The Trump rally was peaceful until liberals showed up

[Ronson]

I know that religious people think about it slightly differently, but the higher standard is set by yourself, a self imposed burden, that may crush your spirit if it is too great.

I again ask: How do you define fascism?

It is an important question since you believe its definition is critical in deciding whose speech should be suppressed.

[firstfloor]

Well "not exactly". What's not exactly about having popular opinion decide who is and is not allowed to speak based on what the content of their speech is.

And, you didn't answer.

Since public opinion was against Gays, should we have not "given them room to breathe" and "discouraged, for the good of the community." I mean, you defined "good" as popular opinion.

Gays have had to fight long and hard against adverse public sentiment and ignorance to get where they are today, in some societies. The fight continues.

Those societies have adapted and they have revised their sense of right and wrong and what is just with respect to homosexuals, over many years and decades. It is a slow process, but there is no good or bad that is cast in stone, and we choose our own path.

We look backwards with a different sensibility to those we are looking at. If they could see us, they would think us equally strange or cruel or misguided.

[CivilDiscourse]

Gays have had to fight long and hard against adverse public sentiment and ignorance to get where they are today, in some societies. The fight continues.

Those societies have adapted and they have revised their sense of right and wrong and what is just with respect to homosexuals, over many years and decades. It is a slow process, but there is no good or bad that is cast in stone, and we choose our own path.

We look backwards with a different sensibility to those we are looking at. If they could see us, they would think us equally strange or cruel or misguided.

That doesn't answer my question. I asked if we should've followed your stance THEN that you espouse NOW when it comes to unpopular opinions?

[firstfloor]

That doesn't answer my question. I asked if we should've followed your stance THEN that you espouse NOW when it comes to unpopular opinions?

At #27, you did not ask a question so much as make a statement. I disagree, here is why:

There is not good or bad in an absolute sense but just things that you and the society you live in approve of, or otherwise. It comes down to performance – does this or that thing promote our welfare or not, do we thrive? Are we happy? Are our friends and neighbours happy? Are our enemies miserable?

I do think it is the case that at any point in history, society behaves in a way that it thinks is for the good. No doubt there was plenty public support for the execution of James Pratt and John Smith for sodomy in 1835, the last to be hanged in Britain for that offence.

It is interesting to think about what drives change, and why, in the western world, we do not execute gays anymore. In part, I think it may involve a competition between empathy and hatred, not a one-way street by any means. And what the minority group, oppressed by public opinion, are prepared to do to elevate their status in the face of fierce opposition; all the while the opposition believing that they are right.

Now, fascists, like everyone else, are entitled to free speech. But again, like everyone else, they are not entitled to an audience. So, in the battle for influence, the first step is to attract and build an audience – perhaps, too easily done in this modern world. Strife occurs when competing ideas are both strong, therefore a threat to the opposition, and the ideological gap between the ideas is large. The minority idea tries to build support while the majority tries to suppress it. The established norm in this fight has the benefit of having law on its side – an advantage that the minority tries to whittle away. All this never ends, battles and wars are fought, destruction and death go along in support – our human nature cannot be cured.

Arm yourself for the fight. Your defense against stupidity is true knowledge – a commodity in short supply in Trumpworld, where it seems to be politically expedient to continually lie, and lies are so readily believed – there are quite a few here that sincerely believe Trump’s lies – the cure requires a starvation diet – do not feed the Troll in Chief.

[CivilDiscourse]

At #27, you did not ask a question so much as make a statement. I disagree, here is why:

There is not good or bad in an absolute sense but just things that you and the society you live in approve of, or otherwise. It comes down to performance – does this or that thing promote our welfare or not, do we thrive? Are we happy? Are our friends and neighbours happy? Are our enemies miserable?

I do think it is the case that at any point in history, society behaves in a way that it thinks is for the good. No doubt there was plenty public support for the execution of James Pratt and John Smith for sodomy in 1835, the last to be hanged in Britain for that offence.

It is interesting to think about what drives change, and why, in the western world, we do not execute gays anymore. In part, I think it may involve a competition between empathy and hatred, not a one-way street by any means. And what the minority group, oppressed by public opinion, are prepared to do to elevate their status in the face of fierce opposition; all the while the opposition believing that they are right.

Now, fascists, like everyone else, are entitled to free speech. But again, like everyone else, they are not entitled to an audience. So, in the battle for influence, the first step is to attract and build an audience – perhaps, too easily done in this modern world. Strife occurs when competing ideas are both strong, therefore a threat to the opposition, and the ideological gap between the ideas is large. The minority idea tries to build support while the majority tries to suppress it. The established norm in this fight has the benefit of having law on its side – an advantage that the minority tries to whittle away. All this never ends, battles and wars are fought, destruction and death go along in support – our human nature cannot be cured.

Arm yourself for the fight. Your defense against stupidity is true knowledge – a commodity in short supply in Trumpworld, where it seems to be politically expedient to continually lie, and lies are so readily believed – there are quite a few here that sincerely believe Trump’s lies – the cure requires a starvation diet – do not feed the Troll in Chief.

So, your standards change based on your personal opinion.

[firstfloor]

So, your standards change based on your personal opinion.

There’s no ‘so’ about it. I gave you my opinion. I am interested to know what you think, but not necessarily what you think about what I think.

[CivilDiscourse]

There’s no ‘so’ about it. I gave you my opinion. I am interested to know what you think, but not necessarily what you think about what I think.

Well, you acted as if "public opinion" should judge what views should be squashed. Yet when I bring up an analagous period of time where a view was seen as abhorrent and destructive for society, and "public opinion" was against it, suddenly your opinion of what should be done went 180.

It was expected, as in general gay rights and "fascists" aren't comparable worldviews, but the standards you applied would have said that we went out and shouted down, shut down, and (potentially) been violent against gay pride parades. You were the one who said we shouldn't give those views room to breathe.

At the end of the day, all of your excuses here were base rationalization of why you support violence against people you don't like.

[Mountain Man]

So, your standards change based on your personal opinion.

Don't bother getting into a moral debate with firstfloor. He just runs around in circles without ever giving a direct answer. He'll talk about things like "moral progress" and then will immediately contradict himself by saying there is no fixed standard against which "progress" can be measured.

[Mountain Man]

afb111620dAPR20201116054504.jpg

[firstfloor]

Well, you acted as if "public opinion" should judge what views should be squashed. Yet when I bring up an analagous period of time where a view was seen as abhorrent and destructive for society, and "public opinion" was against it, suddenly your opinion of what should be done went 180.

It was expected, as in general gay rights and "fascists" aren't comparable worldviews, but the standards you applied would have said that we went out and shouted down, shut down, and (potentially) been violent against gay pride parades. You were the one who said we shouldn't give those views room to breathe.

At the end of the day, all of your excuses here were base rationalization of why you support violence against people you don't like.

I would say that you have misunderstood what I said, and I see you have offered no citations. There is not much point in incorrectly telling me what I said, when what I actually said is already in the record. Specifically, I am confident that no 180 turn about was attempted.

[firstfloor]

Don't bother getting into a moral debate with firstfloor. He just runs around in circles without ever giving a direct answer. He'll talk about things like "moral progress" and then will immediately contradict himself by saying there is no fixed standard against which "progress" can be measured.

Run circles around you, you mean. I think I probably am the undefeated champion of moral debates around here. You have to do better than twist someone else’s words, don’t you think? And come up with an actual argument of your own. Or, if you want to be lazy, let Jesus do it in a Bible quote.

[Mountain Man]

I think I probably am the undefeated champion of moral debates around here.

It's easy to stay "undefeated" when your position resembles a cube of jello that simply deforms into whatever shape you wish whenever it is hit with a rebuttal. It's why debating relativists is ultimately futile, because you will never, ever be able to nail them down. As soon as you try, they simply squirm away and say, "Ha ha! Why are you attacking there when I'm really standing over here?" And it continues like that until the other party simply gives up, and the relativist declares victory, but I suppose it's only a relative victory.

[Gondwanaland]

Run circles around you, you mean. I think I probably am the undefeated champion of moral debates around here.

[firstfloor]

It's easy to stay "undefeated" when your position resembles a cube of jello that simply deforms into whatever shape you wish whenever it is hit with a rebuttal. It's why debating relativists is ultimately futile, because you will never, ever be able to nail them down. As soon as you try, they simply squirm away and say, "Ha ha! Why are you attacking there when I'm really standing over here?" And it continues like that until the other party simply gives up, and the relativist declares victory, but I suppose it's only a relative victory.

Very good. Unfortunately for us all, we are stuck with the world as it is, and not how we would wish to be. Whatever your theory of morals is, it has to explain our own history, which is morality at work on a grand scale. And, don’t forget to treat our ancestors with the respect they deserve, and wonder what contribution we will make to the common good and posterity.

[Sparko]

[box]
I'm sure this is somehow all Trump's fault.

Your face got in the way of my fist!