|
| Thread: Limited Rights or Limited Government? [religious opinions not banned from this thread |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted March 27, 2013 11:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think the phrase is - "Those who will give up safety for freedom, deserve neither." Sorry don't remember who said it..but it applies.
It's the other way around, giving up freedom for safety, not safety for freedom.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (1775)
- Benjamin Franklin
However, maybe you mean a different quote?
No that was the one. My memory unfortunately suffers because my Cirrhosis.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 28, 2013 04:01 AM |
|
|
Thread cleaned.
In deciding what to keep and what to delete, I took the following action: while the amount of considerably off-topic posting was well over 1 page worth of posts, I opted to only delete the posts that were made after I issued the request to stay on topic. I also deleted posts related to the original request to stay on topic because fred felt unfairly singled out (not my intent fred - you were just the loudest of the bunch). The total number of posts deleted was about 7-8.
In the future, please try to stick to the thread's topic. If you wish to further discuss the side topic, please start a new thread or find an existing thread that is more suitable.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 28, 2013 05:33 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 17:34, 28 Mar 2013.
|
Quote:
I'll feel sorry for them, but not my place to tell them how to raise their child. Just as we should not force them to teach something they don't believe in, they should not force us to teach something we do not believe in.
This is where I do not agree.
Obviously it's hard to control what people do inside their homes but the government can atleast ensure that discrimination towards childrens' liberty isn't supported by things like the education system. I believe that one of the most important functions of government is to protect the citizens' liberties. A child that is being brainwashed into the blatant lie that is creationism, or into opposition against gay marriage; such a child is unlikely to grow up into a freethinking individual and citizen. I'm also skeptical towards home education for this reason.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted March 28, 2013 06:03 PM |
|
|
Yes but brainwashing the kid about creationism being a lie, while so many people on earth are living happy with their intimate convictions about is equally irresponsible. About gay marriage, I see nothing wrong to be against for those being attached to traditions.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 28, 2013 06:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
More efficient vehicles, light bulbs, appliances are much less strain of resources and the country's infrastructure. However, that shouldn't limit personal freedom.
I think the way to go here is not restricting your freedom to buy them individually but redefining the production standards. You have the freedom to drink a soup with a fly in it but if you sell it in a restaurant it's a health violation and against the law. Same here, ban the production of old light bulbs that consume unnecessary energy and kill the planet. In 5 to 10 years they will go extinct and no one will be able to buy them anyway.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 28, 2013 06:38 PM |
|
|
Forbidding the manufacture of certain goods is just as much an abrogation of freedom as forbidding buying them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 28, 2013 07:02 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:04, 28 Mar 2013.
|
Quote:
Forbidding the manufacture of certain goods is just as much an abrogation of freedom as forbidding buying them.
No, there are quality standards for all products in every country. And usually, the more liberal the country, the higher the standards. (Most EU countries are much more democratic than Turkey both by tradition and by law and during the candidacy we've had tons of stuff banned because they were below EU standards). So if a light bulb is causing harm on the environment it can easily be qualified as below standard and be banned.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 28, 2013 07:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think the way to go here is not restricting your freedom to buy them individually but redefining the production standards. You have the freedom to drink a soup with a fly in it but if you sell it in a restaurant it's a health violation and against the law. Same here, ban the production of old light bulbs that consume unnecessary energy and kill the planet. In 5 to 10 years they will go extinct and no one will be able to buy them anyway.
Exactly? (not entirely true but the point is that other light sources can and already have taken its place at the center stage)
Btw, incandescent light bulbs still aren't obsolete in terms of the quality of light that they produce. They're much superior to fluorescent and still better than LED. And that isn't just a matter of personal preference; the soft glow causes less headaches and stress, which is pretty obvious if you compare an incandescent lit room to a room lit by a blue light. Everything is sexier in the 1st room. Offices and most of the rest of the world just uses florescent or LED, but some people still buy incandescent in certain settings for superior lighting. The planet is gay and a small minority of light sales going into incandescent is a tiny difference.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 28, 2013 07:13 PM |
|
|
@bb
Well, I used all kinds of bulbs and personally I haven't noticed a difference between the classic ones and these:
Not all of this type are LED bulbs btw. If there is a difference it is so small that the future of the planet is the obvious priority. We are multiplying like rabbits and we haven't the luxury to act like spoiled children about it
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 28, 2013 07:17 PM |
|
|
The survival of the planet is not going to make or break because >1/10th of light bulb sales go into incandescent blubs for high quality lighting, especially since new lighting sources are coming closer to the quality of an incandescent light source while still being much more efficient.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 28, 2013 07:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The survival of the planet is not going to make or break because >1/10th of light bulb sales go into incandescent blubs for high quality lighting
Of course not, but it's one of the little things that accumulate and the ambiance difference caused by using classic bulbs is so small I wont even call giving it up a sacrifice. So this can be easily solved by rearranging the production standards.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 28, 2013 07:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So if a light bulb is causing harm on the environment it can easily be qualified as below standard and be banned.
Light bulbs don't harm the environment, their production, use, and disposal do. Which isn't necessarily an argument for banning them - driving cars harms the environment, but you're not suggesting banning them. It only means that the costs that the users and manufacturers of light bulbs impose on others should be internalized in their price.
As for mandatory quality standards, they are a violation of the freedom to make whatever you want, as long as its manufacture doesn't harm others, a freedom derived directly from self-ownership.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 28, 2013 08:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As for mandatory quality standards, they are a violation of the freedom to make whatever you want, as long as its manufacture doesn't harm others, a freedom derived directly from self-ownership.
The point is that many low-quality productions do harm other people, although not necessarily directly.
And your example with the cars is pretty poor - environment-hazardous cars are in the process of being banned, in the EU at the very least. The plan is to have no conventional fuel cars in the cities by 2050. The real reason behind this move is more related to the expectations to see the petroleum supplies depleted after a few decades than to the environmental concerns but one way or another, the process is in motion.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 28, 2013 08:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Light bulbs don't harm the environment, their production, use, and disposal do.
Thanks for clearing that out. I always thought they had an evil plan against us because we turn them off during the day.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 29, 2013 01:43 AM |
|
|
@Xerox
Quote:
Quote:
I'll feel sorry for them, but not my place to tell them how to raise their child. Just as we should not force them to teach something they don't believe in, they should not force us to teach something we do not believe in.
This is where I do not agree.
Obviously it's hard to control what people do inside their homes but the government can atleast ensure that discrimination towards childrens' liberty isn't supported by things like the education system. I believe that one of the most important functions of government is to protect the citizens' liberties. A child that is being brainwashed into the blatant lie that is creationism, or into opposition against gay marriage; such a child is unlikely to grow up into a freethinking individual and citizen. I'm also skeptical towards home education for this reason.
There's nothing "Free thinking" in the way you say you want children raised. As brain-dead puppets indoctrinated by the State-god to believe what the State-god tells them to believe.
I reject the notion that the government should determine what parents are allowed to teach their children. Even though studies indicate atheism is harmful to individuals (and it has brought nothing but destruction to society) I fully support the right of a materialistic atheist to teach his child his mistaken dogma that nothing but the material exists. I support the right of gays to rail against the biological fact that males are designed (whether by God or nature) for females and females for males. But I don't support the government brainwashing children with the idea that anyone who disagrees with gays is a bigot and that gays should be allowed to dictate to society that they must accept gay couples as equivalent to a man-woman couple and that gays should be allowed to dictate what marriage is. The male-female relationship is at the core of humanity, society, and family as a simple biological fact. Marriage is an acknowledgement and celebration of that fact.
Parenthood came before government and it is parents who have the right and responsibility to raise their children. I'd much rather have a parent teaching a child a sincerely held belief that is wrong than the State-god brainwashing kids with propaganda formulated by immoral Marxist freaks in positions of power.
@artu
Quote:
Same here, ban the production of old light bulbs that consume unnecessary energy and kill the planet.
Yet the new light bulbs are worse for health and for the environment. Another example of liberal good intentions in dictating to the masses leading to destruction.
clicky
Quote:
Money saving, compact fluorescent light bulbs emit high levels of ultra violet radiation, according to a new study. Research at Long Island’s Stony Brook found that the bulbs emit rays so strong that they can actually burn skin and skin cells.
“The results were that you could actually initiate cell death,” said Marcia Simon, a Professor of Dermatology.
Exposure to the bulbs could lead to premature aging and skin cancer, according to doctors.
“It can also cause skin cancer in the deadliest for, and that’s melanoma,” said Dr. Rebecca Tung.
In every bulb that researchers tested they found that the protective coating around the light creating ‘phosphor’ was cracked, allowing dangerous ultraviolet rays to escape.
Aside from that, the new bulbs also contain mercury and anyone who thinks the new bulbs are not being thrown away in common dumpsters or broken in homes without hazmat cleanup is not living in the real world.
|
|
fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 29, 2013 03:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No, there are quality standards for all products in every country. And usually, the more liberal the country, the higher the standards. (Most EU countries are much more democratic than Turkey both by tradition and by law and during the candidacy we've had tons of stuff banned because they were below EU standards). So if a light bulb is causing harm on the environment it can easily be qualified as below standard and be banned.
LOL. the EU standards are greed, manipulation, violence, destruction and exploitation.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 29, 2013 04:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yet the new light bulbs are worse for health and for the environment. Another example of liberal good intentions in dictating to the masses leading to destruction.
Quote:
LOL. the EU standards are greed, manipulation, violence, destruction and exploitation.
We use the word liberal in a very different sense so I wont get into politics right now, the point is every developed country, including the US, has some production standards and banning of environment harming products is not a violation of the rights of the individual. New bulbs are more harmful? That's another story and a detail not effecting the principle.
Quote:
Even though studies indicate atheism is harmful to individuals
It becomes impossible to stay on topic when you put hilarious propaganda like this. Studies of whom, some local church funded charlatans? You live in an age in which vast majority of the intellectuals, scientists, philosophers, academia are atheist or agnostic. The statistics show, atheism is most spread in the wealthier countries with better education. There is absolutely no sign of more crime or anything like that that comes along with it. The world is a much more enlightened place than your bible belt states and even in the exception of US, most academics that go and teach there say that although the regular people are educated horribly, there is a 2-3 percent elite, that is absolutely non religious which also matches the statistics that show even in US the academics are usually non-religious.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 29, 2013 08:54 AM |
|
|
Okay, I'm going slightly off-topic here, so Cor: delete this if you think it's too much 
But I find it problematic that in US, a private research institute can call itself "National" and stuff like that. It plays with minds of people not familiar with how this works, fooling them to believe that it's some sort of gov-funded "official" thing to follow.
For example, a ton of Poles believe that homosexualism can be cured because NARTH research "indicates so". And since N stands for National, it's gotta be true! Nobody really cares that it's a private organization founded by a religious bigot.
It's already problematic to distinguish real research (research -> conclusion) from pseudo science (conclusion -> research), and with all this naming mumbo-jumbo around, it just makes confusing stuff even more confusing.
Back to the topic: Studies indicate....yeah.
1. what studies?
2. who made them?
3. what is his credibility?
4. were they verified by another scientist/research team?
It's easy to just throw around names of people or organizations, but that's not enough. There's too much bias and fraud around in the world of science, not to mention social science is already a dubious research branch.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 29, 2013 09:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'd much rather have a parent teaching a child a sincerely held belief that is wrong than the State-god brainwashing kids with propaganda formulated by immoral Marxist freaks in positions of power.
Nietzsche said, "convictions (as in strong belief) are a much more potent enemy of the truth than lies", and I think that's one you can certainly chalk up for him as "nailed it".
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 29, 2013 09:43 AM |
|
|
|
Well, that quote may have the opposite effect on him because it is as if he learns the meanings of words from a dictionary that gives opposite definitions. A Marxist American government, materialistic dogma... A dogma is a belief that can not be questioned, so it is religious in nature not materialistic, dogma is when you say: "it's God's universe and he makes the rules, how dare you object to them, what a nerve!" Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
