Would you date a feminist?

Post Reply New Topic

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/08/technol ... -internet/

1. That didn't have to do with freedom of speech, but terrorists trying to get recruits. 2. He was thinking of ideas on the fly and has since had to back track on it. 3. I don't agree with everything Trump is for, just the majority of it. and 4. Trump is a hell of a lot better than Hilary, who advocates censorship outright. Trump may have a few not so good ideas, but Hilary has nothing but bad ideas and Berney has 1, or 2 good ideas.

Cavernio:

I simply find discussing morality and ethics trivial and meaningless.

In short, I believe they are merely a product of their current generation, time, location and culture and not objective fact.

Like I said I don't believe in 'right' and 'wrong' so I automatically don't believe in 'good' and 'evil' either and think it's subjective.

But for the sake of being 'normal' I tend to agree morals that are considered 'positive' by my own society and culture should be taught to children.

I'd be fine with a chaotic and destructive world if my family and I could find a way to get food, supplies and weaponries but otherwise live barren and isolated from it all.

But the more 'chaotic' a world is, the more difficult such a thing would be, and the more likely others will infringe on my life and business.

So might as well support 'positive' morals if it really will have a more positive outcome on the lives of myself and others.

So there...that's my 'morality'.

ok, I wasn't referring to hurting people's feelings here, but physically hurting them or otherwise doing things that violate their human rights. But hate speech turns into hate laws, and even if it doesn't it just makes for, like, a s**t world to live in for everyone.

My morality stems from the idea that I am no better or worse than anyone else and we all deserve the best that we can get, and that what is best for me is what is best for everyone else. With that common ground I (and everyone else) deserve as much freedom as possible to choose what they want, (since self-choice is the best way we can all get what we want), while not impinging upon other people or repressing them in any way, or preventing them from choosing what they want. Therefore, tolerance of other people's choices is very important. But tolerance is just that, tolerance. Anyone who opines intolerance for any group of people for whatever reason, is not actually supporting tolerance, which then doesn't support the moral idea that we all deserve the best we can get. And that's where this whole 'anyone should be allowed to say whatever they want' thing, breaks down for me.

I don't follow what hillary or trump are -actually- doing or standing for, I'm not American. From my understanding I would not be happy with either.

Cavernio, it sounds like you are actually intolerant of intolerance, which, I'm sorry, is hypocritical if you believe in 'tolerance for all'.

The concept of 'you can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt others' is a common view of the world but isn't total tolerance because it doesn't tolerate intolerance.

It sure is a high level of tolerance still, though.

Extreme tolerance is accepting both the good and the bad, and to tolerate even those that may infringe on the human rights of others.

Like I said, these are some of the reasons I'm too extremist.

I don't think Hitler was necessarily 'evil' either.

I don't agree or condone his actions, but I don't think he was 'evil' and if anything I'd rather we label actions as 'right' or 'wrong' rather than people. We're all shades of grey and instead of saying one person is good and another evil I'd rather say person 1 commits actions generally regarded as good, and person 2 commits actions generally regarded as evil.

Original quote: "You can do whatever you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone else or bring anyone else to harm."

My twist: "You can do whatever you want, even if it does hurt others, just leave me alone and let me stay out of it. Bother me and it's your own fault what happens. Bother someone I genuinely care about and again, you better watch out. Otherwise, I'm not going to be a big hero, go do what you're going to do and if you hurt innocent people or put your own life at risk I hope you suffer severe consequences for your actions. But I'm not going to intentionally stand-in your way as long as it's not my business and remains so."

For reference, I'm Chaotic Neutral.

I am "intolerant" of intolerance.

Hitler might have been rejected as a child, and as a young adult.

No excuse, obviously, for his many evil deeds, though--and his sponsorship of many evil deeds.

Read "Mein Kampf." Read about Nazi-sponsored scientific experiments.

His Nazi regime not only killed Jews, gypsies, Communists, many varieties of "Non-Aryans".....they killed "mental defectives" as well, including people with autism.

I know.

Like I said I disagreed with his actions, but I don't necessarily place any sort of labels of 'good' or 'evil' onto people.

And even if I don't think people are good or evil like I said I hope they suffer the consequences for their actions, and Hitler certainly did in the end.

Just as maybe any regular criminal might have had their own rationale for committing the things they do - maybe a criminal commits robbery for money for his sick and ill family, a person who speeds in illegal street-racing, while a threat to others safety, might need the money or just enjoy racing but has no way to do it except under cover of darkness and is fine with breaking such a law. Maybe the person they murdered was going to kill them first. Not necessarily a totally 'evil' or 'bad' person.

Hitler's case was he was a practitioner of Eugenics. He was of course the absolute extremist regarding this and maybe was mis-directioned, but some people who support Eugenics aren't necessarily bad, because they want what they feel is best for humanity - for the genetically advantaged to reproduce.

In a way, that's how we've evolved - most of our attraction is based on signs of health and fertility, and especially in ancient times we chose partners we thought would survive the best and give us the healthiest off-spring, but by modern standards you could believe such ideas are outdated, but some simply don't, that's all.

I'm just not the type to make an uproar - "Hitler was BAD, BAD, BAD. No if's, no but's no question's asked."

People also react strongly to me when I say I don't think murder is always wrong.

Things change when we complicate the question.

Is executing a criminal who may cause future harm to innocent people and has already killed a few of his fellow prisoners in their life sentence 'wrong'?

Is a soldier killing a terrorist in defense of their nation 'wrong'? The attitude I've heard soldiers usually have is 'kill or be killed' and even if they don't want to do it, one person is going to die regardless if they're in the middle of a battle.

If you are lost in the middle of nowhere and someone is trying to kill you and escape is nearly impossible, is it wrong to kill them in self-defense if it means you stay alive and no one would ever know? Some may have a guilty conscience, but not all...

If somebody seeks to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself. "Murder" under those circumstances is justified and not "evil."

That's why we have "self-defense" exceptions to the prosecution of murder.

When it comes to criminals, it depends on the criminal. I don't feel there's any justification for robbery, though.

I don't believe in eugenics AT ALL. It's garbage. It doesn't "advance the course" of humanity. Moreover, it can lead to evil actions. Who's to say who is "genetically advantaged"?

If you look at all the Nazi leaders, you'll notice that none of them had that "Master Race" look. None were tall and blond. I'm not sure if any of them had blue eyes.

In fact, Himmler had a vague "oriental" look to him.

And if you would see a picture of Goebbels, you would see a short, sniveling man who did not seem well physically.

Hitler was disabled and under his own laws should been exterminated. Whole of nazism was a big lie to cover a power trip. He may have also had Jewish blood in his fsmily try, which is why he sought to bribe or kill his family.

@outrider Check your privilege

You're right, I'm intolerant of intolerance...double negative means I am tolerant.

And I said check your privilege because the -only- reason you are in a world where you have, like, everything that you do have is because you are being protected by societies that have decided who are intolerant of the intolerant. Or perhaps you'd be one of the lucky few who would be some sort of warlord i suppose. But I wouldn't be, I would have more stacked against me than you ever would simply by being a woman. You're not talking about a tolerant world, you're talking about anarchy or a laissez-faire world. You're talking about a world where we might as well just take half our brains away and let us just act like wild animals. Which, I guess, sure, that's your opinion, but realize where it's coming from at least and that the world you live in would not exist without people with my opinion.

i agree with the judge in italy, who refused to convict a man who stole food for his poor family.

Someone made a thread saying that current tax laws, taxes on goods and services, is robbery.
This person, and me too, definitely do not agree that all robbery is bad. What one does and does not own and can and cannot own is societally determined in the first place. It's not something like killing someone because one's body is always one's own.

Yes, that is true.

But no, I don't fall under the 'privileged white male' umbrella.

People find it harder and harder to believe my views even as a bisexual, lower-middle class, Indigenous Australian (and we were conquered and mistreated by the British for several hundreds of years).

"You're not talking about a tolerant world, you're talking about anarchy or a laissez-faire world."

Funny then that depending on my mood I'm either an Anachro-Socialist or a sort of-Libertarian.

Half-a-brain?

It is the intolerant for intolerance who carried out the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagrasaki, as apparently seeing the Japanese as a threat means bombing their major cities filled with innocent people and children (children = 'future potential soldiers').

It is the intolerant for intolerance that currently fight war over in the middle-east, sometimes bombing terrorists, sometimes innocent civilian cities, in the name of 'peace'.

War in general I don't agree with, no matter what your motivations are, because in the end each side sees themselves as 'the good guy' and the enemy as 'the bad guys'.

Really, isn't war itself driven by 'conquer enemy to ensure enemy does not provide threat to me' or 'conquer those who may provide a threat to me in my pursuit of land/wealth/recourses/etc.' which is intolerance for intolerance (other people who can't tolerate your actions, even if you believe they are peaceful in nature and don't put any others to harm. E.g. one person believes cutting down the land is an insult to their ancestors, others believe it should be made to good use.)?

Everyone's definition of 'intolerance' is subjective.

You could say the Americans just wanted to have the right to pillage the land in peace without interruption and the Native Americans just couldn't leave them alone...

And on the topic of Hitler:

He was all-talk of this 'Aryan race' and such and yeah Sly, I think he definitely was hypocritical because I assume he's got some kind of mental illness himself (sociopathic disorder, etc.)

And, much of the world we all live in isn't always due to intolerance for intolerance except when it regards defense.

I think internet, computers, technology, etc. was simply people who wanted to help make other's lives easier, make more money, or both.

And, I'd rather my countries own military, and the U.S.'s as well, remain on their own land and on the defense rather than making a foolhardy attempt at 'cutting the evil off at its source'.

The Australian army also is partially situated in the middle-east providing the U.S. assistance...

I prefer voluntarism, without rules, boundaries, or secrets, but, if someone must be inhuman, incorrigible, they can be itemized, much in the same respect as a broken machine.