Without wishing to bang on about it - that happens a LOT on the internet. I think it's less about tone of voice and more about people being so offended by inequality that they are over aggressive in their pursuit of equality. They attack the argument before fully understanding it or allowing it to be fully expressed.

It's a really tight line to walk and I know this because I have in the past offended respectful, honest people in my crusade which was against abuse of power and authority. I hated being mistreated by people in authority so much that I became prejudiced against people in authority. The reason I behaved like that is because of how I was treated by authority figures in my formative years and the defence mechanisms I developed because of it. And in the same way, some women who are very poorly treated by men may develop barriers, prejudices and coping mechanisms in response.

(... and that's why I make a dozen edits to my posts. Sometimes I get carried away and detract entirely from what I was trying to achieve.)

I'm not saying that's the underlying cause of the misunderstanding here, but the point I'm trying to make is that there may be good reasons why someone just said something you thought was sexist. Problems arise, I think, when we deal in absolutes; this person is definitely chauvinist because he's ignorant and rude, this person is definitely a man-hater because she is ignorant and rude - both may be unfair to the other.

No, it's just a very poorly implemented idea in today's culture. Cultural appropriation is real, but it's not just a question of copying someone else's style. There's obviously a problem when, for example, enormously talented black musicians develop new music styles and cultural expressions which are dismissed and marginalized until a white person takes after their styles and makes it acceptable to like them. If white people are given all the credit for jazz or soul or rock or blues or rap, it diminishes the rightful cultural accomplishments of some amazing musical pioneers. That's cultural appropriation because the powerful are unfairly appropriating all the benefits of the less powerful, original creators. If some 15-year old white girl wants to call herself a ratched ho and wear dreads, on the other hand, that's not appropriation, it's admiration. The problem arises when well-intentioned people forget to consider the power dynamic, and instead just translate 'cultural appropriation' into a series of racially permitted dress codes. Which is what the bully in the video was doing.

@Imagoamin

i can agree with your basic premise:free speech can have consequences in the form of MORE speech.

you are totally free to espouse the most ridiculous,self-centered narcissistic cry-baby drivel you like,and i am totally free to ridicule you as the cry-baby bed-wetter you are behaving like.

the problems arise when that interaction is then seen as "harassment" and a defamation of the constantly oppressed group of bed-wetters.how dare i slander such a tender group! havent they suffered enough?

nobody is saying that one group is excused from free speech or from criticism,and most people would agree that if you yell FIRE in a room and cause a panic when there was no fire,there should be consequences for your actions.

what people ARE saying is that making certain words unacceptable,therefore changing the very language we use to express,convey and deliver complex thoughts,feelings and imaginings is counter-productive.made further so when an abstract art form such as comedy is so easily taken out of context to further an agenda.

remember #cancelcolbert?

the comedy and satire was totally lost on that over-privileged nitwit suey park.she instead focused on a single element of his monologue and chose to be offended,without even considering the larger implications of the humor in colberts bit.

does she have a right to be offended?of course.
does she have a right to be outraged and start a twitter campaign to shut down colberts show?yep..she sure does.

and we have the right to absolutely take her inane,and un-self-aware false campaign for justice to task,and ridicule her relentlessly.

because bad ideas,poor understandings and judgements dressed up as social justice SHOULD be ridiculed for the stupidity they represent.

as for your assertion that comedians are thin skinned,or need to grow a thicker skin,i think you have no idea what you are fucking talking about.you ever spoke in public? in front of crowd?

believe me...you grow thick skin,and fast,until it becomes titanium.

i see no further reason to beat that particular horse but just look up chris rock,seinfeld,louis ck ,bill burr,joe rogan.they all lay out quite clearly why universities are a dead zone for comedy.

because the extreme end of social justice warriors are humorless cunts.

I've followed long rabbit warrens before on this, so let's start with definitions:
I am arguing from the definition of the following:
Atheist as the belief that there is NOT a God or Gods.
Agnostic as the belief that one does not, or can not know if there are or are not God(s).

From those definitions, non-theist religions would be completely compatible for an Atheist to be party to. If we already are in disagreement then hurray, we likely agree and it's just semantics.

From the above definitions though, my problem arises with claims that any particular belief or non-belief is far more 'special' than the others and it alone provides great benefit X to society. Those kind of bold proclamations have historically always led to fanatical behaviors and tragedy.

I don't recognize Atheism as being linked one way or another to forcing ones beliefs onto others. Plenty of theist religions claim strong prohibitions against forcing their beliefs on others. Atheism though, as you say, is merely a non-belief in God(s) and so said people can equally support or oppose forcing said belief on others. What might that look like? Well, North Korea perhaps if one must request the most extreme of examples. From strict definitions, I'm pretty sure it is accurate to describe the <ahem>Great<ahem> Leader(s) as atheists who have whole heartedly embraced forcing their own beliefs on their people at threat of death or worse. One can rest assured no North Korean is able to publicly be found out with the belief that some being exists that is greater than the Great Leader without grave repercussions.

@VoodooV
dont be too harsh on our boy @blankfist at least he has us talking about some pretty important issues.

if we do not discuss the hard issues and deal with truths and only hold onto our own biased ideology,then nothing gets accomplished.

i do not subscribe to blankies capitalistic unrestricted free market position.
i have been learning much about the free market and it does have some substantial strengths in many regards.

the problems arise,in my opinion,in regards to societal responsibility.
unrestricted capitalism makes everything a commodity.
and some things should NEVER be considered a commodity.

so i am against the privatization of schools and commodifying children.
and for those of you who wish to berate me for my position allow me to point to our current prison system:prisoners=commodity

now by me saying this does NOT automatically mean i am in support of our current education system.
i am not.

the system we have now is a bloated and stagnating beast which does little to educate and everything to indocrinate and create obedient workers.

and who is blamed for all this?
the teachers!
of course!
bind their hands,gag their mouths,stifle their creativity and crush their imagination.

and THEN turn around and say "there...theres your problem.the teachers".

so @ blankfist is not entirely off the mark when he infers or implies that it is government that is at fault.

because they are.

the real question is why?
now i am wading into postulation waters here but this is what i suspect.
1.the american government nor corporations wish to have a truly educated and informed citizenry with critical thinking skills and the ability to consume data and form rational conclusions.
people with those abilities will always challenge power.

they would rather have a docile and submissive public that does not question authority.
best get em while they are young.

so it doesnt matter if the schools are privatized or publicly funded.
they BOTH seek the same results and will BOTH be/are equally corrupt.

and most likely BOTH will blame the teachers for a perceived failure.

because BOTH will ignore,either knowingly or unknowingly,the systematic failure of HOW they teach children.

no longer is art taught.
nor civics (at least not where i live),
nor the humanities.
they are teaching these kids to be systems managers,not free-thinkers.

i believe that education all the way up and through to higher education should be a public responsibility.the investment will pay dividends greater than anything put IN to the system.
i am not going to list them all,just think about what a well educated citizen can bring to table.
see:finland

because at its heart,its essence,is not society a collective practice in community?
there are some things that should never be socialized.
education is not one of them.

money is not the problem.
teachers are not the problem.
its the SYSTEM and how it teaches,that is the problem.

remove the politicians and the special interest from the equation and allow the actual educators to do their jobs.

instead we have turned teachers into baby-sitters and schools into factories of the banal.

what a disgrace.

Sorry for the delayed response. I got a bit busy this week, and didn't have the time/energy to dedicate that a response of this sort deserves. Thanks for your patience.

Your response suggests an adoption to Marxism which, in my opinion, is unmatched in the level of suffering it has caused, but leaving that aside...
In response to your bullet points:

#1. "ever wonder why there is an economics course and a business admin course? there is a reason for that.one is theory the other practical application. and economists get it wrong...and often."

This is the kind of thing Paul Krugman often says, and it's flat wrong. To the extent we have a free market, we have a successful exchange of goods and services at a fair and competitive price. To the extent to which we have socialism, with central planners, and governmental regulation, we have cronyism, plutocratic kleptocracy, and failure. The Austrian school of economics does a very good job of explaining -- step by step in a manner in which you can follow along using deductive logic, how such contradictions come about. Entrepreneurs are to Austrian economists as artists are to the best of art/literary critics. There's no discrepancy between theory and practice. They can clearly and accurately describe what entrepreneurs are doing. Unless you have studied Mises, you'll probably have little to no good idea as to what economics is or what it can or cannot do.

#2: fascism is, in fact, a type of socialism because it follows a socialist economic model.

#3: Yes, I've thought it through. Explain to me specifically how you arrived at your conclusions. Otherwise, you're just making assertions.

> "france is a democracy. they have capitalism AND
> socialism."

France has a mix of capitalism and socialism, not unlike the U.S. Again, to the degree that France has a free market, things work and to the degree that they have socialism, the problems arise and get worse, as they/we are seeing now. To the degree that they are socialist, they are a failure. Socialism is unsustainable because you have no economic calculation. (And the European Union, which includes France, is failing -- in case you haven't noticed. This video can provide you with the data you need to understand this.)

Socialism is planned chaos because the issue of economic calculation (and its absence) gets glossed over. The EU is partially socialist -- it's a mix -- so it can somewhat slow down the effects of socialist chaos, unlike full-blown socialist systems. But it is increasingly more socialist and the chaos increases.
To deal with this planned chaos, these mixed systems rely on Lord Keynes' theories and policies of credit expansion, which equates to basically "throwing money" at the problem.
But, (as the Keynes/Hayek rap video says) "there's a boom and bust cycle and good reason to fear it!"

(Quite honestly, I'm surprised that you're not for establishing stable rules for the banks. You know, so that they're no longer able to extend money/credit that they don't have without being charged with fraud.
Because if you were for such banking rules, then you would no longer support the Keynesian approaches upon which your ideology is resting. Personally, I think money and credit needs rules and, for this reason, I don't support socialism or central planning in the absence of economic calculation, which is only possible within a free market system.)

The credit expansion expands the circumference of the boom and bust cycle, slowing it down, extending the boom period, but setting things up for a worse bust. It's all very predictable. If some are still not convinced about Europe's failure, it is because even as bad as things are, the bust has not really hit. Yet, it will. Eventually.

Unlike the Dollar, the Euro is not the world's reserve currency, and there is no petro-euro like there is a petro-dollar. So Europe cannot delay the bust in the manner that the U.S. can. On the other hand, thanks to German objections, the credit expansion in Europe has not gone as high as in the U.S. so their bust may not be as disastrous as it can be for the U.S.

The boom and bust cycle cannot occur in an anarchy because you need a central bank with powers of credit expansion to make it happen.
The alternative explanation, the "animal spirits" (a la Lord Keynes) posits that all businesses suddenly make mistakes at the same time, and/or all consumers at the same time decide to stop buying, causing the bust. I doubt it. That's no explanation at all.

> "my point is that health care should be a collective project
> but i believe i also entertained a free market solution as well."

I think you need to define what you mean by "collective" because the free market is as collective as it gets. I don't think you grasp what the free market means (i.e., voluntary interactions that allow for economic calculation and involve zero violence, allowing for better service and cheaper prices). Unless you understand this, no further discussion will lead to very much.

You say some things should be done collectively. I say many things must be done collectively. That's the basic premise of Austrian economics, the division of labor. You cannot do everything yourself. That's one reason I say that the free market economy is as collective as it gets.

> "i am a dissident. an anarchist."

If you're an anarchist, then you don't believe in government, by definition. So you can't be a socialist, as socialism requires a government to manage things. Without government, the only thing left is voluntary exchanges, which is the definition of a free market, economic capitalism (not to be confused with sociological capitalism).

You shouldn't rely on economists to tell you how things are. See for yourself. Again, only the Austrian school (that I know of) enables you to follow deductively on your own and make rational sense of the market activity.

You say economists are "probably wrong." How do you know? Economics isn't mysterious heuristics and sociological prophesy. It's like mathematics. You don't need to "believe" me that 2 + 2 = 4. You can deduce it for yourself.

I think that if you can learn a few basic economic lessons (which you can easily verify for yourself), you'll understand better where I'm coming from. (Then you'll be a coherent anarchist and not sound so confused ).

If you are an "anarchist," then who do you want administering things if not the government?

Hayek was much more of an anarchist (again, the rap video:
"The question is who plans for whom? Do I plan for myself, or leave it to you? I want plans by the many, not by the few.")

An anarchist who thinks otherwise is not much of an anarchist, is he?

read your response.
a lot of postulating and assumptions.
i know (or assume) not with ill-intent,but still there.
gonne have to go bullet form here..blech..loathe bullet form.
please forgive.

1.i did not suggest "full-blown" socialism.nor did i suggest we do what has been tried in the past.
silly,un-imaginative tripe fed by over-paid and dull thinking professors.
ever wonder why there is an economics course and a business admin course?
there is a reason for that.one is theory the other practical application.
and economists get it wrong...and often.

2.you mentioned twice socialism in relation to fascism.
are you aware they are not even on the same playing card?
meh..i guess we could call the corporate socialism we have now a form of fascism...but it would be a stretch.
do not confuse a political system with an economic one.

3.you think everything should be subject to a free market.even firefighters,police and roads.
i do not think you thought that particular nugget through.

the problems with socialism are well documented and well understood.
as are the problems with capitalism.
the real problems arise when things are not taught properly.

problems arise when people are taught that democracy and capitalism are somehow like peas and carrots.meant for each other.
that they are the end all be all and make jesus smile.

corporate propaganda bullshit.
france is a democracy.
they have capitalism AND socialism.
in fact..when you look how how many of the european socialist countries are doing and compare them to..well..us.they seem to be doing quite well for themselves.
so i dont know where you get your "socialism is a failure" idea from.

i guess i owe you an apology.you thought i was attacking you in some manner.not at all.
i was stating your right to disagree with me.

i was not conflating that somehow socialized medicine is somehow better or produces better health and that somehow a free market person wants death to all kittens.

my point is that health care should be a collective project but i believe i also entertained a free market solution as well.
BUT..the playing field has to..MUST..be level for all players.
it appears that some of my comments you took as directed towards you my friend.
this is not the case.
unless you ARE healthcare and in that case i am in the matrix.

the quote i posted is from adam smith.from his stellar book 'wealth of nations".
too bad his words have been twisted and contorted to not even have the same meaning anymore.oftentimes it is professors who perpetrate this travesty.

what adam smith was trying to convey is that for a free market to truly work as balancing agent and force corrector there had to be absolute liberty.
but we dont have that do we?
therefore it stands to reason we cannot have a free market.

ok ok.
i do not "feel" we live in a plutocracy.
i know it.
a legislation that has been purchased by wall street and corporate elite to enact laws which benefit them and their companies in the form of capital gain is..by definition..plutocracy.

smart ass

look man.
i think we are coming from the same place but have come to different conclusions.
you know..opinions.

you mentioned cuba as an example of poor socialized medicine.
well allow me to point out bangledesh slums,or somlia and their roving band of warlords.
they have free markets.

the discussion you and i are having is really 'what is governments role".
i agree with so many of your points..truly.
in my opinion the governments role in regards to commerce should be that a fraud police.thats it.
AND to dissolve the corporation and go back to the 1864 model.
if we cant do that at least..the very least...rewrite the corporate charter.
if we cant do that can we at LEAST put back the line "for the public good" (removed in 1967 or 68).
and make these huge entities accountable for their actions and made liable for any and all :death,destruction,disease and suffering.

could we..could we ..please pa..could we?

weeeeell,thats never gonna happen.the reason the west developed was due to governments and corporations getting in bed with each other.
no way america would have the standard of living we have without that ugly beast.

people think america goes to war for ideology?
ha! not a chance.
its fucking business baby!

so..yeah.
my friend there are no easy answers.
and i apologize if you took my previous comment as an attack on you in any way.
never..ever ever.
i respect and admire you immensely.
though i disagree with you on this,that will never take away on how i perceive you.

i am a dissident.
an anarchist.
i have unplugged from the system many moons ago.i refuse to feed the beast.
i did my duty and gave this country a few years and then turned my back and walked away.
which i know may seem in contradiction to what i am proposing in regards to healthcare.
maybe i am naive in some respects,but government does have a role and i would prefer it to be at the betterment of its citizens.
social security has been a great success (not according to some people but look at the stats..it has been fantastic).

you are so right that this is not an issue handled and packaged in one easy sitting.it takes discussion of hard truths.
but for that to happen there has to be respect and i respect you immensely my friend.
it is getting late and i am one pooped lil puppy.
but i am fully enjoying my conversation with you.

let me end with sharing a man who makes an argument so much better than i could.
he is an economist.so he is probably wrong.

Reading the comments, my fear is that the outrage people are feeling is being framed in the wrong context. If we don't get the proper handle on this, all that outrage is going to fall on deaf ears. The people who are at the root of this are going to sense that we don't understand what's going on and dismiss all protests as irrelevant.

This is certainly not an issue of "evil government" or "power hungry institutions". This is an issue that involves people. People that are just like you and me. In fact, the ones who are responsible for the monster that's been created ARE people with the same motivations and rational capacity as you and I.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." - Pogo

We are almost all guilty of making personal, selfish, idealistic and altruistic choices with blinders on to the larger impact of our choices. We all have a frustrating capacity for focusing on small picture goals and ignoring the big picture results. How many of us work for industries that have horrible environmental and social impact? Do you ever take into account the contribution you make to those disasters? Or are you comfortable in the belief that one person, "you", making fried chicken isn't responsible for the agregious level of child obesity in your country? Or you satisfied that building servers for BP doesn't in any way make you culpable for the massive negative impact of the industry as a whole?

We want to frame the ills of our societies in terms of villains which we can name...and even put a face on. But in the large chain of decisions that must be made and actions that must be taken, there is almost never one individual with the power to change the course of events. If one is ever identified, that person is almost certainly a scape goat, selected by popular consent for the very purpose of putting a face to the atrocities.

Governments and corporations are collections of individuals with the same strengths, weaknesses and short sightedness that we all posses.

So this problem arises from a troubling mentality that's very common in all orginzations. The tendency to view our individual actions and contributions as discrete from the larger result of the group. A small minded focus on results over impact.

This issue needs to be addressed in those terms, the troubling realization that good people with good intentions lost sight of the bigger picture. Only then will our protests ring true to the people involved.

And understand what's being discussed here also. This is not about personal invasion of privacy. That's certainly not how the architects of this see it. This is not the local police wire tapping "you". This is about a massive collection of data that could never be utilized effectively in those terms. It's complete historical data that exists for the purpose of analyzing as a whole, to learn the patterns that signify the actions of people who would do you harm. It is at the point such patterns are identified that investigation at an individual level, within that data, would begin. Perhaps that's why the people who created and manage this system don't feel it's a threat to you. Because they have no interest in you and didn't design the system for you...assuming you're not a terrorist.

But the danger that WE know is real, that they've lost sight of, is a matter of degrees. What happens when the definition of "enemy" begins to slip? What happens when, over time, all dissent is viewed as disruptive to the security of the country?

That's the big picture and that's the danger. Make sure you're protesting the right thing, if you want to be heard.

@lantern53
your comment is so full of ignorance you should feel shame for even posting it.
disagree with chomsky is a fine position,many do,but to imply that he is not one of the most quoted and respected intellectuals on the planet is just plain stupid.

are you suggesting what america has is capitalism?
well then i submit that what america has in NOT capitalism but rather state-run capitalism or to be more accurate:corporate socialism

the problems with capitalism are well known,well understood and well documented.the problems america is experiencing now are only a mystery to those who are ignorant and rely on the sensationalist,propagandized corporate media which does nothing to inform them but rather everything to obfuscate the reality.
why? because the very corporations who steal and plunder the american working class are the very ones who bring them their daily dose of propagandized bullshit.
lap it up doggy boy...it will help ya grow into a proud and clueless corporate slave.

chomsky is a libertarian socialist.a position he has stated over and over.the problem arises when people do not even understand the terms he is speaking about,because you are correct lantern,words have meaning and one the precepts of successful propaganda is to change the meanings of words.

we need more people like chomsky who challenge the propaganda and indotcrination.people such as chomsky are not only vital but necessary.

disagree with chomsky's premise all you like but a ad hominems and straw man do not an argument break.

he could be a full blown anarchist who dabbled in black magic but it would not make his words any less true.
just because you do not LIKE what somebody is saying does not make those statements untrue.

where is the flaw in his argument?
what inaccurate statements has he made?
what historical references did he embellish?

please understand lantern i am not attacking you in any fashion.i am simply pointing out that chomsky's work has been rigorously combed over,his sources checked and vetted and found to be exceptional in their execution.

disagree with his conclusions but do so with facts,sources and a well thought out response.
knee jerk emotional arguments make you look ill-informed.

They have to compromise a lot more than just that. A whole host of problems arise when you try to cram billions of years into scripture. There are implications for everything from the sin of Adam to the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. Here is a good list:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-accept-millions

As I said, I've investigated these issues thoroughly. I was initially willing to compromise the bible because I strongly believed in these ideas. I was prompted though to investigate the evidence and what I found appalled me. As I said, I became a young earth creationist because of the evidence, not in spite of it.

@bareboards2
you totally misunderstood my comment.
my point is that it is the ATTENTION that is the main focus,not the penis.

let me try this another way.

what if the girl was lesbian?
would male attention be her focus?
seewhatimsaying?

this attention seeking behavior usually starts young,when a young girl is unsure,insecure and vulnerable.(just like every other teen).
maybe they were the first girl in class to sprout boobs.
maybe she was a late bloomer and was nerdy and gangly all through high school.

in any scenario you wish to portray there will always be the common denominator that at one point she began to receive attention and that attention validated her as desirable,sexy even.
this may have led to dressing more "sexy" to garner even more attention.

the danger here is that the beauty of youth is transitory....it always results in entropy and if a woman finds validation solely in the form of attention,she will find it harder and harder to get the validation she has become accustomed to receiving.
this may lead to even more dramatic practices i.e:higher degree of provocative dress.bargaining flirtations for sexual promiscuity.actively seeking attention by way of nightclubs,bars and other venues where a source of attention may congregated.

we all wish to be desirable in one way or another and attention can be a powerful validation that we are desirable.the problem arises when the girl/guy is unaware of their own motivations to be validated and in the process allows themselves to become objects rather than human beings.

attention=validation *no penis required

men can be just as vulnerable to this validation seeking but our culture does not impose the same amount of pressure that young women have to endure and ultimately over-come.

what i believe you are saying,and its a point i agree with.is that young women should be more self-aware and be comfortable with who they are rather than what society thinks they should be.

the fact that i am male should not automatically disqualify me from expressing an opinion on female matters.i may fall short due to not owning a uterus but i feel my point is valid

>> ^vaire2ube:

so he's saying that corn syrup sucks ass, is bad for you, and takes more to sweeten... i thought our "body cant tell the difference" (tm)
i think ill listen to retailer who puts customers above profits... surprise, he makes a profit anyway because he's honest. shame on american companies wasting water to produce corn for syrups and animal feed.
there is no drought, there is a misuse of resources. shame shame shame.


Corn syrup is mostly fructose. Our body can tell the difference and processes it differently than other forms of sugars. Our body craves fructose because it is naturally found in relatively low quantities in foods that are so damn good for you that they cancel out all the bad things that fructose does to you see: apples, bananas, berries, etc.. Problems arise when all the healthy goodnesses are stripped away leaving only the refined not-so-goodness.

See: http://videosift.com/video/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth for a very very informative video on the subject.

@dystopianfuturetoday I'd like to help you visualize what I understand a free market is or ought to be. When you say free markets are impossible, I tend to compare that to someone saying, "free speech is impossible" while holding an extreme or maybe unrealistic interpretation of what free speech ought to be as well.

Imagine when freedom of speech was first proposed, "What if we had a society where people could say whatever they want without fear of censorship or oppression?". Before we had a country where freedom of speech was in the first Ammendment of its Constitution, I'm pretty sure we didn't have freedom of speech anywhere, or mostly in any time in history. Someone could have replied, "A free speech society is impossible, which is why one has never existed, and why you were unable to come up with any working examples". Sure, because there would almost always be some asshole, usually a king, a despot or church, telling people what they could or could not say, and punishing them for it.

Now, do we enjoy absolute freedom of speech today? Not at all, and I'm fine with that. There are laws against libel, hate speech, obscenity, incitement to commit crimes, etc., which are all restrictions imposed on that very freedom.

However, all things considered, I think freedom of speech is mostly free. I don't know of anyone who advocates "restricted speech" or "highly regulated speech" as an ideal. More importantly, whenever censorship is reported or witnessed, everyone is instantly indignant and sometimes outraged, because we are all aware of how essential freedom of speech is to a free society, a freedom that should be cherished and protected.

Now let's take a look at the dynamics of free speech in society.

Just because people can say whatever they want, doesn't mean there won't be millions of people lying, deceiving each other, spreading ideologies that are COMPLETELY WRONG, etc.

Does that mean we should have laws banning ideas that are wrong? Not easy to do, because it is common sense that no one has absolute authority over truth, so such laws would hardly be fair.

Instead, we resort to letting ideas compete, letting people select for themselves what is true or not. That might doom society to eternal stupidity and ignorance or to a gradual process where truths will be preferred, and lies will tend to be exposed or ignored. Which outcome do you think is more likely? It takes time, but a free society matures with such freedoms. When abuses happen, society learns and deals with them without immediately resorting to laws and restrictions, because that would be considered censorship, and, therefore, usually unfair.

Now when it comes to economic freedom, liberals treat it as a whole different ball game, when I don't think it should be. First off, "free markets" = obscenity. They learn to understand it like you do, "absolutely free of government intervention, chaos everywhere, society is doomed", when in fact the proponents of free markets recognize that the State is necessary to enforce contracts, punish fraud and protect private property.

Liberals are mostly influenced by the socialist interpretation of capitalism as an inherently unfair system. Whenever any perceived abuse happens in an economy, they see it as resulting from an imbalance of economic power, so they rush to demand laws and regulations to forcibly correct them.

How about letting these abuses happen, and let society learn to deal with them, select them, and evolve? Just like what happens with free speech. Sure, if it's blatant fraud, theft, breach of contract, etc. the State can and should step in. Otherwise, let people come up with their own solutions. It will be a painful process, but it's better to let a free society mature by itself than oppressing it into behaving well.

Besides, if you think about it, politicians aren't any better than anyone at judging what economic practices are right or wrong. So the laws they make are usually unfair. They have the same kind of presumptuousness of someone who would claim authority over truth, and want to create laws censoring "wrong" ideas. Like keynesian economists who try to plan and steer economies because they have little theories where they claim it's smarter to use other people's money than letting people make decisions with their own money.

We would never put up with people trying to engineer society/culture through censorship. Why do we put up with that when it comes to economics?

About the thought experiment (hoping it's not a trick question), I don't see why there should be a limit on how much property a person can own, as long as the property is honestly obtained.

I don't think it's an injustice when someone owns more than others, maybe there are other factors to be considered? Forcibly redistributing property is usually more unfair than just letting society deal with any problem arising from someone having property that others want or need.

It's refreshing to see someone else around here that can recognize that it isn't specifically religion to blame but rather the people that hide behind religion as an excuse to be assholes. There isn't anything inherently wrong with being a christian or the christian religion, the problem arises when people use religion of any kind as a pedestal and twist it how they see fit to push their agendas.


>> ^Quboid:

I really shouldn't feed the troll (and I'm increasingly thinking shinyblurry is a clued up troll because it's getting harder and harder to believe that he thinks that he is making Christianity look good), but here we go. This is what the Christian right make of freedom - it's freedom to do what they want, to say what they want. Not other people.
When you try to apply freedom to something they don't want, no no no, that's not on. You can be free to be a homophobe, or whatever they call it - something about trying to save souls, by subjecting homosexuals to mental bullying (while claiming the physical bullying is completely different). But you're not free to be homosexual, because the Bible makes some vague comments about that being bad. The Bible also says some other stuff is bad and some weird stuff is fine, but it seems you're free to ignore some of that without being a massive, massive hypocrite.
This isn't the whole right wing. I respect Dr. Ron Paul; although I don't agree with his economic policies, he understands that freedom means other people might be free to do things that, gasp, he doesn't like. Also, this isn't a rant against what Christianity is supposed to be, or those Christians who follow that. It's a rant about the Christian right, the fundamentalist, hate filled bigots and the politicians that either fall into this group, or use this group to further their careers.
The Christian Right is neither Christian, nor right.

>> ^draak13:

People make stupid comments all the time. Whether or not it was intended, this thread was essentially trolled off-topic with enormous rants about religion vs. atheism. Instead of going on forever about it, why not pay as much attention to it as it deserves? Immediately after the religious posting, Enoch magnificently addressed and concluded that religion doesn't consistently shape behavior nearly as much as good parenting in just 1 post. Of course the religious faction is going to reply back; their religion is a strong component of their identity. Just don't mind it and continue the thread forward.
If it's possible to salvage this thread at all, we were actually talking about how behavioral shaping comes most strongly in 2 forms revealed so far:
1) Mass showing of materials which help instill understanding of people who are very different from normal in some way, with sincere discussion (such as dealing with bullying the gay or mentally retarded individuals)
2) Parenting, to ensure that children hold strong values about understanding each other and treating each other well.
Are there any other interesting ideas to add to the list? Also, point 2 is huge; how do you get more parents to parent better?


I think 2) is in fact overrated. Most of a child's development nowadays comes from social interactions at school and in their neighborhood. Judith Harris expounded on this in her book, The Nurture Assumption. Parents have the most impact on their child's early development, before they can socialize on their own. In that small period of time, you can develop a child's intellectual potential, but the moral character, if not already determined or strongly limited by genetics, will be molded by future social interactions. Of course, parents are included in these social interactions, but their influence will be much diluted, especially compared to the school authority figures, the real authority in a school kid's life (they can make life miserable for them both at school and at home, by telling the parents).

So, as the saying goes in Africa, it takes a village to raise a child. Again, something known in the time of the ancient Greeks. Even Plato admitted this, although he tried to bring religion in, hence why he wasn't taken seriously. In this perspective, 1) should be an integral part of society's behavior at large, not just in videos. Although of course videos can have a pregnant effect on a child's mind and act as a surrogate to real life examples. The problem arises when those children are let go after school: they see that real life is not like the videos. They can then try to change the real world, become apathetic or worse, become cynical. And this is what is wrong with preaching: the hypocrisy of the "do as I say not as I do".

To prevent this, you have to teach intellectual self-defense at the same time as the reasons why behavior as shown in the videos is more desirable than behavior seen in real life. This would be hard for even philosophers to do, not to mention underpaid elementary school teachers. In our philosophy department here, there is a minor in "philosophy of children". It has nothing to do with describing the essence of children, but more with how to talk about philosophy with children: how to approach concepts in general and how to touch difficult subject matters. Still, the goal is not for the philosopher to teach children about moral/ethics, but to teach how to think about such things.

So, as a parent be a good role model and teach your child how to fish (think) instead of just giving him fish (preaching). For example, instead of trying to always be the best you can be around your child, be yourself. And when you fail to uphold a principle or whatever, instead of giving excuses be frank and explain why people sometimes fail even if they start with the best of intentions. The important thing is not that you be the best today, but that you be better tomorrow.

Also, never think you can shield your child from anything. Better it be you that show him the ugly things than he finds out by himself or through friends/society. That way you can explain and answer his questions. So: sex, drugs, violence and death education at a very young age repeated at various times to ingrain the facts (not the moral preaching). No need to be hands-on of course! Don't want you all to go rape and kill your children or something.

This is as much as you can do, I think, to "protect" or "arm" your children against society's more nefarious influences without resorting to indoctrination or physical confinement (although these last two options sound more like blinding and amputating than protecting really). If all children were educated like this, we may not get a perfect society (the genes!), but at least it should be a better society and certainly a more honest and open one.