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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Because liberals are the friends of criminals, because they are against tradition, because they have the no morals. Need I go on?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Liberals are so out of touch with reality.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    cos they iz well retardedz
    Offline

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

    I want you to elaborate on this because the rest of your post was just empty words.

    What exaclty could the psychological and moral damage this could do to the average man be? And how would it be any worse than the psychological and moral damage done by denying him his individual freedom and the ability to become a truly responsibile citizen?



    I am not sure the implementation of my viewpoint will always lead to that occuring, but if need be, yes.
    I get the feeling that you would have been against the civil rights movement if you were living in the USA at the time.

    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.
    Im not talking about modern liberalism. I am talking about classical liberalism and the ideas of the enlightenment. These are the ideas and values you oppose. Forget about cultural marxism. I am talking about individual freedom and responsibility. The values and ideas of Franklin, Locke, Paine and Jefferson.


    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.
    Why should it be oppposed? And what gives you the right to dictate to others what kind of family they should be a part of? Again this sounds an awful lot like Socialism, something which you purport to be opposed to.


    The psychological effect it will have on the child.
    What psychological effect is this exactly?



    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.
    And there we have it. You have just said yourself that you favour the patriarchal opression and subjugation of half the human population.

    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.
    :toofunny: The role of a slave on a plantation is equally important as the freeman who delivers the cotton. Would you say this makes them truly equal?

    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.
    Yet you advocate the dominance of the male sex.



    You believe there are no negative effects of taking cannabis? That it is a desirable thing for a society to produce and consume?
    The negative effects pale in comparison to the negative effects of Alcohol and tobacco. Why exactly would it be any more harmful than these two?


    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. Drug use is in the best interests of the society as a whole?Really?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.

    You didn't answer my question 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? Are they more responsible citizens? Are they smarter? Can they be trusted to a greater extent?


    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.
    Rubbish. You said yourself that culture is created from a body of people. And you are right. But you are speaking rubbish when you imply it is dependent on ethnicity. The music or film culture is something which transcends anachronistic ideas of race such as yours. As well as societies such as Brazil and the USA.

    Every successful society in the past was socially conservative by modern standards,
    Exactly, and so was every succesfull society before that. I bring up once again the example of the enligtenment. Or would you seriously suggest that the preceding theocratic and infinitely more socially conservative society of medieval europe was preferable?

    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?

    Are you being serious? Cultural icons such as Elvis Presley and Micheal Jackson. The creation of Hollywood and movies which will be played hundreds of years from now. Countless new genres of music and an extension of culture to all ages.

    Are you seriously denying the cultural giant which was the 20th century?

    By our civilisations I refer to the civilisations which have preceded us which were shared by various groups within the European people.
    What is stoppping you extending this out to the whole world? Race no longer exists as we once thought it did. We are one single species.

    And that still doesn't answer my question. What gives you the right to claim the achievments of the human beings who have preceded us as your own?



    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.

    Voluntas, why don't you just say it out loud? Everyboody knows it anyway. You want a white nation, or an alliance of white people. :rolleyes: Thats what youre really getting at.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Can you imagine how a society would prosper with the ideologies of liberalism, secularism and transhumanism?

    But there will always be morons spoiling it for everyone else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People hate liberalism since they're scared of a liberal society.

    Yes, people may be tyrants and not nice, but the liberal tradition is the only valid political ideology, since everybody lives to be free in some sense.
    Offline

    0
    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.
    Closed-mindedness is a mental illness.

    If something is new, then why should it be dismissed out of hand?

    it is arrogant to say that any standpoint is right for all times. if this were the case all the while, we would never have any scientific progress, for one.

    The objective fact of humanity is that nothing is absolute. People may present logic to support viewpoints, but since human beings are not omniscient then we cannot say anything is inherently good or bad.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amii_G)
    You place far too much faith on the human race. We live to exploit other people. That's how we have always lived and that's how it's going to continue. It may wrong, immoral and unethical but it's not going to change anytime soon.
    this is true, but forcing others to compel to your will is never a healthy perspective to live by. Other people have their own will, which in reality is no more morally right than anybody else's.

    As everybody thinks differently and values differently, people would always differ in how they wish to live, or how they wish to conduct themselves.

    People may think vegetarianism is weird, but to vegetarians it is normal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I want you to elaborate on this because the rest of your post was just empty words.

    What exaclty could the psychological and moral damage this could do to the average man be? And how would it be any worse than the psychological and moral damage done by denying him his individual freedom and the ability to become a truly responsibile citizen?
    I cannot tell you the exact psychological or moral damage, because, as I have said, society is an incredibly complex thing which no individual can profess to understand all the intricacies of. However, to assume that the legalisation of prostitution, a practice regarded by the vast majority of humans the world over as an abhorrent practice, would have no damage on the individual man is incredibly naive and has a very optimistic view of the human condition.

    A woman selling her body for sex. A man forsaking his natural role in a relationship and therefore acting directly against the social order and stability which had previously been in place because of the so called "authoritarianism" of criminalising practices deemed to be harmful.

    The crass individualism with which you see life is surely anti-social,or anti-society, by it's very nature.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Im not talking about modern liberalism. I am talking about classical liberalism and the ideas of the enlightenment. These are the ideas and values you oppose. Forget about cultural marxism. I am talking about individual freedom and responsibility. The values and ideas of Franklin, Locke, Paine and Jefferson.
    Those ideas are hardly tried or tested either. A balance needs to be struck between vague individual concepts like "freedom" and "liberty" and more collectivist concepts. I don't think my ideas are necessarily in direct contradiction to certain ideas of "the enlightenment".

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Why should it be oppposed? And what gives you the right to dictate to others what kind of family they should be a part of? Again this sounds an awful lot like Socialism, something which you purport to be opposed to.
    The family unit is one of the most natural and inherent foundations of life. For the interests of the individual concerned in same sex adoption, and of society as a whole, the government has the right to refuse to allow certain practices which are not in the best interest of the people. If that means curtailing the rights of a minority of sexual deviants, then so be it.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    What psychological effect is this exactly?
    It is difficult to say, although, assuming there is no psychological effects falls short of scientific understanding for political purposes. From earlier in the thread :

    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
    No wonder liberals are so in favour.

    [QUOTE=Aeolus]
    And there we have it. You have just said yourself that you favour the patriarchal opression and subjugation of half the human population.
    [QUOTE]

    Absolutely not. I said quite the opposite; that neither sex should dominate the other. Speaking out against men being under the control of women in the situation we discussed does not mean I am in favour the situation the reverse way around.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    :toofunny: The role of a slave on a plantation is equally important as the freeman who delivers the cotton. Would you say this makes them truly equal?
    Yes. Both are fulfilling their role; their roles are differing but are of equal importance.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The negative effects pale in comparison to the negative effects of Alcohol and tobacco. Why exactly would it be any more harmful than these two?
    The negative effects of tobacco use are unseen until later in life, and present few social ills. Alcohol can be and is culturalised, and be consumed in moderation.

    In any case, that is no argument for the legalisation of cannabis. In my view a government should discourage the use of alcohol in large quantities and tobacco so that citizens can be healthy and prosperous.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You didn't answer my question 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? Are they more responsible citizens? Are they smarter? Can they be trusted to a greater extent?
    I don't have the answer to those questions. I don't think legalisation is the solution to the drug problem(which no doubt, you don't regard as a problem even). I instead outlined my basic strategy for dealing with the issue.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Rubbish. You said yourself that culture is created from a body of people. And you are right. But you are speaking rubbish when you imply it is dependent on ethnicity. The music or film culture is something which transcends anachronistic ideas of race such as yours. As well as societies such as Brazil and the USA.
    When you cease to see culture as individual categories like music and art which one simply mixes and blends in the liberal view of the world, but instead see it as a worldview or way of life,or as a weltanschauung, it is quite clear that ethnic division exists in a absolute way in this regard.

    Of course, when the West is so socially and culturally weak itself anyway, it is difficult to tell. The ultimate aim is the mixed race borderless world where everybody has no roots anywhere and is thus the perfect atomized individual consumer, who is allowed to stray in the cultural realms of mcdonalds and MTV, which are designed to be equally attractive to all classes and creeds.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Exactly, and so was every succesfull society before that. I bring up once again the example of the enligtenment. Or would you seriously suggest that the preceding theocratic and infinitely more socially conservative society of medieval europe was preferable?
    No, as I have said, a balance needs to be struck.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Are you being serious? Cultural icons such as Elvis Presley and Micheal Jackson. The creation of Hollywood and movies which will be played hundreds of years from now. Countless new genres of music and an extension of culture to all ages.

    Are you seriously denying the cultural giant which was the 20th century?
    It isn't of that much value. I realise this is personal opinion,of course.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    What is stoppping you extending this out to the whole world? Race no longer exists as we once thought it did. We are one single species.

    Why would I extend it to the whole world? Everything is group based. I have no allegiance to the world and it's people as a whole.

    Of course race exists, although we are the same species of course. The two ideas are not contradictory.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    And that still doesn't answer my question. What gives you the right to claim the achievments of the human beings who have preceded us as your own?
    Most of your arguments seem to be based around "what gives you the right?". Nothing gives anybody the right to do anything; I choose to take pride in my heritage and the achievements of my ancestors before me.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Voluntas, why don't you just say it out loud? Everyboody knows it anyway. You want a white nation, or an alliance of white people. :rolleyes: Thats what youre really getting at.
    Not really. Would I want an all white Britain of Poles,Hungarians and Spaniards? Absolutely not; I simply believe in the right of the British ethnic group ,irrespective of whether they are "white" or not, to hold onto their own land. This does not mean that Britain has to be 100% white or 100% ethnically British.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    I cannot tell you the exact psychological or moral damage, because, as I have said, society is an incredibly complex thing which no individual can profess to understand all the intricacies of.
    So you admit you are just making this up?

    A woman selling her body for sex. A man forsaking his natural role in a relationship and therefore acting directly against the social order and stability which had previously been in place because of the so called "authoritarianism" of criminalising practices deemed to be harmful.

    The crass individualism with which you see life is surely anti-social,or anti-society, by it's very nature.

    You cannot have true responsibility without rights and freedoms. That is obvious to anybody. Obedience via threat cannot equal the level of individual and social responsibility bought about through freedom and rights. I point you again to Portugal and decriminalisation. Real world evidence that crushes every piece of socially conservative rhetoric you type.


    If that means curtailing the rights of a minority of sexual deviants, then so be it.
    :rolleyes: You really do have a shock coming to you if you ever eventually step foot in the real world.



    Absolutely not. I said quite the opposite; that neither sex should dominate the other. Speaking out against men being under the control of women in the situation we discussed does not mean I am in favour the situation the reverse way around.
    You advocate a patriarchal society, fact. You pretty much said so yourself in the earlier post that a womans natural place is in the kitchen. The mans at the head of the family.



    Yes. Both are fulfilling their role; their roles are differing but are of equal importance.

    The fact you think a slave and a freedman are equal is why i, and almost every other substantial user of this forum do not take you seriously.


    The negative effects of tobacco use are unseen until later in life, and present few social ills. Alcohol can be and is culturalised, and be consumed in moderation.
    You are just clutching at straws now. You were arguing from a social health perspective; the good of society. Just because you can culturise alcohol (You didn't explain how, or why you can't do the same with cannabis) Doesn't make it any heallthier. You contradict your previous point, and in the process become a hypocrite.

    In any case, that is no argument for the legalisation of cannabis. In my view a government should discourage the use of alcohol in large quantities and tobacco so that citizens can be healthy and prosperous.
    Why can't the same be done for Cannabis or any other drug. Vauge overreaching statements do not constitute a point.


    I don't have the answer to those questions. I don't think legalisation is the solution to the drug problem(which no doubt, you don't regard as a problem even). I instead outlined my basic strategy for dealing with the issue.
    Answer the question. It is not a hard one. I do not care about your basic strategy. Decriminalisation worked in Portugal. But you do say that it will not work here.

    Do you think the Portugese are better than the Brits? Do you think they are more responsible citizens? More trustworthy perhaps?

    I am not letting this one go, Voluntas. Why do you think the Portugese can handle individual responsibility but not us British?



    I am not going to answer anything else, i think we know how the other feels regarding race, immigration etc..
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You cannot have true responsibility without rights and freedoms. That is obvious to anybody. Obedience via threat cannot equal the level of individual and social responsibility bought about through freedom and rights. I point you again to Portugal and decriminalisation. Real world evidence that crushes every piece of socially conservative rhetoric you type.
    I've blogged this as "quote of the century". Well said.
    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.
    There is no evidence that any rights exist, period.

    One advantage that social liberalism has over social conservatism is that it more realistically encompasses the human condition. The fact is that the world is an array of different thoughts, tastes and values, and who is to say that people are not allowed to hold such things? Social conservatism puts forward a very narrow picture of human interaction, and expects such values to be some kind of objective good.

    I agree that has to be, and always is, a balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the collective. it's how human interaction inherently works. But I don't agree that a more liberal society would undermine social order.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.