urgle burgle
02-03-2010, 09:16 AM
let me throw this out there......ive been trying to get a handle on this for a bit.
ill throw out a couple examples....
the Iraq Parliment has just now decided to allow 500 candidates with Baathist links to run for office....Baathist equals bad...
however, intellectually should true freedom allow for this....in our society we say yes....socialists can run, klaansmen can run, etc......but our society is and has been pretty stable for 200 yrs.....Iraq not so much.....we may be able to use our influence to put a stop to it, but should we....just like their initial constitution....they werent so much for allowing women much in the way of rights....be we said thats a no go....was that right to do? intellectually no......sensibly, probably yes.
another example is the Hamas debate in Palestine (or whatever you want to refer to it as).....true democracy allowed for that......but allowing a terrorist organization to hold a large sway over a totally screwed up situation and society, probably not the best idea...but intellectually it has to be allowed for, is suppose.
now for the craziest example, and one that really bothers me...
heres the setup.....perusing the internet, i came upon a word i had never heard before....so i looked it up.....zoophilia.....to my surprise (and disgust), means sex with animals.....out of sick curiosity to see how in the world somebody could defend something so disgusting, i went to a blog on it (yeah, i know, let the flaming begin)
there was this dude who really, really loves his horse.....wrote love poems and the like.
on his blog he had an ongoing debate with others over his desires (best way i can put it i guess)....now there was the expected banter about how disgusting, etc. he was...but he did have an interesting debate with a few who were trying to be intellectual about it. wierdly enough, the freak seemed pretty intelligent and sober about it (as far as you can be). he went with the "if its not hurting anybody, i dont hurt him, my freedom, kind of argument"......
now being esseentially libertarian in a lot of ways, myself....i could understand his rather intelligent argument.....however, i know this is wrong (and disgusting) and that this dude has serious mental issues. i know this
my point being....when you know beyond a doubt (in your gut, soul, etc.) something is wrong, but the intelligent debate can argue against (kind of a Josef Mengele or Hermann Goering argument, circa Nuremburg trials)......when and how can you dispute it intelligently or do you just cut the debate off....
anyway....just thought id throw this out there...
ill throw out a couple examples....
the Iraq Parliment has just now decided to allow 500 candidates with Baathist links to run for office....Baathist equals bad...
however, intellectually should true freedom allow for this....in our society we say yes....socialists can run, klaansmen can run, etc......but our society is and has been pretty stable for 200 yrs.....Iraq not so much.....we may be able to use our influence to put a stop to it, but should we....just like their initial constitution....they werent so much for allowing women much in the way of rights....be we said thats a no go....was that right to do? intellectually no......sensibly, probably yes.
another example is the Hamas debate in Palestine (or whatever you want to refer to it as).....true democracy allowed for that......but allowing a terrorist organization to hold a large sway over a totally screwed up situation and society, probably not the best idea...but intellectually it has to be allowed for, is suppose.
now for the craziest example, and one that really bothers me...
heres the setup.....perusing the internet, i came upon a word i had never heard before....so i looked it up.....zoophilia.....to my surprise (and disgust), means sex with animals.....out of sick curiosity to see how in the world somebody could defend something so disgusting, i went to a blog on it (yeah, i know, let the flaming begin)
there was this dude who really, really loves his horse.....wrote love poems and the like.
on his blog he had an ongoing debate with others over his desires (best way i can put it i guess)....now there was the expected banter about how disgusting, etc. he was...but he did have an interesting debate with a few who were trying to be intellectual about it. wierdly enough, the freak seemed pretty intelligent and sober about it (as far as you can be). he went with the "if its not hurting anybody, i dont hurt him, my freedom, kind of argument"......
now being esseentially libertarian in a lot of ways, myself....i could understand his rather intelligent argument.....however, i know this is wrong (and disgusting) and that this dude has serious mental issues. i know this
my point being....when you know beyond a doubt (in your gut, soul, etc.) something is wrong, but the intelligent debate can argue against (kind of a Josef Mengele or Hermann Goering argument, circa Nuremburg trials)......when and how can you dispute it intelligently or do you just cut the debate off....
anyway....just thought id throw this out there...