You said it was barbaric, which is a clear moral judgment. — Benkei

I just checked my dictionary and barbaric does not mean immoral.

I say to you, Agustino, that if you and I were building a house, and you accidentally slipped while holding an electric saw that then flew out of your hands and wounded me in some way, I would hold you responsible, but not morally responsible. I would demand nothing of you. I wouldn't say that you had committed evil. I wouldn't say that you yourself are evil. I would simply say, "It's okay, Agustino, I know you didn't intend to hurt me. I'm sorry you tripped, which caused me to be wounded. Think nothing of it." — Thorongil

Okay, first of all, I don't think this example is the same as the one I gave. It's one thing if an incident that ends up harming someone happens by accident, and another if it happens by negligence. If I leave my child on the side of the balcony while I go grab a beer from the fridge, and my child unknowingly pushes him/herself over the edge and dies, then I am morally blameworthy for that, even if I didn't intend it, because I was negligent with him or her and didn't perform my duty as a parent (by the way, this story that I told you is a true story, it happened to one of my friends' dad).

To be held morally responsible for things one doesn't intend is an inversion of justice and precisely what postmodernist leftists peddle all the time. It is to be guilty before proven innocent. To say that there are evils one can commit without intending to commit them is to make everyone a moral monster. The only logical conclusion is to isolate oneself in a grass hut, far away from the material consumption and human interaction that cannot but implicate one in evil without one intending to. That is the only way to be moral on your account. — Thorongil

To say that there are evils one can commit without intending to commit them is to understand that intention isn't the only factor at play. Yes it is a factor, a very important one, but not the only one. Why else do you think we sentence people to prison if they accidentally - say while building a house - kill a co-worker? That is a barbaric practice that we should eliminate or what?

Blameworthy — Thorongil

Can a stone be blameworthy? Can an animal be blameworthy? Or is it only moral agents that can be blameworthy?

How do we determine which factor is the one to use to confer moral blame in a given scenario? — Thorongil

All the four I've listed will be relevant, some more-so than others. But you still avoided to answer my question.

Why else do you think we sentence people to prison if they accidentally - say while building a house - kill a co-worker? That is a barbaric practice that we should eliminate or what? — Agustino

You should be worried. That's very disconcerting. No one who permits stoning adulterers to death, whether your fictional "God" or anyone else, can rightly be called the very standard of morality. Where is your humanity, Agustino? — Sapientia

I have no problems with such laws. If they happen to be the laws of my society, then I will follow them. I wouldn't personally advocate for such laws because I'm not used to living in such a society (and I personally find it barbaric), but I can certainly imagine living back in the day and accepting such laws as part of the way the world is. My bet is that if you too lived in Ancient Judea, you too would have accepted stoning as the just punishment for adultery too. Most people did in those days. What makes you think that you would have been different?

You say you're turning right-wing, and then proceed to espouse a position that these days is very characteristic of the Left, namely identity politics and multiculturalism. The idea that Europeans should not condemn the barbaric and oppressive practices of certain regimes in Islamic countries, because this is an imperialist attack on all Muslims, is now the standard far Left position, sadly — jamalrob

It's interesting you say this. Can you provide some sources which identify with the Left and claim that cultures must respect themselves and allow each other to govern themselves as they see fit, instead of attempt to impose certain values one upon the other? Can you name a Left source which states that "equality for all" isn't a universal value and therefore it doesn't have to be shared by the whole world?

As if the most powerful and most conservative sections of the Islamic world are the legitimate representatives of Muslim people, those that we must respect in the name of diversity. As if we should respect laws that oppress women, as somehow embodying a sacrosanct culture, while those women have no say in changing these laws. "It's their fundamental right to decide", you say, but fail to note that most Muslims, least of all women, have no such right to decide. — jamalrob

Why should they have a right to decide in a democratic fashion? If their state hasn't granted them such a right, why should they have it? Remember that human beings start by having no more rights than a tiger has; whatever rights they get afterwards, they get because of their state. You presuppose those Leftist values of equality etc. etc. when you speak like you do above. But you forget that these communities may not share those values.

I said it's the fundamental right of their community to decide. If their community has decided by the way it has organised itself that they shall be ruled by an authoritarian regime who makes all decision for the masses, than that's how it should be. If the masses are no longer happy with it, they need to start and organise a revolution to change their society as they deem fit, as it has always happened through history. When people weren't happy, it wasn't that foreigners intervened to settle the matter. When Martin Luther King was fighting for black equality, it was from inside American culture, with no external intervention. If Muslim women truly want a say in how they should dress, etc. then why don't they organise themselves? Why must we go in there to tell them about equality, about having to choose how they want to live, etc.?

The truth is, that in many of those communities, women DO NOT WANT more freedom. I haven't lived in Islamic countries to know their culture well enough to be able to give you a concrete example, but, for example, my grandmother is Eastern European and she could never conceive of a woman being happy if she didn't have a husband who was the head of the family and the source of authority on which she relied. She couldn't conceive of herself as happy if she had to manage finances, pay the taxes, etc. And she was very happy focusing on being a teacher (her job), taking care of young kids and teaching them, and at home doing the housework, while her husband did everything that had to do with family representation in society. If you went to her and started talking about this "women should have a right to decide" blah blah, she would kick you out of the house. You presuppose everyone shares those values, but that is false. And she felt quite bad that in modern society women like her were looked down upon as being inferior. She never felt she was inferior. She actually felt moral superiority. I'm not saying that she really was morally superior, as I don't believe one culture is superior to another. However, I am merely telling you how she felt (and she felt that way because towards the end of her life, when she moved to a different country, she felt oppressed and looked down upon by others), and the fact that your view of the world neglects that there are people like this, while the right-wing view I have exposed takes into account for this and doesn't oppress those people, even when they are minorities, and doesn't encourage that they be disconsidered for holding different values.

The other sad part is that the Left has mobilised science in order to prove its values being the "most natural". But again, all experiments are flawed, as they are performed on people who already, a priori, share the values of the Left. This scientific basis of morality is also dangerous - it ignores the fact that morality is cultural. What is shameful in one culture, may be a source of pride in another - and there is no right answer that science can determine about which is better. It is all cultural specific.

No idea is above scrutiny and no person beneath dignity. — Thorongil

Agreed.

You are someone who is free to choose either to condemn or not to condemn an "Islamic" way of life. Therefore, you implicitly reject, by exercising your right to speak freely, those particular Islamic ways of life that would prohibit you from doing so. — Thorongil

It doesn't follow that because I personally disagree with them, others must also disagree.

Socrates advocated: "I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world." — Thorongil

But let us remember that Socrates deemed it morally despicable if he were to run away from the court which had unfairly sentenced him to death. He argued that since he had accepted those laws from the very beginning, and had been greatly helped by being a citizen, and he never departed to a different region of the world, he had an obligation to follow the law even when he disagreed with it :) Instead, we have people in this thread who argue that homosexuals in Iran SHOULDN'T respect the law of their countries...

Tell, me, Augustino, do you tolerate these things? — Thorongil

No, hence I do everything in my power so that they don't happen on my lands and in my country.

How can you, based on your criteria for "true" tolerance, which these examples all meet? — Thorongil

I have yet to see a society founded upon the morally reprehensible survive and thrive. Those things can and do happen - but they are generally brought to an end by the community in which they happen sooner or later. I believe that communities, having the freedom to govern themselves, necessarily make mistakes and learn from them, just like we have made mistakes and learned from them.

True, but some of them are so barbaric that they need to be eradicated. Hiding behind contrived shibboleths is just an excuse for moral cowardice. — Thorongil

I don't disagree. Keep in mind that I am all for bombing Syria, and annihilating ISIS. Why? Because ISIS poses a threat to the sovereignty and national security of other countries, and therefore other countries have to react by destroying them.

There is room for conservative ideology to justify interference and harm on the grounds that the group being interfered with and harmed is not included in the group to which the rights apply (note: this is not exclusive to conservatism) — Soylent

This does not follow. It does not follow that because it is not wrong (ie, no rights are broken) to interfere/harm another group that this is right. Therefore, a conservative may not use this as justification, and if they do, then they're committed to a fallacy.

Hitler wasn't much of a socialist.

True, early on he took over a little German political group which maybe had some socialist-type intentions, but that was more opportunist than anything else. The neglect of socialist programming became a small issue in the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP), AKA, the Nazi Party. — Bitter Crank

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

Hitler's policies implied a lot of governmental control over the economy - at least in terms of economics, he was clearly not laissez faire.

While this seems like a sensible response, it ignores a potential (and potent) harm of social and psychological displacement. It shouldn't be expected that a person is asked to leave friends and family in exchange for security. The two needs (social and safety) are basic needs, and a society that fails to meet the basic needs of individuals in that society loses legitimacy (from within). — Soylent

This presupposes that there is a way not to harm anyone while resolving this problem. I argue that the majority of the people in that community feel harmed by homosexual practices because this goes against their cultural values. Therefore, such practices are outlawed. However, out of compassion for homosexuals, the only remedy is for a society which appreciates them, and can truly provide a satisfactory environment for such individuals to flourish to take them from the society which is incapable, due to other commitments, to do this for them.

is that the ability to freely express one's opinion either way would itself be made impossible in certain cultures/countries. Therefore, by merely expressing your opinion, you have rejected said cultures and so cannot be inclusive to all of them. Some of them must be destroyed in order for you and others like you to live. — Thorongil

Again - this doesn't follow. I may have the ability to express myself freely right now, and therefore make use of it - but it doesn't follow that I necessarily must believe that I SHOULD have such an ability to begin with. In my previous post I was just saying that I agree with you - I value the ability to express myself, and I think others should have access to it - but I'm not in a position to impose this upon other communities, who decide on different values.

Yes, but I'm not beholden to everything Socrates allegedly said. His cosmopolitanism is worth keeping, whereas his other positions can be argued over on their own terms. — Thorongil

This needs to be argued.

Yes, morally bankrupt societies usually don't survive long, but they often attempt to bring down everyone and everything with them when they implode. Free societies have an obligation to prevent atrocities and protect the people living under barbaric regimes. — Thorongil

I think free societies have an obligation to protect their citizens, and so to the extent that oppressive societies seek to increase their strength in order to subjugate them, etc. they have a right to take action to stop this from happening. So yes - by and large, I agree with you here.

I know in today's completely warped political discourse, those who would be in favor of greater military action are alleged to be on the right, but in fact, and historically speaking, this would be a leftist position. — Thorongil

What do you mean are historically speaking left? Could you provide some examples please? Thanks!

There are only memes here; and the memes of the left are by far the more palatable. — John

Justify both statements please.

"By their fruits you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?" Matthew 7:16 — John

Agreed.

I'm not aware of any "leftist" who does this but me, regrettably. — Landru Guide Us

Yes, because unlike you, many of the other Leftists here are willing to be rational and discuss this issue openly. You just want to impose your views. I'm going to stop addressing your posts until you bring in some real content. Thanks for whatever participation you could offer to the thread so far Landru. But I don't think it helps either of us to continue our discussion - you obviously have an extremist view thinking that the right is always evil and wrong, and, while I respect you and your view, I would kindly ask you not to impose this on me.

This has been a long thread, so perhaps I have missed it, but how exactly are you defining who is a "leftist" and "rightist?" — Thorongil

I'm not - because if I did it would be very messy. Meaning is use, hopefully the meaning will elucidate itself through the way this thread has been progressing (and I encourage you and everyone else to read the whole thread - the only way to truly understand what is currently going on). It's very difficult, because as you and others have said - these positions have kept changing historically, and they're not, at the moment, very useful or informative. Further difficulties are added by mine, as well as other members vague use(s) of the term(s). But we have no other terminology, so unfortunately, what can I do?

I loathe these discussions, as I said before, precisely because I find these categories woefully inadequate and rarely defined by the people who use them. — Thorongil

Me too. Which is why this is the first (and probably the only) political thread that I'll engage in, in both PF and TPF.

Nevertheless, I would probably categorize myself, in the very broadest sense, as a classical liberal in the vein of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Jefferson. — Thorongil

Ok.

Though I diverge economically from classical liberalism towards some form of socialism or mutualism (like Proudhon's idea) — Thorongil

I disagree that Proudhon's ideas of socialism are practical. The vast majority of mankind can never ever achieve the moral perfection necessary to thrive under such freedom. Therefore, there must be rulers - preferably as Plato said - philosopher Kings. Sure - they will prevent them from ever reaching moral perfection - but then, the masses could never do it to begin with. At least this way, those who can achieve moral perfection, and who wish to strive for it, can do so, and are respected for so doing.

So based on all this, would you consider me a leftist? If so, why, and if not, why not? — Thorongil

I would call you right-wing. The only reason why I have some reservations is because of Proudhon and the fact you seem to, at least to me, think that the masses can achieve the wisdom of sages - otherwise there would be little debate about it.

I wouldn't oppress you, but others might. They have a right to shun you if you have offended their sensibilities. There is no way to legislate against that. If you want to shag a dog in public, the question also needs to be asked as to why doing it in private is not enough for you, given that you might offend people's sensibilities. Homosexual behavior, or any sexual behavior, in private should not offend anyone's sensibilities. It would at least be incumbent on you to ensure that no children were to witness you shagging the dog, as witnessing such a thing could damage a delicate sensibility. — John

So according to you, it is normal to disconsider homosexuals if they offend our personal sensibilities? This, to my mind, is barbaric. One should not let one's personal sensibilities act as judgements upon others. I hate country music. Yet I would find it horrible to disconsider people who love it.

No. Displaying a lack of remorse should be a contributory factor towards a harsher sentence, which it is. But the use of torture as punishment is barbaric and has rightly been prohibited by The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, of which there are 159 parties.

Your reactionary views, as ever, are detestable and misguided. — Sapientia

Your misunderstanding Sapientia is that the harshest punishment you can give is limited. Life in prison. That's it. But the atrocities of the crimes that can be performed is unlimited. How is that fair - how is that just?

Again progressives seem to be overcome by an attitude of indifference to sin and evil. As if evil was a banality of existence... a matter of indifference ... You seem to not realise that these things you cannot undo. That these things leave marks which last forever. You seem to be under the attitude "Yeah, he cheated, why's that even a big deal??". This is the wrong attitude - you're adopting exactly the same attitude about ISIS as well - "Oh yeah, they're only murdering and pillaging in a barbaric fashion an entire region, how about we leave them a few more years to do it until we solve the problem" - by the time you solve that problem with your attitude, evil may as well destroy you - it spreads like cancer, and it must be removed at once, with no delay!

I can tell you that I don't think I have ever met an atheist that was pro life (or mentioned they were) — shmik

I used to be an atheist that was pro-life. In fact, I was a conservative before I became religious, and I became religious because I was conservative, that was part of the path. For me, the reason why I side with the right is because I detest the arrogance, self-righteousness and pettiness of the left, and I love the Ancient Greek culture, which I see as an ideal. I have a feeling that real men and women used to live back then - men like Alexander, ready to conquer the world, with gigantic ambitions and passions. It seems to me that the left is reducing all of us to our common denominator, our animal nature - it's the outgrowth of democracy which seeks to make a level playing field for all. It's seeking to make more and more of us like Hollywood pop-culture. What used to take restraint and courage, the virtues, are now despised. Strength is despised.

I dislike the premissiveness of left-wing culture. Regarding abortion for example, I simply don't think (1) that a developing child, the fetus, should be killed because of the whims of the mother, and (2) I don't think that women should be free to do as they please with their bodies (and neither should men for that matter). We live in communities and we have responsibilities one towards another. This whole idea of "freedom" is barbaric. This used to be called "bondage to lust" by Spinoza and Aristotle. We should consider our behaviour in relation to others, not only to ourselves.

I find the left's obsession with the importance of sex petty and disgusting. What should be a tertiary concern in life becomes the purpose of it. Jokes are about sex, conversations are about sex, everything is about sex. I mean what the - man should not be a worshipper of pussy - I find that disgusting. The mere idea that one is to "have to do something" to have sex is ridiculous! Outrageous! Or the whole "if you're not having sex, you're not living" mantra of the left. What's with this whole building of self-esteem around sex? Are these people actually serious? A man's self esteem should revolve around sex? I mean, that, as Kierkegaard said, may be fit for a worm, but not for a being as great as man. There's a reason why I say the media and Hollywood are the professors of that pussy-grabbing Donald Trump - they, and their culture, created him.

as if it's not natural for a human being to be a moral being. — Metaphysician Undercover

Indeed, it's not natural. Morality is largely LEARNED. Why is it learned? Because it doesn't pop into you when you're born. You see a naked woman as a man, and you start lusting for her. That's the natural response. Morality - not lusting - is learned.

Do you not think that it's natural for a for a human being to behave morally? — Metaphysician Undercover

Certain aspects of morality are natural. Obviously not being barbaric and cruel to those around is something that comes natural. Someone who just does things for the sole purpose of hurting others is NOT behaving naturally (nor morally).

But that's not what evolution demonstrates to us as the real facts of nature, is it? — Metaphysician Undercover

Why are you bringing biological evolution into this? It has nothing to do with what we're talking about. And no, I don't think we have evolved much morally, if that's what you want to say.

This is not true, western politics is fundamentally structured as a "honor system". This system is based in trust, and assumes that one will act honestly. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why should you make that assumption knowing that most people don't behave morally?

But that God might as well be... You know — Beebert

?

It was not what the Church did, or mostly, it wasn't the reason they did what they did. — Beebert

How do you know? Feyerabend is a scholar (and an atheist by the way). He thought the Church acted rationally. And I think so too. The evidence is absolutely in their favor. They may have wanted to dominate (who knows what they really wanted), but the facts are such that they had a right to act the way they did.

And is that even a good reason for condemning someone and threstening the person with death? — Beebert

Back in that day yes, because there was no other way to prevent them from publishing their works. Today no, because we have scientific journals, and if you don't get published in the relevant journals you will be ignored by the scientific community anyway. It was a more barbaric way of police-ing what happens. Wasn't Nietzsche the one who said that as societies develop, their punishments get lighter or something to that effect, but only because the societies get stronger and have stronger means of preventing harm?

And if the doctor had no issues with the removal, that would be fine? — Banno

Morally speaking no, because he would be harming a human being. But if there are people around the world who want to live in such barbaric societies, who can stop them?

In a civilised society, most doctors would refuse to perform abortion services.

No. — andrewk

Answering a very old question to its asker, when the said asker has changed his position, is simply pointless.

Yes I agree because of the effect torturing someone has on the one doing the torturing AND also because evil should not be played with, nor its influence allowed existence so that it can spread and corrupt others, so I have changed my position. I would still support that the serial killer is publicly executed, so that other criminals are shown that justice is not to be messed with, especially in such severe cases of inhumanity and barbarity - if you think the justice system is barbarous, what about the serial killer? What about the actions he takes and the way these affect the families of the victims? And yes - there's all the reason to rejoice when justice is done. If the news reports tonight come on and say that ISIS was completely obliterated, what do you think I'll do? Cry for the terrorists? Of course not, I will rejoice that we have overcome an evil, and saved an entire region from its threat... — Agustino

The last two reasons you cite are,in short,deterrence and increment of public faith in the justice system.To deal with the first,observe that an exactly equal amount,if not greater,amount of deterrence would be the result if the criminal was locked away for life in prison.Remember that prison is by no means a nice place,and many criminals would much rather choose a short interval of sharp torture than an eternity of long,drawn out torture and molestation by the not quite so friendly inmates of modern prisons.

As for the second reason,I don't see how people would end up having faith in a brutal criminal justice system which relishes torturing people.What,in reality, would happen is quite the opposite.The public would see this uncivil justice system itself as the enemy,and thus would no longer feel comfortable handing over their squabbles over to receive what they would,not unreasonably,see as warped judgment.Instead then,they would start "settling'' their disputes on their own,which would lead to mafias,clan wars and later,the disintegration of the entire fabric of society. — hunterkf5732

Yes I agree because of the effect torturing someone has on the one doing the torturing AND also because evil should not be played with, nor its influence allowed existence so that it can spread and corrupt others, so I have changed my position. I would still support that the serial killer is publicly executed, so that other criminals are shown that justice is not to be messed with, especially in such severe cases of inhumanity and barbarity - if you think the justice system is barbarous, what about the serial killer? What about the actions he takes and the way these affect the families of the victims? And yes - there's all the reason to rejoice when justice is done. If the news reports tonight come on and say that ISIS was completely obliterated, what do you think I'll do? Cry for the terrorists? Of course not, I will rejoice that we have overcome an evil, and saved an entire region from its threat...

For me it's a matter of logical consistency, of hypocrisy. Treating the inhumane as they treat others makes one inhumane also. That much is clear to me. Second, I would feel no satisfaction seeing a broken human being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. I'm not sure that constitutes justice. Civilised nations have long given up on barbarism in pursuit of better ideals, and I don't find your arguments convincing enough to regress. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Why? You treat others humanely because they are human. If they give up their humanity by committing such atrocities, why treat them humanly?

It seems a tad convenient that God apparently doesn't mind in the slightest ceding the decision on what is evil (if indeed such a thing even exists) and who should live and die as a consequence to a bunch of hubristic judges and then picking up the pieces after they're done. — Barry Etheridge

It's not a cessation of the decision at all. Extreme violence, barbarity, murdering, raping, pillaging, etc. are evil. And God doesn't decide what is evil whimsically. You still seem to think of God as some man in the sky ordering you around. Rather we humans get to know God as we understand better what is good and evil, and freely choose to associate with and defend that which is good. In fact knowing God and loving goodness are one and the same. What did Jesus say...
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
There is no difference between being virtuous and doing the will of God. The two are identical. And delivering justice to those who are weak, and protecting them, that is virtuous

There is a large class element to Burke's complaint — Bitter Crank

Right. Burke opposed slavery, Burke opposed colonial barbarity and injustice, Burke opposed the imposition of Christianity over other peoples, and desired their culture and religions to be respected. He also opposed the indoctrination of the masses by "philosophes" in France, and sought to combat vice and immorality of any kind everywhere he could. Immorality originates from the ruling class and the intellectuals, not from the poor - the poor just follow.

More likely, the collapse of the old time religion and the supposedly upright and moral masses — Bitter Crank

This occurred in continental Europe prior to the world wars. The French Revolution already saw much of this.

Whether there are more corrupted and immoral people now than in the past seems doubtful to me. — Bitter Crank

The immorality from continental Europe has definitely spread to the Anglophone world.

What should immediately come to critical thinkers is the question, "does correlation imply causation"? — swstephe

Probably not. What it reflects rather is the cultural decadence of certain geographical regions. The US is much higher than Western Europe still - why? - because they were largely unaffected by the corrupt Academia until after WWII, when many many Marxist professors, and other radicals fled from Europe to the US, and took positions there. Whereas Western Europe is so low, because since the French Revolution intellectuals have continuously thrown stones at tradition and promoted disobedience. Not to mention the corrupting influence of communism. Also notice that if we look at just Europe, we see a very weak negative correlation between wealth and religiosity. Religiosity in fact seems to sit around the same value, regardless of wealth. Switch to other continents, and again the same feature appears. Cultural degradation is a phenomenon of people's mentality and consciousness, which is necessarily geographical and has little to do with wealth or intelligence for that matter.

There have been many debates over whether the apparent correlation between atheism and intelligence was due to "higher intelligence leads to atheism", or "atheism leads to higher intelligence", or "those environmental constraints that lead to atheism also lead to better education ... and respect for intellectual, scientific and academic pursuits". — swstephe

Rather it is because the culture is dominated by secular progressives (90% of social sciences are dominated by secular progressives), and don't forget that morality doesn't have to do so much with intelligence as it does with an innate moral sense. So people may very well be very intelligent while lacking a strong moral sense. This will be worsened by the fact that the surrounding society does not encourage them to develop it.

Students might not be saints, but they show up and study for tests. — Hoo

Sure but that's nothing compared to what they did in the past. Ludwig Wittgenstein built his own flying plane as a mechanical engineer in University. Let me see a student today do that... not in a million years. Because education isn't rigorous enough. If it was properly rigorous, there would just be no time for partying, getting drunk, etc. It would just be impossible. Taking tests is a joke. Tests are artificial. You can't do anything of value out there in the world by taking tests. What they should do is actually and properly train you for example to be a doctor. Someone who goes to medical school should stay there long enough that once they have that diploma, they can go from door to door treating people. What happens now is that he gets that diploma very fast, and then is a servant in a bureaucratic system for many many years, until he can finally go knocking on people's doors to treat them. It's not rigorous enough.

Not according to Plato, the Neo-Platonist school (on which our forms of government and systems of justice are, after all, largely based), Augustine and a host of other theologians and philosophers they are not. — Barry Etheridge

We both know this is laughably false, no intellectual would take your assertions seriously. Cite, for example, where Plato encourages barbarity, murder, rape and justifies these as being good in-themselves.

That's why, for example, people like yourself attack trans identity, a opposed to medical procedures which carry expense an risk — TheWillowOfDarkness

No I have no problem with their identity. I have a problem with allowing my society to let them have access to barbarous means of harming their bodies. And I don't care how they live, so long as they live in a civilised fashion, like all other folks. If they start fucking around and behaving like animals, then I do mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDela4jNto

Look at these folks. These folks aren't simply some nice fellow progressives who like to live as they wish without disturbing anyone. They want to make everyone else accept and approve of their way of life, and they find their joy in disturbing and upsetting public order. Hence they deserve to be restrained, quite possibly put in jail, because they simply disturb and affect other people's lives negatively. We need to respect each other in society. These people, through such disgusting and uncivilised protests, disrespect everyone else in their society.

Kojeve — t0m

My problem with Kojeve, much like Hegel, is that they are both largely responsible for the collapse of order in Western civilization and the return of barbarism in one form or another. Both create a politics that authorizes the use of force - makes it legitimate and necessary in the progress of consciousness and self-consciousness. To them, the 20th century with all its wars and violence was absolutely necessary.

It's evident from the very basic conceptions - of desire, of freedom, etc.

For Kojève, the necessity of revolutionary violence follows from the ineffectiveness of persuasive speech. — Groys

For example this. What could be more incriminating? It is clear that they advocate the use of force, so long as force is used for truth - but in that very process, truth becomes untruth. Persuasive speech isn't ineffective due to a fault of its own or due to the times - it's ineffective because people are free - free to disagree.

Indeed, throughout its history philosophy tried to operate by persuasion. It measured its effectiveness by the influence that it exercised on listeners or readers. — Groys

Sure but the underlying point here should be that philosophy cannot be effective. Goodness and Truth cannot be effective except in their very expulsion and victimhood and failure.

The principle of the new post-historical, post-philosophical politics is the principle of inclusion. — Groys

The principle of inclusion fails for the very same reason that desire itself fails. Namely it turns back on itself and ends up being a very restrictive form of totalitarianism. Nothing excludes as much as or as well as inclusion.