******Official politics thread ******

[Throndor]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

it's a good word of caution. temperance is a virtue among virtues. I am pretty sure already indicated that molyneux is a sad example of what harris was trying to do or rather one destination one might arrive at by way of reason. the problem for molyneux is that he believes in the primacy of individual liberty. he believes that there is nothing more egregious than infringing upon the liberty of another. In other words that is the fundamental nature of what is wrong.

Of course that's not how he defines his belief system and to his credit, there is a lot more to it and it is very well defined, but that presupposition is what constitutes the engine of his motivations.

Harris actually grounds his belief system in something much less concrete despite his exaltation of the rational mind. His first principal is the same as mine: suffering is bad. He takes another step beyond what I've been able determine and defines what also is good. I don't think he's wrong about what is good, I just think good is much more difficult to define than bad.

Agreed. Molyneux's view of prudence is much more 1 dimensional, or self-motivated than Harris'. On that note id also add that peterson's critique of collectivism is somewhat applicable in understanding why so. That is to say, how do you hold a group responsible. The reason why individualism has to reside above collectivism is precisely because of that. What is a group other than an ensemble of individuals sharing similar interests/physical characteristics while attempting to claim itself bigger than the sum of its parts?

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

it's a good word of caution. temperance is a virtue among virtues. I am pretty sure already indicated that molyneux is a sad example of what harris was trying to do or rather one destination one might arrive at by way of reason. the problem for molyneux is that he believes in the primacy of individual liberty. he believes that there is nothing more egregious than infringing upon the liberty of another. In other words that is the fundamental nature of what is wrong.

Of course that's not how he defines his belief system and to his credit, there is a lot more to it and it is very well defined, but that presupposition is what constitutes the engine of his motivations.

Harris actually grounds his belief system in something much less concrete despite his exaltation of the rational mind. His first principal is the same as mine: suffering is bad. He takes another step beyond what I've been able determine and defines what also is good. I don't think he's wrong about what is good, I just think good is much more difficult to define than bad.

One of the places I disagree with Peterson is attributing the social pathologies that the west currently suffers to some malicious conspiracy on behalf of marxists/post-modernists. It's very likely he would have more firsthand experience with the issue in academia than I would and I can understand how that perception might arise, but it's a claim I've no way of validating. Again to be fair, he tries to qualify every such claim by saying it is "certainly true of some," but not all.

I don't generally believe most of the people promoting bad ideas or destructive behavior do so with that as their intent. I believe most genuinely believe in what they are doing whether they are on the right or the left and that is a danger.

Anyway, I listen to Peterson, Harris, Haidt, Pinker, Rogan and Rubin, because they listen to whomever they are speaking with and they adapt their positions when relevant counterpoints are made. They are reasonable. They are also all liberal, like me.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Throndor]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Anyway, I listen to Peterson, Harris, Haidt, Pinker, Rogan and Rubin, because they listen to whomever they are speaking with and they adapt their positions when relevant counterpoints are made. They are reasonable. They are also all liberal, like me.

As ive already alluded to, in regards to Jonathan Haidt, Haidts biggest oversight is the outright failure to even include temperence/prudence in his reenvisioning of the moral matrix.

As for pinker, well you know fairly well the new irrational left is branding him a heretic and placing his views alongaide eugenicists at this point.

I believe my point still stands. Molyneux is overly simplifying the crux of the issue here. Muslims are flooding into the west, not for mere economic advantage. Rather, i believe they are directly responding to the arrogance of the west; believing we can domesticate all religiosity just because weve made a few advances in breaking things apart and artificiially putting them back together in more inclusive ways.

I dont carry the same level of brash overconfidence the the majority seemingly does. After all, i am a heretic who's kind has been burning at the stake for over 2 millennia now, and only very recently have i been allowed to even try to investigate lost knowledge i feel to be true. Im not ready to bet the farm yet.

In closing, as a criticism of social reconstruction theory, i believe the allegorical comparison to fascism/natzism still stands. If fascism can be dismissed because they largely derive from ideas promulgated by Hitler.....Foucault, Derrida et al's ideas can likewise easily ve dismissed by a more obdurate culture sheerly on the grounds that the architects of those ideas are pedophiles (or at the very least, pedophile sympathizers)

So dont be so overconfident in our new toys

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

name a liberal position.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by America [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

good morning!~ nice digits.

*hugs ahldagor*

/hug

[Throndor]

He doesnt have any. Hes just trolling at this point.


Anyhow, i believe i have done a fairly adequate job in laying out the foundations of my personalized stance on the matter, even going so far as to reveal far more of my own vulneralabilities than most would be willing to reveal. I dont feel that the current course of action towards importing the third world is a prudent course of action, and while rather personalized i dont belive i am the only one this concern is applicable to; concerns toward maintaining the integrity of the first ammendments protections of freedom FROM religion are not being properly safeguarded in all of this recent change brought on by the globalist agenda.

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

name a liberal position.

affirmative action

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

affirmative action

that's not a position, it's a policy. its a mechanism for establishing or safeguarding equality among men, which is a liberal position. we can agree on the position while debating the policy.

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

that's not a position, it's a policy. its a mechanism for establishing or safeguarding equality among men, which is a liberal position. we can agree on the position while debating the policy.

so you don't have to support a policy to support a policy?


wat

[Throndor]

That's what I've been trying to say for pages and pages now. The new left is intellectually lazy. They don't even understand the premises of their own platform's policies. They're so quick to run out there and "be the change" that they don't even know why they should. That's what happens when you build an education system that dictates conclusions as the cost of the dialogue leading up to the conclusion.

When confronted with this reality, their only response is to gaslight, redirect, deflect and/or crazymaking because our educational institutions have not actually educated them. They've indoctrinated them. This is why they cannot rationalize their own positions and their only response to true critical analysis of their position is an ego-invested response similar to that which you would see from a narcissist.