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

[ananda]

All political systems (whether liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc.) involve external control of individuals in society, of varying sorts.
True religious systems involve internal (self-)control of the individual within society, of varying sorts. (Although many religious systems are in actuality political systems, after morphing into forms involving external control)

Due to its inherent nature of external control, no political system will directly or inherently promote or encourage compassion, selflessness, loving-kindness (qualities that emanate from internal, self-control) etc., but instead, the opposite qualities.

 

[quatona]

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.

You didn´t seem to ask the same from those people who were trying to prevent those things you mentioned in the OP. Is there a reason for that?

 

[Freodin]

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.

Therefore... what? We shouldn't take any action at all?

That sounds like justifying recklessness and irresponsibility.

I assert that you posting these very words will cause the moon to fall onto the earth and start an invasion of giant lobsters from Venus.

Which is obviously nonsense. But I just asserted it. So, not everything that everybody does affects everybody else in the way that this everybody else asserts, claims, fears...

That wasn't so difficult, was it? But of course you have my permission to agree that you posting these words will cause the invasion of the Venus-lobsters. I wouldn't want you to be reckless and irresponsible.

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.

It is also not other people's responsibility - here you could use your accusation of irresponsibility - to make outrageous, obviously non-sensical claims. But that is what we see. In addition to the first side presenting their supported views on what will most likely happen.

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.

In the case the started this current round of "consider your actions" - the same sex marriage decision - you might notice that the "liberal" side pointed out what the effects on other's right would be: none. And they supported this view with legal and constitutional arguments.
While the other side claimed that pastors would go to jail or be killed and God would destroy America.

Responsibility and irresponsibility... I can see where they come from.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

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.

Please rephrase your argument or find an example other than women's suffrage.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Therefore... what? We shouldn't take any action at all?...

We should not delude ourselves with the idea that there are actions that affect only the actor.

I assert that you posting these very words will cause the moon to fall onto the earth and start an invasion of giant lobsters from Venus.

Which is obviously nonsense. But I just asserted it. So, not everything that everybody does affects everybody else in the way that this everybody else asserts, claims, fears...

That wasn't so difficult, was it? But of course you have my permission to agree that you posting these words will cause the invasion of the Venus-lobsters. I wouldn't want you to be reckless and irresponsible...

None of that changes the fact that every action effects everybody.

It is also not other people's responsibility - here you could use your accusation of irresponsibility - to make outrageous, obviously non-sensical claims. But that is what we see. In addition to the first side presenting their supported views on what will most likely happen...

I sense condescension and disrespect for opposing viewpoints. And a complete lack of empathy.

In the case the started this current round of "consider your actions" - the same sex marriage decision - you might notice that the "liberal" side pointed out what the effects on other's right would be: none. And they supported this view with legal and constitutional arguments.
While the other side claimed that pastors would go to jail or be killed and God would destroy America.

Responsibility and irresponsibility... I can see where they come from.

Again, the belief that an action will have absolutely no effect on anybody other than the actor is delusional.

 

[Freodin]

We should not delude ourselves with the idea that there are actions that affect only the actor.

And? What consequence do you draw from that in regard to your actions?

"Every action I take affects other people. I must, to my best efforts, look and see how that might negatively affect other people.
.
.
.
I did so and can see no dire negative effects of my actions."

So what now?

None of that changes the fact that every action effects everybody.

Well... that doesn't change the fact that I wasn't even talking about that. If you like to tilt at windmills, everything will start to look like a windmill.

I sense condescension and disrespect for opposing viewpoints. And a complete lack of empathy.

So you agree that you are directly responsible for the moon falling onto the earth and giant Venus lobsters starting to invade. It's your fault!

And don't you dare to disrespect my opposing viewpoint!

What I respect is a person. And his right to express his viewpoint. I don't have to respect the viewpoint itself... especially if it is stupid.

Again, the belief that an action will have absolutely no effect on anybody other than the actor is delusional.

Which I have already agree on. Why do you play broken record here? Why can't you adress the objections that I made, instead reasserting the claims I agreed on?

 

[Holoman]

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?

It legitimizes same sex relations in society which changes the perception of young people growing up to think this is an ok thing to do. The specific harm is that it encourages homosexual acts which are sinful, the harm is spiritual.

 

[Freodin]

It legitimizes same sex relations in society which changes the perception of young people growing up to think this is an ok thing to do. The specific harm is that it encourages homosexual acts which are sinful, the harm is spiritual.

In this case, you can try to sue before God. But in regard to the real world, it is irrelevant.

 

[quatona]

It legitimizes same sex relations in society which changes the perception of young people growing up to think this is an ok thing to do.

And rest assured that this effect has been considered, embraced and intended by those who advocate SSM.

 

[Holoman]

In this case, you can try to sue before God. But in regard to the real world, it is irrelevant.

If you narrowly define real as "that which can be seen or measured" then I suppose so

 

[quatona]

If you narrowly define real as "that which can be seen or measured" then I suppose so

How and whereto exactly would you like this meaning of "real" to be expanded? Please be specific.

 

[Freodin]

If you narrowly define real as "that which can be seen or measured" then I suppose so

If it cannot be seen or measured, it has no effect on this "real world".
If it has no effect, then it is irrelevant.

 

[Holoman]

If it cannot be seen or measured, it has no effect on this "real world".
If it has no effect, then it is irrelevant.

What absolute nonsense. Are you really so ignorant to suggest anything that cannot currently be measured doesn't exist?

 

[Holoman]

How and whereto exactly would you like this meaning of "real" to be expanded? Please be specific.

Its actual meaning?

real
riːl/
adjective

1. 1.
   actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

The existence of something has no necessary requirement of our ability to measure it.

 

[quatona]

Its actual meaning?

real
riːl/
adjective

1. 1.
   actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

The existence of something has no necessary requirement of our ability to measure it.

Cool, but since this thread is about "consdering effects": when they can´t be measured, how can we even be asked to figure them into our considerations?
IOW: If effects can´t be measured - how do we tell effects from non-existing effects?

 

[Freodin]

What absolute nonsense. Are you really so ignorant to suggest anything that cannot currently be measured doesn't exist?

Are you really so ignorant that you have to change my post in order to make your point? Take a closer look what you first posted, what I responded to, and what you now added to your statement.

 

[Paradoxum]

So, if I smoked cannabis today, and the money didn't go to criminals, who did I harm? I don't see how it does any more harm than watching TV.

I do generally think social conservatives are authoritarian and oppressive. We don't live in a vacuum, but that doesn't mean all our actions harm someone.

(And I wouldn't say that vague indirect negative effects are the same as harming someone.)

 

[Moral Orel]

Please rephrase your argument or find an example other than women's suffrage.

I'll try to do both, but I'll start by re-quoting your statement that is in question:

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.

The actions you speak of here would apply to gay marriage, inappropriate contentography, or marijuana like you listed in your OP right? So what we're talking about is an action that someone wants to do. Then the person who wants to do that action, needs to consider the effects of that action on others, and you shouldn't consider it a right to begin with because that would shift the responsibility of proof to the people who would be affected by your actions.

I want to do A.
A is illegal.
I consider how doing A effects other people.
A is not a right.
Other people don't have to explain why A is bad to them.

Do I have it right so far? I'll use one of the examples you listed to illustrate it more.

I want to smoke marijuana.
Marijuana is illegal.
I consider how my smoking of marijuana affects other people.
Smoking marijuana is not a right.
Other people don't have to explain why my smoking of marijuana is bad for them.

Really just trying to get it down to bare bones as possible.

So now let's go back in time, and put in something you agree with, but wasn't always legal.

I am a woman and I want to vote.
Voting as a woman is illegal.
I consider how my voting as a woman affects other people.
Voting is not a right for me.
Other people don't have to explain why my voting as a woman is bad for them.

Or...

I am African American and I want to vote.
Voting as an African American is illegal.
I consider how my voting as an African American affects other people.
Voting is not a right for me.
Other people don't have to explain why my voting as an African American is bad for them.

Or if we go further back in time...

I want to practice a form of Christianity other than Catholicism.
Practicing another form of Christianity is illegal.
I consider how my leaving the Catholic church affects other people.
Practicing another form of Christianity is not a right.
Other people don't have to explain why me leaving the Catholic church is bad for them.

So is there some part where your statement does not match my logical breakdown of it? Or is there some difference between the actions that these people wanted to do a long time ago and the actions people want to do today that makes them immune from your logic?

 

[quatona]

So is there some part where your statement does not match my logical breakdown of it? Or is there some difference between the actions that these people wanted to do a long time ago and the actions people want to do today that makes them immune from your logic?

The difference is: He approves of the actions you brought up but disapproves of the actions he had brought up.

 

[Oafman]

Good to see someone sticking up for authoritarianism. We rarely hear a defence of the idea that people should be told what to do.