I am beginning to see how liberalism is out of touch with reality

Status
Not open for further replies.

LOVEthroughINTELLECT

The courage to be human
Jul 30, 2005
7,825
403
✟25,873.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
If you observe people fighting the pathetic culture wars that dominate public discourse you will find patterns.

Here is an unmistakable pattern: no matter if the issue is inappropriate contentography, the prohibition of marijuana, or same-sex marriage the people--on both the left and the right--espousing liberalism say that it is not having any effect on anybody else if people produce and consume inappropriate contentography, practice recreational marijuana use, or enter a marriage contract with someone of the same sex. Furthermore, they either imply or directly state that anybody who has a problem with such behavior is paranoid, wants to control people, etc.

Please do not distort what is being questioned here. Whether or not things like the production and consumption of inappropriate contentography are morally right or protected by the U.S. Constitution is not the question here. The question is about the premise that says that when people participate in such things they are either not harming anybody or they are only harming their own selves.

It is patently false. Nobody lives in a vacuum. Everything that everybody does affects everybody else.

That is why statements like "If you don't like same-sex marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex" are not only condescending, they are absurd. A cynic would probably also have to say that such statements are disingenuous.

The whole paradigm is contradictory anyway. On one hand liberalism is celebrated for its contribution to "progress". On the other hand, we are told that we have nothing to fear because liberalism is about people doing things that have no effect on anybody but their own selves. And then people defending policies such as same-sex marriage produce all kinds of "studies" showing that such policies either do not have negative effects or have only positive effects on individuals, communities, humanity, etc. In other words, it's just people having no effect on others, but scientists can investigate the effects that they have on others.

The one variable that the champions of liberalism never seem to include in the equation is the fact that the behaviors that they associate with liberty--and possibly the existence of liberalism itself--have been made possible by people being dispossessed, oppressed and exploited. The U.S. Supreme Court, along with any rulings it has made about things like same-sex marriage, might not even exist if the Native Americans were not, as part of government policy, removed from what is now the U.S. It could be argued that when somebody does something in the name of liberty it is the culmination of centuries, if not millennia, of abuses and injustices. Yet, nobody is being harmed, people insist.

The dominant narrative says that all of this is part of "moral progress". On the contrary, it is increasingly looking like the height of irresponsibility.
 

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
The one variable that the champions of liberalism never seem to include in the equation is the fact that the behaviors that they associate with liberty--and possibly the existence of liberalism itself--have been made possible by people being dispossessed, oppressed and exploited. The U.S. Supreme Court, along with any rulings it has made about things like same-sex marriage, might not even exist if the Native Americans were not, as part of government policy, removed from what is now the U.S. It could be argued that when somebody does something in the name of liberty it is the culmination of centuries, if not millennia, of abuses and injustices. Yet, nobody is being harmed, people insist.
Your right to practice your belief of what Christianity should be came as a result of the genocide that occurred in America. Is freedom of religion a bad thing?
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Here is an unmistakable pattern: no matter if the issue is inappropriate contentography, the prohibition of marijuana, or same-sex marriage the people--on both the left and the right--espousing liberalism say that it is not having any effect on anybody else if people produce and consume inappropriate contentography, practice recreational marijuana use, or enter a marriage contract with someone of the same sex. Furthermore, they either imply or directly state that anybody who has a problem with such behavior is paranoid, wants to control people, etc.

First off, if you want to be taken seriously and seek honest discussion, it is not a good idea to start from exaggerating implications you ascribe to the position of the people you are talking to and about.
I won´t defend a position I don´t hold.

Please do not distort what is being questioned here. Whether or not things like the production and consumption of inappropriate contentography are morally right or protected by the U.S. Constitution is not the question here. The question is about the premise that says that when people participate in such things they are either not harming anybody or they are only harming their own selves.
That, as far as discussions in the real world are concerned, is not the point. I will readily admit that - even though it might just be by butterfly effect - everything affects everything and everybody. I am also willing to accept the idea that everything is political.

It is patently false. Nobody lives in a vacuum. Everything that everybody does affects everybody else.
Indeed, and that isn´t any different with consuming inappropriate contentography than it is with consuming romantic comedies.
Now, the actual question is: How do we deal with this abstract idea?
Our laws seem to be concerned mostly with direct effects of a behaviour, not with - by and large unpredictable - indirect effects.

That is why statements like "If you don't like same-sex marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex" are not only condescending, they are absurd. A cynic would probably also have to say that such statements are disingenuous.
Same would, according to your general abstract observation, go for e.g. "If you don´t like classical music don´t listen to it." or "If you don´t like religion, don´t go to church."
So what is the alternative you are proposing?

The whole paradigm is contradictory anyway. On one hand liberalism is celebrated for its contribution to "progress". On the other hand, we are told that we have nothing to fear because liberalism is about people doing things that have no effect on anybody but their own selves. And then people defending policies such as same-sex marriage produce all kinds of "studies" showing that such policies either do not have negative effects or have only positive effects on individuals, communities, humanity, etc. In other words, it's just people having no effect on others, but scientists can investigate the effects that they have on others.
It´s kind of funny how you try to associate the approach in question to "liberalism" when it actually is considered one of the founding paradigms of your nation, held in high regards throughout the political spectrum: The idea that personal liberties are not to be infringed upon unless there are direct negative effects on another person.
Conservatives appeal to it when it suits their case just like anybody else does. Just look at the gun discussion.

The one variable that the champions of liberalism never seem to include in the equation is the fact that the behaviors that they associate with liberty--and possibly the existence of liberalism itself--have been made possible by people being dispossessed, oppressed and exploited. The U.S. Supreme Court, along with any rulings it has made about things like same-sex marriage, might not even exist if the Native Americans were not, as part of government policy, removed from what is now the U.S. It could be argued that when somebody does something in the name of liberty it is the culmination of centuries, if not millennia, of abuses and injustices. Yet, nobody is being harmed, people insist.

I have problems understanding the point of this paragraph.

The dominant narrative says that all of this is part of "moral progress". On the contrary, it is increasingly looking like the height of irresponsibility.
Which - of course - would be an entirely different discussion.
Personally - once we start considering indirect effects - I expect gay marriage to have a positive indirect effect on society.
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,733
57
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟119,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
It is patently false. Nobody lives in a vacuum. Everything that everybody does affects everybody else.

True, but in what ways? Are the effects so serious that the activity that produces those effects should be made illegal? Would the pursuit of happiness and self-direction be so severely curtailed if the activity is made illegal that one should side with legality instead?

I'd think that the presumption should be that whatever effects there may be are trivial, and only if they can be proven to have a serious effect on others should the law possibly be brought to bear.

For instance, pollution can be shown in some cases to have negative externalities on others, and so the law may rightly have something to say about that. Liberals wouldn't disagree.

However, it is completely laughable that something like gay marriage is going to have such large negative externalities that it should be illegal, and the loss to self-direction is profound if it is not legal.

I suspect that liberals and fellow travellers aren't saying that it is always the case that private choices don't affect others significantly enough to matter, just that certain sorts of private choices are not likely to do so.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,733
57
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟119,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
So why do we see so much pollution is liberalism is the answer?

I don't know exactly what you mean by "liberalism". Classical or progressive?

One can tolerate pollution for the sake of economic gains, or for economic freedom, but find other means to deal with the consequences. For example, polluting activities can be taxed, and those taxes go towards health care.

This is just an example. There are many possible responses.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
If you observe people fighting the pathetic culture wars that dominate public discourse you will find patterns.

Here is an unmistakable pattern: no matter if the issue is inappropriate contentography, the prohibition of marijuana, or same-sex marriage the people--on both the left and the right--espousing liberalism say that it is not having any effect on anybody else if people produce and consume inappropriate contentography, practice recreational marijuana use, or enter a marriage contract with someone of the same sex. Furthermore, they either imply or directly state that anybody who has a problem with such behavior is paranoid, wants to control people, etc.

Please do not distort what is being questioned here. Whether or not things like the production and consumption of inappropriate contentography are morally right or protected by the U.S. Constitution is not the question here. The question is about the premise that says that when people participate in such things they are either not harming anybody or they are only harming their own selves.

It is patently false. Nobody lives in a vacuum. Everything that everybody does affects everybody else.

That is why statements like "If you don't like same-sex marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex" are not only condescending, they are absurd. A cynic would probably also have to say that such statements are disingenuous.

The whole paradigm is contradictory anyway. On one hand liberalism is celebrated for its contribution to "progress". On the other hand, we are told that we have nothing to fear because liberalism is about people doing things that have no effect on anybody but their own selves. And then people defending policies such as same-sex marriage produce all kinds of "studies" showing that such policies either do not have negative effects or have only positive effects on individuals, communities, humanity, etc. In other words, it's just people having no effect on others, but scientists can investigate the effects that they have on others.

The one variable that the champions of liberalism never seem to include in the equation is the fact that the behaviors that they associate with liberty--and possibly the existence of liberalism itself--have been made possible by people being dispossessed, oppressed and exploited. The U.S. Supreme Court, along with any rulings it has made about things like same-sex marriage, might not even exist if the Native Americans were not, as part of government policy, removed from what is now the U.S. It could be argued that when somebody does something in the name of liberty it is the culmination of centuries, if not millennia, of abuses and injustices. Yet, nobody is being harmed, people insist.

The dominant narrative says that all of this is part of "moral progress". On the contrary, it is increasingly looking like the height of irresponsibility.
You are getting the main part wrong. (And I admit that many liberals get this main part wrong... in their expression if not in intent).
(Second addendum: well, you didn't even get the main part wrong: you stated it correctly in the very first sentence and then ignored it for the rest of your rant)

Everything that everybody does affects everybody else... that is correct. But not everything that everybody does harms everybody else. Not everything that everybody does affects everybody else in the way that this everybody else asserts, claims, fears.

quatona already asked the perfect question to illustrate that point: if you really believe that... how do you justify your actions, considering what "harm" they might do to everybody else?
 
Upvote 0

Holoman

Credo
Jun 29, 2015
417
149
UK
✟18,043.00
Faith
Catholic
I have some sympathies with the liberal agenda, I mean if God intended us to live forcibly under a set of rules he would have done it himself. People should to some degree be allowed to live their own lives with the free will they were intended.

That said, I agree with the OP in the argument that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone except those doing it is fallacious. It is effectively legitimizing homosexual acts in society as a whole and will affect the beliefs and opinions of us in future generations. Of course it will, that is why so many are pushing for it.

I also find it disingenuous that constant parallels with inter-racial marriage are brought up in defence of it, yet people balk when polygamy is brought up which is as much related to gay marriage as inter-racial marriage is.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
I have some sympathies with the liberal agenda, I mean if God intended us to live forcibly under a set of rules he would have done it himself. People should to some degree be allowed to live their own lives with the free will they were intended.

That said, I agree with the OP in the argument that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone except those doing it is fallacious. It is effectively legitimizing homosexual acts in society as a whole and will affect the beliefs and opinions of us in future generations. Of course it will, that is why so many are pushing for it.
The "hurt" that is portrayed here is the acceptence of homosexuality. People claim that as a "hurt" in itself... which is nonsense. In the same way you could claim that the legal acceptence of Christianity "hurt" society... because subsequenct society would become more acceptant of Christianity.

I also find it disingenuous that constant parallels with inter-racial marriage are brought up in defence of it, yet people balk when polygamy is brought up which is as much related to gay marriage as inter-racial marriage is.
Surprise... I, too, find it disingenuous when people "balk" at the idea of other systems of relationships like polygamy. I disagree with these people, and I don't like the way these people act.

But as I may disagree and try to counteract this behaviour the best I can, I still understand that even liberal gay(-supporting) people can be biased in other ways. Christians and blacks have no monopoly on such behaviour.
 
Upvote 0

Cearbhall

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2013
15,118
5,741
United States
✟122,284.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Here is an unmistakable pattern: no matter if the issue is inappropriate contentography, the prohibition of marijuana, or same-sex marriage the people--on both the left and the right--espousing liberalism say that it is not having any effect on anybody else if people produce and consume inappropriate contentography, practice recreational marijuana use, or enter a marriage contract with someone of the same sex.
Not exactly. The claim is that these things don't affect you in a way that justifies banning the behavior.

For example, someone might present statistics which show that viewing inappropriate contentography is correlated with infidelity. However, viewing inappropriate contentography and cheating are not the same thing, so is it the government's job to keep people from doing something that might lead to immoral behavior? Does the increased risk justify banning inappropriate contentography? The person wouldn't even be able to show that viewing inappropriate contentography is the cause rather than the effect, not to mention that correlation does not equal causation.
Furthermore, they either imply or directly state that anybody who has a problem with such behavior is paranoid, wants to control people, etc.
Well, every person draws the line in a different place regarding how much a behavior has to affect another person before it becomes something that should be banned. Of course you're going to think that people who draw the line in different places are wrong.
It is patently false. Nobody lives in a vacuum. Everything that everybody does affects everybody else.
Of course. But you have to show that if affects you in a way that is more problematic than taking away my right to do it. In the United States, the default is freedom.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If you observe people fighting the pathetic culture wars that dominate public discourse you will find patterns.

Here is an unmistakable pattern: no matter if the issue is inappropriate contentography, the prohibition of marijuana, or same-sex marriage the people--on both the left and the right--espousing liberalism say that it is not having any effect on anybody else if people produce and consume inappropriate contentography, practice recreational marijuana use, or enter a marriage contract with someone of the same sex. Furthermore, they either imply or directly state that anybody who has a problem with such behavior is paranoid, wants to control people, etc.

Please do not distort what is being questioned here. Whether or not things like the production and consumption of inappropriate contentography are morally right or protected by the U.S. Constitution is not the question here. The question is about the premise that says that when people participate in such things they are either not harming anybody or they are only harming their own selves.

It is patently false. Nobody lives in a vacuum. Everything that everybody does affects everybody else.

That is why statements like "If you don't like same-sex marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex" are not only condescending, they are absurd. A cynic would probably also have to say that such statements are disingenuous.

The whole paradigm is contradictory anyway. On one hand liberalism is celebrated for its contribution to "progress". On the other hand, we are told that we have nothing to fear because liberalism is about people doing things that have no effect on anybody but their own selves. And then people defending policies such as same-sex marriage produce all kinds of "studies" showing that such policies either do not have negative effects or have only positive effects on individuals, communities, humanity, etc. In other words, it's just people having no effect on others, but scientists can investigate the effects that they have on others.

The one variable that the champions of liberalism never seem to include in the equation is the fact that the behaviors that they associate with liberty--and possibly the existence of liberalism itself--have been made possible by people being dispossessed, oppressed and exploited. The U.S. Supreme Court, along with any rulings it has made about things like same-sex marriage, might not even exist if the Native Americans were not, as part of government policy, removed from what is now the U.S. It could be argued that when somebody does something in the name of liberty it is the culmination of centuries, if not millennia, of abuses and injustices. Yet, nobody is being harmed, people insist.

The dominant narrative says that all of this is part of "moral progress". On the contrary, it is increasingly looking like the height of irresponsibility.
Soooo... all the stuff you don't like is bad because Native Americans are oppressed?

It's original, I give it that.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I have some sympathies with the liberal agenda, I mean if God intended us to live forcibly under a set of rules he would have done it himself. People should to some degree be allowed to live their own lives with the free will they were intended.

That said, I agree with the OP in the argument that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone except those doing it is fallacious. It is effectively legitimizing homosexual acts in society as a whole and will affect the beliefs and opinions of us in future generations. Of course it will, that is why so many are pushing for it.

I also find it disingenuous that constant parallels with inter-racial marriage are brought up in defence of it, yet people balk when polygamy is brought up which is as much related to gay marriage as inter-racial marriage is.
Sorry, I've been asking this question for years, and you have, inadvertently, given the closest thing I've yet seen to a direct answer.

So...

What... specific... harm do you believe secular same sex marriage will cause? That is, a concrete, definable and quantifiable harm that will unambiguously occur, and be causally linked to same sex marriage being legalised?
 
Upvote 0

GoldenBoy89

We're Still Here
Sep 25, 2012
23,802
25,692
LA
✟551,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
If you observe people fighting the pathetic culture wars that dominate public discourse you will find patterns.

Here is an unmistakable pattern: no matter if the issue is inappropriate contentography, the prohibition of marijuana, or same-sex marriage the people--on both the left and the right--espousing liberalism say that it is not having any effect on anybody else if people produce and consume inappropriate contentography, practice recreational marijuana use, or enter a marriage contract with someone of the same sex. Furthermore, they either imply or directly state that anybody who has a problem with such behavior is paranoid, wants to control people, etc.

Please do not distort what is being questioned here. Whether or not things like the production and consumption of inappropriate contentography are morally right or protected by the U.S. Constitution is not the question here. The question is about the premise that says that when people participate in such things they are either not harming anybody or they are only harming their own selves.

It is patently false. Nobody lives in a vacuum. Everything that everybody does affects everybody else.

That is why statements like "If you don't like same-sex marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex" are not only condescending, they are absurd. A cynic would probably also have to say that such statements are disingenuous.

The whole paradigm is contradictory anyway. On one hand liberalism is celebrated for its contribution to "progress". On the other hand, we are told that we have nothing to fear because liberalism is about people doing things that have no effect on anybody but their own selves. And then people defending policies such as same-sex marriage produce all kinds of "studies" showing that such policies either do not have negative effects or have only positive effects on individuals, communities, humanity, etc. In other words, it's just people having no effect on others, but scientists can investigate the effects that they have on others.

The one variable that the champions of liberalism never seem to include in the equation is the fact that the behaviors that they associate with liberty--and possibly the existence of liberalism itself--have been made possible by people being dispossessed, oppressed and exploited. The U.S. Supreme Court, along with any rulings it has made about things like same-sex marriage, might not even exist if the Native Americans were not, as part of government policy, removed from what is now the U.S. It could be argued that when somebody does something in the name of liberty it is the culmination of centuries, if not millennia, of abuses and injustices. Yet, nobody is being harmed, people insist.

The dominant narrative says that all of this is part of "moral progress". On the contrary, it is increasingly looking like the height of irresponsibility.
Are you suggesting we should be thankful for past injustices otherwise, we'd never have liberalism in the first place? That makes no sense, whatsoever.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LOVEthroughINTELLECT

The courage to be human
Jul 30, 2005
7,825
403
✟25,873.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Are you suggesting we should be thankful for past injustices otherwise, we'd never have liberalism in the first place? That makes no sense, whatsoever.




No.

I said that people were affected by the conception and diffusion of Enlightenment liberalism, yet the champions of such liberalism say that it is about people not having any effect on others.
 
Upvote 0

LOVEthroughINTELLECT

The courage to be human
Jul 30, 2005
7,825
403
✟25,873.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
But not everything that everybody does harms everybody else...




But everything that every individual does probably harms somebody else.

And probably everything that everybody does is harmful in some way. In other words, no action is harmless.




Not everything that everybody does affects everybody else in the way that this everybody else asserts, claims, fears...




That sounds like justifying recklessness and irresponsibility.

It is my responsibility to consider the effects of my actions. It is not other people's responsibility to either prove that my actions will not have the effect that say they will or to let me carry out those actions.




quatona already asked the perfect question to illustrate that point: if you really believe that... how do you justify your actions, considering what "harm" they might do to everybody else?




You start by considering the effects of your actions on others as much as possible, not by asking what are your rights and shifting responsibility to others to prove the effects that the ways you intend to act on those rights will have on others.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
You start by considering the effects of your actions on others as much as possible, not by asking what are your rights and shifting responsibility to others to prove the effects that the ways you intend to act on those rights will have on others.
Let's apply that logic to suffrage. Before women had the right to vote, they should ask themselves how their voting is going to affect other people, and they aren't allowed to argue that they have a right to vote. Those men who were opposed to it didn't have to argue about what problems it would cause. Does that seem right to you?
 
Upvote 0

LOVEthroughINTELLECT

The courage to be human
Jul 30, 2005
7,825
403
✟25,873.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Let's apply that logic to suffrage. Before women had the right to vote, they should ask themselves how their voting is going to affect other people, and they aren't allowed to argue that they have a right to vote. Those men who were opposed to it didn't have to argue about what problems it would cause. Does that seem right to you?




It seems like a straw man to me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
It seems like a straw man to me.
It usually does when you're asked to apply your logic to something you already agree with. But that's the point of logic. Find other instances that share similar properties, and apply those same rules to it. If there is something special and different about suffrage that excludes it from your logic, then please let me know.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.