Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why would anyone have a problem with liberalism? watch

    Offline

    3
    People are not inherently good. A great many people, the majority even, are tyrants. Tyrants do not like liberalism, because it reduces their power to act arbitrarily.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moregano)
    :rolleyes:

    I actually agree with some of what you've said, but you can't go making claims like that without some kind of evidence. Oh wait, there is none.
    It is anti-nature and thus inherently a destructive social force. I do not think being gay itself is anti-nature, because it exists within nature. However promoting the lifestyle and making concession after concession is not advantangeous for society.

    There is plenty of evidence against adoption by same sex couples,if you look into the psychological effects that may arise as a result of it. There are counter arguments to the cons of course, but the only reason for it to be undertaken is another of those dogmas of "progress", "equality" or "freedom".
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with what you've said, OP.
    I find it really difficult communicating with people who not only don't approve of something, but also think that they have the moral superiority to place those values on other people, too (especially as most of the time they are based on religion or tradition, neither of which I agree of as a way to dictate other peoples lives).

    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    It is anti-nature and thus inherently a destructive social force. I do not think being gay itself is anti-nature, because it exists within nature. However promoting the lifestyle and making concession after concession is not advantangeous for society.
    What do you mean by 'anti-nature'? Do you mean unnatural or something else?
    If it's the former, by your logic, also not promote clothes-wearing or residing in houses or driving or flying or partnering for more than reproduction, as these things are fundamentally unnatural?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's because there are a lot of liberals out there who don't think things through. Saying "Free immigration and legalise drugs!" is all very cute, but often that's all liberals have to say. There's no thought into the social repercussions or how exactly they would implement the changes. It's very much a 1 dimensional argument based on a naive ideal. Anyone who disagrees with them is branded a capitalist pig who see the worst in people, so liberals can feel they always take the moral high road.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm fairly liberal (although not to the extreme). I just think realistic solutions should be the aim, not vague statements about making the world nicer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    It is anti-nature and thus inherently a destructive social force. I do not think being gay itself is anti-nature, because it exists within nature.
    Isn't that a bit of a contradiction there?

    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    However promoting the lifestyle and making concession after concession is not advantangeous for society.
    Why not? And what do you mean by "promoting the lifestyle"? What lifestyle? And "concession after concession"? What are you on about there? What concessions?

    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    There is plenty of evidence against adoption by same sex couples,if you look into the psychological effects that may arise as a result of it.
    Oh really? Care to show us this evidence?

    You're just proving the OP's point to be honest. You don't personally like the idea of gay people having kids, so you think that although it has absolutely nothing to do with you, they shouldn't be allowed to. You can't justify this in any meaningful way, so you just waffle on about how "progress" and "equality" are such silly ideas, and hope nobody realises that what you're saying makes no sense whatsoever.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You want libertarianism, other than liberalism. Libertarianism destroys the society. Other than that you might reflect upon the fact that you a small fraction of a nation want the whole nation to live according to that state because, for you, that would be ideal. The rest of the nation, don't like the idea, though. In other words, your idea of utopia, isn't welcome in this society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doodahdoo)
    What do you mean by 'anti-nature'? Do you mean unnatural or something else?
    If it's the former, by your logic, also not promote clothes-wearing or residing in houses or driving or flying or partnering for more than reproduction, as these things are fundamentally unnatural?
    By anti-nature I do not just mean unnatural, but also "opposed to nature", as in directly contradicting or going against it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Svenjamin)
    I think it's because there are a lot of liberals out there who don't think things through. Saying "Free immigration and legalise drugs!" is all very cute, but often that's all liberals have to say. There's no thought into the social repercussions or how exactly they would implement the changes. It's very much a 1 dimensional argument based on a naive ideal. Anyone who disagrees with them is branded a capitalist pig who see the worst in people, so liberals can feel they always take the moral high road.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm fairly liberal (although not to the extreme). I just think realistic solutions should be the aim, not vague statements about making the world nicer.
    It's not just a pipe dream; Holland did it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    Drug legalization? Can you dis-ambiguise that vague statement please, in relation to which class of drugs you think should be legalised?
    I think we are talking about it in general, ie, the right to chose whatever you want to put into your body.

    We could be here all day arguing what should and shouldnt, be legal.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    You can't leave the economy to do whatever the **** it wants, the market does not always regulate itself and needs some control. I dislike laissez-faire economics.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    Well i think that control of substances which can be abused is a good thing,
    Everything can be abused to harm oneself. Why shouldnt we have the choice?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    By anti-nature I do not just mean unnatural, but also "opposed to nature", as in directly contradicting or going against it.
    Surely things like flying and monogamy still fit in that category, then, but we still promote those?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People like to think their view of what religion is right and what moral code is right is THE right one. From this they believe because they are right they can impose their code on others. Alot of the time morality is just whether you like or dislike something, hence homosexuality which harms NOBODY is often banned or not given equal rights to straight relationships.

    At the end of the day at the heart of Liberalism is the view that you can never really prove you your self is right on any issue so therefore you cant impose your view on what is right on anybody else ever. All we can ever seek to do is allow people to do as much as possible without anybody getting in the way.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It places individuals before societies.

    This is tolerable. However when it places individuals of other societies, before your own society; it becomes intolerable to some. Myself included.

    British people should have rights before British society; but society should hold rights against foreigners. This is the issue with immigration.

    The real issue isn't liberalism per se, but universalist liberalism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moregano)
    Isn't that a bit of a contradiction there?
    Not really. Being gay is natural in the sense that it occurs within nature, but not natural in any sort of fundamental sense with regards to reproduction. Same sex adoption is against the traditional family structure, that great springboard for civility and European civilisation as a whole, and I therefore oppose it.

    (Original post by moregano)
    Why not? And what do you mean by "promoting the lifestyle"? What lifestyle? And "concession after concession"? What are you on about there? What concessions?
    The gay lifestyle, as seen in gay pride parades and other events. Do you not deny that homosexuality not has several social and cultural ties that it drags along with it? The emergence of gay villages, gay bars and other community based projects.It has become a lot more than a mere sexual preference.

    Concessions include right to marry, right to adopt and the gay community projects I mentioned above,amongst others.

    (Original post by moregano)
    Oh really? Care to show us this evidence?
    Well, for example, a fairly balanced argument : http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

    The new study by two University of Southern California sociologists says children with lesbian or gay parents show more empathy for social diversity, are less confined by gender stereotypes, and are probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves
    I consider the arguments they list in favour to actually be arguments against.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doodahdoo)
    Surely things like flying and monogamy still fit in that category, then, but we still promote those?
    I don't think flying falls into that category at all.

    Monogamy is anti-natural in a way, but from a socio-biological perspective it is natural, which is why it has come to develop.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Because human beings need nudging in the 'right' directions every once in a while. The idea that we all make consistently sane and rational decisions is silly. If we can be encouraged to eat a cheeseburger through it being priced £1.99 instead of £2.00, I don't think it would take much encouragement to block out real life with a constant supply of opiates.
    Also, liberalism tends to manifest itself in aggressive social policies, without a thought as to if the 'progress' is actually beneficial.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    I consider the arguments they list in favour to actually be arguments against.
    How dare they be open-minded and non-stereotyped...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by micky022)
    How dare they be open-minded and non-stereotyped...
    Are they not close-minded about the possibility of close-mindedness? Do many of them not not hold a belief based on stereotypes about those who hold "stereotyping" viewpoints? Their minds are closed with regards to the possible problems of diversity, or closed to the necessity of gender roles in society.

    It is just the reversal of a perceived present social order.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Well, for example, a fairly balanced argument : http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

    I consider the arguments they list in favour to actually be arguments against.
    :facepalm:

    /discussion.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.