Philosophy forum on life support...

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by PapaTango, Jul 2, 2018.

  1. Is there any actual photographers on PN or just mouth organs, spouting politics.... without a single photo to offer among them.

    What do you think?
     
  2. You should definitely limit your words to pictures.
    Much as you have limited your reading to picture books.
     
  3. Uh again, you might want to review history.
    There was no KKK “at that time”.
    You are making a Fool of yourself.....
     
  4. Allen, you have crossed a line once again where you previously described your own behavior as "rude and out of order." I'll not honor your behavior with further attention nor responses, and I recommend likewise to others.
     
    Vincent Peri likes this.
  5. I’ve said my piece.
     
  6. How is your un-relenting belligerence on most any topic not an implied suppression of free speech? You keep throwing out your liberal this or that memes that are so general in nature that they are both polemic and programmed, and its pretty much b.s. Distortions often have a seed of truth in them that gives them power, but at the end of the day, they really are just distorted truth. So how are you not simply projecting what you think you are on everyone else and demanding respect for it and then attacking anyone when they don't roll over on you? Sorry, you just sound like a bright but angry child who throw tantrums in order to get their way and I think you are a lot better than that.
     
  7. Yes, and look at the current result. It seems the electoral college is failing in that task depending on your point of view :)

    People should understand that the U.S. isn't a democracy, its a Republic based on democratic principals which is different structurally from a pure democracy. The idea of a Republic was exactly to avoid a "tyranny of the majority" whereby by mere numbers they could trample the rights of anyone outside the majority. The electoral college was another institution to attempt the same. Its just in the modern age, with digitalized and instant communication, its an open topic on the efficacy of the college. I think it was Buckminster Fuller who floated the idea of instant balloting on any issue. The underlying assumption in all these systems is that people will educate themselves about the issue/s and vote accordingly. Problem is, any democratic system is dependent on a responsible public, but I think the polarization in society has basically created two opposing "tribes" who pre-concieve every issue according to whom they identify with. This is enforced by the power of media, particularly social media, that when manipulated, weaponizes language usually in the form of "them" or "us" and each claiming the moral high ground. This mangling of ideas and values is a death knell of any democratically formed country and it seems to just be getting worse.
     
    Norman 202 likes this.
  8. Well, basically that was Democratic legislator (Maxine Waters) who stated that and it was objected to by other Democratic legislators.

    Ann Rand, never accepted the tension between public good and individual good as valid. The logical extension of her beliefs are basically untenable in a nation. Individual rights of expression should and are protected constitutionally, but there are limits to certain individual rights. Society also has a right to function for its own benefit within the limits of the law and this is also founded in the Constitution. Obviously, laws that prevent individuals and groups from trampling the rights of other individuals and groups are patently necessary, I just don't agree with her positions on these matters.

    As for students on campuses screaming at conservative speakers it is not much different than Trump rally's where audiences threaten to beat up reporters and other "lefties" or demand to "lock up" political opponents . People have the right to express their opinions for or against regardless of their beliefs. If people don't like university students screaming at conservative speakers, they can just scream back. What's good for the goose is good for the gander goes the saying. You can't say one group is suppressing free speech and the other doing similar things are not. Free speech is free speech, it doesn't apply differently to the right, left, middle, upside down or whatever. This attack on "liberals" suppressing free speech is just the same thing in another guise.
     
    Wouter Willemse likes this.
  9. I've not expecting anything from you. I really don't have "boxes" I need you to check off and you know what I said wasn't thoughtless. I just wanted you to look at how you go about expressing yourself and instead of justifying it, learn something from it. It seems to me that you are the one who is following some as you say, "ill formed ideological narrative". What I would like to see is simply that you express your ideas more civilly. You don't have to browbeat anyone who doesn't agree with you. You rail on the idea of anyone suppressing discourse, but you don't seem to see how you are doing exactly that with your aggression, anger and bombast. That's all, I think its immature and you can do better, you are obviously intelligent and passionate. You think I'm just interested in putting you down, but that's really not it. I don't expect you to agree with me. But know that sometimes I do agree with some of your statements. So there you are.
     
  10. Its true that the KKK did lynch several blacks in their time. But M.O. is correct that they didn't exist at that time. They formed in December of 1865. Here's a brief summary from History.com.

    [QUOTE="Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s. After a period of decline, white Protestant nativist groups revived the Klan in the early 20th century, burning crosses and staging rallies, parades and marches denouncing immigrants, Catholics, Jews, blacks and organized labor. The civil rights movement of the 1960s also saw a surge of Ku Klux Klan activity, including bombings of black schools and churches and violence against black and white activists in the South.[/QUOTE]

    I can't resist saying that some would say that attempted suppression of the KKK was a liberal plot to suppress free speech, though at the time, the "liberals" were Republicans and reconstruction was itself a very liberal plan. Though in fairness the government attacks on the KKK was more interested in the suppressing the intimidation and lynchings and not so much the speech, though to some, (no one here) a lynching can be a form of speech, technically speaking as is flag burning as another example.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2018
  11. . . . and of course, a lynching is really just murder, pure and simple.
     
  12. Norman 202

    Norman 202 i am the light

    Barry, is anyone arguing for a reform of the electoral college given how it “failed” the majority of voters in the last election. Failed in the sense the person with the most votes lost.

    (This is not an attempt to delegitimise Trump’s “victory” just that the result, mathematically speaking, seems odd)
     
  13. Sorry Norman, I thought that Moving On's reference about the electoral college seemed it was responding to some applied comment somewhere and so he included it in his post. Apologize to Moving On if that wasn't his intent. But also, it seemed related to the topic on the Constitution so I commented.

    It was a weird result, as was Bush v Gore which have spurred obvious debates on that system. One such position might be that the "winner take all" provision of 48 of the states is unfair and leads to skewed results. One argument against that position is the electoral system in integral to our Federalist system which protects the small states from being overwhelmed by large states, protecting minorities from majority excesses. To me it seems that it tends to disenfranchise voters in a certain way. But I doubt it will change at this point. Anyways, I digress.....did I answer you Norman? Sorry if I got longwinded.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2018
  14. Norman 202

    Norman 202 i am the light

    Barry, definitely no need to apologise, I was just curious about the result (I should have tagged my question OT). The UK is constantly debating electoral reform especially when one minority party does better than expected. I’m sure it’s the same in the USA
     
  15. "You should definitely limit your words to pictures.
    Much as you have limited your reading to picture books". moving in on.

    LOL....I like the idea of pictures turning into words with their own special language...to help" moving on" with those big words; we who take pictures call them photographs.

    "Allen, you have crossed a line once again where you previously described your own behavior as "rude and out of order." I'll not honor your behavior with further attention nor responses, and I recommend likewise to others" David

    Just rattling a few cages, David, I just like to see what is inside. I'm sure they have not taken too much offence. I have not used offence language, or, hate talk... like I said just rattled a few cages.

    Hopefully we can escape from politics and move on no pun intended. The problem with this forum is since Julie left no one is posting. I suggested Phil to start the ball rolling with his knowledge, ability, and insights. No I'm not being condescending.


    .
     
  16. Anyway...

    Little old lady, with a big smile. DSC_857o06.jpg
     
    Brad_ likes this.
  17. The philosophy forum scares me, I'm just not that good of a writer...
     
  18. I totally agree with JDM. Going back as far as I remember, the philosophy forum rarely had threads that addressed philosophical issues.
     

Share This Page