Liberals or Control Freaks?

Z

Zander

Moderator
"We delude ourselves that we will all be safe and happy if only we ban guns, reduce pesticide use, build no new power plants or dams, ban SUVs, fund more programs for the poor, treat women like men, and force airport screeners to search elderly ladies from Omaha instead of young men from the Middle East.

Not one of these actions affects the main cause of human suffering in any way. Not one affects human evil." -- David C. Stolinsky, NewsMax, 03 Sept 02

Interesting article...what do you think?

www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/2/172116.shtml
 
T

Tamara

Moderator Emeritus
Interesting?

But secular people have no such assurance. They strive to make this world perfectly safe and risk-free, because they don't believe in the next world. Life and health are their supreme goals.

They can't blame evil for human suffering – they don't believe in evil. When President Bush called terrorist states an "axis of evil," they objected not because they don't believe these states are evil, but because they don't believe anything is evil.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you find nonsense "interesting".

Slaughtering the Amalekites, man, woman and (unborn) child, because they are not in My Sight: now there's evil with a capital "E" for you...



"Ignorant", maybe, but not "interesting".

Thank you, please play again. :p
 
Z

Zander

Moderator
Perhaps if you find nonsense "interesting".
Click to expand...
What part of it do you consider "nonsense"? Please be specific.

Slaughtering the Amalekites, man, woman and (unborn) child, because they are not in My Sight: now there's evil with a capital "E" for you...
Click to expand...
I've never considered any of your responses on this board to be bizarre, but this one qualifies.

Why are you, an atheist or an agnostic [and this would be an opportune time to clarify your exact belief or lack or same...consider that an actual request], quoting your interpretation of passages of the Old Testament as a response to a very small portion of the article?

Amalek, as history records, was no different than Saddam Hussein...he would not desist in his goal to destroy those who believed differently than he did; and he murdered them without compunction.

Further...

Is the reference to 'secular' the sole reason that you've pulled the pin on this hand grenade of a response?

I don't want the analysis of this article to descend into a Biblical debate because it will be terminated post-haste. We can discuss this by PM and not violate any TFL regs.

Accordingly, do you have a response to the general thrust of the article?

I found it as accurate, concise and articulate an analysis of the current situation as I've seen recently.

Where, specifically, do you find Mr. Stolinsky's conclusion faulty?
 
P

Pendragon

New member
Tamara, I think there was a point there, but you blinked and missed it.

I would not couch the point in religion because I see the liberty loving and hating streak in people of all walks and all faiths (and non faiths).

It is described in many ways - some people look at the outcome and try to fix that, other people look at the process and say that as long as the process is logical or fair, the outcome is not that interesting.

So in my model, the antis are looking at the outcomes - dead kids, dead people in general.

They see the means of those deaths and try and block that means (by banning guns).

Unfortunately, they do not see that the real instrument of death was a person and an idea.

We look at the unfairness of gun laws and we are appalled. Some of us will "see the elephant" - most will not.

Of those that do, some will live, some will die and some will perhaps wish they had died.

We see that a person fought back and we think - "thats all a person can do" - win lose or draw, we see that the fact that a person rose up to defend life - we see that as a victory of process.

To see it this way, you must, in some way, accept that there is evil and that getting rid of it is much harder than locking up its favorite toys.

Some modern people really and actually have a hard time with evil. They see the criminals as victims who acted out and then were victimized by a gun owner once again.

I would imagine that whatever your philosophical bent, you most likely believe in evil. Some people do not and I find those people to be much more scary than those I actually consider to be traditionally "evil".

If you do not believe in evil, imagine what options are available to you...
 
M

Marko Kloos

New member
The only part of the article I would content is the nonsensical bit stating that "secular people don't believe in evil". Some secular people don't believe in evil, but that has nothing to do with the fact that they do or don't believe in a deity. Why then bring religion into it, unless the author wants to somehow make the point that religious mindset is a prerequisite to be a good person?

I think the point that Tamara was trying to make is the sanctimonious smugness of such an assertion, considering that plenty of evil has been committed by religious folks as well as secular folks, and that the refusal to recognize an evil thing as such is not limited to any one philosophy.

Case in point: I am not religious, but I believe in evil. Some folks content that evil is an autonomous entity (like the Christian devil, or the Hindu Kali), I think that it's a moral property assigned to certain human actions. So wouldn't it be more proper to say that "some" secular folks don't believe in evil? Or how about concentrating on the merits of the issue on the basis of fact and logic, and leaving religion out of the debate?
 
C

Christopher II

New member
Extraordnarily banal, devoid of meaningful commentary or insight. Provably wrong on numerous occasions. Overall feel is that the author wanted to write a hit-piece on liberals and non-theists.

A couple of specific objections:

- It would be really nice if Dr. Stolinsky would define 'evil' for the purposes of his essay. I suspect that his defination is based on Biblical commentary, which is really only valid for people who follow Biblical teachings.

- [quoe]The key delusion underlying all these unsuccessful attempts to explain anti-social behavior is that something we did caused the trouble. So if only we stop doing it, all will be well. That is, we are in control.[/quote] Not sure what this paragraph is trying to imply. Who is 'we'? The United States? Maybe the United States Government? Lots of things that the USG does cause trouble, both domestically and abroad. Perhaps the government is the source of evil? Hey, now we're getting somewhere!

-
We can barely control ourselves,...
Click to expand...
Every time I hear this, I expect to hear next who then should control us, and how. This statement is a tenet of socialism.

-
...much less the whole world.
Click to expand...
If this were the case, it'd be nice if we'd stop trying so hard.

-
But secular people have no such assurance. They strive to make this world perfectly safe and risk-free, because they don't believe in the next world. Life and health are their supreme goals. They can't blame evil for human suffering – they don't believe in evil.
Click to expand...
This is where the BS really gets deep. He starts with a reasonable statement; that life and health are the sole goals of the secular. Well, yeah, okay. Liberty is in there somewhere. And when you think about it, (eternal) life and health are generally the goals of the religous as well. Nothing wrong with that.

But the assumption that a desire for life and health requires the world to be made safe and risk free? That is one of the most foolish things I've ever read. Having a useful, interesting life, being economically sucessful, all requires risk. Lack of risk isn't life, it's walking around dead. I spit on anyone who advocates that.

Then, we get into the, "Secularists don't believe in evil bit." I think I disproved that one a few threads ago when I (and a few other non-theists) spent a day or two hammering out a rational definition of evil.

There's much, much more wrong with this essay, but this post is getting long (and I'm getting sick of reading it.) The good Doctor ignores facts when conveinient to his argunment, knows nothing of economics (who was it who 'discrdited' the economic theory of human behaivor? News to me.) and in general is not to be taken seriously. Dr. Stolinsky is surely entitled to his opinion, but his opinion and reality are in direct conflict. He's just another right-wing socialist.

- Chris
 
F

foghornl

New member
Liberal with taking your hard-earned money and giving said money to no-goodniks, and freakish about controlling every aspect of your life.
 
D

DAVID NANCARROW

New member
Boy am I stoopid-I didn't think there was a nickel's worth of difference between a liberal and a control freak. Of course, I don't see much difference between a control freak and a dictatorship, either. Liberals have all the answers, just ask them how they saved the forest from us. Or how they have dropped the crime rate so much in the last few years single-handedly I might add:rolleyes:
 
B

Blackhawk

New member
I liked these paragraphs:
Liberals often feel the need to be in control, but the irony is that they reject the one course that might actually give them some control. They oppose all efforts to restore ethical values to our schools. They object whether these values are taught on a religious or a secular basis.

They oppose behavior codes, dress codes, abstinence education, and even posting the Ten Commandments. Then they are shocked – shocked! – when value-free education produces value-free graduates.
Click to expand...
 
P

Pendragon

New member
Dr. Stolinsky is surely entitled to his opinion, but his opinion and reality are in direct conflict. He's just another right-wing socialist.
Click to expand...

Very insightful.

I will mention that I am a religious person on here for the 50th time or so - only to make the point that people like him make me very uncomfortable.

I will agree with his most basic point: People who do not believe in evil are scary and dangerous.

Beyond that, it often feels that those of us who love freedom are squished between those on the left and those on the right who want their version of a socialist utopia.

The left wants a world where all stripes are looked at equally - oh, and those who were disaadvantaged in the past need to be elevated in the future - to compensate. No guns, lots of welfare, freedom to do whatever they approve of...

The right wing socialists want a very "good" society. No gays, no porn, no drugs, all the young girls wear skirts to their knees and all the bars are closed on Sundays. You can have welfare if you need it but you better be humble about it.

Neither of these camps care a lick about freedom - they want to allow the things they like and ban the things they have no use for.

People who understand freedom know that freedom means people will be allowed to do things that piss you off. I dont particularly like a lot of things that other people like to do - but I know that as long as they can do their stuff, I can do my stuff and freedom wins (yay!).
 
M

Malone LaVeigh

New member
I've always found it interesting that most of my liberal friends will happily put their children in a rubber raft and paddle with them through rapids that are regularly the scene of fatalities. Or take them hiking into bear habitat. (I've done both with mine, BTW.)

But they want me to lock up (or better yet, get rid of) my guns because we're neighbors and a child might somehow get ahold of one.

The idea that any political or philosophical mindset wants to eliminate risk is absurd. We all just have our own idea of where the risks are worst, and what benefits are worth taking a risk for.

There are risks and benefits of having guns around, and there are risks and benefits of not having guns around. Same with most other human activities.
 
T

TallPine

New member
IMO, "evil" is "exercising illegitmate control over another person"

What "crime" can you think of that doesn't involve taking control of another person or their property?

(I know, that leaves out victimless crimes; objects or substances cannot be intrinsically evil.)

As far as "legitimate" control, about the only example that I can think of is a parent and minor child, where it is for the child's benefit.

Being "religious" certainly doesn't prevent someone from being evil.
 
C

Christopher II

New member
Malone -

Oh, there are plenty of people in the world who want to minimize (eliminate is a bad word) risk in their lives. They're just not confined to the left-hand side of the political spectrum.

Actually, maybe the right term is "minimize the perception of risk", since most of the things that these assorted statists want to eliminate aren't really all that dangerous.

In any case, the problem isn't those who want to minimize risk for themselves. If they want to wrap themselves in a cocoon, that's fine with me. What torques me off is when other people try to minimize risk for me.

BTW, sounds like you've got the right idea about your kids education. :)

- Chris
 
M

Monkeyleg

New member
"Can't I be both?"

Sure, Gary. It's all in the wardrobe. One day you wear one of those ugly green floppy hats with the red star, and get everyone to go out and harvest the crop.

The next day, you don one of those really spiffy black hats with the skull emblems, and shoot your field workers in the head.

It's been said that fashion is fleeting, but certain styles always seem to ressurect themselves.
 
A

AmericanFreeBird

Guest
Ah, yes, The Riddle of Steel!

What is steel compared to the hand that weilds it?

The point being that human evil (or good) will always find the means to manifest it's own works. You can delude yourself into believing you've taken away the means but that is only an illusion.
 
M

MeekAndMild

New member
Boy am I stoopid-I didn't think there was a nickel's worth of difference between a liberal and a control freak. Of course, I don't see much difference between a control freak and a dictatorship, either. Liberals have all the answers, just ask them how they saved the forest from us.
Click to expand...

I think the terminology is what throws people off.

Liberals started, 'way back in the dark ages of the 1800's as folk who believed the individual should have self determination. They then evolved so that now the American word 'liberal' really means 'wealthy reactionary who seeks to maintain public institutions so as to reduce private sector competition and to maintain his/her unearned sources of income.' Nowadays it is not at all about freedom, peace and self determination but rather about money, 'other people's money' to be exact. They use their traditional issues as bait for the illiterate masses.

It would be much less misleading to call them 'parasites' instead of 'liberals'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top