CDZ Individual Rights vs. Society

[Iceweasel]

Bingo.

Finding that equilibrium..

It's hard to compromise when the word isn't in the left's dictionary. When was the last time you heard the word "moderate Democrat" or "leftwing Democrat" or even "leftwing". Failing to fully adopt their point of view is moving backwards.

There's not a great deal of moderation from either party right now. Reasonable adults, especially political "leaders", are obligated to submerge their egos and their ambitions, work together to find areas of agreement, and cooperate for the good of the people - even if that means capitulation.

Those who aren't capable of that shouldn't hold office, regardless of party affiliation.
.

I don't agree, like I mentioned above the left won't even compromise on the language. If you oppose gay marriage you are against equal rights, against abortion and you're waging a war on women. The right compromises on just about everything.

 

[Bonzi]

What's more important? Individual Rights or what is best for the "whole" (Society)?
Does granting equality and individual rights necessarily IMPROVE society?

There was a time divorce was shameful.
Are we better as a society now that it is commonplace?
What about same-sex marriage?
What do you think will be the next "formerly frowned upon/shameful" activity/thing that will become legal and/or acceptable?
Will it stop at "same sex marriage"?

Its not so much who rules, as much as it is, what's in the BEST interests.
The hard part here is who gets to decide what is "best" for society, but, history can always be used as an example....

What societies flourished?
If they stopped flourishing, examine what happened when they deteriorated.
The information is there.....








Individual rights trump collective rights any day of the week. Collectivism is mob rule and when the mob decides they don't like you they kill you. Read some history, collectivism has murdered more people in the last hundred years, than all of the religions in the world combined, for all of mans history.

 

[Mac1958]

Bingo.

Finding that equilibrium..

It's hard to compromise when the word isn't in the left's dictionary. When was the last time you heard the word "moderate Democrat" or "leftwing Democrat" or even "leftwing". Failing to fully adopt their point of view is moving backwards.

There's not a great deal of moderation from either party right now. Reasonable adults, especially political "leaders", are obligated to submerge their egos and their ambitions, work together to find areas of agreement, and cooperate for the good of the people - even if that means capitulation.

Those who aren't capable of that shouldn't hold office, regardless of party affiliation.
.

I don't agree, like I mentioned above the left won't even compromise on the language. If you oppose gay marriage you are against equal rights, against abortion and you're waging a war on women. The right compromises on just about everything.

It may be that the Republicans who compromise do so because they know they'll piss off the electorate if they don't.

And right now the GOP will attack anyone who isn't pure enough with as much venom as they attack Democrats, if not more. That's pretty dysfunctional.
.

 

[Camp]

Is "collective" a bad word. When you use the word "we" you are referring to the "collective". When your society is controlled by a democracy where the collective elects fellow citizens to determine laws and rules that everyone is required to live by you live in a society ruled by the collective. That is just reality, despite successful efforts to demonize the words collective and socialism. Refusal of the masses to accept reality is what keeps the political discourse running in continuous circles. That is exactly what fascist and corporatist want. As long as the masses are busy arguing irrelevant topics among themselves the problems created for the masses by the fascist and corporitist are ignored. To deny collectivism is to deny the concept of "We the people.

Wrong. A collective is not a we. We are individuals. A collective is a group for a common purpose, typically run by elites. We are citizen. People in a collective are subjects, subject to the state.

Corporations get power when they get in bed with government. Those voting for more government are the problem. They only get power if we give it to them and the further we get to being a collective the more power they get. That's the irony of liberalism, it feeds what it claims to be against.

Did you just make that definition up? Do you know the difference between a collective and a connective?

 

[Anathema]

Where is the line drawn between discrimination and freedom of choice? I think it's a bit blurred.............

It's blurred because there is no singular Society/Culture in the United States. There hasn't been since the 1850's. When there are multiple Societies/Cultures in a country, there is NO Society/Culture in that country and things are doomed to fail, just as we're seeing here in the US.

 

[dblack]

Is "collective" a bad word. When you use the word "we" you are referring to the "collective". When your society is controlled by a democracy where the collective elects fellow citizens to determine laws and rules that everyone is required to live by you live in a society ruled by the collective. That is just reality, despite successful efforts to demonize the words collective and socialism. Refusal of the masses to accept reality is what keeps the political discourse running in continuous circles. That is exactly what fascist and corporatist want. As long as the masses are busy arguing irrelevant topics among themselves the problems created for the masses by the fascist and corporitist are ignored. To deny collectivism is to deny the concept of "We the people".

"Collective" isn't a bad word. But individual rights aren't "collective". And I find the term is often used as an appeal to the power of government to violate individual rights on behalf of the majority. I also don't believe "We the People" is properly identified as a reference to collectivism. Instead, it's a recognition that the people (ALL of the people, not just the majority) hold ultimate power in society, rather than authoritarian government.

 

[Bonzi]

Unfortunately, I don't think a group of people can be trusted to do what is best for the people in general.
It's possible to put on paper what makes a great society, based on past successes and failures, but, implementation is the issue - or rather, getting people all on the same page.

Nit picking, selfish interests and persuasion (via promises for power, money etc.) will always derail the process, and ultimately, I don't think it's possible - I'm not saying it's not possible to have a "perfect" society (it's not, however) - but what I'm really saying is that it's IMPOSSIBLE to NOT have a corrupt society doomed to fail.

Because people are running it.
And people are imperfect and corrupt.

 

[The sheeple sea]

What's more important? Individual Rights or what is best for the "whole" (Society)?
Does granting equality and individual rights necessarily IMPROVE society?

There was a time divorce was shameful.
Are we better as a society now that it is commonplace?
What about same-sex marriage?
What do you think will be the next "formerly frowned upon/shameful" activity/thing that will become legal and/or acceptable?
Will it stop at "same sex marriage"?

Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Qaddafi, and Kim Jong did what they considered best for the whole. Do you want to live under a dictatorship that decides what is moral or acceptable? Being a particular religion may not be acceptable. If you have a gay child, will you willingly hand it over to a firing squad? If you are worked as a slave and complain, will you protest being executed? You cannot say that these are extreme measures and would not happen here, but they would. Any dictatorship, and allowing any government to deny anyone rights will evolve into a dictatorship, will become catastrophic to the country. There are most likely things you do that will be considered shameful... will you march to the hangman's tree? I doubt it.

Your point is more about dictators deciding what is good for the people as a society, which is of course always a bad idea. But what about when the majority of the country decides what is good for society via democracy?

 

[dblack]

What's more important? Individual Rights or what is best for the "whole" (Society)?
Does granting equality and individual rights necessarily IMPROVE society?

There was a time divorce was shameful.
Are we better as a society now that it is commonplace?
What about same-sex marriage?
What do you think will be the next "formerly frowned upon/shameful" activity/thing that will become legal and/or acceptable?
Will it stop at "same sex marriage"?

Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Qaddafi, and Kim Jong did what they considered best for the whole. Do you want to live under a dictatorship that decides what is moral or acceptable? Being a particular religion may not be acceptable. If you have a gay child, will you willingly hand it over to a firing squad? If you are worked as a slave and complain, will you protest being executed? You cannot say that these are extreme measures and would not happen here, but they would. Any dictatorship, and allowing any government to deny anyone rights will evolve into a dictatorship, will become catastrophic to the country. There are most likely things you do that will be considered shameful... will you march to the hangman's tree? I doubt it.

Your point is more about dictators deciding what is good for the people as a society, which is of course always a bad idea. But what about when the majority of the country decides what is good for society via democracy?

It's no better. The question is whether we want government deciding what is good for society and forcing it on those who disagree, or should we make those decisions ourselves, voluntarily as free people collaborating to build the kind of society they want?

 

[Camp]

Is "collective" a bad word. When you use the word "we" you are referring to the "collective". When your society is controlled by a democracy where the collective elects fellow citizens to determine laws and rules that everyone is required to live by you live in a society ruled by the collective. That is just reality, despite successful efforts to demonize the words collective and socialism. Refusal of the masses to accept reality is what keeps the political discourse running in continuous circles. That is exactly what fascist and corporatist want. As long as the masses are busy arguing irrelevant topics among themselves the problems created for the masses by the fascist and corporitist are ignored. To deny collectivism is to deny the concept of "We the people".

"Collective" isn't a bad word. But individual rights aren't "collective". And I find the term is often used as an appeal to the power of government to violate individual rights on behalf of the majority. I also don't believe "We the People" is properly identified as a reference to collectivism. Instead, it's a recognition that the people (ALL of the people, not just the majority) hold ultimate power in society, rather than authoritarian government.

I understand that nowadays people are kind of lazy and they want quick easy definitions of things, but there is a purpose for dictionaries and a reality that more often than not words have multiple definitions. Folks on message boards have a tendency to pick one meaning, or make up a meaning and stick to it no matter what. That makes having a debate almost useless. My use of the word collective adhered strictly to the Merriam-Webster definition(s). All the alternative definitions that have followed have been compromised with political or rhetorical influence and interpretation. Nothing wrong with that when the compromise or changed interpretation is duly noted and admitted, but without that admission and note a conclusive determination of the debate is impossible. That is the purpose of demonizing words like collective and socialism. A conclusion can never be determined by the propagandized target audience.

 

[Nosmo King]

Religious rights do not extend to the right to discriminate.

And any baker refusing service on 'religious' grounds is not really religious at all. They certainly aren't Christians. No Christian would use a beautiful, loving, forgiving faith to perpetuate hateful stereotypes and pile undue humiliation on individuals. They are not Christians, they are, in fact, bigots twisting a beautiful faith to serve an ugly purpose. Let's stop the charade. Stop calling them Christians

People that are dedicated to their faith base their lives on that faith, here and with their eyes on the afterlife.
Christian's worship God, who finds men laying with men an abomination.
A Christian's #1 purpose is to live a life glorifying to God.
Supporting something that is an abomination to God is not glorifying to him.
So, Christian's ARE discriminated against.

The basic tenets of Christianity are to love your neighbor as you would be loved, to not judge lest ye be judged and not to cast the first stone for you too are a sinner.

These alleged "Christians" are using shameful dogma to perpetuate hatred. They are not acting in a Christian manner. They are bigots using Christianity to serve an ugly purpose.

Such faux Christians used a beautiful faith to perpetuate harm on minorities before and they're doing it again. Their religion is being twisted to ignore the basic tenets and cling to an ugly dogma. They are not religious. They are merely idiot bigots.

 

[Nosmo King]

How is it that some think that by extending equal rights to all citizens means their individual rights will be eroded?

Give an example? Do you mean like the "Wedding Cake" issue?
e.g. Homosexual couple wants a wedding cake, baker refuses based on religious beliefs.
So, either homosexual couple is "discriminated against" OR baker has to go against their religious beliefs in order to "obey the law" (or, perhaps, can't even start their own business because of the conflict). Solution?

Religious rights do not extend to the right to discriminate.

And any baker refusing service on 'religious' grounds is not really religious at all. They certainly aren't Christians. No Christian would use a beautiful, loving, forgiving faith to perpetuate hateful stereotypes and pile undue humiliation on individuals. They are not Christians, they are, in fact, bigots twisting a beautiful faith to serve an ugly purpose. Let's stop the charade. Stop calling them Christians.

What a charade. An ugly vile post pretending to be even handed. It's so common with leftists it's a given.

Perhaps you find my post an ugly one. But I expect nothing less from someone willing to pervert a beautiful, loving and forgiving faith like Christianity to continue to perpetuate hatred. What a shame! What a blatant charade.

 

[dblack]

Is "collective" a bad word. When you use the word "we" you are referring to the "collective". When your society is controlled by a democracy where the collective elects fellow citizens to determine laws and rules that everyone is required to live by you live in a society ruled by the collective. That is just reality, despite successful efforts to demonize the words collective and socialism. Refusal of the masses to accept reality is what keeps the political discourse running in continuous circles. That is exactly what fascist and corporatist want. As long as the masses are busy arguing irrelevant topics among themselves the problems created for the masses by the fascist and corporitist are ignored. To deny collectivism is to deny the concept of "We the people".

"Collective" isn't a bad word. But individual rights aren't "collective". And I find the term is often used as an appeal to the power of government to violate individual rights on behalf of the majority. I also don't believe "We the People" is properly identified as a reference to collectivism. Instead, it's a recognition that the people (ALL of the people, not just the majority) hold ultimate power in society, rather than authoritarian government.

I understand that nowadays people are kind of lazy and they want quick easy definitions of things, but there is a purpose for dictionaries and a reality that more often than not words have multiple definitions. Folks on message boards have a tendency to pick one meaning, or make up a meaning and stick to it no matter what. That makes having a debate almost useless. My use of the word collective adhered strictly to the Merriam-Webster definition(s). All the alternative definitions that have followed have been compromised with political or rhetorical influence and interpretation. Nothing wrong with that when the compromise or changed interpretation is duly noted and admitted, but without that admission and note a conclusive determination of the debate is impossible. That is the purpose of demonizing words like collective and socialism. A conclusion can never be determined by the propagandized target audience.

Sure. I can roll with whatever definitions we agree to. Was I wrong in my assessment of your meaning?

 

[The sheeple sea]

What's more important? Individual Rights or what is best for the "whole" (Society)?
Does granting equality and individual rights necessarily IMPROVE society?

There was a time divorce was shameful.
Are we better as a society now that it is commonplace?
What about same-sex marriage?
What do you think will be the next "formerly frowned upon/shameful" activity/thing that will become legal and/or acceptable?
Will it stop at "same sex marriage"?

Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Qaddafi, and Kim Jong did what they considered best for the whole. Do you want to live under a dictatorship that decides what is moral or acceptable? Being a particular religion may not be acceptable. If you have a gay child, will you willingly hand it over to a firing squad? If you are worked as a slave and complain, will you protest being executed? You cannot say that these are extreme measures and would not happen here, but they would. Any dictatorship, and allowing any government to deny anyone rights will evolve into a dictatorship, will become catastrophic to the country. There are most likely things you do that will be considered shameful... will you march to the hangman's tree? I doubt it.

Your point is more about dictators deciding what is good for the people as a society, which is of course always a bad idea. But what about when the majority of the country decides what is good for society via democracy?

It's no better. The question is whether we want government deciding what is good for society and forcing it on those who disagree, or should we make those decisions ourselves, voluntarily as free people collaborating to build the kind of society they want?

How many instances have you seen of free people collaborating to build the kind of society we want? Most people keep to their living rooms. Isn't democracy at its heart free people collaborating to build the kind of society we want?

 

[Bonzi]

How is it that some think that by extending equal rights to all citizens means their individual rights will be eroded?

Give an example? Do you mean like the "Wedding Cake" issue?
e.g. Homosexual couple wants a wedding cake, baker refuses based on religious beliefs.
So, either homosexual couple is "discriminated against" OR baker has to go against their religious beliefs in order to "obey the law" (or, perhaps, can't even start their own business because of the conflict). Solution?

Religious rights do not extend to the right to discriminate.

And any baker refusing service on 'religious' grounds is not really religious at all. They certainly aren't Christians. No Christian would use a beautiful, loving, forgiving faith to perpetuate hateful stereotypes and pile undue humiliation on individuals. They are not Christians, they are, in fact, bigots twisting a beautiful faith to serve an ugly purpose. Let's stop the charade. Stop calling them Christians.

What a charade. An ugly vile post pretending to be even handed. It's so common with leftists it's a given.

Perhaps you find my post an ugly one. But I expect nothing less from someone willing to pervert a beautiful, loving and forgiving faith like Christianity to continue to perpetuate hatred. What a shame! What a blatant charade.

You do realize that God hates sin, right?
People (even Christians) can hate others (though they should not)

You do also realize the disapproving of a lifestyle DOES NOT EQUAL hate. Right???

 

[dblack]

What's more important? Individual Rights or what is best for the "whole" (Society)?
Does granting equality and individual rights necessarily IMPROVE society?

There was a time divorce was shameful.
Are we better as a society now that it is commonplace?
What about same-sex marriage?
What do you think will be the next "formerly frowned upon/shameful" activity/thing that will become legal and/or acceptable?
Will it stop at "same sex marriage"?

Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Qaddafi, and Kim Jong did what they considered best for the whole. Do you want to live under a dictatorship that decides what is moral or acceptable? Being a particular religion may not be acceptable. If you have a gay child, will you willingly hand it over to a firing squad? If you are worked as a slave and complain, will you protest being executed? You cannot say that these are extreme measures and would not happen here, but they would. Any dictatorship, and allowing any government to deny anyone rights will evolve into a dictatorship, will become catastrophic to the country. There are most likely things you do that will be considered shameful... will you march to the hangman's tree? I doubt it.

Your point is more about dictators deciding what is good for the people as a society, which is of course always a bad idea. But what about when the majority of the country decides what is good for society via democracy?

It's no better. The question is whether we want government deciding what is good for society and forcing it on those who disagree, or should we make those decisions ourselves, voluntarily as free people collaborating to build the kind of society they want?

How many instances have you seen of free people collaborating to build the kind of society we want?

Whenever people are free to do so, that is the default.

Most people keep to their living rooms. Isn't democracy at its heart free people collaborating to build the kind of society we want?

No. That's the majority deciding what kind of society they want and forcing it on everyone else. I don't believe democracy is appropriate for those kinds of decisions. Democracy should be used in the relative rare set of circumstances where conforming to one way of doing things is actually necessary. Otherwise, people should remain free to work things out in the way we see fit.

 

[Nosmo King]

How is it that some think that by extending equal rights to all citizens means their individual rights will be eroded?

Give an example? Do you mean like the "Wedding Cake" issue?
e.g. Homosexual couple wants a wedding cake, baker refuses based on religious beliefs.
So, either homosexual couple is "discriminated against" OR baker has to go against their religious beliefs in order to "obey the law" (or, perhaps, can't even start their own business because of the conflict). Solution?

Religious rights do not extend to the right to discriminate.

And any baker refusing service on 'religious' grounds is not really religious at all. They certainly aren't Christians. No Christian would use a beautiful, loving, forgiving faith to perpetuate hateful stereotypes and pile undue humiliation on individuals. They are not Christians, they are, in fact, bigots twisting a beautiful faith to serve an ugly purpose. Let's stop the charade. Stop calling them Christians.

What a charade. An ugly vile post pretending to be even handed. It's so common with leftists it's a given.

Perhaps you find my post an ugly one. But I expect nothing less from someone willing to pervert a beautiful, loving and forgiving faith like Christianity to continue to perpetuate hatred. What a shame! What a blatant charade.

You do realize that God hates sin, right?
People (even Christians) can hate others (though they should not)

You do also realize the disapproving of a lifestyle DOES NOT EQUAL hate. Right???

When your "disapproval" manifests itself as humiliation, discrimination and the perpetuation of hurtful stereotypes, it's hard to tell it from hatred because that's precisely how hatred is often manifested.

So stop the lies. These people are not Christians at all. These people are mindless bigots who chose to twist Christianity to serve their vile purpose. And then they seek to twist an amendment that is supposed to prevent religious repression so they can repress using phony religious grounds. The gall these people show is unparalleled and totally revealing of a weak intellectual makeup.

 

[Bonzi]

So stop the lies. These people are not Christians at all. These people are mindless bigots who chose to twist Christianity to serve their vile purpose. And then they seek to twist an amendment that is supposed to prevent religious repression so they can repress using phony religious grounds. The gall these people show is unparalleled and totally revealing of a weak intellectual makeup

Do you think ALL Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin -- are not a Christians at all?

 

[Nosmo King]

So stop the lies. These people are not Christians at all. These people are mindless bigots who chose to twist Christianity to serve their vile purpose. And then they seek to twist an amendment that is supposed to prevent religious repression so they can repress using phony religious grounds. The gall these people show is unparalleled and totally revealing of a weak intellectual makeup

Do you think ALL Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin -- are not a Christians at all?

That's not at all what I said, is it? I'm saying that so-called Christians who hide behind their "faith" in order to discriminate in commerce are not acting at all as Christians. They are bigots who seek to pervert Christianity to an ugly purpose and should not have the cover of "religious freedom' to do so.

 

[Bonzi]

So stop the lies. These people are not Christians at all. These people are mindless bigots who chose to twist Christianity to serve their vile purpose. And then they seek to twist an amendment that is supposed to prevent religious repression so they can repress using phony religious grounds. The gall these people show is unparalleled and totally revealing of a weak intellectual makeup

Do you think ALL Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin -- are not a Christians at all?

That's not at all what I said, is it? I'm saying that so-called Christians who hide behind their "faith" in order to discriminate in commerce are not acting at all as Christians. They are bigots who seek to pervert Christianity to an ugly purpose and should not have the cover of "religious freedom' to do so.

Okay well I will admit, there are those that do that. Unfortunately, they make other well meaning and sincerely believing Christian's look bad (because people then assume all Christian's are like that) - it's important for Christian's to explain themselves and why they believe what they do.... but for a TRUE Christian, it's not about hate. Jesus commanded us to LOVE our neighbor.