14 Jun 18
Originally posted by @fmfThat is not what I am saying at all.
So you do support the existence of rights and freedoms for citizens after all?
And that is why this thread exists in the first part -- because you are failign (perhaps purposefully) to understand that "rights" and "freedoms" are simply made up talking points that are utterly meaningless withotu virtues.
Virtues are the real basis of justice, and these are the primary components of justice. They exist. They are real.
"Rights" and "Freedoms" are made up, codified attempts at extracting something further from these fundamental virtues, and , when we separate them from the values that give birth to the justice that underlies the literal act of being free and the literal act of living in a condition of justice, we actually destroy the liberty and justice that we expect.
For, if we have "freedoms" and "rights" but no virtues, and "justice" begins to operate off of a highly derived, abstracted, and artificial construct of virtue, we do not really end up with freedom.
Do you understand the point and do you want to make a meaningful discussion about it, or are you going to be obtuse?
14 Jun 18
And let it be known... This is why I am so frustrated with you, FMF: you do not understand what is said, and then you criticize it, and I have to basically hand feed you the ideas, over and over again, and the whole time yuo accuse me of things while I am trying to get you to see.
This isn't even discourse -- this is talking to a thick wall.
But, FORTUNATELY, there is a lot of audience here who benefits from it, and we can conduct meaningful dialog independent from you.
So, in the end, it really doesn't even matter.
And even you get to be a part of all of this by becoming a tool for conversation and illustrating points.
14 Jun 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaI am all for virtue and ethics. I am all for moral education. We agree on that. So. That's good. Now. Do we also agree that citizens in your "good society" should have rights and freedoms and that such protections as these should be the default for all citizens until such time as they abuse the rights of others?
And let it be known... This is why I am so frustrated with you, FMF: you do not understand what is said, and then you criticize it, and I have to basically hand feed you the ideas, over and over again, and the whole time yuo accuse me of things while I am trying to get you to see.
This isn't even discourse -- this is talking to a thick wall.
...[text shortened]... you get to be a part of all of this by becoming a tool for conversation and illustrating points.
14 Jun 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaI understand 100% that you are using a red herring about moral education to try to distract from the question. Would people in your "good society" have any rights and freedoms? Yes, of course they would.
Do you understand the point and do you want to make a meaningful discussion about it, or are you going to be obtuse?
14 Jun 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @philokaliaShould there be religious freedom? Freedom of the press? The right to a fair trial? Should there be a right to free speech? Should there be freedom of association and a right to assemble? Should be people have the right to petition their government and hold authorities to account? Should there be academic and economic freedom? Freedom of movement? What about freedom of thought?
For, if we have "freedoms" and "rights" but no virtues, and "justice" begins to operate off of a highly derived, abstracted, and artificial construct of virtue, we do not really end up with freedom.
I can only presume your answer is yes.
Should the default setting be that all adult citizens have access to these rights and freedoms ~ these protections from people with power ~ in return for their law-abiding behaviour and their respect for the rights and freedoms of their fellow citizens - even if there are citizens in that society who are not virtuous?
Again, I can only presume your answer is yes.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @fmfGood grief, Kiddo. You’ve become so impatient in your rapid-fire question-asking marathons that you’re now answering your own questions?
Should there be religious freedom? Freedom of the press? The right to a fair trial? Should there be a right to free speech? Should there be freedom of association and a right to assemble? Should be people have the right to petition their government and hold authorities to account? Should there be academic and economic freedom? Freedom of movement? What about fr ...[text shortened]... citizens in that society who are not virtuous?
Again, I can only presume your answer is yes.
Does anyone else need to be around for your exercise in self gratification?
At least close the bathroom door.
14 Jun 18
Originally posted by @secondsonYour half right. Totally right for the willfully ignorant
You're back, and saying meaningless things as usual.
14 Jun 18
Originally posted by @fmfThey should have justice and justice only, and enumerating it with other words does not enhance or embellish justice.
I am all for virtue and ethics. I am all for moral education. We agree on that. So. That's good. Now. Do we also agree that citizens in your "good society" should have rights and freedoms and that such protections as these should be the default for all citizens until such time as they abuse the rights of others?
So, give them justice, and give them what is proper.
There is no need to speak of anything further because that would be a ploy to twist things.
Now... You see.
14 Jun 18
We are at an interesting crossroads.
I normally really enjoy addressing this point. I normally really like talking extensively about my views on this thing and I think that my perspective is fresh, exciting, and philosophically sound.
But we are dealing with FMF.
He literally is only interested in a shallow discussion of the topic and trying to shame people into a mainstream, center-left, boring position.
He uses the typical tactics of the Left today:
Agree or you're a bigot.
Can you open up and have an honest, deep conversation, FMF?
We know that you can't.
You do not even operate by the first principle of discussion: spelling out your own beliefs and opening them up to be challenged, questioned, and confronted.
You only seek to attack others while having no skin in the game.
I guess it s understandable, though, in the sense that, as an atheist humanist, you are basically a nihilist: you believe in some unspecified good for humanity that is vaguely utilitarian and nothing else.
Or am I reading you wrong?
14 Jun 18
Originally posted by @fmfYou presume too much.
Should there be religious freedom? Freedom of the press? The right to a fair trial? Should there be a right to free speech? Should there be freedom of association and a right to assemble? Should be people have the right to petition their government and hold authorities to account? Should there be academic and economic freedom? Freedom of movement? What about fr ...[text shortened]... citizens in that society who are not virtuous?
Again, I can only presume your answer is yes.
No, people are guaranteed justice.
There should be no absolute freedom of religion, the press, speech, etc. because these become tools for promotion of degenerate values and degenerate things when they are defined so broadly as to allow people to take advantage of the society.
A fair trial? That is an interesting one. The answer to that would be, generally, yes, because that is a part of the basics of justice, but it does not have to stand alone as separate from justice.
The answers to a lot of these other things you enumerated would have answers resembling those abhove.
THe core idea is simple:
When we try to extract some more specific concept of justice, we actually dilute justice because we create the bureaucratic & legalistic basis for impinging on the justice that exists.
And just look at the US: we attempt to extract some basic human rights from the concept of justice and we have come up with a system that cannot be maintained and is not beneficial. Criminals ahve more rights than victims.
It's impossible to systemitize justice.
14 Jun 18
Originally posted by @fmfPhilokalia, do we agree on the existence of the rights and freedoms - protections, to my way of thinking - for all law abiding citizens that I have listed in the above post? I agree with you about "virtue" being good and important.
Should there be religious freedom? Freedom of the press? The right to a fair trial? Should there be a right to free speech? Should there be freedom of association and a right to assemble? Should be people have the right to petition their government and hold authorities to account? Should there be academic and economic freedom? Freedom of movement? What about fr ...[text shortened]... citizens in that society who are not virtuous?
Again, I can only presume your answer is yes.
14 Jun 18
Originally posted by @fmfNo.
Philokalia, do we agree on the existence of the rights and freedoms - protections, to my way of thinking - for all law abiding citizens that I have listed in the above post? I agree with you about "virtue" being good and important.
Have you read anything that I have said?
Do you honestly think that by repeating the same questions in the exact same way can produce different results?
Do you think I didn't understand the question?
14 Jun 18
Originally posted by @fmfCan you even begin to provide good definitions for any of the things that you say that you support?
Philokalia, do we agree on the existence of the rights and freedoms - protections, to my way of thinking - for all law abiding citizens that I have listed in the above post? I agree with you about "virtue" being good and important.
And how do you even extract these things from justice? What is your process?