A lie often repeated will soon start to be believed. Said Hitler. Seems like you are keen on applying his tactic — Agustino
↪Landru Guide Us It's so easy to be a leftist - all you have to do is scream XYZ meme to everything your opponents say. Because that is how intellectual discussions have to be carried out when you don't have any real argument — Agustino
There is room for conservative ideology to justify interference and harm on the grounds that the group being interfered with and harmed is not included in the group to which the rights apply (note: this is not exclusive to conservatism) — Soylent
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.htmlHitler wasn't much of a socialist.
True, early on he took over a little German political group which maybe had some socialist-type intentions, but that was more opportunist than anything else. The neglect of socialist programming became a small issue in the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP), AKA, the Nazi Party. — Bitter Crank
This presupposes that there is a way not to harm anyone while resolving this problem. I argue that the majority of the people in that community feel harmed by homosexual practices because this goes against their cultural values. Therefore, such practices are outlawed. However, out of compassion for homosexuals, the only remedy is for a society which appreciates them, and can truly provide a satisfactory environment for such individuals to flourish to take them from the society which is incapable, due to other commitments, to do this for them.While this seems like a sensible response, it ignores a potential (and potent) harm of social and psychological displacement. It shouldn't be expected that a person is asked to leave friends and family in exchange for security. The two needs (social and safety) are basic needs, and a society that fails to meet the basic needs of individuals in that society loses legitimacy (from within). — Soylent
Again - this doesn't follow. I may have the ability to express myself freely right now, and therefore make use of it - but it doesn't follow that I necessarily must believe that I SHOULD have such an ability to begin with. In my previous post I was just saying that I agree with you - I value the ability to express myself, and I think others should have access to it - but I'm not in a position to impose this upon other communities, who decide on different values.is that the ability to freely express one's opinion either way would itself be made impossible in certain cultures/countries. Therefore, by merely expressing your opinion, you have rejected said cultures and so cannot be inclusive to all of them. Some of them must be destroyed in order for you and others like you to live. — Thorongil
This needs to be argued.Yes, but I'm not beholden to everything Socrates allegedly said. His cosmopolitanism is worth keeping, whereas his other positions can be argued over on their own terms. — Thorongil
I think free societies have an obligation to protect their citizens, and so to the extent that oppressive societies seek to increase their strength in order to subjugate them, etc. they have a right to take action to stop this from happening. So yes - by and large, I agree with you here.Yes, morally bankrupt societies usually don't survive long, but they often attempt to bring down everyone and everything with them when they implode. Free societies have an obligation to prevent atrocities and protect the people living under barbaric regimes. — Thorongil
What do you mean are historically speaking left? Could you provide some examples please? Thanks!I know in today's completely warped political discourse, those who would be in favor of greater military action are alleged to be on the right, but in fact, and historically speaking, this would be a leftist position. — Thorongil
Justify both statements please.There are only memes here; and the memes of the left are by far the more palatable. — John
Agreed."By their fruits you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?" Matthew 7:16 — John
Yes, because unlike you, many of the other Leftists here are willing to be rational and discuss this issue openly. You just want to impose your views. I'm going to stop addressing your posts until you bring in some real content. Thanks for whatever participation you could offer to the thread so far Landru. But I don't think it helps either of us to continue our discussion - you obviously have an extremist view thinking that the right is always evil and wrong, and, while I respect you and your view, I would kindly ask you not to impose this on me.I'm not aware of any "leftist" who does this but me, regrettably. — Landru Guide Us
This has been a long thread, so perhaps I have missed it, but how exactly are you defining who is a "leftist" and "rightist?" — Thorongil
Me too. Which is why this is the first (and probably the only) political thread that I'll engage in, in both PF and TPF.I loathe these discussions, as I said before, precisely because I find these categories woefully inadequate and rarely defined by the people who use them. — Thorongil
Ok.Nevertheless, I would probably categorize myself, in the very broadest sense, as a classical liberal in the vein of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Jefferson. — Thorongil
I disagree that Proudhon's ideas of socialism are practical. The vast majority of mankind can never ever achieve the moral perfection necessary to thrive under such freedom. Therefore, there must be rulers - preferably as Plato said - philosopher Kings. Sure - they will prevent them from ever reaching moral perfection - but then, the masses could never do it to begin with. At least this way, those who can achieve moral perfection, and who wish to strive for it, can do so, and are respected for so doing.Though I diverge economically from classical liberalism towards some form of socialism or mutualism (like Proudhon's idea) — Thorongil
I would call you right-wing. The only reason why I have some reservations is because of Proudhon and the fact you seem to, at least to me, think that the masses can achieve the wisdom of sages - otherwise there would be little debate about it.So based on all this, would you consider me a leftist? If so, why, and if not, why not? — Thorongil
Yes, because unlike you, many of the other Leftists here are willing to be rational and discuss this issue openly. You just want to impose your views. I'm going to stop addressing your posts until you bring in some real content. Thanks for whatever participation you could offer to the thread so far Landru. But I don't think it helps either of us to continue our discussion - you obviously have an extremist view thinking that the right is always evil and wrong, and, while I respect you and your view, I would kindly ask you not to impose this on me. — Agustino
Hitler's policies implied a lot of governmental control over the economy - at least in terms of economics, he was clearly not laissez faire. — Agustino
Justify both statements please. — Agustino
Political allegiances are like tastes for certain kinds of food, or aesthetic taste in general. When you 'argue' with a leftist you each valorize your own tastes. All philosophical positions of any kind are based on starting assumptions which are themselves not rationally justified; they are accepted as axioms. When it comes to what is accepted as axiomatic by political disputants, what is 'self evident' to each one is arrived at by 'what feels right' to them, in other words it is biased by their conditioned preferences; into which many complex influences feed. A persons taste in food, clothes, even art, is not much of a moral matter; we might find certain things others like in these areas distasteful, even disgusting, but when it comes to politics, including sexual politics, it is much more closely aligned with the ethics of human life in general. There are no serious discussions going on in this arena, just the usual mud and meme-flinging.
I don't have to justify my preference for left wing values; I simply have an emotional preference and consequent feelings of support for dispositions of compassionate concern and love of freedom as opposed to dispositions of malicious or indifferent exploitation and domination. For me it comes down to aestheticization of ethics, as it did for Nietzsche. — John
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html
Hitler's policies implied a lot of governmental control over the economy - at least in terms of economics, he was clearly not laissez faire. — Agustino
A process that is by its very nature oppressive and conflictual, as the working class is supposed to overthrow the capitalist class and impose its values on them - thus creating values which are universal, as Marx put it (that is in fact how Marx attributed universality to those values - a universality achieved by the fist). In the process, of course all family values will be overthrown - the family will be removed as a social structure - and we're all going to be forced to live in "free love", sharing our lovers with the whole rest of mankind, because we are now all equal. In the process we will all become like isolated islands, who sometimes touch, but never for long. Of course, I'm most certain that our nature will not interfere with us while we seek to achieve this - I mean how dare our instinct to exclusivity with our lovers interfere with our socialist dreams? And even if it does, it's easy - all those in whom such an instinct dares to manifest must certainly suffer from some type of mental illness, and thus they deserve our pity and "help". Afterall, our scientific studies, that we have done amongst our healthy-minded (which of course means socialist) circles, prove that such instincts and desires are most unnatural, and certainly an abnormality. People displaying them are simply the victims of capitalist oppression... After we "help" them, they will will surely realise the magnificence of the socialist dream. And on an economic level - how dare someone desire to have something his neighbour doesn't have? I mean isn't that the most selfish, and unnatural of desires, born out of capitalist oppression? On a cultural level - how dare someone want to play a game which has winners and losers? Surely such people deserve our pity and "help", then they will certainly see the glory of our socialist dreams. They will be dignified working and owning their own labour, and everyone will be satisfied with what they have - our games will have no winners and no losers, and now everyone will be entirely equal and will not be haunted by emotions of oppression.Socialism is a process: not an event, not a political party, not a person. What Marx was talking about was the self-liberation of the working class. Lots of amped up and impatient people want to skip over all sorts of necessary steps and jump-start the Revolution. The revolution of the working class can not begin until the working class is ready to do it en masse by and for themselves. — Bitter Crank
Yes, welcome to reality - this is what is required to achieve your socialist dream. You just do not have courage and do not want to be pragmatic about the issue. How else, if not through oppression, could the Marxist values ever become universal?Ghastly dictatorships, rule through violence, ruthless exploitation of human resources, genocidal drives (or, at the very least, ethnic cleansing) and so on all have many exemplars. Workers' self-liberation through revolution, not so much. — Bitter Crank
Stalin was worse than Hitler. At least Hitler had an agenda - Stalin just ordered a certain percentage of the population from X region to be killed and signed the papers himself. For no reason, except his own paranoia. The difference between Hitler and Stalin is the difference between evil and insanity. Insanity is worse. But yes - poor Marx - he had always failed to realise the opposition that our nature has towards socialism - but Stalin knew it. He did what was required in order to change our nature and achieve socialism. He should be the hero of all socialists as he dared do the only thing that was necessary to achieve the socialist dream. Long live comrade Stalin!!Stalin was despicable. If he wasn't quite as bad as Hitler; even if he was a lot better than Hitler, he was still appallingly cruel, vicious, paranoid, ruthless, and drenched in blood. Maybe Soviet methods needed to be ruthless, cutting as many corners as they were on Karl Marx's idea for workers self-liberation. Russia scarcely had a working class when the Soviets opened up for business, so a lot of ground had to be skipped over (meaning, lots of people had to be forced to cooperate or be shot) — Bitter Crank
And we had regimes which didn't. What do you mean to say, that the world is very diverse in its customs and what it deems acceptable or not? Sure it is! But just like one culture deems it unacceptable to use hallucinogenic drugs, another culture deems it unacceptable to engage in gay sex. What's wrong with that? Cultural norms - that's all.
No, all that needs to happen is that oppressed groups stop being oppressed, not that they gain advantages. That is like desiring that the poor replace the rich - nonsense.
Good - according to your theory your ethics cannot be enforced upon others since you yourself admit it's the product of your emotional preferences, and hence something unique to you and therefore not universal :) - hence my critique applies directly to you. — Agustino
You make a claim, that is it ethical for a society to kill gay people if a culture happens to enforce it, but then do everything to deny that's what you are actually saying, even as you proudly continue asserting it. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes - also by definition that is not an "advantage". If me and a fellow worker should both be earning 5$ because that's what our work is worth, and I trick management to pay me 7$ while paying him 3$, then the resolution of this is not in him gaining an advantage - since a priori his salary should have been 5$, which is what it will become. In this case, he gains justice, and I lose my unfair advantage.What I mean is that, when one group has power over another, the removal of oppression takes this away. The oppressed group gains something they did not have before. By definition, the oppressed gain an "advantage" compared to be they had when oppression ends. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I agree, that has been my whole argument as well.What I think you are failing to see is that an oppressor is one whose ethics are enforced upon others. — John
I disagree that this is the base assumption of right-wing politics, at least in the manner I think of it. If it were - then I'd agree with you. I think the base assumption of right-wing politics is to live and let live, whereas left-wing politics attempts to force everyone in a single pattern of acceptable values.For me this is the essence of the right wing base assumption; that might makes right, that you may exploit others to your heart's content if you remain within the law — John
I disagree that this is the base assumption of right-wing politics, at least in the manner I think of it. If it were - then I'd agree with you. I think the base assumption of right-wing politics is to live and let live, whereas left-wing politics attempts to force everyone in a single pattern of acceptable values. — Agustino
What exactly does "live and let live" mean to you? — John
Yes - but it's also culturally dependent to at least a large degree - even though so far in this thread I've argued it's completely culturally dependent for philosophical ease of argument. Some things may not be culturally dependent such as torturing members of a minority just for fun is wrong, regardless of whether it is accepted by a large majority. But a lot of issues, (such as headscarves being mandatory for women) is culturally dependent and should be allowed to be so.Also, do you not agree that there is necessarily a limited range "of acceptable values" (when it comes to any kind of human intercourse at least) if the aim is to live together in a civil-ized fashion? — John
I think the base assumption of right-wing politics is to live and let live, whereas left-wing politics attempts to force everyone in a single pattern of acceptable values. — Agustino
Again - this doesn't follow. I may have the ability to express myself freely right now, and therefore make use of it - but it doesn't follow that I necessarily must believe that I SHOULD have such an ability to begin with. — Agustino
In my previous post I was just saying that I agree with you - I value the ability to express myself, and I think others should have access to it - but I'm not in a position to impose this upon other communities, who decide on different values. — Agustino
This needs to be argued. — Agustino
What do you mean are historically speaking left? Could you provide some examples please? Thanks! — Agustino
I disagree that Proudhon's ideas of socialism are practical. The vast majority of mankind can never ever achieve the moral perfection necessary to thrive under such freedom. — Agustino
Therefore, there must be rulers - preferably as Plato said - philosopher Kings. Sure - they will prevent them from ever reaching moral perfection - but then, the masses could never do it to begin with. At least this way, those who can achieve moral perfection, and who wish to strive for it, can do so, and are respected for so doing. — Agustino
I would call you right-wing. The only reason why I have some reservations is because of Proudhon and the fact you seem to, at least to me, think that the masses can achieve the wisdom of sages - otherwise there would be little debate about it. — Agustino
You agree in practice, in other words, that you should be able to express yourself freely, if not in principle. — Thorongil
Because just like I have my freedom, others do too.Why not? — Thorongil
This is infantile. The masses will never be sufficiently enlightened, hence why they need rulers in the first place. I wonder - have you encountered real human stupidity? I come originally from Eastern Europe. I have encountered stupidity... some people, you explain to them something a hundread times - they don't care. I tried to explain to this old friend this relatively simple mathematics equation when I went back once: it was as if I talked to a wall. I had to give up. It is simply impossible. The village priest says something - that is the truth. They really don't give a fuck about anything else. They live in a state alike to that of the animals. The only way they can be controlled, and they can be stopped from slaughtering each other is through religion. It is an infantile dream of liberals that you'll ever convince those people that homosexuality is wrong - the only way to convince them will be to kill them. These people will live the way they have learned to live, regardless of what you do. You cannot even educate those people. They need to be governed by taking into account their intellectual level.Ergo, unlike Plato's vision, this requires a free and open society, one that still has rulers and a state to be sure, but one whose sovereignty lies with the people. — Thorongil
Don't waste your time. Those who wish to do so, don't need your help. And those who don't wish so, cannot be helped by you.However, I do say that they should have the ability to do so should they so choose. — Thorongil
How can you misinterpret this so badly I wonder... When I clearly said that having a law outlawing black skin would be IMMORAL because black people have no choice in their skin color, and cannot help but break the law.What you are saying is equivalent to insisting that black people hide their skin colour if they want to enjoy citizenship ( they can't help their skin colour but they should hide it if it is deemed offensive). — John
They have no control over their sexual orientation. I agree. But they have control over whether they engage in gay behavior or not. And not engaging in gay behavior doesn't mean they repress their sexuality. They have outlets through masturbation and fantasy, and ways to sublimate this desire through fighting for legalising homosexuality within the bounds of the law. You make it sound as if homosexual people are like animals who cannot control their impulses... Isn't that demeaning?People have no control over their sexual orientation, and to require people to repress their sexual feelings, not to express them, would be an act of unacceptable oppression, pure and simple, and as such completely unsupportable. I would like to know what your motivation is for making such idiotic claims. — John
How can you misinterpret this so badly I wonder... When I clearly said that having a law outlawing black skin would be IMMORAL because black people have no choice in their skin color, and cannot help but break the law. — Agustino
You are peddling nonsense... as if it were possible for a black person not to show any skin...I didn't say that outlawing having black skin, but rather outlawing showing it, would be equivalent to outlawing, not being gay, but expressing it. It is you that is interpreting poorly. — John
Yes there is good reason - that being against the law for starters.There is no good reason why homosexual (or any other kind of sexual except) people should "control ( read as 'repress' or 'redirect') their impulses" as long as those impulses are directed towards others who are of appropriate maturity to consent, and it is this lack of good reason that determines that any requirement that they do so would be oppressive, and should not be supported by any rational person. — John
And the enlightenment is the "correct view" that ALL of mankind will always have for the remaining of its history?The proper aim of enlightenment in my view is to be above the law, in the sense of no longer thinking that one's behavior be should be prescribed, or proscribed, by others, and also in the sense of no longer arrogating to oneself the right to prescribe what others should do. This is workable, though only for those in whom an appropriate feeling and respect for the rights of others is in place. — John
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.