Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2023 3:29:01 GMT -8
Or, like far too may liberals, only the speech they agree with? Conservative Christian David French seems to feel that conservatives are operating the sinister levers of cancel culture as much, if not more, than liberals, and sounded the alarm in The Atlantic 10 months ago: www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/republican-dont-say-gay-bill-florida/629516/From Zod's perspective, the former National Review writer couldn't be more spot on: As the Republican Party evolves from a party focused on individual liberty and limits on government power to a party that more fully embraces government control of the economy and morality, it is reversing many of its previous stances on free speech in public universities, in public education, and in private corporations.
Driven by a combination of partisan animosity and public fear, it is embracing the tactics that it once opposed.From conservative opposition to academic freedom, to rampant book bans, to the more pathetic efforts on forums like this to drown and silence (via infantile trolling) those who disagree with them rather than engaging in adult discussion, conservative cry-bullies appear to have strayed far from the path of their own espoused ideals, and are wandering in a desert of their own hypocritical and perpetual outrage. Or as Mr. French puts it: If you hate or fear your opponents enough, it is hard to resist the siren song of using raw state power to silence their voices.Can conservatives pull out of this death spiral into the very fascism they claim to oppose, or are even darker days inevitable? NO COVID DISCUSSION PLEASE. |
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Feb 21, 2023 5:25:57 GMT -8
Or, like far too may liberals, only the speech they agree with? Conservative Christian David French seems to feel that conservatives are operating the sinister levers of cancel culture as much, if not more, than liberals, and sounded the alarm in The Atlantic 10 months ago: www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/republican-dont-say-gay-bill-florida/629516/From Zod's perspective, the former National Review writer couldn't be more spot on: As the Republican Party evolves from a party focused on individual liberty and limits on government power to a party that more fully embraces government control of the economy and morality, it is reversing many of its previous stances on free speech in public universities, in public education, and in private corporations.
Driven by a combination of partisan animosity and public fear, it is embracing the tactics that it once opposed.From conservative opposition to academic freedom, to rampant book bans, to the more pathetic efforts on forums like this to drown and silence (via infantile trolling) those who disagree with them rather than engaging in adult discussion, conservative cry-bullies appear to have strayed far from the path of their own espoused ideals, and are wandering in a desert of their own hypocritical and perpetual outrage. Or as Mr. French puts it: If you hate or fear your opponents enough, it is hard to resist the siren song of using raw state power to silence their voices.Can conservatives pull out of this death spiral into the very fascism they claim to oppose, or are even darker days inevitable? NO COVID DISCUSSION PLEASE.The last sentence is a violation of FREE SPEECH. There is a name for that...Hypocrisy. That is different from Hippocratic Oath. It is different from Hippopotamus. It is different from Hypnotism. It is different from Hippodrome. It is somewhat similar to Hypochondriac, when continuously demanded as a requirement of response. Thus, the premise for the Thread fails in pursuit of that which it demands; Freedom to answer, without limitation, using logical posit examples. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 21, 2023 11:31:32 GMT -8
Spike proteins.
|
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Feb 21, 2023 11:38:42 GMT -8
Spike Lee
|
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 21, 2023 15:02:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Feb 21, 2023 15:42:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 21, 2023 15:48:33 GMT -8
... government control of the economy and morality...What government policy or law of any sort does not seek to control some aspect of the economy and/or impose some sort of morality? All laws are based on a certain form of morality, are they not? And seeks to punish those who act in opposition to that morality. e.g: fraud, slander/libel, endangerment, DUI, robbery, murder, rape, child abuse, etc. Clearly not all immorality is illegal (adultery for example), but it's hard to find any law that is not, at it's core, based on a specific morality, which may be referred to as "Natural Law" or "Laws of Human Nature". One may say that such "Natural Law" or "Laws of Human Nature" are those which are universal - and indeed they may very well be universal - but that doesn't take away from the fact that our civil laws are founded in these moral laws of human nature. |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 21, 2023 16:48:13 GMT -8
Also, these universal "Laws of Human Nature" (morality) are not created by us - if they were, then each culture and era would create for themselves different versions of "universal" morality - akin to each culture and era creating for themselves rules of which side of the road to drive on, or how much taxes should be paid, or who gets to be considered "fully human" and who doesn't. Thus they wouldn't be "universal" at all then.
And therefore these universal "Natural Laws" of morality cannot be created by us, but must be created in us. Which means there must be something outside of ourselves, outside of our culture, outside of our era, even outside of our humanity from which these universal "Laws of Human Nature" are derived and indwelt into our own human nature.
And these laws of morality are not merely instincts like animals have (and we do also), because very rarely do animals betray or disobey their animal instincts as often as humans betray and disobey the "Laws of Human Nature" or morality. Rarely if ever does a sparrow choose to not build a nest, or choose to not breed (or attempt to breed) or choose to not fear cats and fly away. It is posited that the reason animals rarely if ever act against their instinct is that there is no "higher" law which may over-ride their instincts, like there is in humans with our reason and morality.
Humans, however, can much more easily choose to obey or disobey this morality, "Laws of Human Nature", than we can choose to go against the laws of "animal instinct" (sex-drive, hunger, fear of a charging bear, etc.). Yet it is precisely this morality that defines our humanity! Humans are beings embodied not just with animal instincts, but also with a morality separate from, and superior to, our animal-nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 21, 2023 17:08:36 GMT -8
Also, these universal "Laws of Human Nature" (morality) are not created by us - if they were, then each culture and era would create for themselves different versions of "universal" morality - akin to each culture and era creating for themselves rules of which side of the road to drive on, or how much taxes should be paid, or who gets to be considered "fully human" and who doesn't. Thus they wouldn't be "universal" at all then. And therefore these universal "Natural Laws" of morality cannot be created by us, but must be created in us. Which means there must be something outside of ourselves, outside of our culture, outside of our era, even outside of our humanity from which these universal "Laws of Human Nature" are derived and indwelt into our own human nature. And these laws of morality are not merely instincts like animals have (and we do also), because very rarely do animals betray or disobey their animal instincts as often as humans betray and disobey the "Laws of Human Nature" or morality. Rarely if ever does a sparrow choose to not build a nest, or choose to not breed (or attempt to breed) or choose to not fear cats and fly away. It is posited that the reason animals rarely if ever act against their instinct is that there is no "higher" law which may over-ride their instincts, like there is in humans with our reason and morality. Humans, however, can much more easily choose to obey or disobey this morality, "Laws of Human Nature", than we can choose to go against the laws of "animal instinct" (sex-drive, hunger, fear of a charging bear, etc.). Yet it is precisely this morality that defines our humanity! Humans are beings embodied not just with animal instincts, but also with a morality separate from, and superior to, our animal-nature. Current cultures and historically cultures do not have same morality rules though. Example some cultures honor killing of female children is A Ok. All religions have different morality rules although they may share some. |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 21, 2023 17:30:30 GMT -8
Also, these universal "Laws of Human Nature" (morality) are not created by us - if they were, then each culture and era would create for themselves different versions of "universal" morality - akin to each culture and era creating for themselves rules of which side of the road to drive on, or how much taxes should be paid, or who gets to be considered "fully human" and who doesn't. Thus they wouldn't be "universal" at all then. And therefore these universal "Natural Laws" of morality cannot be created by us, but must be created in us. Which means there must be something outside of ourselves, outside of our culture, outside of our era, even outside of our humanity from which these universal "Laws of Human Nature" are derived and indwelt into our own human nature. And these laws of morality are not merely instincts like animals have (and we do also), because very rarely do animals betray or disobey their animal instincts as often as humans betray and disobey the "Laws of Human Nature" or morality. Rarely if ever does a sparrow choose to not build a nest, or choose to not breed (or attempt to breed) or choose to not fear cats and fly away. It is posited that the reason animals rarely if ever act against their instinct is that there is no "higher" law which may over-ride their instincts, like there is in humans with our reason and morality. Humans, however, can much more easily choose to obey or disobey this morality, "Laws of Human Nature", than we can choose to go against the laws of "animal instinct" (sex-drive, hunger, fear of a charging bear, etc.). Yet it is precisely this morality that defines our humanity! Humans are beings embodied not just with animal instincts, but also with a morality separate from, and superior to, our animal-nature. Current cultures and historically cultures do not have same morality rules though. Example some cultures honor killing of female children is A Ok. All religions have different morality rules although they may share some. Actually they do! All cultures have the same morality that "murder is wrong". Zero cultures would be okay with allowing people to kill anyone they wanted to. What differs is, as mentioned before, who gets to be considered "fully human" and deserving protection under that universal law of morality and who doesn't (in the example you raised, female children do not). That's where they betray the universal morality for their own convenience (like any immoral serial killer does too). |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 21, 2023 17:59:33 GMT -8
Current cultures and historically cultures do not have same morality rules though. Example some cultures honor killing of female children is A Ok. All religions have different morality rules although they may share some. Actually they do! All cultures have the same morality that "murder is wrong". Zero cultures would be okay with allowing people to kill anyone they wanted to. What differs is, as mentioned before, who gets to be considered "fully human" and deserving protection under that universal law of morality and who doesn't (in the example you raised, female children do not). That's where they betray the universal morality for their own convenience (like any immoral serial killer does too). No. Honor killings for one, convert or kill for another. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 21, 2023 18:01:55 GMT -8
Current cultures and historically cultures do not have same morality rules though. Example some cultures honor killing of female children is A Ok. All religions have different morality rules although they may share some. Zero cultures would be okay with allowing people to kill anyone they wanted to. Review Nazi Germany and Jews bro. Review the current culture in Palestine. Review the Hutu/Tutsi killins. Review the entire history of humanity or check current events. On and on and on examples of murder bein A Ok. And thats just murder. There is no 'consensus' on morality, and never has been. |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 21, 2023 20:15:32 GMT -8
Zero cultures would be okay with allowing people to kill anyone they wanted to. Review Nazi Germany and Jews bro. Review the current culture in Palestine. Review the Hutu/Tutsi killins. Review the entire history of humanity or check current events. On and on and on examples of murder bein A Ok. And thats just murder. There is no 'consensus' on morality, and never has been. All those examples you gave are "accepted" killings, not cart-blanche to murder anyone you want. Not even the Nazis allowed Nazis to just up and murder other Nazis. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 21, 2023 20:19:39 GMT -8
Review Nazi Germany and Jews bro. Review the current culture in Palestine. Review the Hutu/Tutsi killins. Review the entire history of humanity or check current events. On and on and on examples of murder bein A Ok. And thats just murder. There is no 'consensus' on morality, and never has been. All those examples you gave are "accepted" killings, not cart-blanche to murder anyone you want. Not even the Nazis allowed Nazis to just up and murder other Nazis. exactly. accepted killings ie there is no consensus on morality. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 21, 2023 20:29:11 GMT -8
The nazis thought it was ok to kill Jews. The Americans and others didnt. There are millions of examples like this. I honestly cannot see how you can make an argument for a consensus of morality, imbued by God. Plus there's the free will angle.
|
|
