Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[Dejanic]

... and attempt to legitimize it.

Not really. Hierarchy's purpose is to help society flourish, each class doesn't exist for itself, but for society as a whole. Individualist conservatism perverts this.

Creating a set hierarchy for the sake of hierarchy with set "classes" with specific roles doesn't sound very individualistic, it sounds authoritarian and third positionist.

Or like a really weird mmorpg.

[The Parkus Empire]

Already went over the empathy thing.

You've tried, certainly. But I wouldn't say you've really laid out your point in an understandable manner as of yet.

I don't think supporting equality is empathetic, and I do not think you have shown how it is.

[Asherahan]

Not really. Hierarchy's purpose is to help society flourish, each class doesn't exist for itself, but for society as a whole. Individualist conservatism perverts this.

Creating a set hierarchy for the sake of hierarchy with set "classes" with specific roles doesn't sound very individualistic, it sounds authoritarian and third positionist.

Or like a really weird mmorpg.

Are we NPCs and the internet the master coordinator program?

[The Parkus Empire]

Not really. Hierarchy's purpose is to help society flourish, each class doesn't exist for itself, but for society as a whole. Individualist conservatism perverts this.

Creating a set hierarchy for the sake of hierarchy with set "classes" with specific roles doesn't sound very individualistic, it sounds authoritarian and third positionist.

Or like a really weird mmorpg.

I am anti-individualism. Like I said, I am a classical conservative, not a classical liberal or a neocon. Also, by "classes" I do not mean castes.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Ehhh... sure, I'd like to hear your thoughts on Leviticus 18 & 20, Romans 1:18-32, etc.

Mistranslated and taken out of context.

The people who speak the languages natively also believed those referred to homosexuality. Not everyone is dependent on translations, so you can't use that as a cop-out.

[Alvecia]

You've tried, certainly. But I wouldn't say you've really laid out your point in an understandable manner as of yet.

I don't think supporting equality is empathetic, and I do not think you have shown how it is.

Empathy is the ability to know and understand how another might feel.
If you don't want to have certain rights removed from yourself, or to be disallowed from certain activities, then you can empathise with those who actually do not have those things.
Quite simple really.

It's a bit like that old "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", except it's more "give unto others what you would have yourself"

[The Parkus Empire]

Not really. Hierarchy's purpose is to help society flourish, each class doesn't exist for itself, but for society as a whole. Individualist conservatism perverts this.

So what you're saying is that hierarchy would be perfect if it didn't have any flaws?

No, I do not claim hierarchy is perfect or can be. Just that it is useful but individualism perverts it by turning classes into special interest groups instead of mutuallt beneficial components of society.

[Alvecia]

So what you're saying is that hierarchy would be perfect if it didn't have any flaws?

No, I do not claim hierarchy is perfect or can be. Just that it is useful but individualism perverts it by turning classes into special interest groups instead of mutuallt beneficial components of society.

So yeah, like I said, it would be perfect if it didn’t have flaws

[The Parkus Empire]

I don't think supporting equality is empathetic, and I do not think you have shown how it is.

Empathy is the ability to know and understand how another might feel.
If you don't want to have certain rights removed from yourself, or to be disallowed from certain activities, then you can empathise with those who actually do not have those things.
Quite simple really.

It's a bit like that old "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", except it's more "give unto others what you would have yourself"

You are talking about equality before the law (rights). Not a leftist concept, I already went over this.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not really. Hierarchy's purpose is to help society flourish, each class doesn't exist for itself, but for society as a whole. Individualist conservatism perverts this.

Creating a set hierarchy for the sake of hierarchy with set "classes" with specific roles doesn't sound very individualistic, it sounds authoritarian and third positionist.

Or like a really weird mmorpg.

I would say that individualism is very harmful to society, and that we (as humans) would be better off taking a more Confucian idea of being a symphony, rather than all being soloists. All playing different roles, being featured more prominently, etc., but all being invaluable to the production of the music.

[Alvecia]

Empathy is the ability to know and understand how another might feel.
If you don't want to have certain rights removed from yourself, or to be disallowed from certain activities, then you can empathise with those who actually do not have those things.
Quite simple really.

It's a bit like that old "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", except it's more "give unto others what you would have yourself"

You are talking about equality before the law (rights). Not a leftist concept, I already went over this.

It’s not limited to any kind of equality.

[The Parkus Empire]

No, I do not claim hierarchy is perfect or can be. Just that it is useful but individualism perverts it by turning classes into special interest groups instead of mutuallt beneficial components of society.

So yeah, like I said, it would be perfect if it didn’t have flaws

Anything would be. I do not support hierarchy for what it can't be (perfect), but for what it can be (good).

[Alvecia]

So yeah, like I said, it would be perfect if it didn’t have flaws

Anything would be. I do not support hierarchy for what it can't be (perfect), but for what it can be (good).

Any system can be good at some things, what makes hierarchy inherently better than any other system, or more pertinently, better than a flat system of equality?

[The Parkus Empire]

You are talking about equality before the law (rights). Not a leftist concept, I already went over this.

It’s not limited to any kind of equality.

Explain how it applies to equality apart from before the law.

[Alvecia]

It’s not limited to any kind of equality.

Explain how it applies to equality apart from before the law.

The same way as it does before the law.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Mistranslated and taken out of context.

The people who speak the languages natively also believed those referred to homosexuality. Not everyone is dependent on translations, so you can't use that as a cop-out.

Yeah. It's self-interested dishonesty from those who want to be Christian but can't stomach Christianity's long standing attitude to homosexuality. It's not possible to eat your big gay cake and not take on the calories of Christian sin. You gotta choose. My reflex is that people should throw the religion in the bin, yours is to openly disapprove of homosexuality in a modern world where that's widely seen as pretty distasteful. Fudging it (tee-hee) isn't really an option that stands up to serious scrutiny.

[The Parkus Empire]

Anything would be. I do not support hierarchy for what it can't be (perfect), but for what it can be (good).

Any system can be good at some things, what makes hierarchy inherently better than any other system, or more pertinently, better than a flat system of equality?

Because humans are qualitatively different. Everything in the natural world functions through hierarchy.

[Alvecia]

Any system can be good at some things, what makes hierarchy inherently better than any other system, or more pertinently, better than a flat system of equality?

Because humans are qualitatively different. Everything in the natural world functions through hierarchy.

Two people might have different coloured hair, doesn’t have any impact on their day to day life.
Not to mention giving people different jobs based on physical characteristics, for example, isn’t necessarily hierarchical.

[The Parkus Empire]

Explain how it applies to equality apart from before the law.

The same way as it does before the law.

Since we are not talking about rights, no.

[Alvecia]

The same way as it does before the law.

Since we are not talking about rights, no.

Why does that matter to empathy?

[United Muscovite Nations]

The people who speak the languages natively also believed those referred to homosexuality. Not everyone is dependent on translations, so you can't use that as a cop-out.

Yeah. It's self-interested dishonesty from those who want to be Christian but can't stomach Christianity's long standing attitude to homosexuality. It's not possible to eat your big gay cake and not take on the calories of Christian sin. You gotta choose. My reflex is that people should throw the religion in the bin, yours is to openly disapprove of homosexuality in a modern world where that's widely seen as pretty distasteful. Fudging it (tee-hee) isn't really an option that stands up to serious scrutiny.

Precisely. I don't have anything against Gren personally, I just think that to say that homosexuality isn't a sin because we don't live in the cultural context of those condemnations ignores that every single Christian denomination until recent times, regardless of language or cultural context, has understood those condemnations to refer to homosexuality, as has every Jewish group until very recently. I don't want to hijack the thread though. For the record though, I'm not sure how openly I disapprove of homosexuality; I've tried to disclose it to people who I haven't talked to in a long time so they can decide if they still want to be friends with me or not (because they are very liberal), but it's not something I just jump up-and-down to discuss. I mean, even here in the Bible Belt, most people my age express strong approval of homosexuality and transsexuality, and I know people who have had to attend sensitivity training over the issue.

[The Parkus Empire]

The people who speak the languages natively also believed those referred to homosexuality. Not everyone is dependent on translations, so you can't use that as a cop-out.

Yeah. It's self-interested dishonesty from those who want to be Christian but can't stomach Christianity's long standing attitude to homosexuality. It's not possible to eat your big gay cake and not take on the calories of Christian sin. You gotta choose. My reflex is that people should throw the religion in the bin, yours is to openly disapprove of homosexuality in a modern world where that's widely seen as pretty distasteful. Fudging it (tee-hee) isn't really an option that stands up to serious scrutiny.

Appeal to doxa is no different than appeal to tradition. Christianity disapproves of countless common practices, including fornication and usury. Christians have no business judging you or imposing Christian norms on you, neither is it your place to be shrill about Christianity's lack of reverence for doxa.

[The Parkus Empire]

Since we are not talking about rights, no.

Why does that matter to empathy?

Because making everyone the same height does not help anyone.

[The Snazzylands]

... and attempt to legitimize it.

Not really. Hierarchy's purpose is to help society flourish, each class doesn't exist for itself, but for society as a whole. Individualist conservatism perverts this.

So you're not trying to legitimize hierarchy, but hierarchy is legitimate because it has purpose and helps society flourish.

So what you're saying is that hierarchy would be perfect if it didn't have any flaws?

No, I do not claim hierarchy is perfect or can be. Just that it is useful but individualism perverts it by turning classes into special interest groups instead of mutuallt beneficial components of society.

Creating a set hierarchy for the sake of hierarchy with set "classes" with specific roles doesn't sound very individualistic, it sounds authoritarian and third positionist.

Or like a really weird mmorpg.

I would say that individualism is very harmful to society, and that we (as humans) would be better off taking a more Confucian idea of being a symphony, rather than all being soloists. All playing different roles, being featured more prominently, etc., but all being invaluable to the production of the music.

And people think communism is idealistic and utopian.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Yeah. It's self-interested dishonesty from those who want to be Christian but can't stomach Christianity's long standing attitude to homosexuality. It's not possible to eat your big gay cake and not take on the calories of Christian sin. You gotta choose. My reflex is that people should throw the religion in the bin, yours is to openly disapprove of homosexuality in a modern world where that's widely seen as pretty distasteful. Fudging it (tee-hee) isn't really an option that stands up to serious scrutiny.

Precisely. I don't have anything against Gren personally, I just think that to say that homosexuality isn't a sin because we don't live in the cultural context of those condemnations ignores that every single Christian denomination until recent times, regardless of language or cultural context, has understood those condemnations to refer to homosexuality, as has every Jewish group until very recently. I don't want to hijack the thread though. For the record though, I'm not sure how openly I disapprove of homosexuality; I've tried to disclose it to people who I haven't talked to in a long time so they can decide if they still want to be friends with me or not (because they are very liberal), but it's not something I just jump up-and-down to discuss. I mean, even here in the Bible Belt, most people my age express strong approval of homosexuality and transsexuality, and I know people who have had to attend sensitivity training over the issue.

Granted. I shouldn't have taken your online openness as indicative of real-world behaviour. To be fair, the same courses would probably be in order if I was to be completely honest about my opinions on religion and immigration. Social life requires compromises and selective mouth-zipping. It's an unfortunate but necessary feature.