Turn on thread page Beta

Why would anyone have a problem with liberalism? watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    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.
    The necessity of gender roles? Please, explain. And your reasoning is that because they're open-minded, they can't see that open-mindedness is a bad thing? Yes, let's all go back to being close-minded and suspicious of everyone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because Universal rights are not universal?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    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.
    Also, the man in your signature looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger, and is an awful speaker. I like the bit where he advocates hanging people in mental hospitals.
    Offline

    0
    Free immigration could only work well and not harm the country taking in masses of immigrants when all countries in the world were at the same level of development.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by micky022)
    The necessity of gender roles? Please, explain. And your reasoning is that because they're open-minded, they can't see that open-mindedness is a bad thing? Yes, let's all go back to being close-minded and suspicious of everyone.
    Men and women have different roles in natural society- not inferior or superior ones, but different ones.

    My point is that in reality that they are not becoming more open-minded at all, just buying into a specific ideology instead of an opposing one. They will hear of ideas and instantly dismiss them, and will probably hear ideas and be far more willing to accept them due to their origin or how well they fit in with that person's current thought. The dogma of "open-mindedness", with direct regards to the quote I gave, is not actually about being open-minded at all. It is about supporting social liberalism- homsexual experimentation, breakdown of gender roles and social diversity. They are just as close-minded towards the antithesis of these ideas as socially conservative people are "close-minded" towards the aforementioned set of ideas in reality.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    This is something I've always struggled to understand. What reasons do people have for being against the liberal notion of allowing people to do what they want, provided they don't hurt others? Why would people be against equal rights for gay people, prostitution, drug legalisation, free immigration etc?
    Those are not in the same league. Drug legalisation - do you really want it to be as easy to buy heroin as it is to buy alcohol? For kids to be able to get it by just asking an older guy to buy it for them from an off licence? Or for people to naively turn to drugs and become addicted, ending up dead or at least pissing all their money away? Shouldn't their family be protected from that? Plus where would we buy it from? Every country in the world has laws against growing/making drugs (for good reason), and we couldn't grow enough ourself.

    Again, free immigration would hurt others, it would absolutely cripple this country. As it is there are more people than jobs. Every new arrival who fails to find work is another drain on taxpayer's money. The Government would borrow more than they could afford, end up being downgraded by credit raters. Borrowing would become more expensive for them, they would raise taxes to unprecedented levels, high earners would emigrate leaving no one left to pay our bill. And then we would be bankrupt.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Society is a far more complex thing than liberals see it. In the pursuit of individual freedom, they restrict the freedom and ambitions of the group and put into practice ideas which have never built,maintained or expanded a civilisation.
    I think thats called progress. In fact it is called progress and advancement. With your reasoning and diatribe, we would still be back in the bronze age, sacrificing children to the sun god.

    The ideas which built maintained and expanded civilisation were once themselves ideas which had never before been used to do such a thing. Your reasoning is false and frankly, very naive.



    Depends what rights you are talking about. The right to live a life free from persecution? Sure.

    The right to adopt children? Absolutely not.
    Why not exactly?



    Morally repugnant.

    Why exactly is it? And what gives you the right to decree what two consenting individuals do or do not do in the privacy of their own homes?



    The job of a government is to look after their people. Other than abstract "freedom", what is to be gained from drug legalisation?

    The job of the government is to serve the people as well as protect them. And i think the modern interpretation of protect, is the protection of individual rights, as it has been proved time and again that the government, does not actually know whats best for individuals. Never mind the fact that removing individual rights removes individual responsibility.

    I think, considering the topic of rights and drugs. I am going to copy and paste another post of mine i wrote a little while ago, which pretty much demolishes your points on drugs and social control.

    Here it is
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Without the freedom to choose wrongly can we really say that we are a society with any claim of social responsibility? I don't feel you can have responsibility without liberty, and vice versa. Which makes a good case for the innate value of liberty itself. I believe liberty is not just good because people like having the freedom to choose what to do with their body, but also because of the strong social responsibility which inevitably arises in the individual and greater population when allowed freedom to choose. Although i am fully aware such responsibility is not always garunteed among the entire population. I think i can safely say that it is almost certain among the majority.
    I will use the example of Portugal, which in 2001 became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine. Instead of jail time individuals who chose to use drugs were offered therapy if they wanted it. If they refused the treatment advised there would be no criminal conviction. They were given the liberty to decide for themselves.
    Critics of this policy said that it would do nothing but exacerbate the proliferation of drugs among citizens. That the government was inviting every individual to become a drug addict. The consensus seemed to be, as it is in most coutries that the people could not be trusted to decide what was best for themselves. That their choices would be either all or nothing. They seemed to agree that making something which is bad for people legal had no value to society.
    However, the policy was a great success. A paper published last April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled. Those who had become addicted instead of desperately doing anything to find their next fix, which would usually result in illegal activity, checked themselves into rehab, taking advantage of the free services offered by the government. The fact that illegal drug use actually dropped, speaks bounds for the value of personal choice itself and just how beneficial it is to a healthy society. If you were to compare this to the Portugal before the decriminilization you would find a nation with one of the highest levels of hard drug use in Europe.
    I feel the same could also be applied to the legalisation of firearms. It only takes a look at American gun crime rates to realise that those states which have liberal gun laws have a far lower rate of gun crime and gun fatalities than the states which have strict gun control. Althought there are plenty of other variables involved. It makes a good case for liberty and responsibility.
    I personally feel that liberty, at least with regards to an individuals own body is innately good because with the freedom to choose wrongly comes responsibility that would not be possible with state paternalism.




    Diversity is perfectly well protected by the nation state, and in order to preserve this ethnic and cultural diversity on a global scale, large scale movement of persons is not desirable for anybody,including the immigrants themselves.
    Forced diversity is no morally superior to a human zoo. Nevermind the fact that i very much doubt you would be so happy with being fenced into an ethnic enclosure if you were living in abject poverty in some barren ****-hole on the other side of the world. You claim to be a champion of diversity in order to cloak your true, selfish and morally reugnant desire of a purely white nation located in a safe and prosperous part of the world. I think i can sympathise and join my brothers and sisters living in horrid conditions, or under terrible opression around the world, in telling you to go **** yourself.



    Looking to the past as you build for the future has created western civilisation,
    How exactly? Rigid conservatism bought about the end of the Roman Republic, as it clung desperately to values and traditions which it had outgrown quarter of a millenia before. You do not simply demand we look to the past, you demand we live completely within the past. You have expressed this time and again on the forum by revealing you pine, and wish to recreate the Britain of the 50's. A period in history i detest as being stagnant, boring, lifeless and doomed. It wasn't until it was rescued by a cultural revolution in the 60's that British culture became colourful and full of life once again, a revolution which i have no doubts you think morally abhorrent and disgusting. The worldly and experienced young child that you quite obviously are. :rolleyes:

    along with most others. You most likely oppose tradition for opposing traditions sake, seeking to break down past traditions due to the current social/cultural atmosphere you are in.
    No, we jettison tradition when it becomes anachronistic and old fashioned.


    It's a beneficial way of thinking. Universalism is the ultimate evil.
    Says the devout white supremacist/nationalist. An ideology which bought about two of the most destructive wars the human race has ever experienced. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Society is a far more complex thing than liberals see it. In the pursuit of individual freedom, they restrict the freedom and ambitions of the group and put into practice ideas which have never built,maintained or expanded a civilisation. Much like communism, which liberalism is essentially a soft form of, it seeks only to break down and destroy in the name of "progress", "equality" and other related dogmas.



    Depends what rights you are talking about. The right to live a life free from persecution? Sure.

    The right to adopt children? Absolutely not.



    Morally repugnant.



    The job of a government is to look after their people. Other than abstract "freedom", what is to be gained from drug legalisation?



    Diversity is perfectly well protected by the nation state, and in order to preserve this ethnic and cultural diversity on a global scale, large scale movement of persons is not desirable for anybody,including the immigrants themselves.



    Looking to the past as you build for the future has created western civilisation, along with most others. You most likely oppose tradition for opposing traditions sake, seeking to break down past traditions due to the current social/cultural atmosphere you are in.



    It's a beneficial way of thinking. Universalism is the ultimate evil.


    "Communism kills the body. Liberalism rots the soul" - Tomislav Sunic.
    Communists use the phrase "The job of government is to look after their people". It's funny that you don't see the irony of the fact that the other ideology which values the collective over the individual is Communism (oh and Islam, Mr BNP Voluntas Mos Victum........).

    In a liberal society the primary function of government is to protect the pre-existing rights of the individual. The government grants no rights but merely acts to prevent others from infringing on such rights. Liberalism does not attempt to tell man how to live, or what moral principles to hold. It deals simply with his material well being in this world. It provides a framework in which each individual can find personal happiness or fulfillment according to his or her own values.

    The only people who can dislike this are those who don't want to allow others to "find personal fulfillment according to his or her own values". In other words, fascists (inc. the religious type) and communists / socialists (though debate on the latter is for a different thread).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GottaLovePhysics! :))
    Everything can be abused to harm oneself. Why shouldnt we have the choice?

    would you really rather live in a world where kids can legally drink alcohol and snort coke?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    would you really rather live in a world where kids can legally drink alcohol and snort coke?
    obviously not until they're old enough to make their own decisions but after that then yes of course
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    would you really rather live in a world where kids can legally drink alcohol and snort coke?

    Who says that kids can legally make such decisions? Adults however, yes of course they should. The only reason you think it would be bad is because you do not give your fellow human beings the same respect or credit which you reserve for yourself.

    I wrote a post a while ago on liberty and drugs so i will just copy and paste:

    Without the freedom to choose wrongly can we really say that we are a society with any claim of social responsibility? I don't feel you can truly have responsibility without liberty, and vice versa. Which makes a good case for the innate value of liberty itself. I believe liberty is not just good because people like having the freedom to choose what to do with their body, but also because of the strong social responsibility which inevitably arises in the individual and greater population when allowed freedom to choose. Although i am fully aware such responsibility is not always garunteed among the entire population. I think i can safely say that it is almost certain among the majority.
    I will use the example of Portugal, which in 2001 became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine. Instead of jail time individuals who chose to use drugs were offered therapy if they wanted it. If they refused the treatment advised there would be no criminal conviction. They were given the liberty to decide for themselves.
    Critics of this policy said that it would do nothing but exacerbate the proliferation of drugs among citizens. That the government was inviting every individual to become a drug addict. The consensus seemed to be, as it is in most coutries that the people could not be trusted to decide what was best for themselves. That their choices would be either all or nothing. They seemed to agree that making something which is bad for people legal had no value to society.
    However, the policy was a great success. A paper published last April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled. Those who had become addicted instead of desperately doing anything to find their next fix, which would usually result in illegal activity, checked themselves into rehab, taking advantage of the free services offered by the government. The fact that illegal drug use actually dropped, speaks bounds for the value of personal choice itself and just how beneficial it is to a healthy society. If you were to compare this to the Portugal before the decriminilization you would find a nation with one of the highest levels of hard drug use in Europe.
    I feel the same could also be applied to the legalisation of firearms. It only takes a look at American gun crime rates to realise that those states which have liberal gun laws have a far lower rate of gun crime and gun fatalities than the states which have strict gun control. Althought there are plenty of other variables involved. It makes a good case for liberty and responsibility.
    I personally feel that liberty, at least with regards to an individuals own body is innately good because with the freedom to choose wrongly comes responsibility that would not be possible with state paternalism.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I think thats called progress. In fact it is called progress and advancement. With your reasoning and diatribe, we would still be back in the bronze age, sacrificing children to the sun god.

    The ideas which built maintained and expanded civilisation were once themselves ideas which had never before been used to do such a thing. Your reasoning is false and frankly, very naive.





    Why not exactly?






    Why exactly is it? And what gives you the right to decree what two consenting individuals do or do not do in the privacy of their own homes?






    The job of the government is to serve the people as well as protect them. And i think the modern interpretation of protect, is the protection of individual rights, as it has been proved time and again that the government, does not actually know whats best for individuals. Never mind the fact that removing individual rights removes individual responsibility.

    I think, considering the topic of rights and drugs. I am going to copy and paste another post of mine i wrote a little while ago, which pretty much demolishes your points on drugs and social control.

    Here it is
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Without the freedom to choose wrongly can we really say that we are a society with any claim of social responsibility? I don't feel you can have responsibility without liberty, and vice versa. Which makes a good case for the innate value of liberty itself. I believe liberty is not just good because people like having the freedom to choose what to do with their body, but also because of the strong social responsibility which inevitably arises in the individual and greater population when allowed freedom to choose. Although i am fully aware such responsibility is not always garunteed among the entire population. I think i can safely say that it is almost certain among the majority.
    I will use the example of Portugal, which in 2001 became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine. Instead of jail time individuals who chose to use drugs were offered therapy if they wanted it. If they refused the treatment advised there would be no criminal conviction. They were given the liberty to decide for themselves.
    Critics of this policy said that it would do nothing but exacerbate the proliferation of drugs among citizens. That the government was inviting every individual to become a drug addict. The consensus seemed to be, as it is in most coutries that the people could not be trusted to decide what was best for themselves. That their choices would be either all or nothing. They seemed to agree that making something which is bad for people legal had no value to society.
    However, the policy was a great success. A paper published last April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled. Those who had become addicted instead of desperately doing anything to find their next fix, which would usually result in illegal activity, checked themselves into rehab, taking advantage of the free services offered by the government. The fact that illegal drug use actually dropped, speaks bounds for the value of personal choice itself and just how beneficial it is to a healthy society. If you were to compare this to the Portugal before the decriminilization you would find a nation with one of the highest levels of hard drug use in Europe.
    I feel the same could also be applied to the legalisation of firearms. It only takes a look at American gun crime rates to realise that those states which have liberal gun laws have a far lower rate of gun crime and gun fatalities than the states which have strict gun control. Althought there are plenty of other variables involved. It makes a good case for liberty and responsibility.
    I personally feel that liberty, at least with regards to an individuals own body is innately good because with the freedom to choose wrongly comes responsibility that would not be possible with state paternalism.






    Forced diversity is no morally superior to a human zoo. Nevermind the fact that i very much doubt you would be so happy with being fenced into an ethnic enclosure if you were living in abject poverty in some barren ****-hole on the other side of the world. You claim to be a champion of diversity in order to cloak your true, selfish and morally reugnant desire of a purely white nation located in a safe and prosperous part of the world. I think i can sympathise and join my brothers and sisters living in horrid conditions, or under terrible opression around the world, in telling you to go **** yourself.





    How exactly? Rigid conservatism bought about the end of the Roman Republic, as it clung desperately to values and traditions which it had outgrown quarter of a millenia before. You do not simply demand we look to the past, you demand we live completely within the past. You have expressed this time and again on the forum by revealing you pine, and wish to recreate the Britain of the 50's. A period in history i detest as being stagnant, boring, lifeless and doomed. It wasn't until it was rescued by a cultural revolution in the 60's that British culture became colourful and full of life once again, a revolution which i have no doubts you think morally abhorrent and disgusting. The worldly and experienced young child that you quite obviously are. :rolleyes:



    No, we jettison tradition when it becomes anachronistic and old fashioned.




    Says the devout white supremacist/nationalist. An ideology which bought about two of the most destructive wars the human race has ever experienced. :rolleyes:
    50s were not that bad:hmmm:

    But then I must admit I am old fashioned in some respects.
    You can still enjoy tradition as a liberal, you just don't force it down other peoples throats.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    would you really rather live in a world where kids can legally drink alcohol and snort coke?
    Haha, nice one trying to guiltrip me into your way of thinking. But I think we all agree there is an age limit to these things, like we have an age limit for legal drugs.
    In my opinion I belive it can be staggered from the ages of 18 through21.
    But the general principle of free choice still applys.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Aeolus]Who says that kids can legally make such decisions? Adults however, yes of course they should. The only reason you think it would be bad is because you do not give your fellow human beings the same respect or credit which you reserve for yourself.




    why do you assume i 'reserve' it for myself? the only thing stopping me from going down the road and looting pc world is the law...but does that mean i'm not glad that the law is there to stop people doing just that?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GottaLovePhysics! :))
    Haha, nice one trying to guiltrip me into your way of thinking. But I think we all agree there is an age limit to these things, like we have an age limit for legal drugs.
    In my opinion I belive it can be staggered from the ages of 18 through21.
    But the general principle of free choice still applys.

    well thats the extreme lol, but surely its not liberalism if certain sections of society are barred from doing certain things, whether the restriction be based on age or anything else


    in my opinion, if drugs were legalised the world would be a mess - with the possible exception of cannibis, but i'm on the fence re: weed
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I think thats called progress. In fact it is called progress and advancement. With your reasoning and diatribe, we would still be back in the bronze age, sacrificing children to the sun god.
    It is progress to sacrifice the rights of the group to favour the rights of the individual? Sounds like the dismantling of a society to me. Society is a collective thing, and also a complex one. A balance needs to be obtained between individual freedom and collective freedom, as opposed to the social libertarianism you support or the harsh authoritarianism you may wrongly think I advocate.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The ideas which built maintained and expanded civilisation were once themselves ideas which had never before been used to do such a thing. Your reasoning is false and frankly, very naive.
    It depends on which way we are talking about the maintenance or expansion of civilisation. In terms of physical expansion or cultural output you are right. In terms of social or moral maintenance of society as a collective, nothing has ever been based upon the ideas found at the very ether of our society now. Natural societies are always socially conservative, and inherently community minded by their very nature- the same sort of inbuilt social conservatism that would still lead to over 75% of people in this country to vote in favour of the death penalty, despite the toxic propaganda with which they are bombarded from all sides.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Why not exactly?
    It undermines that great bedrock of Western civilisation, especially Anglo-Saxon civilisation, which is the family.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Why exactly is it? And what gives you the right to decree what two consenting individuals do or do not do in the privacy of their own homes?
    Few except for the most avowed nihilist would fail to see the moral implications of prostitution- degredation of woman, undermining of the morals and psychological fabric of both the man and the women involved, undermining of the family structure and healthy relationships etc...

    The mandate would be from democratic election,of course.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The job of the government is to serve the people as well as protect them. And i think the modern interpretation of protect, is the protection of individual rights, as it has been proved time and again that the government, does not actually know whats best for individuals. Never mind the fact that removing individual rights removes individual responsibility.

    I think, considering the topic of rights and drugs. I am going to copy and paste another post of mine i wrote a little while ago, which pretty much demolishes your points on drugs and social control.

    Here it is
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I believe liberty is not just good because people like having the freedom to choose what to do with their body, but also because of the strong social responsibility which inevitably arises in the individual and greater population when allowed freedom to choose. Although i am fully aware such responsibility is not always garunteed among the entire population. I think i can safely say that it is almost certain among the majority.

    I will use the example of Portugal, which in 2001 became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine. Instead of jail time individuals who chose to use drugs were offered therapy if they wanted it. If they refused the treatment advised there would be no criminal conviction. They were given the liberty to decide for themselves.

    Critics of this policy said that it would do nothing but exacerbate the proliferation of drugs among citizens. That the government was inviting every individual to become a drug addict. The consensus seemed to be, as it is in most coutries that the people could not be trusted to decide what was best for themselves. That their choices would be either all or nothing. They seemed to agree that making something which is bad for people legal had no value to society.

    However, the policy was a great success. A paper published last April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled. Those who had become addicted instead of desperately doing anything to find their next fix, which would usually result in illegal activity, checked themselves into rehab, taking advantage of the free services offered by the government. The fact that illegal drug use actually dropped, speaks bounds for the value of personal choice itself and just how beneficial it is to a healthy society. If you were to compare this to the Portugal before the decriminilization you would find a nation with one of the highest levels of hard drug use in Europe.

    So i feel that personal liberty, at least with regards to an individuals own body is innately good because with the freedom to choose wrongly comes responsibility that would not be possible with state paternalism. I suppose you can say that you cannot truly have liberty without responsibility and vice versa.
    Interesting post. Their are clearly good examples on both sides of the argument- the legalisation of cannabis in Holland has lead to nothing but increased usage, for instance.

    I feel that a government whom the people can identify with and truly support is one who considers what is best for them- and drug use is clearly not in the best interests of the general population, thus it must be clamped down on, not just through punishment in the justice system, but also tackling supply and the drugs industry as a whole.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Forced diversity is no morally superior to a human zoo. Nevermind the fact that i very much doubt you would be so happy with being fenced into an ethnic enclosure if you were living in abject poverty in some barren ****-hole on the other side of the world. You claim to be a champion of diversity in order to cloak your true, selfish and morally reugnant desire of a purely white nation located in a safe and prosperous part of the world. I think i can sympathise and join my brothers and sisters living in horrid conditions, or under terrible opression around the world, in telling you to go **** yourself.
    It is isn't forced though- it is entirely natural. As the nation states and ethnicities have developed as a result of social and genetic evolution. Again, it ultimately falls down to whether you support the one world government, coffee coloured and monocultural mess that awaits, or support the integrity of human diversity and exclusivity. As a proud European and Briton who holds western civilisation in the highest regard, I cannot join those eagerly awaiting the mondialist utopia.

    An interesting article I found by the Russian intellectual Alexander Dugin on this related issue : "Subject without Confines" : http://eurosiberia.wetpaint.com/page...THOUT+CONFINES

    I would urge you to read it, as it emphasises the implications of your wordly proposition not just for European man, but the whole of mankind.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    How exactly? Rigid conservatism bought about the end of the Roman Republic, as it clung desperately to values and traditions which it had outgrown quarter of a millenia before.
    History and heritage is of vital importance to enhance a national consciousness as it looks to the future. Of course, no such thing exists, because we are all atomized individuals :rolleyes:.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You do not simply demand we look to the past, you demand we live completely within the past. You have expressed this time and again on the forum by revealing you pine, and wish to recreate the Britain of the 50's. A period in history i detest as being stagnant, boring, lifeless and doomed. It wasn't until it was rescued by a cultural revolution in the 60's that British culture became colourful and full of life once again, a revolution which i have no doubts you think morally abhorrent and disgusting. The worldly and experienced young child that you quite obviously are. :rolleyes:
    A modern society based on the social values of the 50's would be no bad thing. Liberal enough to allow relative and comfortable freedom, but socially conservative enough to allow a natural society to develop.

    The cultural revolution of the 60's was indeed a disgusting and sadly successful attempt to destroy and overall dehabilitate the social order of the time.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No, we jettison tradition when it becomes anachronistic and old fashioned.
    That's fine. Often tradition is rebelled against merely for "Anti-tradition's" sake,though. Look at the way most people now seem to be almost programmed to reject the high art and high music of our civilisation,ignoring some of the most beautiful work ever created on the basis of it being "boring" just as your reject your perception of 50's Britain in the same way. Consumerism and materialism obviously have a big role to play here, and they are the corrosive instruments which almost necessitate the social liberalism we are discussing in my opinion.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Says the devout white supremacist/nationalist. An ideology which bought about two of the most destructive wars the human race has ever experienced. :rolleyes:
    Conflict is always going to occur-be it within the large society in your globalised world, or between them in my exclusive and limited/segregated one.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Casse)
    Liberalism leads to the breakdown of society. Humans need restrictions placed on them otherwise they will destroy themselves through their own arrogance.
    Indeed.

    If you think about it OP, everything is relative.

    Only the staunchest anarchist will advocate no laws and complete liberalism. You, as a self-defined 'liberal', may advocate equal rights for gays, legalisation of prostitution, drugs and open migration but I bet you wouldn't be so liberal on other things, such as allowing rich conglomerates to price-fix and exploit farmers and consumers alike? Or be liberal enough to allow people not to have to send their kids to school? Or even be liberal enough to allow people to move into other people's land and live there, negating the right of parties to own land as a commodity.

    They are just examples; what I'm trying to get across is that people will be liberal / conservative selectively and to different extents.

    You would cross your level of acceptability because that would lead to a breakdown of functioning society.

    To somebody slightly more conservative, legalising drugs and allowing gay marriage would break-down his/her vision of the society in which s/he wants to live.

    You are only liberal because you compare yourself with the spectrum of British society. Compared to anarchists, you will probably be very conservative by those standards.

    So basically, society has to be held up somehow and liberties are sacrificed for that. The number and the extent one advocates is just a reflection on how they see an ideal society in which to live.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    well thats the extreme lol, but surely its not libertarianism if certain sections of society are barred from doing certain things, whether the restriction be based on age or anything else


    in my opinion, if drugs were legalised the world would be a mess - with the possible exception of cannibis, but i'm on the fence re: weed
    Age is a very positive discrimination. Im not even going to considor that age does not come into account regarding peoples freedoms.

    Why would the world be a mess? You have already been directed by another memeber, the issure with portugal and thier succses.
    The main problem I have with illegal drugs is the money it generates for criminals and the money that is spent on catching these criminals.
    Then thiers the proble regarding opinions over drugs - Some will say some are ok, others will dissagree.
    I disagree with alcohol and tobbaco, but not with cannabis and certain other drugs, natural holocigenics (sp, i know..) such as craytom, magic mushrooms and some others.
    However, whats to say my ideal isnt someone elses? All I think we can do is legalise and provide all the correct information to people. Let them make the decision for themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    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.
    :yep: you remember how i said that some times traditions hold us back, the only reason that there is any debate here is revolved around religious influence.

    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    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.
    being proud of what you are, that is not a bad thing. Name me a gay village please, i've never heard of it:eek: , and gay bars exist so that straight men do not have to put up with multiple sexual advances from gay men, thus causing less tension.

    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Concessions include right to marry, right to adopt and the gay community projects I mentioned above,amongst others.
    if, your child was gay nad in love with a member of there own gender, you would want them to have equal rights.

    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Well, for example, a fairly balanced argument : http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html
    One study examined by the researchers indicated that a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in a same-sex relationship (six of 25 interviewed) than those raised by a heterosexual mother (none of 20 interviewed). yes because they took many surveys.
    NARTH treats homosexuallity like a mental condition. hardly fairly balanced.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why are so many people saying 'oh yer i totally agree with rights for individuals but not for all individuals OH GOD NO, only for individuals i like' i.e. straight, white, patriotic Brits your all a bunch a spoilt brats. Freedom should be freedom for everyone not just for your chums
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.