Which form of extremism do you dislike more: extreme conservatism or extreme liberalism?
(The answer is: extreme liberalism.)
Printable View
Which form of extremism do you dislike more: extreme conservatism or extreme liberalism?
(The answer is: extreme liberalism.)
Extreme conservatism. If only because I hate tradition, and I AM an extreme liberal :D.
Both, equally.
Both are horrible ways to run a country.
Extreme conservatism, aka fascism. I don't know any example of a country being run by extreme liberalism, but an excess of liberty can't be that bad.
Anything done to an extreme is gonna be problematic in some way.
I think they're both basically the same, when brought to the extreme.
Extreme liberalism is anarchy. Extreme conservatism is facism. Neither one lasts for long. Anarchy lasts until the guy with the biggest gun decides he wants to run things, and facism lasts until the people revolt. One leads to the other in a viscious cycle. Both are wrong in their own way.
Extreme conservatism. Extreme liberalism is more fun. :smash:
OK...guess my anwser.
Anyway, the concept of "extreme" is put by the people who call themselves "moderates". To me, it's just different ways of ruling a country, different political theories. I don't even like the idea of "right wing" and "left wing", it just helps more to classify people and alienate language. For example, if I say I am a communist, people may think I like Stalin. Well, Stalin said he was a communist. But wait, Trotsky was a communist too..and weren't their opinions oposed? And Marx probably did not agree with Trotsky or Lenin in many things, nor with Fidel. Yet, they are all quite different, but they are all communists?
Apply the same to Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. OK, communism is a better example because Stalin and Trotsky are quite oposed, but I do not believe Hitler's politics to be the same as Franco's. Franco was a dickhead, but he did not wish to exterminate a whole race.
Is your concept of extreme left and extreme right applied to ideal cases or to cases in practice? In practice, the results are quite different, with extreme right we got Franco and Hitler, and while both held things in common, they are very different. With far left, well, can you see the differences between Fidel, Lenin, Stalin, Azaña, Allende and Trotsky? All of them are considered "extreme left". If for extreme left you mean Stalin, then I can't decide, because I find Stalin to be as filthy as Hitler.
Does far right contemplate Louis XVI absolutism? Does far left include Plato's Republic, wich was an inspiration on marxist socialism?
And in case of theory? In case of theory I prefer "extreme" left, of course. In case of practice? I guess it depends on the results.
I hate both, but if I had to choose I'd pick extreme conservatism.
Extreme conservatism. I've never heard of extreme liberalism in action, but I can't imagine it'd be worse than the extreme conservative leaders. At least governments wouldn't kill half the population... extreme liberals would let the people do that for themselves. :)
I hate both of them. Ultra conservatives are facists, they're obsessed with tradition, treat women and children like garbage, they're only love their own country and their own culture; and hate all others, they think every one else is evil besides them, and they twist the truth and are decievers. Ultra liberals are sometimes anarchists, they're hate-filled pacifists who want to kill anybody that are willing to fight, they hate religion of ANY kind (except anything that has mysticism in it), they're obsessed with saving animals more than people, they think animals have higher rights than humans, and they love to shove their vegitarian beliefs down meat-eaters throats.
Though I strongly disagree with what liberals stand for, to be honest, I can't stand both ultra conservatives AND ultra liberals. I don't do evil (BTW, NOT calling all liberals evil).
Both are bad, but if I were to choose, extreme liberalism, because then nothing will be in order and I actually like when things are in order as oppose to "Free for all" crap that anarchy tends to be.
Both!
Extreme neutralism is bad as well. Never having an opinion or doing anything.
As others have said, both are equally as bad. Depending on what side you are on politically, the left or right, the other side will always look worse.
Take care all.
That's right!
I mean it's extremist so why don't we follow the things in the midle?
Proto took the words straight from my mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Protozoa
Yet, I'd rather have complete freedom from extreme liberalism than complete oppression from extreme conservatism.
Take care all.
I've lived in both, and I prefer extreme liberalism.
Extreme conservatives are scary. Extreme liberals are annoying.
But seriously, only a state of extreme conservatism is sustainable. In the opposite case, someone will gain advantage by manipulating others, thus ending up with a state of extreme, and probably quite violent, conservatism anyway.
Anyway, I agree with Shadow Nexus. A state of extreme liberalness in principle would be ideal, but it is unstable, thus as soon as reality comes into effect, the **** would certainly hit the fan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperia
And all black people hate white people because of the slave thing. And all the Jews hate the arabs and viceversa. And French people have mustaches and berets.
Can we have a stereotype party now? C'mon, I'll dress as a bullfighter just for you. And I'll continiously say "¡Olé, olé!" :rolleyes2
Anyway, no one awnsered my point yet. What kind of extreme liberalism and what kind of extreme conservadurism? Given the fact my values fall into anarchist ideas, if the realisation of the ideal is extreme liberalism, then I'm all for it.
Also, please excuse me, but I believe neoliberalists and fascists to be both extreme right, only in a different way.
A lot of people think of the ideological sprectrum too much in terms of black and white. If you're liberal, you should be a pot-smoking, tree-hugging abortion activist. If you're conservative, you should be a war-mongering, money-grubbing WASP.
Whoa... I don't think I can debate this anymore.Quote:
I've lived in both. Under extreme liberalism, I almost starved to death and wound up wandering the streets, looking for food for myself and my family. Then there was a military coup, and General Pinochet made sure that there were too many bodies littering the streets for me to be able to wander them any more.
Too much freedom leads to uncontrolable chaos, as people can get away with anything.
Maybe I should have phrased it better, but my point was simply that under extreme liberalism, the worst threat to one's well being is usually a lack of resources and the competition that results when lots of people compete for too little food, whereas in fascist rule, you're tortured and killed just because. And often. Lots of Chileans hold the exact opposite opinion that I hold, mostly rich Chileans, of course, since they benefited economically from Pinochet.
Facism vs. Anarchy, basically. Either too much control, or no control. Either too much goverment power, or not goverment at all. And so on, and so forth..Quote:
What kind of extreme liberalism and what kind of extreme conservadurism?
Personally, I'd rather have anarchy, than facism or Nazism. But, that's only because I'm strong enough to protect myself and my loved ones. If hooligans are running loose (no police), then that means I can also butcher them freely, and that's fine by me. But, there's not much I can do against an entire NATION, if it opresses me.
That's on the practical level... on the ideaological level, I can't honestly say which I despise more. They each have very few merits, and are incredibly awful ruling systems (or, in-case of anarchy, no rule).
Anarchy is a vague term. (Unne, please, don't do the Ultimate Dictionary Devastating Attack...I see you coming ¬¬)Quote:
Facism vs. Anarchy, basically.
Anrachism well aplied or anarchism wrongly aplied? I believe the world without state is the best model, yet of course, there is a difference between anarchy as it was set in, for example, regions of Spain in the civil war, where things actually worked (For three years, then Franco won the war) and production actually triplicated, and then there is the idea of going to- say- US or England, and removing the goverment from one day to another. One model was actually organised at seem to work while the other would lead to chaos and looting.
Also, there's also anarco-capitalism. It's another way of anarchism: Remove the state, but keep the economical system. The result is what we saw with Shin Ra in Final Fantasy VII.
Has anyone read V for Vendetta? Well, V is supposed to be a character that must - more or less- reflect the idea of anarchism. And well, he is not exactly a tard that goes arround blaberring crap about how he wishes control to end so he can masturbate in the street.
Well, V for Vendetta is probably one of the best comics ever made.
So anyway, put me in situation. Don't say "Fascism", don't say "Anarchism", say "Hitler, Mussolini" or say "a chaotic lack of order where people do as they are pleased without respecting the other". Then I can awnser: I prefer Mussolini. Why? Because in the case of anarchy as chaos, fascism would rise anyway, so I prefer to have fascism set than watching it rise with wars, killings...
Don't blame that on marxism but in the way Allende attempted to carry it away. I believe he had good intentions, but he was just a lame economist, his economic policy is probably the worst thing Chile ever had. He did not know if he would get elected again, so he tried to introduce economical reforms into socialism so fast he screwed up terribly, wich lead to an inflation of the 400%. Sure, he was a well read and intelligent person, but he should have let someone else in charge of the economy, because he was preety awful at it. Also, CIA attemtping to screw up one of his little good decisions and trying to make the bad decisions worse did not help either. In fact, Fidel Castro already warned him that his economical policies would sink the country, that he was going to fast. Of course, Fidel is much better in terms of economy than Allende never was. Allende did not listen to Fidel, then add that up to the CIA attempting the fall of Allende and...you know the results.Quote:
Maybe I should have phrased it better, but my point was simply that under extreme liberalism, the worst threat to one's well being is usually a lack of resources and the competition that results when lots of people compete for too little food, whereas in fascist rule, you're tortured and killed just because. And often. Lots of Chileans hold the exact opposite opinion that I hold, mostly rich Chileans, of course, since they benefited economically from Pinochet.
Allende had a weak character. He disliked confrontation and so his advisors tried to implement their own policies, and he couldn't turn them away. He should have known better, yes, but ultimately he was more of a puppet than an authority figure, and that was a large part of his downfall.
Shadow Nexus, I understand what you're trying to say, but I honestly can't imagine any kind of Marxist/anarchist large scale scenario that doesn't lead to hoarding and violence. The example that you gave, from Spain, was limited to a relatively small portion of the population, (if I remember correctly) and I've seen socialism work very very well in small communities, but as more people are involved, it breaks down. How can you possibly avoid that?
In that I agree, the concept of marxism or anarchism taken to a large scale tends to fail in large communities, or so experience tells. OK, but the thing is more complex than that, you cannot simplify the failure of the implementation on human nature, because that is ignoring all the other factors arround that failure. For example, let's take Russia. According to Marx, the best countries for communism, when he wrote, where England and France, because both were facing capitalism, and it is from capitalism we move into socialism and then, communism (Again, according to Marx: my outlook in the idea is not so optimist). Russian revolution failed with the basic idea of revolution: You cannot change what is above without changing the bases. Starting a war or revolution to bring down a tyrant won't result in anything better if people are not ready for a change. Lenin knew this, that why- along with the problems in economy- decided to implement state capitalism temporally. Then Stalin arrived and well...you know the story. Stalin is one of the most horrible persons who has ever been into power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaralia
Cuba is a different story, then again, I question wether the people were ready or not. However, Fidel Castro is and was a very intelligent person, yet of course, the situation was of Cold War, so he was under the wing of the Soviet Union and under the pressure of USA. From that arrived the whole blocking thing, something I believe to be criminal. And of course, add that to Castro's rather megalomaniac personality, and you get what you get now: Preassure, political opression. However, for now Fidel is the best socialist leader in any country, even if I can't say I like him much, he still has death penalty in his law and six articles in the Cuban constitution that are against freedom of expression. 27 journalists in prision and 50 people on death row (Even those, contrary to believe, are NOT political prisioners...I still do not believe it to be justified, however).
So yeah, for the things to really work, we would need the ideal conditions for an actual well done revolution. And that is not easy.
OK, let's look at anarchy and Marxism separately, as they deserve:Quote:
...the concept of marxism or anarchism taken to a large scale tends to fail in large communities, or so experience tells. OK, but the thing is more complex than that, you cannot simplify the failure of the implementation on human nature, because that is ignoring all the other factors around that failure.
Anarchy is an inherently unstable state that is overthrown easily. You mention Europe and Russia, which is precisely where anarchy was defeated by fascism and communism, for many reasons. Anarchy can lead to chaos, which leads to the people themselves wishing for someone to come along and take power, and a state that is up for grabs is very, very tempting for someone with a big gun.
Marxism could work, in my opinion, or at least some versions of it could. If we look at success stories, though, there aren't any, except maybe for Castro.
Agreed. He's successful, if you can call it that, in a situation where very few people would ever be able to keep their heads above water. Living conditions in Cuba are pretty good compared with other third world countries, and given the collapse of the Soviet Union and the harsh embargo imposed by the US, it's an almost impossible task to accomplish. But look at how he got there: maximizing publicly owned property, minimizing civil rights, and generally ruling with an iron fist. In order to avoid revolts and slipping into anarchy, it's necessary for the leader to be strong, but political stability comes at a great cost.Quote:
Fidel is the best socialist leader in any country
So again, I ask you, do you really think that the people and the state can be coordinated in such a way that you don't fall into neither anomie, nor fascism?
Um, OK, first, about anarchy.
The idea of anarchy leading to chaos is natural, after all, given our society, it is hard to understand the concept of order without power. Anarchy is not supposed to be "do whatever you want", it is supposed to be an organized order without a governor, based on the idea that man is naturally perfectible, and as such, it can use it's rationality to organise into a true, free, intellectual society free of alienation. Of course, problems occur, problems always occur, and anarchy could never work perfectly, it is an ideal to be followed.
Communism and Anarchism are heavily related. Communism is also a system without state, but Marx believed the supression of the state cannot be done ipso facto, and before that it needs a period of Socialism. Socialism is what has happened in many countires, yet in very different ways, as you know. Cuba, now, is a Socialist country.
Again, if you can, Alan Moore's "V for Vendetta" explains anarchism really well, and it entretains at the same time. I recommend it, I highly recommend it, seriously. And some scenes in it are very poetic. A true piece of art.
I believe a politic of dialoge, as oposed to the impositive dogmatism imperating in modern goverments, is much more active for the development and strength of the goverment. This is the main reason why I admire the soviet parlamentary system (People not voting presidents, but parliment members, and removing them when necessary), I believe it to be a great idea if taken into action correctly, without manipulation of the media, one of the problems imperating in Cuba.Quote:
In order to avoid revolts and slipping into anarchy, it's necessary for the leader to be strong, but political stability comes at a great cost.
For me it'd be great for Fidel to change the articles in the constitution and USA to lift the embargo. If that ever happens, I promise I'm emigrating to Cuba. But I doubt it will ever occur.
I do, and I believe in Enlightment. Sapere aude, all that crap.Quote:
So again, I ask you, do you really think that the people and the state can be coordinated in such a way that you don't fall into neither anomie, nor fascism?
And I realise I may be wrong, that it may be just an unreachable ideal, I may just be the Quixote who sees giants where there are windmills. Yet, it is either Enlightment and change, or either giving up into postmodern values, meaning a rather passive action, the classical "democracy and capitalism are find and dandy, let's keep with it and try to make the best of it". Hell no! The project of Enlightment has not failed, and what Kant said back in his time is still to be applied today, every day more. We are not in the end of history, we are just starting with the second volume, as the poet Mario Benedetti very eloquently said. And if the end of history is for Frankenstein to walk in fashion expositions, for NASDAQ to be a Veda for post-Brahmans and for Judas to sell in exclusive his betrayal to the pink press, then please allow me to say humanity has failed so badly it has already lost all hope. I do not like this sciences and fictions of emptyness, markets and flags, cosmetic and bad taste, and thus, it is either change or death. It is either Prometheus or Narcisus, or Sisifo. You are from Chile, you probably know Pablo Neruda, so as he said:
Debemos hacer algo en esta tierra
porque en este planeta nos parieron,
y hay que arreglar las cosas de los hombres
¡porque no somos pájaros ni perros!
Y bien, si cuando ataco lo que odio
o cuando canto a todos los que quiero,
la poesía quiere abandonar
las esperanzas de mi manifiesto,
yo sigo con las tablas de mi ley
acumulando estrellas y armamento.
Uh. Well, I don't care enough about politics to discuss imaginary/impossible systems, so, yeah. I think that we do what comes naturally. I think most people want there to be a government, and someone to be at the head of it, so there's a clear path and we know what the hell we're doin', and we're a part of a group. Everything groups, and most everything has something at the head of it. Animals have alpha males/females, galaxies have supermassive black holes, and so on. I don't really know where I'm goin' with this, but, yeah.
You know, if you're part of the right group, extreme conservatism can be pretty sweet. Hitler was awesome if you were Aryan and hated Jews. Granted, not many are gonna be a member of the lucky ones, but younever know. With extreme liberalism, on the other hand, I figure everyone's in the same situation, which can either be supremely crappy or pretty nice. I think it's the same chance of that society being comfortable and well-off as there is someone being part of the right group in extreme conservatism.
So, both suck.
I personally think that extreme conservatism is worse.
Ah Shadow Nexus, I admire your optimism. We need more Quijotes nowadays, and since you're on my side anyway, I won't argue the point any further. I hope you really do find "a true, free, intellectual society free of alienation" someday.
Anarchy the way that you describe it is intriguing, and I'm going to look into it a bit further. It still seems a bit too idealistic for my taste, but it may just be that I don't have a good grasp of the concept. And any philosophy has to agree with basic human psychology, and, as someone said upthread, human beings seek leadership in all situations, even in reduced groups, so this is my basic problem with the concept.
And of course I know Neruda. :) That's a beautiful poem, and I'd never heard it in that context. Thanks for that.
Extreme Conservatism was the romance of the ancien regime...
Steeds marching into honourable battle, battles with men who care for nothing more than to die. A world with a king who gave his ultimate sacrifice, sacrificed his blood for men to live.
Extreme Liberalism is the world I have grown to know...
Cars commuting into work, work that men have no care for and would rather wished they had died. This is a world ruled by many, with no direction, no form so that they may live as pigs with immense appetites.
The sad thing is that liberalism is not the stuff of hippies and pot-smokers but is becoming endemic in our very psyche; it is an academic woe aimed at setting one against another not for the sake of virtue, but utility. I am right, you are wrong; we are all kings of our exteriors and will kill to protect them. Man against man in a sub-urban war over who pays his airtaxes and who has the rights to free football… If you don’t pay, why I. Charity is lost, now my neighbour you must die.
In the middle is the way to go, 'fair and balanced'. :D Agree what everyone else said, extreme liberalism=anarchy, extreme conservatism= fascism. etc. It all comes down to the types of people, and there role in society..
I'd like to be able to concur with Shadow Nexus's viewpoint on humanity, but I think it's about as realistic as communism, which has always, in practice, turned into an oppressive dictatorship of some sort. Of course, it's never been implemented exactly as Marx envisioned it, either, but I don't think it can be, just as the idealistic libertarian view that big business will always regulate itself is unrealistic. (Although, to be sure, I think the libertarians do have a point that reducing government would be a good thing at this point - taken to extremes, though, would be ridiculous).Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamaneko
That is not liberalism at work; that is capitalism and technology. Most liberals don't want the environment to die, actually; we're usually the ones clamouring for the reduced use of fossil fuels and greenhouse gases and the like. It does have a lot to do with politics, but the fact that the world is in its current state is largely due to the interests of corporations and those they employ. A lot of liberals want that to change, but I, for one, don't think it can happen as long as the U.S. remains the world's dominant power - frankly, we're too far set in our ways for the trend to change in our own country. Thanks to the misadventures of Bush and company, though, I think we're firmly entrenched on the path of not being the world's dominant power anymore.Quote:
Extreme Liberalism is the world I have grown to know...
Cars commuting into work, work that men have no care for and would rather wished they had died. This is a world ruled by many, with no direction, no form so that they may live as pigs with immense appetites.
Yeah, yeah I am aware of the "ifs" and "buts" Most liberals go to see the Buddhist Lama but refute the Catholic Pope as conservative, same level of tradition in my books!... And to add - you still use the multinationals products, how else are you communicating the internet? ;)
Nuclear power works, I find. It's also quite likely that antimatter could be a feasible energy source in the near future, if all the safety hazards that could go with it get worked out.
Bush and company are the ones pushing so hard for everyone to depend on oil, and they're amongst the most conservative people I know of. That says something, I find. And there's a reason the most liberal major party in America is called the Green Party, and it has nothing to do with the colour of our money.
Treating Catholicism and Buddhism as though they're the same thing is misinformed, to say the least, because they're not the same thing in the slightest. Catholicism fits in firmly with a lot of strongly conservative policies - Frankly, it's quite a misogynistic religion, it forbids birth control, it strongly discourages sex before marriage, it opposes abortion, it opposes gay marriage, it tends to be highly evelangelical (which seems to be a tendency of conservative religions), and that's not even getting into the many past atrocities the Catholic Church has committed (amongst them are genocide and quite possibly historic revisionism). In short, Catholicism is one of the most conservative religions out there - often times blindly so, since it's pushing for the restriction of birth control in Africa, where it's leading to tens of millions of people's deaths from AIDS. Even compared to many strains of Christianity, it's a highly conservative religion - which is odd, because Christ himself was undeniably a radical, especially given the time he lived in. He himself hung out with prostitutes and poor-off fisherman, amongst other things - I highly doubt you'd find members of the Catholic clergy willingly associating with the same. His idea of love for one's fellow man - "Love thy neighbour as thyself" - is also an undeniably liberal axiom. (There's strong evidence to support the view that Christ's views were heavily censored and edited by the fifth-century Catholic church, but I'm not going to get into that right now).
Buddhism is a lot less interpersonal of a religion than Catholicism - It isn't out to mark anything as a "sin," and it's a lot more in line with self-enlightenment, which is typically regarded as a new-age, "liberal" value. I'll confess to not knowing nearly as much about the history of Buddhism as I do about the history of Christianity - It's something I intend to look into, but not until I'm finished understanding the history of Christianity more fully.
"Nuclear power works, I find."
Sure, tell that to the Russian, 1984... ;)
So what you are saying is that the en vouge Westernised facade of Buddhism, fits with your new age liberal spin. That is fine, but both the Lama and the Pope: Head traditional chairs, you cannot deny this (I never said they were the same religion you are trying to play tango with me). The Pope may well be incorrect as far as profane matters are concerned, but that is of little relevance to his higher authority. You think the Catholics are strict! Most hippies are ignorant of the conduct of Buddhists and the strict rules - as one should not even look upon the Lama! Plus, the Buddhists rejected the liberal communist doctrine and were persecuted in Tibet as a result.
"misogynistic religion"
How au current, I can hear the feminists applauding, especially when they over look the fact that Mary is held as the literal mother of God's only begotten son! It is only the fundamentalists who take the myth of Genesis ad hoc in the treatment of Eve and the fall... And you have to admit that abortion is more commonly used as an excuse by the wicked boyfriend or ignorant parents, as most teenage girls would prefer to have their babies, rather than terminate them.
"Buddhism is a lot less interpersonal of a religion than Catholicism - It isn't out to mark anything as a "sin," and it's a lot more in line with self-enlightenment, which is typically regarded as a new-age, "liberal" value. I'll confess to not knowing nearly as much about the history of Buddhism as I do about the history of Christianity - It's something I intend to look into, but not until I'm finished understanding the history of Christianity more fully."
Salvation/Enlightenment is achieved in Catholicism and Buddhism by questioning self imperfections, via prayer and meditation, respectively and these issues are certainly not "new-age". "New-age" is proliferation of the self, the ego and the rejection of the divine realm; this does not sound like Buddhism to me.
P.S. Just as an aside, are you a member of a church? I noticed your reference to "Your own personal Jesus" unless you just like the music of Depeche Mode a lot... ;)
In terms of most political matters, Christians tend to be conservative - namely, against abortion, against birth control, against gay marriage, for censorship, et cetera.Quote:
Originally Posted by Besimudo
Abortion certainly is generally used as an excuse, but quite frankly, most of the people who have abortions would be crappy parents anyway. You could argue that they could just give the child up for adoption in most cases, and I'd agree with you, but there are certain cases when I don't think a woman should be forced to go through with her pregnancy at all, such as if she were a victim of rape or if the pregnancy were life-threatening to her or something. 'Sides, abortion is relatively like alcohol - You make it illegal, there're just going to be speakeasies, and odds are the doctors who'd work at those wouldn't be professionals, and therefore there'd be a lot more resultant accidents.Quote:
"misogynistic religion"
How au current, I can hear the feminists applauding, especially when they over look the fact that Mary is held as the literal mother of God's only begotten son! It is only the fundamentalists who take the myth of Genesis ad hoc in the treatment of Eve and the fall... And you have to admit that abortion is more commonly used as an excuse by the wicked boyfriend or ignorant parents, as most teenage girls would prefer to have their babies, rather than terminate them.
As far as Christianity's misogyny, I don't have time right now to make a list, but it's a lot more than just fundamentalism that demeans women to an extent. I don't know if it's even a conscious behaviour or not, but the way most Christian women are raised is to be ashamed of their own sexuality, as if enjoying it were sinful. I'm not sure if this is because of the Bible or because of the attitudes of most church officials, but a large number of Christian women seem to have a mental block towards enjoying sex. The role of women in the New Testament also appears to have been greatly reduced, as an the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi documents, which have no less claim to historical accuracy than the four Gospels and possibly quite a lot more, contain women with a far stronger role than they take on in any of the canon Gospels.
A decent exploration of the role women might have had is taken upon in The Templar Revelation by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, which you'll find in the religion section of any decent bookstore. It's an interesting read, to say the least.
Looks to me like we've got different definitions of "new age." I always thought it was a pretty bullcrap label to be honest though.Quote:
"Buddhism is a lot less interpersonal of a religion than Catholicism - It isn't out to mark anything as a "sin," and it's a lot more in line with self-enlightenment, which is typically regarded as a new-age, "liberal" value. I'll confess to not knowing nearly as much about the history of Buddhism as I do about the history of Christianity - It's something I intend to look into, but not until I'm finished understanding the history of Christianity more fully."
Salvation/Enlightenment is achieved in Catholicism and Buddhism by questioning self imperfections, via prayer and meditation, respectively and these issues are certainly not "new-age". "New-age" is proliferation of the self, the ego and the rejection of the divine realm; this does not sound like Buddhism to me.
Johnny Cash's cover, actually. I'm not really what would qualify as a Christian, but I do believe in a lot of Christ's teachings, although not, in many cases, as Christianity traditionally presents them.Quote:
P.S. Just as an aside, are you a member of a church? I noticed your reference to "Your own personal Jesus" unless you just like the music of Depeche Mode a lot... ;)
"abortion, against birth control, against gay marriage, for censorship, et cetera."
Religion is the source of ethics and morals... so it must be the force against such pressure groups. Today, we already accept homosexuality and abortion... But as Guy Eaton writes ... These practices were taboo only fifty years ago, if the same level of moral degradation follows in society; eventually paedophilia will be equally accepted as a natural urge.
Can you see the trend that I am illustrating - first we become flacid on certain issues next thing you know we will be as decadent as the Romans.
"but the way most Christian women are raised is to be ashamed of their own sexuality, as if enjoying it were sinful."
This is a very Puritan interpretation. In the Catholic, both men and women are taught to be responible and take the sacrament of marriage (as it protects both parties both spiritually and economically) from harming themselves. The familiar lament of the "regretted sex" can be avioded simply by being chaste, untill you commit to someone you are willing to remain with for your life.
"I'd agree with you, but there are certain cases when I don't think a woman should be forced to go through with her pregnancy at all, such as if she were a victim of rape or if the pregnancy were life-threatening to her or something."
Quite a disturbing topic... But termination will not make the pain go away, in one way of looking at it; abortion could be compared with running away from your fears. Besides the cruel origins - a child is an innocent gift, who as a person had nothing to do with the rape or no say as to their fate... that is life or death.
The ancient people celebrated women as martyrs who died in child birth. This was seen as the ultimate sacrifice - so another may be born. I guess you need to be very spiritual to find meaning out of this though.
"Johnny Cash's cover, actually. I'm not really what would qualify as a Christian, but I do believe in a lot of Christ's teachings, although not, in many cases, as Christianity traditionally presents them."
Indeed. You are not Robinson Crusoe - As I am not a model Christian either.
Anyhow, Cheers. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Besimudo
I agree with you. I think babies should be treated with respect- born or unborn.
How is gay marriage an ethical issue at all? It's simply a matter of some people wanting to impose their own values on other people. It's certainly not harming people. Pedophilia will never be socially accepted because it harms the children involved, who aren't old enough to do what they're doing. Both partners in a homosexual relationship have consensually agreed to be it, in most cases, and they're typically of an age where they're legally responsible for their own actions. If they aren't okay with being in their relationship, it's really their own fault for still being in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Besimudo
Abortion is obviously a touchier issue, which I'll delve into more deeply shortly. I don't approve of it in most circumstances, but I don't think making it illegal is at all practical. I think the system under which it is allowed should quite possibly be reformed, as it's subject to massive abuse (namely, except under extenuating circumstances like rape any woman who has more than one abortion is almost certainly terribly irresponsible). I don't think making it illegal is the solution, however; not that it's likely, given that Roe vs. Wade declared that unconstitutional anyway.
It's a lot more complicated than that. Historically the Catholic Church has been very misogynist indeed; Peter, generally regarded as the father of the church, is quoted in one of the Gnostic Gospels as saying "[women] are not worthy of life." Along similar lines, midwives were hunted during the Inquisition because they knew secrets to easing the pain of childbirth, which the leaders of the church at the time regarded as due punishment for original sin. The idea was that if women had to fear the potential of a painful process of giving birth, they wouldn't enjoy sex as much.Quote:
"but the way most Christian women are raised is to be ashamed of their own sexuality, as if enjoying it were sinful."
This is a very Puritan interpretation. In the Catholic, both men and women are taught to be responible and take the sacrament of marriage (as it protects both parties both spiritually and economically) from harming themselves. The familiar lament of the "regretted sex" can be avioded simply by being chaste, untill you commit to someone you are willing to remain with for your life.
The modern Church may have softened its anti-feminine stance, but the fact that all female characters in the New Testament are virtually written out and, when presented at all, presented in a highly unflattering light remains, as do a number of other facts I don't have the time to delve into. Certainly it's better than it was before, however.
It's a tough issue. I don't believe abortion is a good choice in any case, but it should be a woman's choice to have sex, and since that choice is deprived from her in rape, I don't believe she should be forced to go through with the consequences. I certainly don't see why, if a pregnancy is found to be life-threatening, a woman should be forced to go through with it; odds are that if the pregnancy kills the mother, the baby won't survive, either.Quote:
"I'd agree with you, but there are certain cases when I don't think a woman should be forced to go through with her pregnancy at all, such as if she were a victim of rape or if the pregnancy were life-threatening to her or something."
Quite a disturbing topic... But termination will not make the pain go away, in one way of looking at it; abortion could be compared with running away from your fears. Besides the cruel origins - a child is an innocent gift, who as a person had nothing to do with the rape or no say as to their fate... that is life or death.
The ancient people celebrated women as martyrs who died in child birth. This was seen as the ultimate sacrifice - so another may be born. I guess you need to be very spiritual to find meaning out of this though.
"How is gay marriage an ethical issue at all? It's simply a matter of some people wanting to impose their own values on other people. It's certainly not harming people. Pedophilia will never be socially accepted because it harms the children involved, who aren't old enough to do what they're doing. Both partners in a homosexual relationship have consensually agreed to be it, in most cases, and they're typically of an age where they're legally responsible for their own actions. If they aren't okay with being in their relationship, it's really their own fault for still being in it."
The act does not procreate, therefore it is purely for the fulfilment of the animal desires. Paedophilia is also wrong as it is the adulteration of an innocent. Humans need a system that helps them ascend to improve the mind and body. Besides this, the idea of marriage comes from the holy sacrament (and earlier pagan religions) and it was between man and woman. ;)
"Peter, generally regarded as the father of the church, is quoted in one of the Gnostic Gospels as saying "[women] are not worthy of life."
Most women agree that fulfilment is in their children. Peter spoke on the marriage between man and woman... and its importance in the holy scripture (the idea of oneness) You also need to consider what is worthy in the eyes of the lord. Is a life unexamined worthy?
Do not forget that the East did and still does (except Japan and Korea) provide women with the one vocation and that is motherhood. Notice that Japan as a society has suffered due to the feminism - as women are perusing personal gratification rather than motherhood. This loss of direction has caused break down and many women are now considered too old to be brides.
Besides this Eve represents the fall, while Mary represents the saving aspect of femininity. You choose to focus on Eve and ignore Mary - do not forget that men were also deceptive in the bible. As it said it is the en vogue idea that any time a woman does something wrong in the bible it is perceived as a mark on the whole gender - and that is rubbish. Without the Virgin Mary, we could not have received the path to salvation... And without the fall of mankind, the mother of man kind Eve could not have given birth to children to witness Gods universe.
The act does not procreate, therefore it is purely for the fulfilment of the animal desires. - Besimudo
I'm sure that 99.9% of the time males and females get together it's because of animal desire rather than reproduction. We should ban that as well.
Besides this, the idea of marriage comes from the holy sacrament (and earlier pagan religions) and it was between man and woman. - Besimudo
Yep, and we used to make tools out of rocks. That's the way it was done before, so let's continue to do it now! The idea that we should do things solely because of tradition is just silly. We'd still be crawling around on all fours if that was the case.
Most women agree that fulfilment is in their children. - Besimudo
As do many men.
Burtsplurt summed up most of what I'd have said.
In interpreting what the Bible says, one needs to consider that what is presented in the Scriptures has often been heavily edited and censored. There are surviving Church documents that explicitly state that there were sections of Mark's Gospel that were removed from the 'canon' editions. As Pickett and Prince write in The Templar Revelation, a copy of a letter from the second-century Church Father, Clement of Alexandria, to someone called Theodore who had apparently written for advice about a heretical cult, admits that the alternative Gospel of Mark was authentic and "contained the esoteric teachings of Jesus that were not intended to be revealed to the average Christian." Clement "was prepared to lie to prevent such material from becoming more widely known: although he admits to Theodore that Mark's Secret Gospel does exist, he advises him to deny it to everyone else."
The letter goes on to describe two events in which the Scriptures were edited: In the first case, an account of the rising of Lazarus pretty much similar to the account of John's Gospel is included, although notably, there is a follow-up to the miracle six days afterward, in which Lazarus, as Pickett and Prince write,came to Jesus "wearing a linen cloth over his naked body" and remained with him for a night, during which he was "taught... the mystery of the kingdom of God." Rather than a miraculous resurrection, therefore, the raising of Lazarus seems to have been some kind of initatory rite in which the initiate undergoes a symbolic death and rebirth before being given the secret teachings.The second case is merely a sentence which appears after Mark 11:46, namely: "Ands the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." Speculation indicates that "the youth whom Jesus loved" was Lazarus, and as this phrase is also used to describe the disciple upon whose testimony John's gospel is based, it's quite likely that Lazarus likely is John. (Also, Lazarus' sister, Mary of Bethany, is believed to be one and the same as Mary Magdalene).
The Virgin Mary is a rather poor representative for all females simply because she is presumed to be abstinent for life (which is a load of rubbish, since Jesus is explicitly stated to have brothers and sisters on several instances in the Bible... half-brothers if you believe in the Immaculate Conception). While I'll admit that she has her own qualities worth admiring, women couldn't really look to her as a source of guidance on sexual matters simply because she was presumed to be abstinent. Of course, Jesus was also presumed to have been abstinent (although in fact there is no evidence even in the Gospels themselves to indicate this; the subject of whether he was married is completely avoided throughout), so I suppose the idea of sex is supposed to be completely separate from religion. Okay.
One week gone and this is already about religion. Anyway, I haven't read it all, but I just read a lot of "Jesus" around there.
"yo prefiero hablar de cosas imposiblesQuote:
Anarchy the way that you describe it is intriguing, and I'm going to look into it a bit further. It still seems a bit too idealistic for my taste, but it may just be that I don't have a good grasp of the concept.
porque de lo posible ya se sabe demasiado"
-Silvio Rodríguez
Basically, it's either hope or giving up. As the May 1968 graffiti said: Be realist, ask for that wich is impossible. It may be hard to get, but accepting what we have now despite the injustice is just...forgeting humanity is meant to be Prometheus, not Narcisus.
You are describing capitalism here.Quote:
Extreme Liberalism is the world I have grown to know...
Cars commuting into work, work that men have no care for and would rather wished they had died. This is a world ruled by many, with no direction, no form so that they may live as pigs with immense appetites.
Basically, to summarize, it's me saying most of Catholic doctrine is made-up misogynist crap that has nothing to do with the way things actually happened in the First Century and Besimundo arguing that it doesn't matter, I guess ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
And yes, I agree with you that that Besimundo quote is capitalism, not liberalism xD
Funny though, liberalism can work in capitalism. Examples are socialdemocrats, they are liberal but keep the capitalist means of production. Liberalism is a rather vague term.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
the stereotypical liberal viewpoint isn't exactly pro-unrestricted capitalism, though
What about neoliberalism? That's extreme capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
I've never even heard of neoliberalism, but if it's anything like neoconservatism, keep it far, far away from me.
Avoiding anything with a "neo" tacked on the front is usually a good idea.
Neon is particularly toxic.
It's probably the same under different term. Neoliberalism (in a nutshell) believes that all that has succeeded of the modern project is capitalism, and believes we should go back to traditional values. Neoliberalism applies to many people at the Bush administration, some democrats too. Well, it is the ideology of free trade and capitalism, with moral conservadurism.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
"Neoliberalism" isn't liberalism at all then, as far as I'm concerned. What a crock.
Yes it is, it is liberalism in the market. Free trade, IMF, NAFTA...everyone's invited! The less goverment interference, the happier neoliberalists are. It is economical liberalism! Hail anarchy in the market!
So a command economy, where prices are heavily dictated by the government, would be neo-conservative? I think I get it.
As far as I know, offer and demand determines the prices. The least goverment interfierence in the multinationals, the better. The more capitalism, the better. Thats basically neoliberalism. I have read some books written by neoliberalists, I like to get pissed or something. I'm stupid. But everyone knows that already.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
the world tends toward chaos and disorder anyway, so it takes huge efforts in oppression to hold society together for long. I think the US will break apart into many smaller countries in the not too distant future.
I figure humanity will either start figuring out how to live better or it'll just die away. Either one is fine with me, although I support those who push for more enlightened life, and thus I tend to align more with "extreme liberalism"