On December 13 2016 13:24 Jerubaal wrote: Radicalism
Ahh yes, √ism. It's when you've had just about enough of the bullshit and therefore revert back to the roots: efficient problem solving 101. The dogma of radicalism, which I've just made up, consists of two superimposed axiom layers. 1st axiom: Everything is the same until a context arises which favors some things over others. Black and white? Same shit, until someone has to decide whether they want the teamliquid logo to be + Show Spoiler [black on white background] +
. Rather often it's an aesthetic, intuitive choice. 1 becomes the one and 0 the other, meaning we wish the former into existence now, and leave the latter archived in limbo for later potential emergence. 2nd axiom: Everything that is relatively, out of the ordinarily hyped up, must be important somehow, mainly by pointing us towards inefficiency by signaling a waste of potential. This waste could be a) due to insufficient application, or b) due to being obsolete and even blocking something that should replace it. Put these two together and apply it to any problem, political, sexual; you name it. For example women want to be treated as equal, but they don't want to give up their sassy outbursts, which would amount in an ass-whoopin' if performed by a guy, or in any way cap their emotion-oriented demeanor that would get them ostracized from a logic-loving community, if not for bewbs. Analysis: 1: women and men are the same until bewbs become apparent and the question of economical, social and political chances to succeed are exclaimed upon as being imbalanced in favor of the latter. 2: bewbs are at a hype peak. Everywhere you go you look at bewbs, and every big-budget tv show features bewbs at strategic intervals for maximum effect. The root of all economical and political hype is jobs. Everyone wants their job to excel in every positive way. Upon synergizing the wisdom emanating from the two axioms and the root of the issue at hand it becomes obvious that women need to give more jobs.. handjobs, blowjobs, bewbjobs, footjobs, etc., because then men will be alleviated from their perverse fixation on bewbs and ostracize women to the same degree and standards as they do men. Consequently women rely less on their bewbs and more on their excellence at a particular task or solution which warrants their equality, and subjects sassy outbursts to devolution. Consequently the community, furthermore, society realizes that it's not jobs, fancy offices, high salary and bonuses or hierarchy which deserves hype, but the relationship between men and women. Every excess in politics, society and economy oriented discussion has always been about the frustration of one or the other to have their sex and compassion related needs met by the representative of the opposite sex of their choice. A definitive solution and cap on these senseless generalizations a-la conservatism, right, all my people from the front to the left side to side choreography business, would be establishing a currency for the quantification of needs. That currency has its root in the male orgasm. Undeniably real, irrefutably effective. Therefore we deal with every irregularity or dissatisfaction in gasms. You want that corner office? 10 gasms. Right wing wants more seats in parliament? 5 gasms for each member of left wing, and so on. No more highfalutin hate speech without the gasms to back it up. As for women.. idk what they want because I'm a dude. But whatever it is it probably involves rapid alternation between the extremes of emotional outburst, i.e. laughing and having a shoulder to lean on for crying, which I'm more than happy to provide if rewarded with a gasm.
Ahh yes, √ism. It's when you've had just about enough of the bullshit and therefore revert back to the roots: efficient problem solving 101. The dogma of radicalism, which I've just made up, consists of two superimposed axiom layers. 1st axiom: Everything is the same until a context arises which favors some things over others. Black and white? Same shit, until someone has to decide whether they want the teamliquid logo to be + Show Spoiler [black on white background] +
. Rather often it's an aesthetic, intuitive choice. 1 becomes the one and 0 the other, meaning we wish the former into existence now, and leave the latter archived in limbo for later potential emergence. 2nd axiom: Everything that is relatively, out of the ordinarily hyped up, must be important somehow, mainly by pointing us towards inefficiency by signaling a waste of potential. This waste could be a) due to insufficient application, or b) due to being obsolete and even blocking something that should replace it. Put these two together and apply it to any problem, political, sexual; you name it. For example women want to be treated as equal, but they don't want to give up their sassy outbursts, which would amount in an ass-whoopin' if performed by a guy, or in any way cap their emotion-oriented demeanor that would get them ostracized from a logic-loving community, if not for bewbs. Analysis: 1: women and men are the same until bewbs become apparent and the question of economical, social and political chances to succeed are exclaimed upon as being imbalanced in favor of the latter. 2: bewbs are at a hype peak. Everywhere you go you look at bewbs, and every big-budget tv show features bewbs at strategic intervals for maximum effect. The root of all economical and political hype is jobs. Everyone wants their job to excel in every positive way. Upon synergizing the wisdom emanating from the two axioms and the root of the issue at hand it becomes obvious that women need to give more jobs.. handjobs, blowjobs, bewbjobs, footjobs, etc., because then men will be alleviated from their perverse fixation on bewbs and ostracize women to the same degree and standards as they do men. Consequently women rely less on their bewbs and more on their excellence at a particular task or solution which warrants their equality, and subjects sassy outbursts to devolution. Consequently the community, furthermore, society realizes that it's not jobs, fancy offices, high salary and bonuses or hierarchy which deserves hype, but the relationship between men and women. Every excess in politics, society and economy oriented discussion has always been about the frustration of one or the other to have their sex and compassion related needs met by the representative of the opposite sex of their choice. A definitive solution and cap on these senseless generalizations a-la conservatism, right, all my people from the front to the left side to side choreography business, would be establishing a currency for the quantification of needs. That currency has its root in the male orgasm. Undeniably real, irrefutably effective. Therefore we deal with every irregularity or dissatisfaction in gasms. You want that corner office? 10 gasms. Right wing wants more seats in parliament? 5 gasms for each member of left wing, and so on. No more highfalutin hate speech without the gasms to back it up. As for women.. idk what they want because I'm a dude. But whatever it is it probably involves rapid alternation between the extremes of emotional outburst, i.e. laughing and having a shoulder to lean on for crying, which I'm more than happy to provide if rewarded with a gasm.
Is this some kind of performance art where you're mirroring a Liberal argument where you simply claim my response "didn't count" while giving no real response yourself?
On December 16 2016 10:00 Jerubaal wrote: Is this some kind of performance art where you're mirroring a Liberal argument where you simply claim my response "didn't count" while giving no real response yourself?
On the cosmic scale, does any response, argument, or action truly matter?
JUST KIDDING! I'm not a fucking nihilist. But let's get down to brass tacks. I didn't really have time earlier to give a proper response. I don't need to respond, but I genuinely enjoy these types of conversations. Furthermore, I should say that this is definitely on-topic if we're discussing a political spectrum where the sub-topic is whether or not something is an 'extreme' end of the spectrum. Also, this reply is more for everyone else, because I do not think that you are going to reply with, "Oh, I see what you meant. Interesting."
I wrote response specifically talking about secularism in the state, and state-run institutions using a metaphor so I didn't have to use any example that would have any kind of emotional baggage attached to it. Your response contained things I actually addressed in my response post, so I wasn't sure if you had even read the entire post. That hurts my feelings. I worked hard on that post to make sure I didn't misspell any words.
On December 15 2016 11:32 Jerubaal wrote: I don't find it useful to critique every statement made by someone, as that usually just pisses them off
If this is you projecting, you're gonna get really mad really soon.
So, you responded to my post with this post:
On December 15 2016 07:09 Jerubaal wrote: No, a better metaphor would be vanilla ice cream saying that we're not going to be partial to any flavor, so you're not allowed to make a chocolate based argument or a strawberry based argument. So every time there's a discussion vanilla says "all your arguments are invalid", the "vanilla" argument is the only acceptable one.
The tactic is really to get you hung up on the word religion. Cuz err'body knows that being a religious bigot iz bad. If someone is telling you that they are a "neutral" position, they are lying. you can only really be neutral on extremely mundane things. Stop thinking there is some dichotomy in political life. Almost all of these political positions where the word secular is invoked are chock full to the brim of Enlightenment ideology. To say that it's neutral and that it's really just these irksome religious types who are holding up the show is laughable.
You said earlier that nobody has a monopoly on moral judgement. Then why does one person with a worldview simply have to acquiesce to another person with a worldview?
The assumptions you're making that Modernity wants you to make is that a)World views are inscrutable and can never communicate a reason higher than "because Jesus said so". and b) That the secular/neutral/impartial...i.e. the Enlightenment position...is not a worldview.
So, first of all:
every time there's a discussion vanilla says "all your arguments are invalid", the "vanilla" argument is the only acceptable one.
Stop thinking there is some dichotomy in political life.
There is polarity in life. There is a spectrum between hot and cold. There is a spectrum between small and large. Now, part of that spectrum is objective and quantifiable, and part of that spectrum is based on our perception of the entity being measured relative to something else. A good part of our perception of politics is based on thinking of subjects in terms of contrasting ideologies. I know that's an oversimplification of any ideological debate. I never said otherwise. Not even in the ice cream metaphor did I say "THERE ARE ONLY TWO FLAVORS: VANILLA AND CHOCOLATE".
Saying, "Stop thinking there is some dichotomy in political life" is you being automatically dismissive of another viewpoint. I mean, you totally can do that. Normally, I wouldn't care about such a finicky point of contention if your gripe with secularism wasn't that you believe their ideology has the position of being automatically dismissive of beliefs and religions.
You said earlier that nobody has a monopoly on moral judgement. Then why does one person with a worldview simply have to acquiesce to another person with a worldview?
I already explained this.
"[...]when governing a multi-ice-cream state, it is important to try to eliminate as much bias as possible. The polar opposite of a state that aspires to impartiality towards any particular ice cream flavor would be a state that blatantly disregards any flavor that is not aligned with the ice cream that is in power."
When you live in a society, you share that society with everybody. That means you're not always going to get your own way. The Jeffersonian principle that states, "Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." did come from the Enlightenment Era, which emerged out of centuries of bloody religious repression. Different sects of Christianity that ruled a particular territory would drive out and kill 'heretics'.
Secularism in government came out of the idea that one form of the Christian faith would be favored over another when legislating or overseeing trials. This means if the President were an Anglican, he or she would be denounced for consistently being anti-Methodist in terms of policy. The Anglican and Methodist will be treated equally under the law, and religion should not interfere with that.
a better metaphor would be vanilla ice cream saying that we're not going to be partial to any flavor, so you're not allowed to make a chocolate based argument or a strawberry based argument. So every time there's a discussion vanilla says "all your arguments are invalid", the "vanilla" argument is the only acceptable one.
"You may say, "In a reality closer to our own, non-ice-cream eaters are trying to get rid of ice cream entirely!" "
"it may just be that the state, while making their best attempt at impartiality, has made decisions that you feel have not benefited your flavor of ice cream and consequently, you being to perceive that your ice cream is being treated unfairly, whether this is true or not."
Unless your civil right to practice your beliefs is sincerely under siege, i.e., "The Bible is now banned and they must all be burned for the glory of Richard Dawkins."
If someone is telling you that they are a "neutral" position, they are lying. you can only really be neutral on extremely mundane things.
If you thought I implied something/someone was neutral:
"A secular position isn't necessarily 'neutral', because it opposes making decisions based on dogma, and is rather the antithesis of partiality."
I never said secularism was neutral. I said that THE IDEA was to eliminate bias towards any particular religious group or non-religious group. Can an atheist hijack the conversation and say, "Religion has no place in government because god is a flying spaghetti monster."? Of course that can happen. A religious person can do the same thing. They shouldn't, but they do, due to the fallibility of human nature.
To say that it's neutral and that it's really just these irksome religious types who are holding up the show is laughable.
In the case of something like stem-cell research, yeah. Religious people go, "Hold up, that's life right there." and guess what? We have the debate.
err'body knows that being a religious bigot iz bad
"There is a chocolate ice cream President. The senate slaps a bill on his desk. This bill has a clause that says strawberry ice cream should be left out in the sun to melt. Therefore, this bill is clearly biased against strawberry ice cream. If the President follows his religion, then he'll sign it, because it melts an opposing ice cream."
This metaphor is nice if you're the chocolate ice cream lover. It sucks if you're the strawberry ice cream lover. Being bigoted towards strawberry is a blight to a fair society because it shows partiality against a group for only one reason: different viewpoint. It'd be like if I said, "What do you mean you don't agree with me? Do you know who you're dealing with?" and then I hit a button and Australia blows up "You're disagreeing with my on TEAMLIQUID DOT NET?" and then I hit a button that drops you into the rancor pit. I don't think that would be a healthy or fair way to conduct any kind of discourse.
But since you are incapable of seeing reason, I await your arcane and other-worldly explanation as to why I am wrong.
On December 16 2016 15:42 Korakys wrote: Secularism is axiomatically biased towards the truth.
Use less words.
There is no "secularism" in the way you define it. It's like saying "I have no philosophy", you have a philosophy...you just aren't thinking very hard about it. Even talking about religion is a bit of a red herring; the goal is to remove all competing worldviews...except for the Enlightenment worldview of course.
Put a bit more dramatically, if everyone agrees that we won't talk about what's important, what sort of values will we end up with? Probably a society where nobody thinks anything is important...which suits the Enlightenment hatred of authority, morality and restraint just fine.
"Secularism is biased towards my version of the truth."
@ninazerg- I don't know what the internet has done to you or maybe you are mirroring the sort of attitude your definition of toleration prescribes: Anyone who dares to put forth a positive view must be a tyrant. Your example isn't very helpful unless you think that my argument is that it's ok to be racist or murder whole classes of people (I can't discount that you actually think that's my position). This is also amusing because every other post in this thread (besides mine of course) pretty much has a statement along the lines of "if you don't agree with me you must be evil or stupid".
From my perspective there has been no argument here. You and some others put forth some ideas, I criticized those ideas and then you insult me and repeat the same things you said before.
You put forth a good argument. Unfortunately that argument is old as balls and is considered pretty deficient, even by defenders of the general idea. That's why we had the career of possibly the most boring man in the history of political philosophy, John Rawls, who tried to shore up Liberalism. I never want to insult people for the manner or progress of their education, but my instinct is that you may have taken a Government class or two and mostly got the rest from the internet or discussions therein. Your summary of the history of the origins of secularism is naked propaganda. I tell you this not because I'm trying to berate you, but because you need to know how limited your perspective is.
Sadly, I can't give you a fun 5 page primer that outlines everything you need to know. It's an oxymoron to think that a difficult subject would have an easy explanation.
Charles Taylor- A Secular Age is his magnum opus, but it's huge, dense and advanced. Start somewhere else.
The Theological Origins of Modernity, Michael Allen Gillespie, short and accessible but very focused. Might be a good starting point. I think there are some free versions on the internet. Good history primer as well.
Michael Sandel- I don't know a lot about him, but he's a critic from the Left
Jurgen Habermas- sometimes called a Neo-Marxist, but he appears to be the biggest defender of Classical Liberalism
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger- Truth and Tolerance might be the most direct exegesis of my argument. Powerful and clear style.
I also recommend The Dialects of Secularization: Habermas/Ratzinger, which is a collection of essays based on a discussion between Habermas and Ratzinger.
Since I think that's as far as we're going to get in this discussion, I bid you good day, sir.
Well as I intended the word to mean: secularism is the operation and conduct of institutions without differing to any particular religion.
Of course I have a philosophy, but my philosophy is not tied to a particular religion. That makes it a non-religious or secular philosophy by process of elimination.
If I didn't think my philosophy was the closest one to being the right philosophy then of course I would believe something else.
On December 18 2016 11:09 Korakys wrote: Well as I intended the word to mean: secularism is the operation and conduct of institutions without differing to any particular religion.
Of course I have a philosophy, but my philosophy is not tied to a particular religion. That makes it a non-religious or secular philosophy by process of elimination.
If I didn't think my philosophy was the closest one to being the right philosophy then of course I would believe something else.
Have you even read any of Joseph Ratzinger's work? Psh, you can't possibly be as informed as I am on this subject.
On December 18 2016 11:09 Korakys wrote: Well as I intended the word to mean: secularism is the operation and conduct of institutions without differing to any particular religion.
Of course I have a philosophy, but my philosophy is not tied to a particular religion. That makes it a non-religious or secular philosophy by process of elimination.
If I didn't think my philosophy was the closest one to being the right philosophy then of course I would believe something else.
Have you even read any of Joseph Ratzinger's work? Psh, you can't possibly be as informed as I am on this subject.
On December 18 2016 11:09 Korakys wrote: Well as I intended the word to mean: secularism is the operation and conduct of institutions without differing to any particular religion.
Of course I have a philosophy, but my philosophy is not tied to a particular religion. That makes it a non-religious or secular philosophy by process of elimination.
If I didn't think my philosophy was the closest one to being the right philosophy then of course I would believe something else.
Have you even read any of Joseph Ratzinger's work? Psh, you can't possibly be as informed as I am on this subject.
Er, are you talking to me?
Yes, but I'm also talking with someone else's voice in order to mock them.
On December 18 2016 11:09 Korakys wrote: Well as I intended the word to mean: secularism is the operation and conduct of institutions without differing to any particular religion.
Of course I have a philosophy, but my philosophy is not tied to a particular religion. That makes it a non-religious or secular philosophy by process of elimination.
If I didn't think my philosophy was the closest one to being the right philosophy then of course I would believe something else.
Have you even read any of Joseph Ratzinger's work? Psh, you can't possibly be as informed as I am on this subject.
Er, are you talking to me?
Yes, but I'm also talking with someone else's voice in order to mock them.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.makeagif.com/media/12-14-2016/fF_DW4.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/wo1fwood/TL/styleguide/usage3.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/wo1fwood/TL/styleguide/usage5.png)
