Secular progressive moral agenda...
-
Captain See Sharp wrote:
With freedom comes responsibility
It is good to put that principle into practice. Wherever you find irresponsibility - be it against you or whosoever - remind yourself of the price paid for that freedom.
Captain See Sharp wrote:
I value freedom to the highest extent and I would like everyone to have freedom because freedom makes happy people
Freedom should ensure that a society is at ease with itself. A society is not at ease with itself where bigotry and the likes is evident.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
A society is not at ease with itself where bigotry and the likes is evident.
I disagree, most people are blissfully numb and happy as they drive their SUVs to the mall and watch American Idol on the TV and chat on their cell phones. One important thing to remember is that preventing people from speaking their minds causes more "uneasiness" than a few KKK wackos and it only makes such issues as racism hidden, it does not abolish it. People laugh when they hear KKK people talk on the TV, I know I do. Its important for people to see and hear everything that goes on in the world. Nothing should be hidden and all information should be available to everyone.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
Captain See Sharp wrote:
I don't think saying "I hate gays" causes any real harm, just as saying "I hate Vista" or "I hate Hillery" causes no harm
Go into any public street and shout "I hate blacks" or "I hate jews". In fact, don't -- because if you aren't killed, you will be arrested. Encouraging discrimination against entire groups of people based on nothing more than the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation does do real harm. Let's not forget what started with "Jews should not be tolerated" and ended with the murders of millions of people. For perspective, there are more gay people in the world than [by race] Jews...
Captain See Sharp wrote:
it is oppressive
You are damned right it is. But not how you introduced it.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
Let's not forget what started with "Jews should not be tolerated" and ended with the murders of millions of people.
Hatred is not what killed the Jews. What killed them was the concentration of political power and a social moral agenda that would not let those opposed to the hatred speak out. That is precisely the situation growing in the west, once again thanks to leftist ideals. It is you who are now saying that something should not be tolerated. It is someone else being forced to bow to your social imperative. That is not going to end any better this time than it did last time. Hatred is merely a harmless emotion. It doesn't hurt anyone. People should be allowed to freely express and act on their hatred so long as they otherwise cause no physical harm to anyone.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The guy is banished for expressing opinions outside the main stream of modern, secular, moral views. There is absolutely no difference between this kind of social ostricism and what we would have if our society had, in fact, been taken over by a religious orthodoxy of some kind and gay people were banned for their views. It is exactly the same kind of social phenomenon and proof that humanity can never really escape religious-like behavior regardless of how far we push actual religion out of our lives. It is always there.
Codes of acceptable behaviour are always there, certainly. However, the degree of authoritarianism of those codes can vary greatly. I think that those who transgress on secular orthodoxy generally get off pretty lightly. Incidentally, did you notice the campaign against the two bloggers who worked for John Edwards but were eventually forced to resign because they had said some critical things about the Catholic church? Neither of them, as far as I know, ever said: "I hate Catholic people...I let it be known I don't like Catholic people and I don't like to be around Catholic people. I am Catholophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States sports." At least one of the bloggers voted for John Kerry, a Catholic, in the last Presidential election. Apparently, the threshold for "unacceptable hostility" toward Catholics is fairly low.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Codes of acceptable behaviour are always there, certainly. However, the degree of authoritarianism of those codes can vary greatly. I think that those who transgress on secular orthodoxy generally get off pretty lightly.
And I don't believe that American society has ever lived under a more iron fisted moral authoritarianism than we live under today.
John Carson wrote:
Incidentally, did you notice the campaign against the two bloggers who worked for John Edwards but were eventually forced to resign because they had said some critical things about the Catholic church? Neither of them, as far as I know, ever said:
John Edwards is running for a public office. The two were fired because of public attitudes about what they said. That is a 'bottom up', grass roots, expression of moral outrage. That is completely different from someone being punished because of a 'top down', elitist moral outrage. Moral outrage growing organically from the people is perfectly acceptable.
John Carson wrote:
At least one of the bloggers voted for John Kerry, a Catholic, in the last Presidential election. Apparently, the threshold for "unacceptable hostility" toward Catholics is fairly low.
John Kerry is about as much a catholic as I am a hindu.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
That fits... a bigot defending a bigot...
Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++ My blog http://blogs.wdevs.com/ultramaroon/[^] My blog mirror http://robmanderson.blogspot.com[^]
Rob Manderson wrote:
a bigot defending a bigot...
...being criticized by a bigot. So once again we come full circle...
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The overloads that compelled a 7 foot 300 lb millionaire to drop to his knees to beg for forgiveness.
If you are referring to Tim Hardaway he is neither 7 foot nor 300 pounds. He is, or at least was, a great basketball player none the less. What is interesting in your statement however is that you imply, I think, that because of someone's size or financial status that somehow "proves" their sense of morality is correct. I don't believe I can find the words to accurately describe how warped that is.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Have I ever even claimed to be a christian?
I see. So all those statements you made of "what" Christianity is were not based on your own personal experience of Christianity. Interesting, but you should not find it surprising that someone would take your statements to mean you are a practicing Christian.
led mike
led mike wrote:
because of someone's size or financial status that somehow "proves" their sense of morality is correct.
I didn't say it proves anything one way or another about his morality. The point would be that even someone as powerful as Hardaway has no power against the moral authoritarianism of the secularist agenda. He must humbly and meekly bow, as we all do, to the moral elitist of our age (such as yourself, for example).
led mike wrote:
I see. So all those statements you made of "what" Christianity is were not based on your own personal experience of Christianity. Interesting, but you should not find it surprising that someone would take your statements to mean you are a practicing Christian.
And I never said I was not a practicing christian. The hypocricy here isn't mine. It is entirely your own. The notion that the only possible reason someone could have for opposing the Marxist agenda people like you are trying to force down the throat of our society is some form of 'Right-wing-christian-extremism' is an example of your own bigotry and prejudice - or stupidity. Take your pick. Frankly, I happen to agree that 'hating homosexuals' is not somthing an otherwise moral person should do. However, unlike yourself, I don't believe that my morality should hold any more sway in society than should anyone elses. And I believe that the sight of Hardaway being compelled to recant his 'sins' against the might of elitist secular moral authoritarianism should strike fear in the hearts of all of those who trully understand the importance of 'separation of church and state'. People in our society should be allowed to say 'I hate homosexuals' 'I hate blacks' 'I hate women' 'I hate liberals' 'I hate conservatives' with absolutely no social, professional or economic repercussions of any fucking kind.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
People often ask about what is meant by having a 'secular progressive moral agenda' forced upon our society.
I never heard that term before, not in a question, or otherwise. But then, I am not people :)
Hardaway said:
It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States sports."
There's a point. He turns his personal aversity into a call for a witch hunt. Is the NBA is somehow tax sponsored? Because if it were a private company I'd expect you to be the first to tell me "It's their own business who they dump and who they keep"
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us!peterchen wrote:
Because if it were a private company I'd expect you to be the first to tell me "It's their own business who they dump and who they keep"
And I would expect those who express outrage everytime some little hint of christianity is reflected in public life to also be concerned when corporations begin enforcing any kind of social moral imperative and the behest of any group. It is direct proof of how throughly enslaved our society is to a narrowly defined set of moral principles.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
John Carson wrote:
Codes of acceptable behaviour are always there, certainly. However, the degree of authoritarianism of those codes can vary greatly. I think that those who transgress on secular orthodoxy generally get off pretty lightly.
And I don't believe that American society has ever lived under a more iron fisted moral authoritarianism than we live under today.
John Carson wrote:
Incidentally, did you notice the campaign against the two bloggers who worked for John Edwards but were eventually forced to resign because they had said some critical things about the Catholic church? Neither of them, as far as I know, ever said:
John Edwards is running for a public office. The two were fired because of public attitudes about what they said. That is a 'bottom up', grass roots, expression of moral outrage. That is completely different from someone being punished because of a 'top down', elitist moral outrage. Moral outrage growing organically from the people is perfectly acceptable.
John Carson wrote:
At least one of the bloggers voted for John Kerry, a Catholic, in the last Presidential election. Apparently, the threshold for "unacceptable hostility" toward Catholics is fairly low.
John Kerry is about as much a catholic as I am a hindu.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
And I don't believe that American society has ever lived under a more iron fisted moral authoritarianism than we live under today.
I think that is laughable. Try being an unwed mother or a homosexual in the early part of the 20th century.
Stan Shannon wrote:
John Edwards is running for a public office. The two were fired because of public attitudes about what they said. That is a 'bottom up', grass roots, expression of moral outrage. That is completely different from someone being punished because of a 'top down', elitist moral outrage. Moral outrage growing organically from the people is perfectly acceptable.
Actually, their firing was orchestrated by Bill Donohue, the head of the Catholic League, who seems to make it his full-time job to harass anyone who says anything negative about Catholics. http://www.catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_1/070208_edwards_tolerates.htm[^] The NBA, like Edwards, tries to appeal to a broad constituency and therefore doesn't want people associated with it causing offence. You can be confident that that was the real reason for the sacking of both Hardaway and the bloggers, whatever form of words was used. I don't agree, incidentally, that grass roots support for the persecution of minorities makes that persecution not authoritarian.
Stan Shannon wrote:
John Kerry is about as much a catholic as I am a hindu.
The real point here is that the anti-Catholicism of the bloggers was essentially a disagreement of the bloggers with some Catholic teachings. As such, it was not fundamentally different from disagreeing with someone over health insurance or any other controversial issue. Hardaway, by contrast, objected to the very existence of gays. That is intolerance of a completely different order of magnitude.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And I don't believe that American society has ever lived under a more iron fisted moral authoritarianism than we live under today.
I think that is laughable. Try being an unwed mother or a homosexual in the early part of the 20th century.
Stan Shannon wrote:
John Edwards is running for a public office. The two were fired because of public attitudes about what they said. That is a 'bottom up', grass roots, expression of moral outrage. That is completely different from someone being punished because of a 'top down', elitist moral outrage. Moral outrage growing organically from the people is perfectly acceptable.
Actually, their firing was orchestrated by Bill Donohue, the head of the Catholic League, who seems to make it his full-time job to harass anyone who says anything negative about Catholics. http://www.catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_1/070208_edwards_tolerates.htm[^] The NBA, like Edwards, tries to appeal to a broad constituency and therefore doesn't want people associated with it causing offence. You can be confident that that was the real reason for the sacking of both Hardaway and the bloggers, whatever form of words was used. I don't agree, incidentally, that grass roots support for the persecution of minorities makes that persecution not authoritarian.
Stan Shannon wrote:
John Kerry is about as much a catholic as I am a hindu.
The real point here is that the anti-Catholicism of the bloggers was essentially a disagreement of the bloggers with some Catholic teachings. As such, it was not fundamentally different from disagreeing with someone over health insurance or any other controversial issue. Hardaway, by contrast, objected to the very existence of gays. That is intolerance of a completely different order of magnitude.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Try being an unwed mother or a homosexual in the early part of the 20th century.
That comment, along with the rest, clearly indicates your own moral elitism, and proves the very point of my post. Certainly, in the past, public sentiments about such topics would have compelled unwed mothers to marry and gays to remain 'in the closet'. It is Orwellian to characterize that as 'authoritarian'. Authoritarianism is being compelled to obey the moral agenda of a self defined, elitist entity, as Hardaway was. If you are similarly compelled by the general, grass roots sentiments of your neighbors, that is, by definition, not authoritarian. You, and others, are an example of a elitiest authoritarianism uncomfortble with the moralily of the masses (the non-authoritarian morality in your society) so you concoct a set of rituals and beliefs which you become empowered to enforce upon the common sentiments of the masses. That is moral authoritarianism which US society has never experienced in the past.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
David Wulff wrote:
Let's not forget what started with "Jews should not be tolerated" and ended with the murders of millions of people.
Hatred is not what killed the Jews. What killed them was the concentration of political power and a social moral agenda that would not let those opposed to the hatred speak out. That is precisely the situation growing in the west, once again thanks to leftist ideals. It is you who are now saying that something should not be tolerated. It is someone else being forced to bow to your social imperative. That is not going to end any better this time than it did last time. Hatred is merely a harmless emotion. It doesn't hurt anyone. People should be allowed to freely express and act on their hatred so long as they otherwise cause no physical harm to anyone.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Obviously it was the Democrats what killed all them Jews. Hatred may not have been able to pull the triggers and refuel the gas chambers, but it did make it acceptable.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
John Carson wrote:
Try being an unwed mother or a homosexual in the early part of the 20th century.
That comment, along with the rest, clearly indicates your own moral elitism, and proves the very point of my post. Certainly, in the past, public sentiments about such topics would have compelled unwed mothers to marry and gays to remain 'in the closet'. It is Orwellian to characterize that as 'authoritarian'. Authoritarianism is being compelled to obey the moral agenda of a self defined, elitist entity, as Hardaway was. If you are similarly compelled by the general, grass roots sentiments of your neighbors, that is, by definition, not authoritarian. You, and others, are an example of a elitiest authoritarianism uncomfortble with the moralily of the masses (the non-authoritarian morality in your society) so you concoct a set of rituals and beliefs which you become empowered to enforce upon the common sentiments of the masses. That is moral authoritarianism which US society has never experienced in the past.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
Certainly, in the past, public sentiments about such topics would have compelled unwed mothers to marry and gays to remain 'in the closet'. It is Orwellian to characterize that as 'authoritarian'. Authoritarianism is being compelled to obey the moral agenda of a self defined, elitist entity, as Hardaway was. If you are similarly compelled by the general, grass roots sentiments of your neighbors, that is, by definition, not authoritarian.
(As an aside, I would be surprised if public sentiment even in the US would support the views Hardaway expressed.) Authoritarianism, as I define it, has to do with the heavy handed use of authority. What that authority derives from --- the divine right of kings to rule, sacred texts, democratic support, "public sentiment" or anything else --- is irrelevant. The fundamental disagreement is not over definitions, however. I believe that certain civil rights are not morally contingent on public support for them. People have the moral right to be Christians in Saudi Arabia, for example, whether or not the Saudis or their government agrees. If the public is opposed to certain civil rights, then that is a political problem and it then becomes a question of what is the best strategy to deal with it. It is not a moral problem, however. The moral position is clear. The foregoing presumably constitutes "moral elitism" in your eyes. Deriving one's moral position from public sentiment, however, is not logically coherent. Where does the public sentiment come from in the first place? Clearly it comes from the moral judgments of individual citizens. And if the views of a citizen place them in a minority, they are not obliged to give up their views (if giving up your own views doesn't count as a cost, then it would be a matter of indifference what the public views were). Perhaps you wish to argue that individuals can keep their own moral judgements, but must conform to the societal judgements in their behaviour. To a degree, everyone must, of course. But my belief in individual freedom means that I believe that society should not restrict behaviour unless 1. such behaviour is clearly damaging to society. 2. the cure is not worse than the disease. Absent one or both of those, and society has no business interfering. Thus it has no business persecuting gays, for example. And if such persecution can be prevented without too much collateral damage, then I am for it, even if this is contrary to
-
David Wulff wrote:
Let's not forget what started with "Jews should not be tolerated" and ended with the murders of millions of people.
Hatred is not what killed the Jews. What killed them was the concentration of political power and a social moral agenda that would not let those opposed to the hatred speak out. That is precisely the situation growing in the west, once again thanks to leftist ideals. It is you who are now saying that something should not be tolerated. It is someone else being forced to bow to your social imperative. That is not going to end any better this time than it did last time. Hatred is merely a harmless emotion. It doesn't hurt anyone. People should be allowed to freely express and act on their hatred so long as they otherwise cause no physical harm to anyone.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
Hatred is merely a harmless emotion. It doesn't hurt anyone. People should be allowed to freely express and act on their hatred so long as they otherwise cause no physical harm to anyone.
One of the dumbest things you have ever said. Hatred, by its very nature, does not lend itself to moderation in its expression.
John Carson
-
Obviously it was the Democrats what killed all them Jews. Hatred may not have been able to pull the triggers and refuel the gas chambers, but it did make it acceptable.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkThe Nazi holocaust was indeed the inevitable end product of leftist political reasoning. Just as it will be again if we continue down this road. Political power, regardless of how noble the purpose it came together to achieve, will always end up destroying people. The left has learned, and promulgates, precisely the opposite lesson that the history of the WWII era teaches. It is not a lesson in the importance of ensuring everyone adheres to a strict moral code of leftist ethics. It is not a lesson in how dangerous 'hate' is. It is not a lesson in the need to inculcate humanity with a strictly controlled list of state sanctioned emotions. The lesson of WWII is that centralized political power destroys. Centralized politcal power is dangerous. Centralized political power should be feared. Centralized politcal power cannot be controlled. The left wants 'hate' eradicated from the list of acceptable human emotions, and it uses the state to publish that message - hence recreating the very conditions essential to allow the state to power to do the very things the Nazis did.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Certainly, in the past, public sentiments about such topics would have compelled unwed mothers to marry and gays to remain 'in the closet'. It is Orwellian to characterize that as 'authoritarian'. Authoritarianism is being compelled to obey the moral agenda of a self defined, elitist entity, as Hardaway was. If you are similarly compelled by the general, grass roots sentiments of your neighbors, that is, by definition, not authoritarian.
(As an aside, I would be surprised if public sentiment even in the US would support the views Hardaway expressed.) Authoritarianism, as I define it, has to do with the heavy handed use of authority. What that authority derives from --- the divine right of kings to rule, sacred texts, democratic support, "public sentiment" or anything else --- is irrelevant. The fundamental disagreement is not over definitions, however. I believe that certain civil rights are not morally contingent on public support for them. People have the moral right to be Christians in Saudi Arabia, for example, whether or not the Saudis or their government agrees. If the public is opposed to certain civil rights, then that is a political problem and it then becomes a question of what is the best strategy to deal with it. It is not a moral problem, however. The moral position is clear. The foregoing presumably constitutes "moral elitism" in your eyes. Deriving one's moral position from public sentiment, however, is not logically coherent. Where does the public sentiment come from in the first place? Clearly it comes from the moral judgments of individual citizens. And if the views of a citizen place them in a minority, they are not obliged to give up their views (if giving up your own views doesn't count as a cost, then it would be a matter of indifference what the public views were). Perhaps you wish to argue that individuals can keep their own moral judgements, but must conform to the societal judgements in their behaviour. To a degree, everyone must, of course. But my belief in individual freedom means that I believe that society should not restrict behaviour unless 1. such behaviour is clearly damaging to society. 2. the cure is not worse than the disease. Absent one or both of those, and society has no business interfering. Thus it has no business persecuting gays, for example. And if such persecution can be prevented without too much collateral damage, then I am for it, even if this is contrary to
John Carson wrote:
I believe that certain civil rights are not morally contingent on public support for them.
Than you believe that society needs the guiding hand of moral elitist to protect us all from the dangerous, unpredicable passions of the mindless masses. You trust centralized authority and distrust decentralized, grass-roots, 'authority' in the hands of your neighbors. I don't. I believe that history cleraly shows that when such power becomes concentrated in the hands of a moral elite, and is removed from the much more trustworthy hands of the public, far worse things will happen than some unmarried mother being expected to marry, or some gay guy keeping his issues secret. I think the latter produces a far more healthy, robust, free and productive society than the former does.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Should not private entities (like corporations, of which the NBA is one) be able to decide who they do or do not employ based on damn near an curricula they like?
"I hope he can see this, because I'm doing it as hard as I can" - Ignignot
Russell Morris wrote:
Should not private entities (like corporations, of which the NBA is one) be able to decide who they do or do not employ based on damn near an curricula they like?
Certainly they should. But they should likewise find it just as simple to have 'banished' him for being gay or for any other reason they liked. The point is that they would never do that precisely because of a carefully crafted, elitist moral agenda that pervades our society and surpresses free speech and public expresssoin just as certainly as if we had been taken over by some sort of church based authority. This is precisely the kind of thing that the concept of 'separation of church and state' was crafted to protect us as a society from.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
John Carson wrote:
I believe that certain civil rights are not morally contingent on public support for them.
Than you believe that society needs the guiding hand of moral elitist to protect us all from the dangerous, unpredicable passions of the mindless masses. You trust centralized authority and distrust decentralized, grass-roots, 'authority' in the hands of your neighbors. I don't. I believe that history cleraly shows that when such power becomes concentrated in the hands of a moral elite, and is removed from the much more trustworthy hands of the public, far worse things will happen than some unmarried mother being expected to marry, or some gay guy keeping his issues secret. I think the latter produces a far more healthy, robust, free and productive society than the former does.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
John Carson wrote: I believe that certain civil rights are not morally contingent on public support for them. Than you believe that society needs the guiding hand of moral elitist to protect us all from the dangerous, unpredicable passions of the mindless masses. You trust centralized authority and distrust decentralized, grass-roots, 'authority' in the hands of your neighbors.
That is a non sequitur. As I wrote, if the public does not support civil rights, then that is a political problem. Likewise, if a centralised authority denies civil rights, then that is another political problem. There are plenty of centralised authorities in the world doing just that right now. Whether restrictions on reasonable civil liberties come from a democracy or some sort of autocracy, the restrictions should be opposed just the same. Abolishing democracy in the former case is an extreme solution that could only be endorsed in the most extreme circumstances (if, say, there was majority backing for a holocaust). In less extreme circumstances, action could range from, at the mildest level, voting for political candidates who you agree with to, at the most radical level, certain forms of civil disobedience. In neither case is there an attempt to overthrow democracy, just an attempt to frustrate it on selected civil-liberties-related issues. People who helped slaves escape from their masters were engaging in civil disobedience, based on the belief that slaves had moral rights independently of society's willingness to grant them. I believe they did right, notwithstanding that their neighbours disapproved.
John Carson
-
People often ask about what is meant by having a 'secular progressive moral agenda' forced upon our society. Here [^] is a perfect example of what it means. The guy is banished for expressing opinions outside the main stream of modern, secular, moral views. There is absolutely no difference between this kind of social ostricism and what we would have if our society had, in fact, been taken over by a religious orthodoxy of some kind and gay people were banned for their views. It is exactly the same kind of social phenomenon and proof that humanity can never really escape religious-like behavior regardless of how far we push actual religion out of our lives. It is always there.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Ok, you're reaching here. Let me get this right then, a company is subject to tyranny if they're forced to uphold a minimum wage, but they aren't allowed to stop someone for representing them for views they don't agree with? He wasn't fired. He was discontinued from representing the corporation. How is this wrong? And other's have asked this same question but you won't answer this point. Trolling?
This statement was never false.
-
John Carson wrote:
Codes of acceptable behaviour are always there, certainly. However, the degree of authoritarianism of those codes can vary greatly. I think that those who transgress on secular orthodoxy generally get off pretty lightly.
And I don't believe that American society has ever lived under a more iron fisted moral authoritarianism than we live under today.
John Carson wrote:
Incidentally, did you notice the campaign against the two bloggers who worked for John Edwards but were eventually forced to resign because they had said some critical things about the Catholic church? Neither of them, as far as I know, ever said:
John Edwards is running for a public office. The two were fired because of public attitudes about what they said. That is a 'bottom up', grass roots, expression of moral outrage. That is completely different from someone being punished because of a 'top down', elitist moral outrage. Moral outrage growing organically from the people is perfectly acceptable.
John Carson wrote:
At least one of the bloggers voted for John Kerry, a Catholic, in the last Presidential election. Apparently, the threshold for "unacceptable hostility" toward Catholics is fairly low.
John Kerry is about as much a catholic as I am a hindu.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
John Edwards is running for a public office. The two were fired because of public attitudes about what they said. That is a 'bottom up', grass roots, expression of moral outrage. That is completely different from someone being punished because of a 'top down', elitist moral outrage. Moral outrage growing organically from the people is perfectly acceptable.
Hahahahahahahaha... Oh that's rich. Public attitudes about what they said. That covers both cases. Its the public attitude that hatred is not to be tolerated. The NBA like Edwards depends on public support, whether through votes, or dollars spent. Both were acting under the same moral outrage growing organically from the people. Which as you say is perfectly acceptable. Thank you for saying it. It is growing organically to treat people of any stripe with tolerance. Including "right" leaning folk such as yourself. Also, the NBA only stopped allowing him to represent. Didn't fire him. The bloggers were fired. So they're point of view was actually persecuted through the act of firing. Where as Hardaway's views were tolerated by not firing him, but only removing him from representing the organization.
This statement was never false.
-
John Carson wrote:
Codes of acceptable behaviour are always there, certainly. However, the degree of authoritarianism of those codes can vary greatly. I think that those who transgress on secular orthodoxy generally get off pretty lightly.
And I don't believe that American society has ever lived under a more iron fisted moral authoritarianism than we live under today.
John Carson wrote:
Incidentally, did you notice the campaign against the two bloggers who worked for John Edwards but were eventually forced to resign because they had said some critical things about the Catholic church? Neither of them, as far as I know, ever said:
John Edwards is running for a public office. The two were fired because of public attitudes about what they said. That is a 'bottom up', grass roots, expression of moral outrage. That is completely different from someone being punished because of a 'top down', elitist moral outrage. Moral outrage growing organically from the people is perfectly acceptable.
John Carson wrote:
At least one of the bloggers voted for John Kerry, a Catholic, in the last Presidential election. Apparently, the threshold for "unacceptable hostility" toward Catholics is fairly low.
John Kerry is about as much a catholic as I am a hindu.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
And I don't believe that American society has ever lived under a more iron fisted moral authoritarianism than we live under today.
Do you think gay marriage should be legal? Do you think homosexuality should be legal? If you answer no, wouldn't that also equate to imposing a secular moral agenda on the rest of society? Really you are just arguing that your moral agenda be the one acceptable. Else you would have to support freedom to marry who you want and the freedom to have sexual relations with whomever you want. Murder should then be legal. Because that's just imposing another moral agenda onto society. Stealing should be legal. As that's also just imposing more morality onto society. Where do we draw the lines with this type of argument?
This statement was never false.
-
Ok, you're reaching here. Let me get this right then, a company is subject to tyranny if they're forced to uphold a minimum wage, but they aren't allowed to stop someone for representing them for views they don't agree with? He wasn't fired. He was discontinued from representing the corporation. How is this wrong? And other's have asked this same question but you won't answer this point. Trolling?
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
you're reaching here.
No, I'm not. Its a crucial point.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
How is this wrong?
The NBA is free to enforce whatever standards it pleases. The question is why this paticular standard? I have no problem with this guy being 'banished' by the NBA. But neither would I have a problem if the NBA had treated a player in the same way for being gay. Whats the difference? Why isn't the NBA free to enforce what ever morality it choices? Yours or the Baptists? The answer is that, socially, we are not controlled by any moral agenda of the Baptists, we are controlled by that of the secularists. Just because it happens to be a moral agenda some, such as yourself, happen to endorse, doesn't mean that we are any less under the control of moral authoritarianism.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
And other's have asked this same question but you won't answer this point. Trolling?
I have addressed that very point repeatedly.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
John Carson wrote: I believe that certain civil rights are not morally contingent on public support for them. Than you believe that society needs the guiding hand of moral elitist to protect us all from the dangerous, unpredicable passions of the mindless masses. You trust centralized authority and distrust decentralized, grass-roots, 'authority' in the hands of your neighbors.
That is a non sequitur. As I wrote, if the public does not support civil rights, then that is a political problem. Likewise, if a centralised authority denies civil rights, then that is another political problem. There are plenty of centralised authorities in the world doing just that right now. Whether restrictions on reasonable civil liberties come from a democracy or some sort of autocracy, the restrictions should be opposed just the same. Abolishing democracy in the former case is an extreme solution that could only be endorsed in the most extreme circumstances (if, say, there was majority backing for a holocaust). In less extreme circumstances, action could range from, at the mildest level, voting for political candidates who you agree with to, at the most radical level, certain forms of civil disobedience. In neither case is there an attempt to overthrow democracy, just an attempt to frustrate it on selected civil-liberties-related issues. People who helped slaves escape from their masters were engaging in civil disobedience, based on the belief that slaves had moral rights independently of society's willingness to grant them. I believe they did right, notwithstanding that their neighbours disapproved.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
That is a non sequitur.
No, it isn't.
John Carson wrote:
Whether restrictions on reasonable civil liberties come from a democracy or some sort of autocracy, the restrictions should be opposed just the same. Abolishing democracy in the former case is an extreme solution that could only be endorsed in the most extreme circumstances (if, say, there was majority backing for a holocaust).
But who gets to define 'civil liberties'? The secular moralists, thats who. When did the issue of where you put your penis become a civil liberty? What about the civil liberty of being allowed to say "I hate people who put there penises into the body cavities of other men". Why isn't such free speech a protected 'civil liberty'? Because the secular moral agenda says so, thats why - and we had all damned well better like it, or we'll be socially bludgeoned into accepting it just as Hardaway was.
John Carson wrote:
People who helped slaves escape from their masters were engaging in civil disobedience, based on the belief that slaves had moral rights independently of society's willingness to grant them. I believe they did right, notwithstanding that their neighbours disapproved.
Except, in this case, it was Hardaway who was engaging in civil disobedience, and the system you support disapproving of it and therefore punishing him. You are the one who now punishes forms of civil disobedience you disapprove of just as did those who opposed the abolitionist movement.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about