 |
| |
|
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
quote:
Like I said, I don't like religion. I have no problem with you practicing it, except where there are peoples lives and such on the line, |
So wait, now what do you mean? If a person believes that Allah would not like him to kill people, while an extremist does, justifying so and so as the enemy, in one post you would say you would have trouble with the religion in general, while in another, you target the individual...so which is it?
If person A is a Muslim extremist, and person B is Muslim but non-extremist, would you proceed to blanket the whole and kill them both?
quote:
Freedom to practice religion is not very important to me.
|
Think of it as freedom of views. Even athiests have different takes on morality and objectivity. If a new form of Nietszche someday ruled as dictator, and decided that all forms of beliefs except nihilism would be illegal, would you ignore it as another right of practicing one's own religion being violated?
But if you didn't, that would be contradictory. Religion is belief beyond the empirical. Currently we have no empirical evidence to establish objectivity or relativism save through rational reasoning, where even then there is disagreement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
quote:
Like I said, I don't like religion. I have no problem with you practicing it, except where there are peoples lives and such on the line, |
So wait, now what do you mean? If a person believes that Allah would not like him to kill people, while an extremist does, justifying so and so as the enemy, in one post you would say you would have trouble with the religion in general, while in another, you target the individual...so which is it?
If person A is a Muslim extremist, and person B is Muslim but non-extremist, would you proceed to blanket the whole and kill them both?
|
I don't want to kill anyone. I do want to stop the religion. I want you to stop being a muslim, because it is dangerous to me. Some people in your culture want to harm me and my family. I don't think it's too much to ask that you abandon your religion. It's evil.
quote:
quote:
Freedom to practice religion is not very important to me.
|
Think of it as freedom of views. Even athiests have different takes on morality and objectivity. If a new form of Nietszche someday ruled as dictator, and decided that all forms of beliefs except nihilism would be illegal, would you ignore it as another right of practicign one's own religion being violated?
But if you didn't, that would be contradictory. Religion is belief beyond the empirical. Currently we have no empirical evidence to establish objectivity or relativism save through rational reasoning, where even then there is disagreement. |
I believe in freedom of views, but not in absolute terms. I don't like fascists, or even authoritarians, and I don't think they should have the right to view their opinions or even have meetings and such.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
I don't think anyone is jumping on ML for being an absolutist. I think people are jumping on him because he's being a *****.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:22
|
|
anyone: is Schröder so right wing?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:22
|
|
he's right wing authoritarian on that comparison thing
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
Give me a policy that would give a small benefit to 99% and charge 1% a small amount. |
Ok, how about taking away some funding from Aid to Dependant Children or something like that and using that money to fund something else or reduce taxes for everyone else.
The Theory of Justice would definetly reject it, because you are making the least advantage members of society worse off.
|
That example won't work. The cost to the children is at least equal to (and most probably far greater than) the benefit that others recieve. You have to give me a theory where the cost to the minority is very small and the overall benefit to the majority is very large.
quote:
quote:
You said that the minorities are screwed in a system where the powerfull get to determine which rights people will have, but that the powerfull sometimes feel guilty and grant the minorities rights. When the powerfull do so, aren't they just doing what the Rawlsian model suggests? |
Rights in Rawls' work is a totally different inquiry than the maximin. I don't see anything wrong with his ideas on political rights, but then again that isn't something he created (it's more of a Lockian model, if anything). He does say that people don't go into the original position with any rights and rights are formed from the contractual relationship, which is unlike Locke, but not entirely new. His new ideas spring from his maximin which arises from a original position with a veil of ignorance. The ideas on political rights were well developed before him.
|
That's not the way I interpret it. I interpret it to mean that people should have such rights that they would agree to having behind the veil of ignorance. The maximin is just an assumption that he made about the results that people would hypothetically make.
quote:
And the Rawlsian model proposes the maximin because people fear they'll be the abject poor. The powerful who give rights aren't doing so because one day they fear they'll be poor so they want those rights to protect them! If they ever get overthrown, they'll be dead or will go into exile anyway.
|
But if they grant the poor rights which benefit them, aren't they doing the same thing that they would be doing behind the veil?
quote:
quote:
I'm starting to see that Agathon was right. you are really just a conservative. |
 Aggie called me a classical liberal on the first page. |
Oh well, you also said that you have a tendency to follow Burke. That's what I was refering to.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Those children are already disadvantaged in an unfair system and you want to take food out of their mouths? Of course that doesn't fit into the Theory of Justice. If that's why you reject the model then you don't believe in justice at all. |
 Like I said a small loss of the 1% and leads to the betterment of the 99% is something Rawls wouldn't support.
A better example would be to take something that causes a small loss for, say, 20% of the population, but would give the 80% of the rest a much bigger benefit. Something like welfare reform in the US.
The 99-1 was just an example, and not always what will happen. Sometimes it is 80-20 or even 60-40. For Rawls you look at the lower number (if they are the least advantaged) and decide what to do based on that.
quote:
No they are not agreed to as though they would behind the veil of ignorance. What the hell would he have any motivation to come up with that theory if that were true. |
And that's what I'm saying (albeit in a different way). If his big leap was to come up with a system of rights, then the veil of ignorance doesn't make sense.
And yes, they are agreed to as they would without the veil of ignorance. All of the political rights he wants in his society are the rights that are in the US Constitution (in the Bill of Rights) for the most part.
quote:
You absolutely do have a problem with it. |
Yeah, sure, because I agree with his rights system? It's basic classical liberal rights, enshrined in the US Bill of Rights. That isn't the point of the veil of ignorance. The point of the veil is to get to his maximin. The rights have to be gotten out of the way first because he's a liberal and he can't get rid of the rights and says that is what his original position people would agree with.
quote:
That's just plain old conservatism. |
Not really. There was a reason that 'The Prince' was reviled all over Europe, especially by those conservative rulers. Conservatism isn't one for realpolitik. It makes their whole, we are moving towards a special brotherhood (whether it is in the context of a religion or national identity) useless.
quote:
It's nothing like the Theory of Justice at all. |
No **** sherlock... but the rights are the same - the classical liberal rights which have been articulated in some form or another since Locke.
Last edited by Imran Siddiqui on 30-09-2004 at 06:40
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-09-2004 01:36
Attachment: 
which happened to be one space after the exclamation point...
No they are not agreed to as though they would behind the veil of ignorance. What the hell would he have any motivation to come up with that theory if that were true.
|
