerging actions of both parties can lead to novelty.

    For example, the first murder of Cain killing Abel was something new, a novelty - which actually provided the foundation for the Cainite community.
  • Reconciliation and Forgiveness
    ↪Wosret
    And with regards to leadership, the phenomenon of leadership would be the sacralization of the victim (or scapegoat) by the crowd. It would be a prolonged part in the sacrificial ritual itself.

    There are many ancient rites where before the victim was sacrificed, it was treated like a god and allowed to do whatever it pleased - it was given supreme power over the community. So phenomena of leadership are the same - the victim around whom the community is polarized is sacralized in what is effectively nothing but a longer ritual. Many leaders were in fact killed by their own people in the end.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    Whatever the current legal status of their relationship, it isn't marriage, and so those who oppose it have nothing to worry about (and nothing to ban). — Michael
    Sure, but many of them are simply concerned about marriage being the words that are used, and the fact that religious groups are forced to recognise these unions. Apart from that, no issue.

    We're free to speak gobbledygook. — Michael
    Sure, but the issue is that this gobbledygook can impinge on the freedom of religious organisations since they will be expected to recognise these new gobbledygook forms of marriage.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    ↪Baden
    Hmm... Bacillus Sexomaniacus ;)
  • Reconciliation and Forgiveness
    Consider that if everyone is imitating everyone else, then it is a closed and finite system where the only introduction of novelty could be a form of error. The fact that "being yourself", "creativity", "originality" and things are held in such high esteem suggests that this isn't true. Imitation is only for followers, but at least the potential for genuine leadership must exist. — Wosret
    This is an interesting point. But I can see how novelty can emerge out of progressive imitation.

    It is true that "being yourself" and such are praised, but as TimeLine said awhile ago, it is these very people who imitate the most who think they are the most original. So even the desire for novelty and creativity is imitated, which is precisely why these people all think they're original, while they are in truth exactly like everyone else. At this point in our development, the desire for novelty exists, so it will be easily imitated.

    As for how novelty can first emerge, this would happen when imitation reaches some critical stage since people don't just follow one another, they want to be better than one another. So at some point, as imitation spirals upward and rivalry intensifies, something new is stumbled upon.

    Given that you like JBP, you may like René Girard too if you read him. Violence and the Sacred or Things Hidden Since The Foundation of The World are good beginning places.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    Obviously some will never be pleased until they get personal nukes, and others won't be until we all can't leave the house without helmets, and permanently attached over mitts — Wosret
    >:O . It's an interesting paradox. Some think it's safer if everyone has weapons, and others that it's safer if no one has weapons.

    Now this comment reminded me that you said something interesting to me about imitation in a comment yesterday that I meant to reply to and forgot, but I need to find it first.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    Yes, and some don't. — Michael
    Ok, so then you can understand that it's not such a big leap when actors on the left publicly state that this is their intention. At least you understand how Thorongil can come to make the leap.
  • Is 'information' physical?
    Thinking about Bergson led me to the enlightening idea that things are bifurcated along two lines:

    space - time
    physical - mental
    extension - thought

    So the essence of the dichotomy between the two is found in space and time.

    So could space and time be two attributes of one substance?
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    Isn't it illegal in the UK to buy a knife of any kind if you're under 18? — Wosret
    Yes, when I was an immigrant there, I remember having trouble buying a knife.
  • Is 'information' physical?
    ↪Wayfarer
    I propose we define physical as whatever has a position in space. Information always has a location in space if you look at it in Aristotelian and not Platonic fashion. So in-so-far as this is true, information is physical - this is because information does not exist independently of the physical structures that transmit it - hylomorphism.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    ↪Baden
    Yes, but I am also bacillus paranoias. So will you judge me with your microscope? :D
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    Are those who argue that the first amendment doesn't protect the right of any adult to marry planning to ban marriage in its entirety? Or do they just wish to allow for bans on certain types of marriage (e.g. same-sex marriage)? — Michael
    Well two things. First of all, they state that their intention is to ban same-sex marriage but not the other kind of marriage. In this other case, some of the leftists openly state that the intention is to ban all guns, but that should be approached by gradual change. So the situations are not similar.

    Second of all, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman so there isn't even a problem.

    Wanting to repeal the second amendment so that greater restrictions on gun control can be put in place doesn't entail wanting to ban all guns. — Michael
    No, you're right, it doesn't entail it. But do some people on the left want to ban all guns, and intend to do this via the route of gradual change?
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    The leap is from "repeal of second amendment" to "ban on all guns". — Michael
    So if members of the left assert - like you yourself - that for strategical reason things must be started with small gradual changes, how is that a leap?
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    ↪Thorongil
    If you really feel you are being picked on, you can raise it in Feedback. — Baden
    Yes, why not raise it in feedback, so that a verdict can be given by a group of leftist mods on their own behaviour. Sounds like a good idea. >:O
  • Boris Groys on Kojeve
    I share your concerns about that side of Kojeve. — t0m
    This is a good essay on Hegel (and Kojeve).

    I don't feel particularly sentimental about the word democracy — t0m
    Well yeah, everyone around here knows I'm not the biggest fan of democracy either :P

    We might say that civilization the manifestation of this collision in terms of sophistry or rhetoric with a minimum of violence. — t0m
    You might like to look into René Girard about that.
  • Currently Reading
    Buy it? It's in stock, mein Freund. — Thorongil
    Too expensive for one book, especially since I'm only interested in one specific part of it.
  • Currently Reading
    Anyone know how to get access to On Tyranny? Please PM me.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    Let's read this together to find out about the roots of the left.

    https://www.scribd.com/document/267470669/Voegelin-Eric-on-Hegel-a-Study-in-Sorcery-1
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    See, the problem with lying as a strategy is that sooner or later nobody believes you anymore. That's the corner the left has got itself into.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    Oh Thoron I don't think you're evil, I think you're fascinating. — StreetlightX
    The fascination with the rival of the same sex may show some latent homosexuality Freud would tell us.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    I take it all back. You're a genius. :D — Baden
    X-)
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    take sincere disagreement by the other side to be a sign of callousness, insanity, or moral inferiority. — Thorongil
    Sounds similar to all discussions about abortion with some leftists >:O

    The thing with many leftists is that they really don't care about what the other thinks, they just care about doing anything to get their policies implemented.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    And what do the Cardassians think of all this? — Baden
    I have no clue. Shall we write them a letter of invitation to a discussion on the forums? May get us some publicity ;)
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    What should be highlighted in here is the authoritarian view taken by the left. Namely that they don't really care in the end - that's how they've always tricked the right. Gradual change, gradual change - and then it's too late because the radical change has already happened. Some admit to the radical change openly, like Michael.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    We were discussing a specific comment by a specific person and what it meant. — Baden
    No you weren't:
    Pelosi just said that she "hopes" currently proposed regulations are a "slippery slope." So I think proponents of the second amendment have a genuine concern about the intentions of those who push for greater regulations. — Thorongil
    You were disucssing a situation of which Pelosi is just one example. "Those who push for greater regulations" and their intentions are under question. That's not just Pelosi.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    ↪StreetlightX
    Obviously that would be another way to funnel money out of the state and raise taxes X-)
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    Do excuse my assumption your comment was relevant to the point at issue (i.e. Pelosi and her "slippery slope"). — Baden
    It was relevant, but that isn't to say that Pelosi was addressed as a left-wing agitator. My comment was at a more general level to explain why people on the right are reluctant to agree with those on the left with regards to guns.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    Yes, all those crazies, look at them, trying to do something - anything - about the extraordinary disproportion of gun related deaths in the US. Madness incarnate. — StreetlightX
    If they only wanted to implement a minimal change and restrict access to automatic machine guns, assault rifles, and the like I'd have little to no problem. The issue is that they CLAIM to want only that, while in truth they want to use that as a stepping stone for future changes of law. I may be wrong, but I remember Michael openly expressing approval for such a strategy in a similar context awhile ago.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    Speaking of humour: Pelosi as left-wing agitator - the woman who can't even bring herself to say the words "Universal Healthcare". Please, I'm choking on your rotting brains. — Baden
    Sure, except I never mentioned anything about Pelosi :-d - nor did I claim she is a left-wing agitator. But there are many such people in the US.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    Ah, wait till you hear about the body snatchers. Maybe we're the last real humans Agu! — StreetlightX
    Given my interest in strategy you shouldn't discount the fact that I've read Alinsky's manual, and have actually paid close attention to how the left goes about trying to implement its policies. This isn't about the gun debate now (I probably side closer to you than to Thorongil on that one), but a discussion of principle. I can understand why people on the right in US are so protective of pro-gun legislation - because there are some actual crazies on the left who really want to take all guns away.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    I suppose it's the same person who said that we ought to be "banning all guns or passing regulations that make it nearly impossible to own one". The point being that I can play this stupid game of hypotheticals and intention projection too. An entirely irrelevant, idiotic game. — StreetlightX
    Except it's not a stupid game, because the left sometimes openly claims to want to do just that. That's why the right has to be careful. What did Saul Alinsky say in Rules For Radicals? Introduce change gradually - by the time they realise it will be too late to go back. Look what the left claims with regards to abortion now - too late to go back.

    And Alinsky's not the only one - left-wing agitators continuously use this double speech, and frequently openly claim that they want to use gradual changes in order to implement more radical ones.
Home » Agustino