So you'll be rolling out the gulags shortly, I expect? Because that is precisely what the USSR did...classify any disagreement as "criminal" and "deranged." Then they could "deal with" them in any way they saw fit.
You're okay with that strategy?
So you'll be rolling out the gulags shortly, I expect? Because that is precisely what the USSR did...classify any disagreement as "criminal" and "deranged." Then they could "deal with" them in any way they saw fit.
This is indeed a wicked and unfair world, Immanuel. I expect you will agree that free democracies for all their faults are more just than the Stalinist USSR.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:20 amSo you'll be rolling out the gulags shortly, I expect? Because that is precisely what the USSR did...classify any disagreement as "criminal" and "deranged." Then they could "deal with" them in any way they saw fit.
You're okay with that strategy?
THAT"S what you got out of what I said?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:17 amTHAT"S what you got out of what I said?
Oy...frickin'...vey.
I'm not accusing you, nor denigrating real democracy. But do you not know that what you are saying is exactly how it all starts?Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:11 amThis is indeed a wicked and unfair world, Immanuel. I expect you will agree that free democracies for all their faults are more just than the Stalinist USSR.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:20 amSo you'll be rolling out the gulags shortly, I expect? Because that is precisely what the USSR did...classify any disagreement as "criminal" and "deranged." Then they could "deal with" them in any way they saw fit.
You're okay with that strategy?
You are wasting your time with IC. Like all right-wing fundies, they fly against just about everything Jesus said. IC is controlling. repressive and regressive. Were it up to him we'd all be monks praying the the state, giving all and receiving nothing back, working for the moral machine. God for him is Big Brother and we should be slaves to IC's twisted notion of christianity.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:19 pm Immanuel, does any thinker believe in Utopia? Can you name just one intellectual who believes in Utopia? You confuse communist totalitarianism with welfare state.
You sound as if you are marooned with Senator McCarthy on some sterile island. He's dead but does his spirit live on in America?
Of course. Every Communist does. They call it, "The Triumph of the Proletariat." Western liberals just call it, "the just society," which is more modest: but they're both passionate about producing it, convinced they can and must, and both quickly come to believe that all that they do in service of this end is righteous. If you think the Western Left is less toxic, just look at the Berkeley riots. It's clear that step 1 in the Left becoming violent is already upon us.
Mr Can, it is only people who have no idea how the world actually works, who believe in any sort of Utopia. That applies to lunatics on the right, just as much as it applies to lunatics on the left.
That's what some people have called it. What you clearly do not understand, is that the vast majority of people do not divide the world into good and evil. Even fewer equate those with right and left.
Again you are failing to recognise the vast majority of humankind who don't see the world as black and white. 'Western liberals' are not all Stalinists.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:44 amWestern liberals just call it, "the just society," which is more modest: but they're both passionate about producing it, convinced they can and must, and both quickly come to believe that all that they do in service of this end is righteous.
There are nutjobs on both sides. Most of us are doing our best to keep them from fucking everything up.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:44 am If you think the Western Left is less toxic, just look at the Berkeley riots. It's clear that step 1 in the Left becoming violent is already upon us.
How many lives do you suppose have been saved by the NHS, for example?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:44 amThat's how people get killed in the modern world, statistically. Over 100 million bodies say, "Don't trust the Left." Human beings cannot produce utopia, the Triumph of the Proletariat, the just society, or any other such dream world; and when they try, people die.
I think you have allowed rhetoric to triumph over reason.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:44 am That's how people get killed in the modern world, statistically. Over 100 million bodies say, "Don't trust the Left." Human beings cannot produce utopia, the Triumph of the Proletariat, the just society, or any other such dream world; and when they try, people die.
This is exactly the point. To "think oneself" good means nothing: any ideologue thinks that. If he did not, he'd be a different kind of ideologue instead of the one he is, is that not so? He'd go to a different ideology.Londoner wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:50 amNobody, left or right, thinks of themselves as bad. Everybody, would claim they act with good motives. But as you say, the results of some actions are death.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:44 am That's how people get killed in the modern world, statistically. Over 100 million bodies say, "Don't trust the Left." Human beings cannot produce utopia, the Triumph of the Proletariat, the just society, or any other such dream world; and when they try, people die.
Often it is. The people who liquidate others often do so in the name of a higher good. Why do you think, for example, the Maoists spoke of, "The Great Leap Forward"? That one killed tens of millions, by cautious estimates.Therefore, should we conclude that death is caused because people act with good motives?
You've shot very wide of my point.This applies to your own post and creates a version of the Liar Paradox..
Not advocating some new version of "the Good Society." Instead, I'm advocating humility with regard to what human nature is capable of achieving, and that we turn a very suspicious eye on anyone who claims they are going to produce some ideal human community on earth through their own vision and social reform efforts. They are very likely to start advocating something immoral soon, in the name of getting that job done.You say it is bad to attempt to create a just society, so what are you doing when you find fault with the left?
Non-sequitur. I neither said nor implied what you attribute to me.If your post was motivated by a desire to do good, then from what you say we know it will have bad effects, so we should ignore it.
But I did not write that and it doesn't follow from your arguement. There is a big difference between 'often' and 'always'. If it is only 'often', it means that we are claiming to be able to distinguish between some do-gooders (who are mistaken) and others who are not.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 2:00 pm
Me: Therefore, should we conclude that death is caused because people act with good motives?
Often it is. The people who liquidate others often do so in the name of a higher good. Why do you think, for example, the Maoists spoke of, "The Great Leap Forward"? That one killed tens of millions, by cautious estimates.
And so you would not find fault with the state of society during the Maoist 'Great Leap Forward'? After all, that was the state of that society at that time - and you are suspicious of anyone who attempts to reform the status quo. If we are against reform, then that is like saying; 'whatever is, is good'. To advocate changing 'what is' would be to impose our own ideas of what would be desirable reform - which you say will always lead to immoral results.Me: You say it is bad to attempt to create a just society, so what are you doing when you find fault with the left?
Not advocating some new version of "the Good Society." Instead, I'm advocating humility with regard to what human nature is capable of achieving, and that we turn a very suspicious eye on anyone who claims they are going to produce some ideal human community on earth through their own vision and social reform efforts. They are very likely to start advocating something immoral soon, in the name of getting that job done.
But we have no choice. Our present situation is also the expression of a political ideology. So 'not doing anything' is also a political act.You wrongly assumed I was advocating the position that people desiring good was a cause of death. I said no such thing. Moreover, I do not advocate a right-wing utopianism in place of the Leftist one. I say with that great theologian, Sting, "There is no political solution / To our troubled evolution..."
Of course, it's quite true to say that there are good people who are really good, and bad people who only think or say they're good. That's a commonplace. But whether we are rightly distinguishing the two is a vexed point at the moment.
Just as I said. There's nothing wrong with the desire to do good, in itself. But having the desire to do good is no insurance that one is actually about to do good. Many bad causes have been called "good."In that case it cannot be that the desire to do-good is the cause,...
That was never my contention. You've misread, I'm afraid....which was your original contention.
And so you would not find fault with the state of society during the Maoist 'Great Leap Forward'?Me: You say it is bad to attempt to create a just society, so what are you doing when you find fault with the left?
Not advocating some new version of "the Good Society." Instead, I'm advocating humility with regard to what human nature is capable of achieving, and that we turn a very suspicious eye on anyone who claims they are going to produce some ideal human community on earth through their own vision and social reform efforts. They are very likely to start advocating something immoral soon, in the name of getting that job done.
Incorrect. I'm very much for reform. But not by those means....you are suspicious of anyone who attempts to reform the status quo.
'We" aren't. We ought to be against handing over the moral compass of the individual to the collective, though, and against any hope of looking to large-scale governmental solutions to purge us of our social ills. That hope has piled up the corpses; the sooner it's given up, the better for us all.If we are against reform,...
We do have a choice. Political ideology is not our only recourse. It's just the most obvious refuge for those who don't want to address the problem at its root. For ultimately, the problem is inside you and me.But we have no choice. Our present situation is also the expression of a political ideology. So 'not doing anything' is also a political act.You wrongly assumed I was advocating the position that people desiring good was a cause of death. I said no such thing. Moreover, I do not advocate a right-wing utopianism in place of the Leftist one. I say with that great theologian, Sting, "There is no political solution / To our troubled evolution..."
Each individual in a democracy has the right and responsibility to evaluate collectives , their moral systems, and individuals.'We" aren't. We ought to be against handing over the moral compass of the individual to the collective, though, and against any hope of looking to large-scale governmental solutions to purge us of our social ills. That hope has piled up the corpses; the sooner it's given up, the better for us all.
I told you that you were wasting your time with him.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 6:53 pm Immanuel Can wrote:
Each individual in a democracy has the right and responsibility to evaluate collectives , their moral systems, and individuals.'We" aren't. We ought to be against handing over the moral compass of the individual to the collective, though, and against any hope of looking to large-scale governmental solutions to purge us of our social ills. That hope has piled up the corpses; the sooner it's given up, the better for us all.
When there are individuals in theocracies those individuals who have not been brainwashed have the right and the responsibility to evaluate the theocracy within which they are oppressed.
The moral compass of theists can be the same as the moral compass of atheists and secularists. The supernatural narrative of theists does not have to involve God in punitive responses to human frailty, but can posit a God of mercy, reason, and knowledge.