speaking of kids, here's a #ProTip

 

I don't understand your point to be honest.

What you label as 'moral issues' (how to put on a condom) is just matter-of-fact encyclopaedia-type stuff. Exactly the type of boring factual things schools should be teaching.

Morality is teaching whether putting on a condom is a good or bad thing; teaching how to put it on is not.

School libraries should follow age guidelines established by (neutral) experts, but they should not be forbidden from carrying books.
('How to shoot up your school in three easy steps' would not be age appropriate in case you're wondering!)

The 'issue' of same-sex relations isn't an issue. It's none of my business, your business or the state's business what mentally capable, mentally healthy, consenting adults do in their free time.

No one has the right to insist on another group's continued deprivation and unhappiness based on beliefs. We all need to agree to this, it's the only way we can co-exist in a society that isn't continuously at war with itself over ever shifting beliefs.

 

No one has the right to insist on another group's continued deprivation and unhappiness based on beliefs
Ideally, I agree with you. But this absolutely must go both ways. Human rights cannot be premised on the elimination of an enemy (ie, whether that's Christian fundamentalists or labour unions). Co-existence depends on compromise and compromise relies either on a gentleman's agreement or it relies on the threat and/or application of force.

Unfortunately we are at the point where the gentleman's agreement has fallen short...

 

Personally, I fully agree. The problem I was alluding to is that different people(s) have different moral frameworks. I will remind you that in various religions, for example, contraception itself is immoral (I'm not saying I agree with that at all) And the more diverse society gets, the more compromises we will have to make as a society, and that also means establishing basic moral frameworks - which is unfortunately the very thing full of nuances nobody can agree on. Just look at this thread.

If the solution is to suppress the reach of certain conservative cultures or religions, then we have broken many of rules that define secular liberal democracy. The whole thing is a stalemate, you see. You'd have to trample the human rights of those who apparently trample human rights.

 

Last edited: Mar 16, 2024

Absolutely doesn't have to go both ways when one side wants to dismantle freedoms and the other side simply doesn't. Some things, like democracy, equal rights, neutral and factual education are simply not negotiable. To give this a more European slant: The state only exists to establish and maintain as much freedom for as many people as possible and for no other reason. This means denying any and all groups, irrespective of whether they are a tiny minority or a large force, the right to dismantle the stately tools that are required to maintain those freedoms.

And if you disagree, buying a plot of land for your family and likeminded folks and home schooling your kids is not an unrealistic option. It's done in the US and in some places in Europe too. The state will interfere reasonably little as long as you pay your bills.

 

Two weeks later :

 

You define the purpose of the modern state as the authority over establishing and maintaining liberal democratic freedoms, absolutely at the expense of all and any groups who pose a threat to that system. Just curious, might certain measures include re-education camps for those deemed 'too conservative', deportation programs for migrants and refugees who adhere to a fundamentalist faith, banning political parties with a platform the state has deemed "undemocratic"?

I'm being facetious but my point is that terms like "democracy", "equal rights", and "neutrality" mean whatever you want them to mean, and if you are a conservative or a progressive, they will have two very different meanings. The name of Pol Pot's political state was 'Democratic Kampuchea' and we know what kind of democratic business he got up to. "Freedom" is likewise a very fluid concept, defined by whomever wields it. Martin Luther King, George W. Bush, and Osama Bin Laden each invoked "freedom" in their many speeches. So, you probably mean your version of freedom and you probably believe that the version you adhere to is the best version, yeah?

 

Last edited: Mar 16, 2024

Psst, SAiNT doesn't know yet.

No, no, that're ostriches, me is tiger.

Of course not, Denial is a song by Sugababes.

Imagine insisting that the main topic of a thread is prohibited so it has to be locked or removed. Just a thought.

 

You are being facetious indeed, but I'll humour you anyway!

No. Anyone can be as conservative as they want, I genuinely do not care. As long as you don't encroach on everyone else's freedoms, do whatever you like - that's the entire point. Less freedom is not more freedom.

Absolutely. Religious fundamentalism is maximalist anti-freedom. Less freedom is not more freedom.

Any political party desiring to abolish democracy ought to be banned. Less freedom is not more freedom.

I know what you're trying to say. But you see, freedom is an optimisation problem.

How do you establish max freedom at min expense of everyone else's freedoms? If conservative concepts of conservative freedoms infringe on everyone else's absolutely basic freedoms (movement, voting rights, speech, ...) then that's an optimisation strategy that only works one way and only for one group at the expense of all of society. Thus -> less freedom for everyone and less freedom is not more freedom.

McDonald's also calls itself a restaurant, but we all know what it really is. There's a factually real world, and in that factually real world there are factual and real freedoms. Less freedom is not more freedom.

You, as a parent, absolutely have the freedom to restrict your child's access to hardcore internet porn. You, as one parent to one child, do not have the right to remove the freedom to access hardcore internet porn from the rest of society. All it takes is digging up your router's manual. You have the option, you have the ability and it's been made trivially easy for you. Less freedom is not more freedom.

 

I thought it was an electric turkey knife, .

 

@xorome All of that is consistent and well argued, thanks for engaging me. If I have the time to respond more thoroughly I would continue with the line of thinking that one man's freedom is another man's tyranny. The absolute basic freedoms you mention are crucial indeed, but even these are subject to severe contentions in western society.

It's hard to say more without admitting to my own political beliefs, which would undermine the discussion and derail the thread.

Cheers.

 

Last edited: Mar 16, 2024

Electric Turkey Knife?
If I just replace blade with cucumber

 

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” - Benjamin Franklin.

 

Do you know the context that quote is taken from? He was writing to admonish a council in Pennsylvania who kept denying more weapons and funds for settlers with which to fight Indians on the frontier. Also amusing to consider that Franklin wrote that quote during a time that he was very active in the slave trade, as well as owning black slaves himself. Many decades before he garnered abolitionist sympathies.

Yes, slavery was common at the time among the landed elite, but this only goes to demonstrate my charge that 'freedom' is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

 

I can't keep up in a thread with @Margaret and @Lois Lane together. Combined , they will invent a new kind of fetish to be addicted to

 

Gee, thanks for the unrequested history lesson and background. Your assumption that I wasn’t aware of that is hilarious, but go on.

 

You gotta admit it is pretty funny posting a quote about liberty written by a slave owner

 

Technic LEGO is the best. And now you all make me want to watch se7en

 

Aaaand the deflection continues…..

 

what sick mind would let their kids have unrestricted access to the internet? it's basically the same as dropping your kid off in a hotel room, alone and with all the channels unlocked (yes, all of them) and no parental control on the tv telling them to not look at those channels. if you're the parent and you gave them access to the web then it's your responsibility to restrict it. plain and simple.