|
Post by Commonman on Mar 25, 2016 17:42:28 GMT -5
...............Allan Bloom's book is Showing, how tolerance breeds intolerance. Bloom's book : ]This is what his book tries to explain We need a standard for moral behavior (good manners......?) If we don't we have social relativity and eventually we all become abhorred at the offensive manners that will be bred out of its likewise offensive behaviors ? Hmmmm
|
|
|
Post by Hmmmm on Mar 25, 2016 18:07:50 GMT -5
Should extreme radicals be tolerated anywhere? As we know if we do not tolerate it, then at what point do we become intolerant of other neoradicals?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 25, 2016 18:53:00 GMT -5
Should extreme radicals be tolerated anywhere? As we know if we do not tolerate it, then at what point do we become intolerant of other neoradicals? "Radical" is not an appropriate term for making a law -- it has as many meanings as there are people who want to use the word. Laws have to identify specific identifiable behaviors that must either be banned or mandated. Otherwise, the law would be unenforceable. In a free democracy, anything that is not described in law is permissible unless the government forbids it, at which point the law makers have a moral obligation to explain how one person's behavior will harm another. Also, "tolerate" is not an acceptable legal term. In a free democracy anyone is free to NOT tolerate anything they prefer to tolerate, as long as they do not disrupt public order or harm other persons. You cannot prosecute a person for either tolerance or intolerance, he can only be prosecuted for behaviors that are described in law.
|
|
|
Post by Hmmmm on Mar 25, 2016 19:03:02 GMT -5
Contrary, we need to subscribe to a well defined moral code, before our analytical relativism becomes what Saul humanly reasoned to do "save a part of the enemy ....." . It simply did not make a good and well thought plan
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 25, 2016 19:07:20 GMT -5
Contrary, we need to subscribe to a well defined moral code, before our analytical relativism becomes what Saul humanly reasoned to do "save a part of the enemy ....." . It simply did not make a good and well thought plan What was wrong with Sail's moral code?
|
|
|
Post by Commonman on Mar 25, 2016 19:33:23 GMT -5
Contrary, we need to subscribe to a well defined moral code, before our analytical relativism becomes what Saul humanly reasoned to do "save a part of the enemy ....." . It simply did not make a good and well thought plan What was wrong with Sail's moral code? It involved compromising .
|
|
|
Post by Commonman on Mar 25, 2016 19:42:04 GMT -5
Should extreme radicals be tolerated anywhere? As we know if we do not tolerate it, then at what point do we become intolerant of other neoradicals? "Radical" is not an appropriate term for making a law -- it has as many meanings as there are people who want to use the word. Laws have to identify specific identifiable behaviors that must either be banned or mandated. Otherwise, the law would be unenforceable. In a free democracy, anything that is not described in law is permissible unless the government forbids it, at which point the law makers have a moral obligation to explain how one person's behavior will harm another. Also, "tolerate" is not an acceptable legal term. In a free democracy anyone is free to NOT tolerate anything they prefer to tolerate, as long as they do not disrupt public order or harm other persons. You cannot prosecute a person for either tolerance or intolerance, he can only be prosecuted for behaviors that are described in law. [ Social relativism , is what Bloom was criticizing. It implies that we should tolerate other moral codes based on relativism. Bloom explains that tolerance can and will breed intolerance, as can be shown ( Bloom does a far better job than my feeble example)
|
|
|
Post by Hmmmm on Mar 25, 2016 19:47:11 GMT -5
But isn't there a law against extreme-- suicide bombers? There should be.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Mar 25, 2016 20:17:02 GMT -5
But isn't there a law against extreme-- suicide bombers? There should be. Pretty sure there's a law against murder.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 25, 2016 20:49:12 GMT -5
Commonman, I can't make out what you are saying here. Were you trying to answer my question?
|
|
|
Post by Commonman on Mar 25, 2016 21:13:32 GMT -5
But isn't there a law against extreme-- suicide bombers? There should be. Pretty sure there's a law against murder. [br So. Yes, how do we tolerate it, ? If someone supports sb , can they be arrested? What is the penalty , other than their own purpose? Real hard to suppress it. How would we do that?
|
|
|
Post by Commonman on Mar 25, 2016 21:17:13 GMT -5
Commonman, I can't make out what you are saying here. Were you trying to answer my question? "How does tolerance breed intolerance? " Was that your question ? If it wasn't then just Ignore my reply .
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 25, 2016 21:40:42 GMT -5
Commonman, I can't make out what you are saying here. Were you trying to answer my question? "How does tolerance breed intolerance? " Was that your question ? If it wasn't then just Ignore my reply . That was my question but your answer didn't seem to fit into the right place Maybe it is your format somehow. You just don't get things in the right boxes or something.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 25, 2016 22:15:13 GMT -5
What was wrong with Sail's moral code? It involved compromising . In that case, ISIS is better after all. Frankly, I don't think you really thought that answer through.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 25, 2016 22:18:51 GMT -5
"Radical" is not an appropriate term for making a law -- it has as many meanings as there are people who want to use the word. Laws have to identify specific identifiable behaviors that must either be banned or mandated. Otherwise, the law would be unenforceable. In a free democracy, anything that is not described in law is permissible unless the government forbids it, at which point the law makers have a moral obligation to explain how one person's behavior will harm another. Also, "tolerate" is not an acceptable legal term. In a free democracy anyone is free to NOT tolerate anything they prefer to tolerate, as long as they do not disrupt public order or harm other persons. You cannot prosecute a person for either tolerance or intolerance, he can only be prosecuted for behaviors that are described in law. [ Social relativism , is what Bloom was criticizing. It implies that we should tolerate other moral codes based on relativism. Bloom explains that tolerance can and will breed intolerance, as can be shown ( Bloom does a far better job than my feeble example) Unless you fully understand what Bloom was explaining, it's not a good idea to apply it to anything.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 25, 2016 22:21:33 GMT -5
But isn't there a law against extreme-- suicide bombers? There should be. How many degrees of suicide bombing do you think there are? And what do you think the government should DO TO a suicide bomber?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 25, 2016 22:22:36 GMT -5
But isn't there a law against extreme-- suicide bombers? There should be. Pretty sure there's a law against murder. Which is why one must carefully plan his suicide bombing for a time when no one is around.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 25, 2016 22:27:34 GMT -5
Pretty sure there's a law against murder. [br So. Yes, how do we tolerate it, ? If someone supports sb , can they be arrested? What is the penalty , other than their own purpose? Real hard to suppress it. How would we do that? How? Probably the same way you would go about preventing the man across town from cheating on his wife. Offer a reward for discovering the fact. As Oklahoma wants to do now ... allow a person who reports a transgender person for going into the wrong restroom for $2,500.
|
|
|
Post by hmmmm on Mar 25, 2016 22:29:54 GMT -5
[ Social relativism , is what Bloom was criticizing. It implies that we should tolerate other moral codes based on relativism. Bloom explains that tolerance can and will breed intolerance, as can be shown ( Bloom does a far better job than my feeble example) Unless you fully understand what Bloom was explaining, it's not a good idea to apply it to anything. Yes so true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 22:32:34 GMT -5
But isn't there a law against extreme-- suicide bombers? There should be. How many degrees of suicide bombing do you think there are? And what do you think the government should DO TO a suicide bomber? well they could catch him before he implements his bombing and send him to either prison or death row although death row would kinda be granting him a partial wish...in Belgium they just caught someone in the advanced stages of a suicide bombing...
|
|
|
Post by Hmmmm on Mar 25, 2016 22:36:22 GMT -5
[ Social relativism , is what me was criticizing. It implies that we should tolerate other moral codes based on relativism. I can explains that tolerance can and will breed intolerance, as can be shown ( still Bloom does a far better job than my feeble example) [ This is what I believe to be true , irrelevant of who else might also.
|
|
|
Post by Hmmmm on Mar 25, 2016 22:42:28 GMT -5
But isn't there a law against extreme radicalism -----such as suicide bombers? There should be. How many degrees of suicide bombing do you think there are? And what do you think the government should DO TO a suicide bomber? [ In the original post, "someone" questioned the use of the term radical , oh well , putting it back in now. *edit* version
|
|
|
Post by Hmmmmm on Mar 25, 2016 22:46:34 GMT -5
Should extreme radicals be tolerated anywhere? As we know if we do not tolerate it, then at what point do we become intolerant of other neoradicals? Reposting what my point is. .
|
|
|
Post by Yes on Mar 25, 2016 22:49:51 GMT -5
How many degrees of suicide bombing do you think there are? And what do you think the government should DO TO a suicide bomber? well they could catch him before he implements his bombing and send him to either prison or death row although death row would kinda be granting him a partial wish...in Belgium they just caught someone in the advanced stages of a suicide bombing... Can't we agree that some agendas are immoral and intolerable then. ?? I think so. : [
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 25, 2016 23:27:48 GMT -5
A couple weeks ago I saw a commercial on television for an antidepressant. It went, "Studies show up to 2/3 of patients feel no improvement from symptoms of depression while taking their medication.
Taking ABC antidepressant with your regular antidepressant has resolved many patients symptoms. You don't have to give up all the progress you've made."When I see a commercial like that I think Im being fed a line of bull. Given the predudice of "science" in favor of physicalism. Im disposed to be skeptical of physical cures within the psychological dicipline. Im glad most physicians recognize the value of behavioral therapy in conjunction witb medication. As just one example, doing something good for someone else is a powerful antidepressant. Lee, -could the reason that you think that you are "being fed a line of bull," is perhaps due to the fact that you know very little about depression or the medications for depression, and/or other therapies for depression?
What is it about that commercial that you see as "a line of bull?" Is it because it is that the medication was developed by "science" and you seem to have this rather severe antipathy against "science?"
Do you realize, don't you, that there is nothing unusual about taking more than one medication for depression? You aware, aren't you, that most all doctors and counselors already know & prescribe medication and counseling together because as such they work best together as therapy for depression?Of all the medical disciplines, psychology is abused the most by physicalism, meaning there is no consensus regarding the relationship between the brain and behavior. It is a tragedy whenever behavior is excused without any regard for a transcent normal. Physicalism might argue there are no guilty people in prison; their behaviors are merely consistent with their brains.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 25, 2016 23:33:45 GMT -5
How many degrees of suicide bombing do you think there are? And what do you think the government should DO TO a suicide bomber? well they could catch him before he implements his bombing and send him to either prison or death row although death row would kinda be granting him a partial wish...in Belgium they just caught someone in the advanced stages of a suicide bombing... I doubt they arrested him for planning "his suicide". They'd have arrested him even if he planned to survive it, I expect !!!!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 25, 2016 23:45:13 GMT -5
Should extreme radicals be tolerated anywhere? As we know if we do not tolerate it, then at what point do we become intolerant of other neoradicals? Reposting what my point is. . Cool. You can't make anyone tolerate or not tolerate anything -- it's their choice, What you can regulate is specific actions people may take because of their tolerance or intolerance. e.g. I can't tolerate people with beards, so I don't talk to them. That's my right. Unless I am getting paid to talk to them, or by not speaking to them I am putting someone's life in danger, I just don't have to talk to them. And the word "extreme" is really terrible legal language. Who knows what is extreme? You can't prosecute such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 26, 2016 3:03:44 GMT -5
Lee, -could the reason that you think that you are "being fed a line of bull," is perhaps due to the fact that you know very little about depression or the medications for depression, and/or other therapies for depression?
What is it about that commercial that you see as "a line of bull?" Is it because it is that the medication was developed by "science" and you seem to have this rather severe antipathy against "science?"
Do you realize, don't you, that there is nothing unusual about taking more than one medication for depression? You aware, aren't you, that most all doctors and counselors already know & prescribe medication and counseling together because as such they work best together as therapy for depression? Of all the medical disciplines, psychology is abused the most by physicalism, meaning there is no consensus regarding the relationship between the brain and behavior. It is a tragedy whenever behavior is excused without any regard for a transcent normal. Physicalism might argue there are no guilty people in prison; their behaviors are merely consistent with their brains. Lee, the more you talk about psychology, depression, mental illnesses in general, the more you reveal just how little you know.
|
|