DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Universe Prince on March 15, 2007, 03:36:04 AM
-
I've asked conservatives to talk about the nature of conservatism, so what about you liberal folks? The conservative position on things like pornography, gay marriage, drugs and online gambling is generally to prohibit or overbearingly restrict them. Liberals tend to be more permissive on these issues while wanting to ban or restrict firearms, smoking, dodgeball and the accumulation of wealth. Would you say that liberalism tries "to draw lines between the beneficial and the dysfunctional, between productive and destructive"? Would you say liberals generally "seek to differentiate between good and bad behavior," and "want all of society (not just government) to encourage the good and discourage the bad"? Those quotes are from a recent column by conservative Michael Medved about conservatism. What is the core of liberalism? How do you reconcile the general position of protecting personal liberty while supporting all sorts of laws and regulations that deliberately interfere with personal liberty? Is the goal of liberalism to protect society from itself?
What I said about my responses in the conservative thread holds here as well. Any answers are welcome. I am not out to attack anyone. I will not argue with your answers or criticize them in any way. Possibly I might ask for clarification of a statement, but I will not be sarcastic or antagonistic about it. I just want to see how people address this issue.
-
For starters, this moderate-liberal sees the aims of society, which includes the national government, the states and their subdivisions, to be the enabler of the maximum amount of happiness for every inhabitant (defined as realistic attempts to realize the ideal self), while affording the maximum amount of liberty to all in both traditional and anticipatory terms, consistent with all legitimate security and defense needs, with it all decided by a highly intelligent, values-oriented process featuring rationality, compassion and justice as its hallmarks.
-
I'm more of a libertarian when it comes to drug laws, with some exceptions. No smoking at restaurants.
I like fairly unregulated firearm laws.
Socialistic in health care---it should be universal single payer, paid for by taxes from everyone in the country.
-
Libs are generous and compassionate while cons are greedy and evil . It is as simple as that.
-
Ha! And they say Ratwingers see only in black and white...hehe...That's a good one!
-
<<Libs are generous and compassionate while cons are greedy and evil . It is as simple as that.>>
That's pretty good. Probably works at the upper socio-econmic levels. But some conservatives are very helpful and compassionate too. Especially in the working class and lower middle class. I think in their case they just don't know much about life outside of their own little community and therefore are unable to empathize.
-
That's pretty good. Probably works at the upper socio-econmic levels. But some conservatives are very helpful and compassionate too. Especially in the working class and lower middle class. I think in their case they just don't know much about life outside of their own little community and therefore are unable to empathize.
And then there are liberals who use stereotypes to classify people, instead of thinking of people as individuals.
-
<<And then there are liberals who use stereotypes to classify people, instead of thinking of people as individuals.>>
Damn liberals. Always stereotyping. Thank God conservatives don't.
-
Damn liberals. Always stereotyping. Thank God conservatives don't.
You got that right.
-
<<You got that right.>>
Shit. That was intended to be just dripping with irony.
-
<<You got that right.>>
Shit. That was intended to be just dripping with irony.
The only irony Ami knows is the one he doesnt do to his shirts.
-
The only irony Ami knows is the one he doesnt do to his shirts.
That's what women like you are for.
-
I'll answer to try and get this back on track. Whether I'm a liberal or not is for others to decide I guess.
The conservative position on things like pornography, gay marriage, drugs and online gambling is generally to prohibit or overbearingly restrict them. Liberals tend to be more permissive on these issues while wanting to ban or restrict firearms, smoking, dodgeball and the accumulation of wealth.
Well, don't get me started on dodgeball!
I'm not sure what "permissive" means exactly in this context. I'd say that pornography and online gambling should have some restrictions for sure. In both cases we do need to be concerned, as a society, about children having access to either one and the potential damage that can come from that. Also, there are addiction issues associated with each.
On your second set of issues I'd argue that smoking is a health hazard to second hand smokers (I lived with two smokers for eighteen years and smoked for a while myself). I do support firearm testing as they do in Europe. So your question is why?
I'm not going to get into economics in this response.
From my point of view, we have to act as a responsible society and place the good of the overall society above the good of the individual. In that sense, I disagree strongly with the Thatcherite sentiment that "there is no such thing as society, but a collection of individuals..." That does not mean that society gets to run roughshod over anyone, as human dignity and human life must always be preserved. That is why I cannot support abortion, capital punishment, euthenasia, unjust war, racism, and other such violations of life or dignity.
-
I'll answer to try and get this back on track. Whether I'm a liberal or not is for others to decide I guess.
The conservative position on things like pornography, gay marriage, drugs and online gambling is generally to prohibit or overbearingly restrict them. Liberals tend to be more permissive on these issues while wanting to ban or restrict firearms, smoking, dodgeball and the accumulation of wealth.
Well, don't get me started on dodgeball!
I'm not sure what "permissive" means exactly in this context. I'd say that pornography and online gambling should have some restrictions for sure. In both cases we do need to be concerned, as a society, about children having access to either one and the potential damage that can come from that. Also, there are addiction issues associated with each.
On your second set of issues I'd argue that smoking is a health hazard to second hand smokers (I lived with two smokers for eighteen years and smoked for a while myself). I do support firearm testing as they do in Europe. So your question is why?
I'm not going to get into economics in this response.
From my point of view, we have to act as a responsible society and place the good of the overall society above the good of the individual. In that sense, I disagree strongly with the Thatcherite sentiment that "there is no such thing as society, but a collection of individuals..." That does not mean that society gets to run roughshod over anyone, as human dignity and human life must always be preserved. That is why I cannot support abortion, capital punishment, euthenasia, unjust war, racism, and other such violations of life or dignity.
In all sincerity, I may have misjudged you on some positions, JS. This posting points to errors in my own thinking and I most sincerely apologize if any of my responses to you in the past were inaccurate. I apparently have misjudged your positions. I will endeavor to not do so again. Nietzsche is not correct: God is NOT dead: we ARE in agreement!
-
Nitzche is not correct: God is NOT dead: we ARE in agreement!
Very odd that you brought this up. I was discussing this very thing (Nietzsche's comment, which appears in two of his works) with someone else just the other day...
I certainly agree that Nietzsche was incorrect. On the other hand, I think his madman (who makes the initial comment) was prophetic as far as a great deal of the world is concerned :(
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
—Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125
-
Nietzsche provides pregnant, and consequential, thought when he intones, whether actually or metaphorically, that "God is dead, and we killed him." Ignorant of the particular context in which Nietzsche spoke and its direct intellectual antecedents, I note that according to Christian belief, mankind did kill God (Jesus) and, reversing the intended redemptive value of Christ's death into an indictment of his tormentors (us) -- a failure of mankind to be worthy of, to benefit from, the redemptive grace offered us -- the result is that God is dead.
-
Interesting look at it Domer.
Nietzsche's point is often prone to misconception. He uses the phrase three times. Twice in Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft and once in Also Sprach Zarathustra. The phrase in German is "Gott ist tot."
Nietzsche is not the easiest philosopher to understand because he really isn't a philosopher at all. He lacks the structure and theory that someone like Kant or Plato use. He's almost a literary figure with philosophical thoughts, similar to the existentialists. He's a bit like Ayn Rand, only more human ;) . But, I certainly wouldn't consider him as a philosopher of the stature of say Immanuel Kant or Thomas Aquinas.
Having said that, his theme here is more metaphorical. It isn't so much that humanity literally killed God, but that humanity killed the notion that there is an source outside of humanity that provides moral law. More than that, man has killed his very purpose. But the madman has come too soon, and no one understands him. Nietzsche describes him as going to churches and singing requiems and the churches are simply tombs for God.
So the big question (for Nietzsche) is not if God is dead and who committed this heinous act - we know those answers. The question is - what now?
This is where a lot of Nietzsche gets attacked and taken strangely. Part of this has to do with people placing their own political and religious ideologies on his writings and part of it that Nietzsche, as I said, is not really a philosopher and his writing leads to odd interpretation anyway.
A lot has to do with the word "Ãœbermensch" which translated literally means "overhuman." It can mean superhuman, trans-man, superman, and has been translated to homo superior (i.e. as a new species). Personally, I don't see the sense in getting all worked up about it. It was simply Nietzsche's term for the people that overcome the stage of nihilism that comes after the realisation that "we murdered God" and "we have no purpose" finally hits humanity like a load of bricks.
One question is what was Nietzsche advocating?
For some it was a world ruled by rational people of science and reason.
For others it was a world of fascism, but that's mostly due to Nazi interpretation of his work.
Mostly what Nietzsche advocated was humanity. He advocated individualism and with that the power and abilities of an unschackled humanity to overcome anything. After all, if you can kill God, what can't you do?
-
Very well done, JS. It could very well be that what Nietzsche intended was in the realm of his preconscious and not effectively formulated into an entirely coherent articulation. The various uses to which his thought have been put seem to be a function of his confusion creating a projective screen onto which others cast their own fears and aspirations. But the idea of the death of God, taken in its abstract form and decoupled from Nietzsche's peculiarities, is not only provocative, but apt. While your account of Nietzsche's thought, above, clearly implies the prescient quality of his thought -- indeed, God was put on trial at Auschwitz, the epitome perhaps in world history of the absence or death of God -- it also may be taken to state a relationship among God, us and the world. Indeed, if we can kill God or he can vacate entirely and absolutely (recall Auschwitz), then, perhaps, we could create him in the first place. Thus framed, the superman may simply be a Prometheum figure, one who dares to directly approach (to create, to destroy) the deity.
-
Libs are generous and compassionate while cons are greedy and evil . It is as simple as that.
Are Liberals self congradulatory , or sarcastic?