The biggest problem with modern-day liberalism is that it advocates
tolerance of everything....as long as everything is acceptable things.
And so the question becomes, acceptable to whom?
Tim, you make a good argument and you`ve stated your case. I think
you`ll also agree that your entire argument rests on a morality which
descends from a belief in God, with the further association to a
Christian God.
That`s fine, admirable, and not what I`m arguing against. Nor do I
think it`s contrary to Steve`s postings. Rather, it`s that on an open
forum, particularly one that reaches beyond any single national
boundary and culture, you have to be aware of the assumptions. To
restrict forum postings on the basis that they must conform to
Christian morality is just that---a restriction.
The secondary problem of modern philosophy is that it`s locked itself
into a proposition that morality ONLY can descend from either the State
or from a Supreme Being of some sort. It removes entirely from the
equation the morality of healthy social interaction.
In other words, if someone were to post about a business involving
child slavery, and the community was composed of rational, thoughtful
individuals, do you honestly believe that everyone would nod, agree,
and proceed to offer helpful advice?
The question is whether or not the platform for that disagreement (with
the child slavery business) comes ONLY from a religious background, or
from the business being illegal.
What about such concepts as dignity, freedom, honor, justice, and
well-being? Wouldn`t you agree that these values can be arrived at
through life experience itself?
The posting about the adult toys business (oops...I mean nekkit babes) isn`t impolite, and it was
offered as a question about a business that doesn`t demean people,
enslave them, override their personal freedoms, and so forth. Your
argument is that the business "harms" people in some way. But the harm
you indicate comes to something that not everyone agrees exists, nor
that which has a clear defined meaning--a soul.
Both Steve and I are saying that if the posting had been ugly, or about
a clearly illegal activity, neither of us would have agreed that it
should proceed. I probably would have reported it as abuse to the forum
guidelines. So what`s the "definition" of ugly? There still isn`t any
kind of definition of pornography on the books, right? And to say,
"I`ll know it when I see it" opens the slippery slope to today`s
liberal and/or conservative extremism.
One additional thought:
I do get the idea that modern intellectuals, elitists, and academics,
have almost completely divorced the meaning of concepts from the words
used. Symbolism holds sway over actual content, and so we have today`s
NAACP.
Freedom of expression and freedom of speech did have an intent, when it
originally was guaranteed by the Constitution. That intent was founded
on a philosophy that actually paid attention to reality. But
unfortunately, due to built-in flaws of those philosophies, the intent
wasn`t spelled out.
Today we have people arguing that anything whatsoever is "expression,"
guaranteed under the Constitution. I disagree totally, just as I
disagree totally with the idea that "art is whatever anyone wants it to
be."
I don`t advocate an open discussion about starting an X-rated adult
site on the basis that anyone can say anything at all, whenever they
want, about whatever topic. I do advocate the use of rational
evaluation, founded on quality of life as a standard.
CraigL2008-4-7 2:18:26
New Topic
Post Reply
Follow Topic
