|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Sergio wrote:
| Quote: |
| But I would never sacrifice my own life for free speech and I consider anyone who would to be insane. |
All I can say, is thank God and everything else that he and others believe in that he was born after WW2 and not before it.
Its only because of sacrifices by others that we even have free speech.
While "bend over and take it" is a valid option for some. I must say that I wont be one of those.
Better to stand up for what you believe in and fail than to give in and be a _________.
(you can add in what ever word expresses it best for you).
(post eddited) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| All I can say, is thank God and everything else that he and others believe in that he was born after WW2 and not before it. |
I've re-read that sentence five times and it still doesn't make sense.
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| Its only because of sacrifices by others that we even have free speech. |
Yes, very good, but I personally would prefer to remain alive in a society that does not permit free speech than to die in order that others may have free speech. There are things I value more greatly than free speech. I'd much rather live in a capitalist theocracy than in a society run by atheist leftists; I'd much rather live in an economically prosperous society that restricts free speech than in a poorer society where I do have free speech. Free speech is very nice, but it's not the most important thing in the world for me.
| Summer Wine wrote: |
While "bend over and take it" is a valid option for some. I must say that I wont be one of those.
Better to stand up for what you believe in and fail than to give in and be a _________.
(you can add in what ever word expresses it best for you).
(post eddited) |
Well, thank you for sharing those rather dullwitted cliches with us |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I'd much rather live in a capitalist theocracy than in a society run by atheist leftists |
You refer to the Eastern Roman Empire? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not referring to any one specific case. I'm talking theoretically. Living in a strict theocracy that doesn't tolerate open atheism wouldn't bother me if it was capitalist. By the same token, I can't think of anything worse than living in a society run by aggressive secularists. Whilst I personally do not believe in God, secularism is of no intrinsic importance, I now feel. In fact, secularists are incredibly annoying. Free speech is great; I value free speech, but there are things I just value more, certainly including being alive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
The leftist atheism is nihilism. It is neurotic.
While I don't believe in god I now find the arguments for the societal benefits of believing in god to be more persuasive. Warrior said recently that maybe 10% of people can live as a secularist. He's probably right. The majority just drift around without a sense of right and wrong, good/evil, ugly/beautiful. All those white meth-heads in the Midwest need something to aspire to. What they get is secular team sports in the form of consumer identity, politics and war.
Saudi has had an impact on you, I see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Yes, very good, but I personally would prefer to remain alive in a society that does not permit free speech than to die in order that others may have free speech. |
Again thanks for sharing.
Its nice to know who doesn't believe in what I believe in.
Though, until you have lived a life such as you propose, how do you know that life in servitude is better than silence.
As to the first statement I made, if you in fact did have to read to read it 5 times before you were sure you were confused, then that does raise questions.
I can and have written shit in the past. I have also read others posted shit. Though its never taken me five times to to decide if I understand it or not.
(You know what's suprising for me, is that I have read some of your postings before and I think that you have made some good points and u do seem to have a decent head on your shoulders)
Though our freedom is not negotiable. Ask any past or current slave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| The leftist atheism is nihilism. It is neurotic. |
A lot of the time, yes, it is. I've discovered that many atheists are just hideous little Chomskys. So long as this is so, the strident secularist movement is one of the most unpleasant in modern society. If socialism is what the strident secularists have in store for us, then I'm voting for the religious right - Beck, Limbaugh, Palin etc
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| Though our freedom is not negotiable. Ask any past or current slave. |
I absolutely agree. Freedom of movement and trade, in particular, for me. Interestingly, those very passionately in favor of free speech are often those who would impose restrictions on these (for example, British arch leftist, Tony Benn, called for restrictions on graduates moving abroad to work, unless they had fully re-paid the costs of their education by the state). Restrictions on speech, though, I would be prepared to tolerate on the condition that it was offset more than amply by other benefits, such as more orderly conduct, a more safe society and economic blessings |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Tony Benn, called for restrictions on graduates moving abroad to work, unless they had fully re-paid the costs of their education by the state) |
where did you see find this? I'm very curious to find out more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Tony Benn, called for restrictions on graduates moving abroad to work, unless they had fully re-paid the costs of their education by the state) |
where did you see find this? I'm very curious to find out more. |
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/on-the-brain-drain/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Restrictions on speech, though, I would be prepared to tolerate on the condition that it was offset more than amply by other benefits, such as more orderly conduct, a more safe society and economic blessings |
Sell Out!!! Yaaaaahhhh!!!!
C'mon, though, you don't see a very slippery slope there? I could envision a repressive society (it's not hard to do) that completely controls all communication.
You would rather live like that as long as you were personally secure with some loot to spend? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| I'm not referring to any one specific case. I'm talking theoretically. Living in a strict theocracy that doesn't tolerate open atheism wouldn't bother me if it was capitalist. By the same token, I can't think of anything worse than living in a society run by aggressive secularists. Whilst I personally do not believe in God, secularism is of no intrinsic importance, I now feel. In fact, secularists are incredibly annoying. Free speech is great; I value free speech, but there are things I just value more, certainly including being alive |
| mises wrote: |
| While I don't believe in god I now find the arguments for the societal benefits of believing in god to be more persuasive. |
Well, guys, welcome to the club. I also believe this was Nietzsche's position as well, that there needs to be some sort of Church, although Christianity itself is far from necessary. I use Church in a very, very broad sense.
Reconsidering Nietzsche
| Quote: |
After a decade of confusion, in about 1880 Nietzsche finally became clear that what he endorsed in Wagner was the early philosophy of the Gesamtkunstwerk, and what he hated was the turn to Schopenhauerian �life-denial,� which he considered an apostasy. We must, he wrote, �become better Wagnerians than Wagner,� explaining that �In the end, it was the aged Wagner against whom I had to protect myself.� Thus, immediately after announcing the �death of [the Christian] God,� The Gay Science calls for the creation of new �festivals� and says that the only art that matters is the �art of festivals.�
Nietzsche�s mature view is thus that community cannot exist without being gathered and preserved by a Gesamtkunstwerk. There cannot be genuine community without (in the broadest possible sense of the term) a �church.� And community is important, for only if there exists a community to which we feel we are, in our own way, as we say, �making a contribution� can we live meaningful, flourishing lives. As to the content of a communal religion�as to what would play the exemplary role played in Christianity by its saints and martyrs�he has no view. That content may vary widely depending on the cultural tradition of the community concerned. Nietzsche�s only stipulation is that the sacred figures in any healthy religion must be, like the Greek gods, glorifications of human potential rather than, like the Christian gods, anti-human ideals. The new religious festival will celebrate rather than condemn sexuality, will be a festival of life rather than death. |
Oh, and yeah, Nietzsche liked the Greek gods more than the Christian ones. There's a lot there but I'll stick to this point for now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
If A draws an offensive cartoon, and many B's riot in the streets (which causes the death of C), A caused C's death. That's my position. |
Yes, but not proximately. There's an intervening superseding cause between A and C, that would be the many Bs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| While I don't believe in god I now find the arguments for the societal benefits of believing in god to be more persuasive. Warrior said recently that maybe 10% of people can live as a secularist. He's probably right. |
I think a more correct way to construe this sentiment would be that perhaps no more than 10% of people can successfully work past the combination of indoctrination from birth and constant social pressure to be religious (and due to our social makeup, the simple fact of the majority of people around you believing in a religion really does amount to social pressure, completely ignoring the actual overtures that are often made). Things like education, economic prosperity, and so forth seem to increase the chances of people being able to make that leap, and if you were able to keep an entire society educated and prosperous for long enough, I think it's entirely possible you'd end up with a fairly atheistic society.
I do think something is required to unite society together, but I don't think it's belief in the divine. A common sense of ethics might be enough. A common world view -- even if it were a purely secular one -- almost definitely would be. I'm not even opposed to adding in some ritual; I don't think the Confucian idea of ritual having the potential to shape us as people is wrong at all. I don't know if that would be enough to fall under Warrior's broad classification of a "Church," but I think it would be enough for society, assuming a certain character in the citizen base, one disposed towards education and possessed of some measure of pragmatism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Restrictions on speech, though, I would be prepared to tolerate on the condition that it was offset more than amply by other benefits, such as more orderly conduct, a more safe society and economic blessings |
Sell Out!!! Yaaaaahhhh!!!!
C'mon, though, you don't see a very slippery slope there? I could envision a repressive society (it's not hard to do) that completely controls all communication.
You would rather live like that as long as you were personally secure with some loot to spend? |
I believe that freedom of speech is one of the most important things in principal, but I can see what he is saying. It doesn't always have to be a slippery slope. Look at Singapore, on paper it is a repressive society, but in reality it is a nice place to live with a high standard of living. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cartoonists in hiding is old hat, been done before in Scandinavia. That it is a Yank in hiding is no big deal, these Mohammedans will go after anyone. Big case of thin-skins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
