Feel better? — NOS4A2

I’d feel better if individualists were more inclusive towards collectivists.

You’ve made a little caricature — NOS4A2

I’m pretty sure you’ve done that yourself.

The weirdest contortions. — NOS4A2

Indeed. Are you claiming that Trump is not a collectivist?

You'll find that when individuals have the freedom to pursue their own self interest, the vast majority of them will seek voluntary, mutually beneficial cooperation with other individuals. — Tzeentch

I think that may only be true in small groups and where there’s a culture conducive to cooperation. States are too large and abstract to feel a sufficient sense of responsibility for our fellow citizens, apparently.

I didn’t say I was unsure about the practice. I was unsure about the answer to your quibbling question. — NOS4A2

Which is about individualism in practice.

You gave the example of Mao and communists China. Can you offer a similar example for individualism or is what you’re talking about merely theoretical?

You are expressing every individual’s primacy. If you realize the primacy of the individual you afford him rights and defend those rights against infringement. I’m not sure everyone has to agree to that. — NOS4A2

You’re not sure about all this? You claimed it was true in theory AND practice, yet you don’t seem to be able to come up with a practice example, and now you’re unsure.

Any declaration of universal human rights. — NOS4A2

So, for example, if you declare a particular universal right you are expressing your primacy? Wouldn’t everyone need to agree with whatever right that you declare and also agree to your primacy?

Right, I’m curious how this works out in practice. Can you not give an example?

I suppose that I should have specified that my interest is in an example of the inclusive practice of individualisms affording primacy to each and every individual.

In this regard one could claim that collectivism is exclusive and individualism is inclusive. The former affords primacy to a faction while the latter affords it to each and every individual involved. This is true both in theory and in practice. — NOS4A2

If true, you should be able to give an example of this in practice.

with one you’ll be violating someone’s rights while with the other you won’t. — NOS4A2

Because the others have no rights or they have all rights?

Thanks, you're too kind.

This shoutbox doesn’t have even one pig pic. :sad:

I only read a small portion of the New Theology PDF but I will say that whoever developed it doesn't seem to have a solid grasp of religion in general or in some of the specifics, from what I read.

What struck me was the complete lack of transformational power their beliefs had for them. — Tom Storm

Beliefs and practices, in my experience.

I would be labelled agender by someone else — Andrew4Handel

No, you said it yourself. You clearly wrote: “I don't have a gender identity and apparently that is being called ’Agender.’”

I don't have a gender identity and apparently that is being called "Agender." — Andrew4Handel

You’re Agender but don’t identify as Agender??? :chin:

Are you suggesting that being trans is necessarily deceitful?

I would argue that it's coming from the same underlying root though. — tomatohorse

The intent to deceive?

That is a good point but I was talking about personal identities as opposed to imposed identities, social identities and stereotypes. — Andrew4Handel

The point is that we make many distinctions automatically. If a man looks like a man but behaves exactly like a woman then we tend to think of them as a man in appearance and a woman in gender.

The "identity is a two-way street" thing goes the other way, too. How you project yourself out into the world influences how others think of you. It isn't the only factor, but it's a strong one. This is why conmen and snakeoil salesmen exist. — tomatohorse

No, conmen exist because they are willing deceive and cheat others, taking advantage of the cooperative aspects of society for their own selfish gain.

a child designated 'stupid' or 'lazy' or 'ugly' or 'clumsy' — Vera Mont

Or identified a gender that doesn’t traditionally match their biology, making it quite clear that we can all make such distinctions, even from an early age.

You’re only taking one side of the social agreements into account. People identify others in particular ways and not always fairly. In fact it is often done deliberately in order to subjugate or take advantage of others.

There is increasing evidence that gender ideology is harmful and especially the surgeries are un ethical. — Andrew4Handel

Gender ideology can certainly be dogmatic and maladaptive, and therefor cause a lot of unnecessary suffering. The obvious solution is to be less dogmatic and more adaptive. Don’t be dogmatic about traditional gender roles or compositions, for example.

Men don't have the right to women's rights and protections. — Andrew4Handel

If you consider issues like abortion it seems that women have fewer rights and protections than men.

I don't have the right to somebody else's identity.

…

There is no reason for people to accept gender ideology and identities in the same way we shouldn't be forced to believe in a religion like Islam Or Christianity. — Andrew4Handel

You said it yourself. Lacking reasonable justification, the reason is that you don’t have the right to deny someone’s chosen identity, whether it be Muslim, Christian, Man, Woman, or whatever else. I can identify as a police officer at a Halloween party, for instance, and that’s perfectly fine, but it’s not fine if I do so for nefarious purposes.

Then you agree that transgender people should have equal rights. :up:

I still think that issues of gender are interesting to think about and worth discussing, and so I may give it another go in a bit, from a different angle, and with some better research / sources, if that's okay. — tomatohorse

Maybe if you study the topic sufficiently you’ll no longer feel compelled argue against trans-rights.

I'm stating that all forms of government, in order to be effective, do need the rule of law. — Vera Mont

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

Your point is lost on me. Nixon, for example, was impeached for abuse of power, obstruction of justice, etc. If a US president is above the law then how could Nixon have been impeached?

Are you suggesting that a democracy doesn’t require the rule of law?

Every form of government requires supporting institutions: the civil service, the judiciary, the enforcement agencies, the taxation branch, trade and commerce, municipal and road maintenance, shipping and marine traffic.... — Vera Mont

No. Kinship groups, for instance, don’t even require a military.

In any case, the topic is specifically about democracies. Democracy requires a lot of support in order to effectively function as a democracy.

There are limits under every kind of legal system. — Vera Mont

No. In a totalitarian society, the leaders can legally do pretty much anything.

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" Trump remarked at a campaign stop at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa. "It's, like, incredible."

I think he was right about that as far as his moronic base goes, but not for the majority of the country.

There is no actual "rule of law"; that's just a picturesque phrase; rule is done by rulers — Vera Mont

Democracy requires supporting institutions to function, such as 'the rule of law'. It's true that those with wealth and power enjoy a privileged position but there are still limits under the rule of law.

In the grand scheme of things, a conservative view is more about practicality.
— frank

"Jesus Guns Babies" are each rather impractical, truth be told.
— praxis

Is it? — frank

Well, when you put it that way, sure, those things are very practical for those that know how to use them effectively, but not for those that don't.

In the grand scheme of things, a conservative view is more about practicality. — frank

"Jesus Guns Babies" are each rather impractical, truth be told.

American liberals do fervently want to impose their view on others. — frank

And conservatives don’t?

That's in line with the importance they place on morality. — frank

Morality isn’t as important to conservatives?

Creativity is problem-solving.

Consider that even if there were a *grand scheme* life would still be pointless because all schemes, whether grand or pedestrian, are limited and transient. Without change there is no life.

It’s healthy to hold one’s philosophy to the grindstone of contrary ideas. — NOS4A2

Your philosophy is contraryism? :lol:

Is it useful to view human behavior this way? — Mikie

Of course, and I think we should all try our best to be aware of our implicit biases and subconscious conditioning.