Parents: The Door of Paradise

Wizard of Whatever said:
Again you are confusing the issue, just to validate your own desire to force people into a mold of your own making. The issue is not cakes. It is personal freedom of association, something you apparently do not understand.
Click to expand...
Noone is stopping you from associating with whomever you so choose in private. Heck, not even in assemblies such as marches, demonstrations etc. No law you have exampled - not that you exampled any actual law but rather some limitations you perceive - restricts your private freedom of association. Bigots are free to be bigots in their own home, even in their own non-commercial private club, for example. But if what you're doing is commercial, or public-facing, then there are, rightly, limitations.

So, what exactly is your issue with society limiting one's ability to act out in a bigotted fashion in public, or in commerce? Because that is what you seem to be railing against. Not totalitarianism (even as you have defined it) but prevention of bigotry.

Sure, you may even be simply espousing the Libertarian ideal, for example. But such philosophy really only leads to the marginalisation of the most vulnerable, and curtailing of the very freedoms it wants everyone to have. It's why libertarianism tends to attract demographics that are already relatively privileged: higher income levels, higher education levels, white, majority male, heterosexual. All areas that have tended to have far less direct experience of discrimination.

The ironic thing is that Libertarianism is self-defeating / contradictory:
On the one hand, it says that society should compel, not government, but when that society wants government to compel, the libertarians cry foul and say that society compelling (through wanting a government that compels) is not acceptable to them.
And on the other, in the absence of government compulsion to protect vulnerable groups, libertarianism can enable social structures that systematically restrict freedom for those same vulnerable groups. In other words, freedom for some (i.e. the privileged) comes at the cost of freedom for others, which contradicts the general libertarian principle of liberty for all.

Libertarianism: the freedom to be deprived of your freedoms.
But, hey, noone's perfect, I guess. ;)
 
(Q) said:
Part of the Fascist playbook is to attack the dictionary so that words can mean whatever they want them to mean.
Click to expand...
Was going to point this out. But you did, thanks.

I am seeing no exit from this chat with Wiz just endless looping where he always evades responsibility for his own words. I'm done looping. ;)
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
Again you are confusing the issue, just to validate your own desire to force people into a mold of your own making. The issue is not cakes. It is personal freedom of association, something you apparently do not understand.
Click to expand...
Wizard of Whatever said:
Again, you are hung up on the definition of a single word, rather than understanding wha I wrote and the implications it has if it continues in this vein.
Click to expand...
I look forward to reading your detailed responses to Sarkus's posts, numbers 52, 55 and 62. Seeing as you're keen to discussion freedom of association and the limits you say exists on it.

Strangely, though, so far it looks like you've decided to skip over those posts completely, despite them addressing exactly what you claim you want to talk about.

Why are you skipping them, Wizard of Whatever?
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
Again, you are hung up on the definition of a single word, rather than understanding wha I wrote and the implications it has if it continues in this vein.
Click to expand...
Well that is your fault for using hysterically inappropriate language for what are no more than minor quibbles about the way elected governments regulate society, recognising they will be judged at the ballot box for how they do it.
 
Last edited:
James R said:
I look forward to reading your detailed responses to Sarkus's posts, numbers 52, 55 and 62. Seeing as you're keen to discussion freedom of association and the limits you say exists on it.

Strangely, though, so far it looks like you've decided to skip over those posts completely, despite them addressing exactly what you claim you want to talk about.

Why are you skipping them, Wizard of Whatever?
Click to expand...
I ignore Sarkus. Not really worth my time. Just trying to wale people up to the reality of restrictions, compulsions, and perversions and the approach to more.
 
exchemist said:
Well that is your fault for using hysterically inappropriate language for what are no more than minor quibbles about the way elected governments regulate society, recognising they will be judged at the ballot box for how they do it.
Click to expand...
A piddling excuse for you support of the approach to that word you criticize.
 
Sarkus said:
Anyhoo - as an argument for God, it needs some work, for sure. And you'd be merely adding to a long list of such arguments that are either not accepted as sound by anyone other than those who already accept God exists, or are invalid.
Click to expand...

The Kalam argument and the contingency argument appear quite strong to me, and I don’t see any real weakness in their core reasoning. If you think there is one, I’d sincerely like to hear where you see the issue.
 
exchemist said:
Well that is your fault for using hysterically inappropriate language for what are no more than minor quibbles about the way elected governments regulate society, recognising they will be judged at the ballot box for how they do it.
Click to expand...
Governments' first job is to serve the people, not restrict them, except where that restriction is absolutely necessary. Like don't kill except in self and other defense and hunting for food. Don't steal except in a case where you have to to feed your family. Don't commit robbery. Don't assault except in self and other defense. There are others but they are all limited.
 
Abdullah Masud said:
The Kalam argument and the contingency argument appear quite strong to me, and I don’t see any real weakness in their core reasoning. If you think there is one, I’d sincerely like to hear where you see the issue.
Click to expand...

Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

Let us discuss the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This is a more modern variant of the plain-vanilla Cosmological Argument that aims at proving that God exists. However, both arguments are flawed. The traditional Cosmological argument runs as follows: Everything that exists must have a cause...
www.sciforums.com www.sciforums.com

If you want to trawl through that thread, and then add your own comments to it, where you disagree with what someone has said, feel free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top