General discussion

Locked

Has libertarianism reached its peak?

By jardinier ·
The war in Iraq has caused me to divert much of my attention from local issues to international matters.

As I pondered over social mores in various countries ... especially Western democracies ... I realised that we have become to a great extent a dissolute society. Consider things which are now accepted as "normal" such as a high divorce rate, leading to single-parent families; the universal acceptance of homosexuality as "normal," even to the extent of allowing marriage between partners ofthe same sex; the escalating problems of drug abuse and juvenile crime; the "everything's acceptable" attitude expressed in movies and TV series; and so on.

We are seeing fundamentalist religious views gradually replacing the more liberal views to which we have become accustomed.

Is the pendulam starting to swing back to a more conservative overall approach to life?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

141 total posts (Page 5 of 15)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Intriguing Table

by Oldefar In reply to Circles, not lines

Something with a third dimension seems to be necessary, but I can't seem to make your table work. Is there a representative image of your table available?

I take your 3 sides (capitalism, collectivism, corporatism) as axis in a table, but where is the convergence or intersecting point?

Collapse -

There is a line

by MallardtooXX In reply to Fascism and Communism. . ...

You have to remember that Anarchy is in all actuality the first step to a Utopian society. Until there is a total social reversal of personal government there is no way for all people to truly be equal. This is where it gets gray, if the extreme opposite of Fascism/Communism is Anarchy then where is the middle ground. I have never heard of a moderate anarchist. I am just curious because I think that in the future, far far into the future the race as a whole will look back at the last two centuries as a return to the dark ages. Our current social morays are not at all in line with our own desires nor are they conducive to furthering the species for any real practicality. That being said I find my statement contrary to my personal beliefs. How is this possible? Because when it all boils out in the end you are left with one unifying crust, we are all human and that is about it.

I know this seems like drivel but re read it and you will see it. There is really nothing that binds us as a society except the fact that we are on the top. If there were some super predator that came along and took over then everything we are doing now would stop. That is why I say what I say, there is no unifying context, no great cause to concentrate on, just the propagation of a species that rules through superior numbers and a little better intellect or so we think.

I ask this; if Humans are so superior to any other creature, why can?t I speak dolphin?

-duck
I am not as off topic as it may first seem on this one.

Collapse -

speaking dolphin

by 1-flash-&-yer-ash In reply to There is a line

I would surmise you cant speak dolphin due to habitat and early childhood development. As well as different larynx, tongue, medium and method of transmission and reception, spatial awareness etc. Dolphins don,t normally vocalise out of water. Hold your head underwater and speak/vocalise, you'll get my drift. As to superiority, name another species/genus that can change its environment as extensively as ours

Collapse -

Yep your right

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to There is a line

Humans can't speek dolphin because we are designed differently for a different enviroment now you may like to call this evelution, God;'s Grand Design or what ever but the fact that we can change our enviroment isn't necessarly a good thing as on most occasions when we do change the enviroment it is us who pays the price for destroying the enviroment in the first place.
Sure we manage to exterminate quite a few species along the way but is thia necessarly a good thing?
Does it make us superior to those so called animalls who live in harmony with their envirmonent?
I think hat you are under the misapherision that because we can we should and to hell with the conquences, well sorry but I don't think that way and as I live in Australia I have seen many instances of introduces species causing the destruction to the existing enviroment from simple flora to the introduced Fauna. Something as simple as cattle are causing irreversable damage to the land but we continue with their production just so we can have our Big Mac's and the like and don't worry about what will happen. Here we are beginning to see the results of only a few hundred years of altering the enviroment and it isn't a preety sight. Salinity getting out of control, introduced ants killing off everything in their path. The Fire Ants that where accidently introduced had so far been contained to a fairly small area only a few thousand square Kilometers and it is costing us millions to eradacate these. How would you like to attempt to eredacate the wild dog population completely over here?
Just because we can change our enviroment doesn't make us in any way superior but mostly makes us inferrior to all other species on the planet.

Collapse -

Who Benefits

by TheChas In reply to Fascism and Communism. . ...

Another factor to take into account in your walks like a duck test, is who benefits.

Communism as practiced by the USSR (as opposed to Marx' ideal) is not very liberal, and could perhaps be considered right wing, as the people actually worked forthe benefit of the ruling class.

In most all fascist states, the people work for the benefit of the rulers.

Just a thought,

Chas

Collapse -

changing churches

by john_wills In reply to Interesting Topic

I do not think people usually change churches because the one they are in teaches what they intellectually disbelieve but rather because it teaches what they find uncomfortable. Many Catholics want to practise contraception, or remarry after divorce; they do not think these things right, but a modern Protestant church will not keep on telling them they are wrong. There are also matters like after-service coffee and donuts which attract people, whereas it should be doctrines. We are not such rational animals as we might be. A very odd thing in my experience is a Catholic who became a Zen Buddhist because she wanted a more contemplative life, unaware of the variety of contemplative lifestyles within the Catholic Church. Similarly, John Lennon said of the Maharishi "We've got nothing like it in our culture", unaware of Cassian, Ignatius, Bernard, Elijah... all of whom emphasize the conscious mind rather than wallowing in the subconscious and visceral, which is what many Hindu meditation teachers inculcate.

Collapse -

Faith changing

by Oldefar In reply to changing churches

I wonder how many people change denominations or basic faiths versus those who become agnostic.

I know of very few who moved between Christianity, Muslem, Hindu, Buddist or Jewish faiths. In all cases that I am personally familiar with, the movecame after these individuals had ceased practicing their original faith, and the change came during a point of personal crisis. It appears that each change was made based on a need for faith and an openess with individuals in their new faith to meet their need.

Most individuals I know who move between denominations do so without a formal change. I don't think I know any who "converted" unless it was to meet a marraige requirement. I haven't seen any of these in over twenty years.

Collapse -

Need for faith - really?

by The Chalky In reply to Faith changing

Your premise that people change "based on a need for faith" is one of the most insulting ideas to people capable of managing their lives without resorting to an external organisation.
When people have personal crises they need support. This support would be far better offered as a friend, neighbour or relative rather than convincing them of the "need for faith".
We don't need faith. All it does is create conflict because of the strange idea that "my faith is better than your faith".
Religion carries on the politics of the school yard.

Collapse -

Insulted by a misreading

by Oldefar In reply to Need for faith - really?

My statement was made in a particular context - in reference to observations of those I have known to change. In this context, the "need for faith" may also be read as "their need for faith".

I wonder if your particular position might also represent a faith. Those I referred to were seeking strength and solace in the concept of an entity greater than themselves. You seem to propose the same, with that entity being a community of man. Add a set of guidelines, and it could easily become a religion.

Collapse -

As far as faiths go

by rickydoo In reply to Insulted by a misreading

Is this not a faith labelled as "Humanism"? I have heard this before, and I think I may ascribe to it. Quoting from "What is Humanism?" by Frederick Edwords :
"Modern Humanism, also called Naturalistic Humanism, Scien- tific Humanism, Ethical Humanism and Democratic Humanism is defined by one of its leading proponents, Corliss Lamont, as "a naturalistic philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion." Modern Humanismhas a dual origin, both secular and religious, and these constitute its sub-categories."
http://www.jcn.com/humanism.html

You piqued my interest, so I had to look it up... a Google search found 289,000 references.

Back to Community Forum
141 total posts (Page 5 of 15)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums