Turn on thread page Beta

Why would anyone have a problem with liberalism? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rrea436)
    :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.
    The family is one traditional institution that definitely does not hold us back. As I have said, it is the bedrock out of which a national society can emerge.

    (Original post by rrea436)
    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.
    If you are proud of it, that pride is certainly not for public display.

    http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/gay/gay-vill1.html

    (Original post by rrea436)
    if, your child was gay nad in love with a member of there own gender, you would want them to have equal rights.
    I don't think I would,although it is obviously hard to speculate over how I would feel.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To those arguing for collective rights: prove that they exist please.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hy~)
    To those arguing for collective rights: prove that they exist please.
    Can you prove that individual rights exist?

    Neither exist in an objective sense, it is just a matter of where you place the balance or put the emphasis.
    Offline

    13
    Liberalism is all about individualism and personal freedom, its about choice and self responsibility.

    Liberalism makes coercion very difficult; anyone who seeks control over people is an enemy of liberalism. Religions are all about social control, and for some reason they've lingered on for too long in developed society - but they were originally made for social control at a time when we didn't have law and order, and liberalism goes against collective control.

    Governments who seek control over the people oppose liberalism. The Nazis and the BNP may have both made claims to be socialists, but they sure as hell would never endorse liberalism because the freedom liberalism gives goes against their oppressive totalitarian ideologies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because the world is filled with crypto-fascists? (check this thread for instance?)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Some people are so sad and so upset with themselves, that they feel the need to exert control over everyone else's lives. What sort of person, other than a very insecure sad one, would take pleasure from not allowing me to smoke a spliff grown in my own home?


    It's people who feel they have a lack of control trying to exert some. And it's pathetic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Can you prove that individual rights exist?

    Neither exist in an objective sense, it is just a matter of where you place the balance or put the emphasis.
    Yes, I can.

    I also take it, by the fact that you avoided the question, that you can't prove collective rights exist. Judging by your posts, the very way you think revolves around collective rights. If you can't prove they exist, then how exactly can your views and opinions - which rely on them - be taken seriously?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    The family is one traditional institution that definitely does not hold us back. As I have said, it is the bedrock out of which a national society can emerge.
    the roman empire embraced it, it it had not fallen due to invasion, it would be the bases of the western world, not this christian crap.

    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    If you are proud of it, that pride is certainly not for public display.

    http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/gay/gay-vill1.html
    why is it not for display, you asre yet to provide me with any valid evidences for your belief.
    ahh a gay community, not a village, they just call it that, well with people like you arouund no wonder they have to stay together.


    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    I don't think I would,although it is obviously hard to speculate over how I would feel.
    so what would you do:confused: disown your child if they wanted to marry a member of there own gender?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GottaLovePhysics! :))
    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.


    We all know what heroin does to people, and how addictive it is......if you legalise it, more people will try it, and more people will get hooked

    these things are illegal for a reason, the only reason alcohol is legal is because it has been for so long, and prohibition just didnt work lol
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)



    If you are proud of it, that pride is certainly not for public display.


    if homosexuals we not persecuted by the likes of you, they would feel no need to express their 'pride', afterall, who's ever heard of 'heterosexual pride'?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hy~)
    Yes, I can.

    I also take it, by the fact that you avoided the question, that you can't prove collective rights exist. Judging by your posts, the very way you think revolves around collective rights. If you can't prove they exist, then how exactly can your views and opinions - which rely on them - be taken seriously?
    Prove that individual rights exist then.

    I believe that neither individual nor collective rights "exist" in some objective or measurable manner, but that emphasis on one or the other will be taken by somebody seeking to influence,build or maintain a society. There is no set of collective rights; I am saying the interests of the community come before the interests of the individual.Social order over person gratification and egotis, communal pride over individualism,the right to safety within a community rather than the right of an individual to take drugs, and so on..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    if homosexuals we not persecuted by the likes of you, they would feel no need to express their 'pride', afterall, who's ever heard of 'heterosexual pride'?
    I do not encourage or wish to see the persecution of homosexuals. If removing "homophobia" (in the form of aggression and persecution) from a society would remove the need for gay pride then I would be in favour.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rrea436)
    the roman empire embraced it, it it had not fallen due to invasion, it would be the bases of the western world, not this christian crap.
    I'm not quite sure what you mean. I don't think my viewpoint is especially Christian.

    (Original post by rrea436)
    why is it not for display, you asre yet to provide me with any valid evidences for your belief.
    ahh a gay community, not a village, they just call it that, well with people like you arouund no wonder they have to stay together.
    In the interests of public order it is not for display. The lifestyle is not to be encouraged or seen as something to take pride in. What a homosexual does in private is his own business, but what he does in public can and should be restricted.

    (Original post by rrea436)
    so what would you do:confused: disown your child if they wanted to marry a member of there own gender?
    It's impossible to know.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    We all know what heroin does to people, and how addictive it is......if you legalise it, more people will try it, and more people will get hooked

    these things are illegal for a reason, the only reason alcohol is legal is because it has been for so long, and prohibition just didnt work lol
    True.
    The thing is here are some people who can control themselvs while expirienceing dofferent drugs and those people can include any form of drug into thier lives without destroying it.
    Overall though, because most people cannot contol themselves I proberly would not legalise heroin.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    I'm not quite sure what you mean. I don't think my viewpoint is especially Christian.
    i mean that if the christian influence had now overthrown the pagen ones, then we would not be having such a debate.

    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    In the interests of public order it is not for display. The lifestyle is not to be encouraged or seen as something to take pride in. What a homosexual does in private is his own business, but what he does in public can and should be restricted.
    so one set of laws for you and one set of laws on homosexuals?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rrea436)
    i mean that if the christian influence had now overthrown the pagen ones, then we would not be having such a debate.
    Interesting. I'm not sure.Paganism is often more accepting of homosexuality, but modern Christianity is just as easy going.

    (Original post by rrea436)
    so one set of laws for you and one set of laws on homosexuals?
    Not really. They are entitled to equality before the law and I wouldn't see much point in organising "heterosexual pride" parades or organising heterosexual communities,either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    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.

    :rolleyes: And yet you are so quick to criticise communism and socialism.


    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.
    What negative effect does individual liberty concerning only the individual observing Mills harm principle have on collective freedom? Or are you an advocate of the whims of the majority ruling over the freedoms of the minority?


    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.
    The same could be said for the years immediately preceding the enlightenment and the founding of the USA based on a constitution which was revolutionary and based on the ideas found at the very forefront of that society as it was.

    You still have not explained why this is a bad thing.


    It undermines that great bedrock of Western civilisation, especially Anglo-Saxon civilisation, which is the family.
    So does civil rights and universal sufferage. Also, Anglo Saxon civilisation was a severe retardation of previous Greek and Roman civilisation. Your vouching for this doesn't do anything for your position at all.

    But ideology aside. Why exactly is it morally wrong for two gay parents to raise a child?

    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...
    Once again i am going to copy and paste an old post of mine concerning legal prostitution and the patriarchal fabrication which is that it degrades women, what it does in fact, is entirely the opposite. You authoritarian enforcement of what you see as 'traditional' family untis is what really degrades women, reducing them to the stereotypical housewife/mother role which previous patriarchal society forced upon them.

    Anyway, here is my old post:

    On the contrary i feel the opposite is true. We cannot deny that the basic and most important purpose for our mamillian species is to reproduce. Along the way the tools and traits developed for this purpose were supressed under the pretense that it was squalid and dirty. For instance many deities and holy men were conceived miraculously without the act of vaginal penetration. The open sexuality of women was surpressed as something to be shunned and disgusted at. It was made dirty and degrading. The main reason for this in my opinion is because of the power it holds over men. In the waning days of the Roman Republic when female promiscuity was looked down upon, there existed a woman named Claudia Pulchra Tercia who rivaled and often eclipsed the power and influence of the men who ruled. She was intelligent, independent and educated, aswell as liberated sexually. Unsurprisingly she was labelled a whore and a prostitute by the male ruling class, even those who had been seduced and enamoured by her. I think this association between female power and prostitution is apt in revealing why such discerning attitudes have been developed towards the practice over the millenia.
    Through it's illegality it remains a practice dominated and contolled by men. I have no doubt whatsoever that if it was to be made legal, it would become a business dominated and contolled by women, we already have an example in the porn industry which is being conquered by the vast acumen of it's most famous stars such a Jenna Jameson, who are setting up their own production companies etc.. Men in this type of business are just props and customers. Female power and independece rules supreme. This is why i feel industries in which women take advantage and use their sexuality is the opposite of the extension of /wife/childbearer you alluded to in the above post.


    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.
    What kind of argument is that? What are the negative affects of the rise? After all, Cannabis is far less harmfull than Alcohol or Tobacco. Simply stating that cannabis use rose in Holland pales in comparison to the lengthy argument i made about decriminlisation in Portugal. In fact it is demolished and obliterated completely. Arguments like yours were made before Portugal decriminalised all drugs, an act which proved to be an amazing success. Especially when you consider that beforehand the country had one of the highest illegal drug use rates in the world. You do not have anything at all with which to argue back against. Hence your weak, flaccid sentance about rises of use in Holland.

    You cannot truly have individual responsibility without indivdiual liberty. What you are suggesting in your authoritarian and paternal society is that an irresponsible nation of children is prefferable.


    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.

    Why isn't it?! The drugs industry only exists because the government has outlawed personal and private drug use ffs! Did you read nothing about Portugal? How do you explain that? Are the portugese better than us, are they more responsible citizens? Are they smarter? Can they be trusted to a greater extent?

    You insult your fellow Brits no end by suggesting they are children when compared to the Portugese and that they should therefore be treated as such. Shame on you for doing so. I suggest you read the information contained in these links on Portugal and then try and explain exactly why the British are incapable of social and indivdiaul responsibility.

    http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...893946,00.html
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...riminalization
    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080


    The ball is in your court Voluntas. Why do you feel the Portugese are superior to their British cousins? Why exactly can't the British be trusted with their own bodies and why are the Portugese more capable of social and individual responsibility than us?



    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.
    This reminds me of a quote by a certain someone. (apologies to Godwin)

    This is probably the first time and this is the first country in which people are being taught to realize that, of all the tasks which we have to face, the noblest and most sacred for mankind is that each racial species must preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it... The greatest revolution which National Socialism has brought about is that it has rent asunder the veil which hid from us the knowledge that all human failures and mistakes are due to the conditions of the time and therefore can be remedied, but that there is one error which cannot be remedied once men have made it, namely the failure to recognize the importance of conserving the blood and the race free from intermixture and thereby the racial aspect and character which are God's gift and God's handiwork. It is not for men to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize the fact that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation... As I look back on the great work that has been done during the past four years you will understand quite well that my first feeling is simply one of thankfulness to our Almighty God for having allowed me to bring this work to success. He has blessed our labors and has enabled our people to come through all the obstacles which encompassed them on their way... Today I must humbly thank Providence, whose grace has enabled me, who was once an unknown soldier in the War, to bring to a successful issue the struggle for the restoration of our honor and rights as a nation.

    Adolf Hitler, speech before the Reichstag, 30 January 1937

    Why exactly must each colour be preserved Voluntas? Why exactly do human beings like you and the fuhrer have this view?


    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.
    What?! :laugh: How can natural society develop with social conservatism? An ideology which intervenes and interrupts at every stage it can. If anything that is the definition of unnatural society. :curious:

    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.
    I though you would dislike the era of the civil rights movement. :rolleyes:



    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.[/quote]

    No, thats callled an opinion Voluntas. Just because it isn't the same as your own doesn't mean that everyone is brainwashed except yourself. That is the thinking of a tin hat wearing twit. I personally have immense respect and admiration for the beautiful works of the past, and the influence they have on present culture and society. I realise you would like nothing more than the oppurtunity to twist and force everyone to accept your views. And what do you mean by our civilisation? What claim do you dare make on the giants who preceded us?

    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.
    Once again your inner communist shines through. :yy:


    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.
    I think conflict is alot more likely in a segregated world in which each individual nation is told and believes it is superior to the next one. Even a fool could see that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    We all know what heroin does to people, and how addictive it is......if you legalise it, more people will try it, and more people will get hooked

    these things are illegal for a reason, the only reason alcohol is legal is because it has been for so long, and prohibition just didnt work lol

    Did you not eve read my post? Or did you choose to ignore my argument because it compeltely demolished your ill informed guesswork?

    I suggest you take a read of the real world evidence we have of such situations, and then try and explain why you think the Portugese are superior to their British cousins. Why can they be trusted with individual and social responsibility but not us? Are they better than us?

    http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...893946,00.html
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...riminalization
    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Prove that individual rights exist then.

    I believe that neither individual nor collective rights "exist" in some objective or measurable manner, but that emphasis on one or the other will be taken by somebody seeking to influence,build or maintain a society. There is no set of collective rights; I am saying the interests of the community come before the interests of the individual.Social order over person gratification and egotis, communal pride over individualism,the right to safety within a community rather than the right of an individual to take drugs, and so on..
    Alright. This proof is not mine; truth be told, I can't remember where I found it but it was impressively succinct enough that I saved it:

    Free will grants us an axiomatic, praxeological basis. We know that humans act. To deny this, you would have to act, proving yourself wrong. As a corollary to human action, we know that humans have free will. Without free will, human action would not be purposeful or meaningful. In order to deny this, you would have to use your free will to deny the existence of free will, therefore proving yourself wrong. From free will, we know that there must be an originator of free will - what we shall call the mind. The mind is the originator of all thoughts of a given being, making it the legitimate owner of it. So because of the existence of the mind, we know that every being with free will is a self-owner. From this, we can deduce that all property homesteaded by such beings is owned by the homesteader, since this property ownership is a natural extension of self-ownership.

    From all of the above, we can deduce that anyone who coerces or uses violence on another being capable of free will essentially enters a logical contradiction: by denying the free will/self-ownership of a being capable of free will/self-ownership, the action-originator denies his own free will/self-ownership. The action-originator implicitly allows any other being capable of free will/self-ownership to exact justice for the victim against the action-originator by using force.

    So there we have it. A value-free system of justice that establishes certain "rights." You can read "value-free" as logical, not moral, and thus not subjective.

    Nearly all of our rights extend from self-ownership. And from this, two conclusions are immediately obvious; positive rights do not exist, and collective rights do not exist.

    Of course, the above is condensed to allow you to respond. If you're capable, a more thorough proof of individual rights is available here.

    So, Voluntas Mos Victum, how are you going to respond to this? Are you going to try to find fault with any of the above? Or are you going to dismiss it, your pride clearly being as great as it is? Or are you going to try to say your beliefs are compatible with this?
    I confess; I'm curious.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    What negative effect does individual liberty concerning only the individual observing Mills harm principle have on collective freedom?
    Society is a far more complex thing than a set of atomized individuals wandering around doing whatever they please as long as they do no harm to each other.That has never created anything. Society is an expression of the direction,morals,culture,cohesio n and unity of those who have created it. How do we define harm? Is it both physical and mental, direct and indirect? The direct harm on the collective freedom of a people who have legalised prostitution,for example, may be difficult to measure, but the psychological and moral damage this may do to the average man indirectly is untold.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Or are you an advocate of the whims of the majority ruling over the freedoms of the minority?
    I am not sure the implementation of my viewpoint will always lead to that occuring, but if need be, yes.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The same could be said for the years immediately preceding the enlightenment and the founding of the USA based on a constitution which was revolutionary and based on the ideas found at the very forefront of that society as it was.
    True, but with regards to modern liberalism(soft,adjusted cultural marxism) and social conservatism, only one model has ever been successful. It is only designed for times of economic prosperity in any case.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You still have not explained why this is a bad thing.
    Why is it a bad thing? I feel that the social slide that has been occuring since the 50's is largely due to social liberalism, amongst several other things. Of course, you deny such a slide has occurred, and this is where we fundamentally disagree.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    So does civil rights and universal sufferage. Also, Anglo Saxon civilisation was a severe retardation of previous Greek and Roman civilisation. Your vouching for this doesn't do anything for your position at all.
    Anything that undermines the family unit should be opposed, and same sex adoption not only undermines the family unit, but is in direct contradiction to it by existence.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But ideology aside. Why exactly is it morally wrong for two gay parents to raise a child?
    On an individual level,moving aside all social and cultural implications?

    The psychological effect it will have on the child.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Once again i am going to copy and paste an old post of mine concerning legal prostitution and the patriarchal fabrication which is that it degrades women, what it does in fact, is entirely the opposite. You authoritarian enforcement of what you see as 'traditional' family untis is what really degrades women, reducing them to the stereotypical housewife/mother role which previous patriarchal society forced upon them.

    Anyway, here is my old post:

    On the contrary i feel the opposite is true. We cannot deny that the basic and most important purpose for our mamillian species is to reproduce. Along the way the tools and traits developed for this purpose were supressed under the pretense that it was squalid and dirty. For instance many deities and holy men were conceived miraculously without the act of vaginal penetration. The open sexuality of women was surpressed as something to be shunned and disgusted at. It was made dirty and degrading. The main reason for this in my opinion is because of the power it holds over men. In the waning days of the Roman Republic when female promiscuity was looked down upon, there existed a woman named Claudia Pulchra Tercia who rivaled and often eclipsed the power and influence of the men who ruled. She was intelligent, independent and educated, aswell as liberated sexually. Unsurprisingly she was labelled a whore and a prostitute by the male ruling class, even those who had been seduced and enamoured by her. I think this association between female power and prostitution is apt in revealing why such discerning attitudes have been developed towards the practice over the millenia.
    Through it's illegality it remains a practice dominated and contolled by men. I have no doubt whatsoever that if it was to be made legal, it would become a business dominated and contolled by women, we already have an example in the porn industry which is being conquered by the vast acumen of it's most famous stars such a Jenna Jameson, who are setting up their own production companies etc.. Men in this type of business are just props and customers. Female power and independece rules supreme. This is why i feel industries in which women take advantage and use their sexuality is the opposite of the extension of /wife/childbearer you alluded to in the above post.
    I disagree. Degredation of women and men can be seen in both the prostitution and porn industries. Women are considered as little more than harlots and whores, and objects of male desire with no purpose or value outside of their sexual value. Whether women are controlling these industries is ultimately irrelevant, although the control women would then hold over men, as you point out, puts them in the position of power- this will degrade man's psychological and moral fabric and make him lost in a sea of egotism,blind lust and an ultimate loss of pride. Furthermore, the traditional family unit is one where the male and female have different roles, but are equal within this inequality, as both roles are equally important. Men and women together create life, and it is this symmetrical reality that makes the dominance of either sex something which should not be encouraged.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    What kind of argument is that? What are the negative affects of the rise? After all, Cannabis is far less harmfull than Alcohol or Tobacco. Simply stating that cannabis use rose in Holland pales in comparison to the lengthy argument i made about decriminlisation in Portugal. In fact it is demolished and obliterated completely. Arguments like yours were made before Portugal decriminalised all drugs, an act which proved to be an amazing success. Especially when you consider that beforehand the country had one of the highest illegal drug use rates in the world. You do not have anything at all with which to argue back against. Hence your weak, flaccid sentance about rises of use in Holland.
    You believe there are no negative effects of taking cannabis? That it is a desirable thing for a society to produce and consume?

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You cannot truly have individual responsibility without indivdiual liberty. What you are suggesting in your authoritarian and paternal society is that an irresponsible nation of children is prefferable.
    Hypothetically speaking, if drugs were banished from the UK, resulting in neither the criminalisation of them nor the freedom to take them, would an individual's liberty still be restricted by their lack of availability?

    I believe that the state also has responsible, which is to remove the need for individual responsibility on matters such as drugs to allow responsibility on more salient matters to develop. I am suggesting a responsible society of men who do not need to choose to reject drugs, because the responsibilities of the elite have graciously removed that burden from them.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Why isn't it?! The drugs industry only exists because the government has outlawed personal and private drug use ffs! Did you read nothing about Portugal? How do you explain that? Are the portugese better than us, are they more responsible citizens? Are they smarter? Can they be trusted to a greater extent?
    Drug use is in the best interests of the society as a whole?Really?

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You insult your fellow Brits no end by suggesting they are children when compared to the Portugese and that they should therefore be treated as such. Shame on you for doing so. I suggest you read the information contained in these links on Portugal and then try and explain exactly why the British are incapable of social and indivdiaul responsibility.

    http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...893946,00.html
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...riminalization
    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080


    The ball is in your court Voluntas. Why do you feel the Portugese are superior to their British cousins? Why exactly can't the British be trusted with their own bodies and why are the Portugese more capable of social and individual responsibility than us?
    There are more effective ways to cut drug use- legalising it sends out the wrong message to the people, and it will be interesting to see how the situation in Portugal pans out in the long run.

    There are many things to do- the Western world must wage a war against the drugs industry, eradicate the culture which encourages drug usage, issue the harshest available penalty to drug pushers and get tougher on the truly weak individuals choosing to take drugs aswell,especially when it influences their actions on society at large regarding crime,which is linked to without doubt linked to drug use- not just in a judicial sense, but also to influence a society so that the community will isolate a dissentient individual so that the state does not need to intervene or have a great deal of difficulty finding such people. Unlike the common criminal however, drug users are capable of reform, so there must also be an expansion on treatments available for those seeking a cleaner life who have found their way to drugs through unfortunate circumstance.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    This reminds me of a quote by a certain someone. (apologies to Godwin)

    This is probably the first time and this is the first country in which people are being taught to realize that, of all the tasks which we have to face, the noblest and most sacred for mankind is that each racial species must preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it... The greatest revolution which National Socialism has brought about is that it has rent asunder the veil which hid from us the knowledge that all human failures and mistakes are due to the conditions of the time and therefore can be remedied, but that there is one error which cannot be remedied once men have made it, namely the failure to recognize the importance of conserving the blood and the race free from intermixture and thereby the racial aspect and character which are God's gift and God's handiwork. It is not for men to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize the fact that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation... As I look back on the great work that has been done during the past four years you will understand quite well that my first feeling is simply one of thankfulness to our Almighty God for having allowed me to bring this work to success. He has blessed our labors and has enabled our people to come through all the obstacles which encompassed them on their way... Today I must humbly thank Providence, whose grace has enabled me, who was once an unknown soldier in the War, to bring to a successful issue the struggle for the restoration of our honor and rights as a nation.

    Adolf Hitler, speech before the Reichstag, 30 January 1937

    Why exactly must each colour be preserved Voluntas? Why exactly do human beings like you and the fuhrer have this view?
    Not just colour, but ethnicity within those different races aswell. The motivation is not really aesthetic, but cultural, as cultural is created from a body of people the logical conclusion of ethnic dissolution is cultural dissolution aswell.

    Did you read the article I linked you to be Dugin? He articulates far better than I can some of the philosophical and other implications of the world you advocate.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    What?! :laugh: How can natural society develop with social conservatism? An ideology which intervenes and interrupts at every stage it can. If anything that is the definition of unnatural society. :curious:
    Every successful society in the past was socially conservative by modern standards, and every successful society follows a similar trend- See Japan,China for good examples. It is the social expression of that which is natural, as natural society without the constant interference of liberalism and other perverting influences have been based on ideas similar to these -

    - The desire to conserve what exists, and not break down existing social order for the sake of it, or for questionable motives, like the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism movement which engineered or first speculated over many of the ideas present in modern liberalism.
    - The existence of hierarchy within a society that comes about as a result of the inherrent inequality of all life. However, it is equal in it's inequality, as each have a place.
    -The desire for a society and culture which is stable and inclusive to the masses, not multicultural and divided like today- free from crime, and unified in it's opposition to all that is considered to be not moral by the body of people at the time,including drugs,abortion and minority rights,if the facts were presented correctly and the debate not policed by political correctness.
    - A belief in justice, which would lead to over 75% of all people to vote for the death penalty,despite the toxic propaganda with which they are bombarded.

    Amongst many other things.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No, thats callled an opinion Voluntas. Just because it isn't the same as your own doesn't mean that everyone is brainwashed except yourself. That is the thinking of a tin hat wearing twit. I personally have immense respect and admiration for the beautiful works of the past, and the influence they have on present culture and society. I realise you would like nothing more than the oppurtunity to twist and force everyone to accept your views. And what do you mean by our civilisation? What claim do you dare make on the giants who preceded us?
    I cannot help but feel that this boils down to something other than difference of opinion. What great civilisational work have future generations to look back on in high art and high music between the years 1960-2010? Furthermore, what about popular music or modern art have the future generations to look back on for inspiration? Most popular music amounts to consumerist trash and modern art can be considered just about anything.

    By our civilisations I refer to the civilisations which have preceded us which were shared by various groups within the European people.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I think conflict is alot more likely
    in a segregated world in which each individual nation is told and believes it is superior to the next one. Even a fool could see that.
    Perhaps, but I wish to see in the future greater co-operation between the different European countries and the establishment of a pan-European feeling which will preserve independence of the nation state but also maintain understanding between them. Never again should we descend into a situation which leads to the horrific death of countless people the world over as has happened in the last century.

    As for my thoughts on the dangers of a mondialist world, I can only ask you look into "Subject without confines".
 
 
 
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.