User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 42

  1. #21
    Arcesso pulli gingerios! Eldanen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    697

    Default

    As long as they don't start making "hate speech" laws, I'm okay....

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldanen View Post
    As long as they don't start making "hate speech" laws, I'm okay....
    That would be unconstitutional.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    That would be unconstitutional.
    As is just about everything Congress does.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    As is just about everything Congress does.
    The part never defines the whole. Just because a part of the government does something unconstitutional, does not mean its not intended for the people's best interest. It also does not necessarily implicate unconstitutional definition altogether.

    For example:
    The infrastructure of the U.S. government is considered democratic, but not everything conducted within it is completely democratic. There are checks and balances to protect its integrity. Does this mean that as a whole that the U.S. government is not democratic? No. Of course not.

    There are a lot of racist people in the U.S., does this mean that as a whole the U.S. is racist? No.

    Inevitably Congress will do some questionable things. Hate speech is unconstitutional, it foments hatred and instability within society. If we wish to change things like this, than we must strive to become a part of the legislative process.

  5. #25
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dga View Post
    The ground I see with hate crimes is that not just one person, but an entire group is discriminated against
    This is kind of how I see it. Criminals have patterns. Tracing certain crimes to a whole group of people with a common belief (namely, homophobia, racism, whatever) makes it easy to see why reducing said belief would reduce crimes motivated by that belief. Hate crimes are entirely ideologically motivated, thus making it necessary to reduce the prevalence of that ideology by publicly condemning it (running campaigns against it, increasing punishment for crimes motivated by that type of "hate").

    Objections against this type of "hate" control probably stem from a distaste for social control by the government (hence the resentment of the weight of punishment placed on ideologically motivated crimes as opposed to other motivations). It is probably seen as an attempt by the government to dictate a hierarchy of morals. But as Eileen mentioned, the government already does that, so why the big fuss over this issue?
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  6. #26
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WithoutaFace View Post
    The part never defines the whole. Just because a part of the government does something unconstitutional, does not mean its not intended for the people's best interest. It also does not necessarily implicate unconstitutional definition altogether.

    For example:
    The infrastructure of the U.S. government is considered democratic, but not everything conducted within it is completely democratic. There are checks and balances to protect its integrity. Does this mean that as a whole that the U.S. government is not democratic? No. Of course not.

    There are a lot of racist people in the U.S., does this mean that as a whole the U.S. is racist? No.

    Inevitably Congress will do some questionable things. Hate speech is unconstitutional, it foments hatred and instability within society. If we wish to change things like this, than we must strive to become a part of the legislative process.
    The government is a democratic republic, yet, Congress doesn't represent you, they represent the people who payed to get them elected (every union and special interest group at the fringe of culture and society). They don't represent YOU because YOU (in the general sense, not direct) vote for completely unvirtuous scumbags with absolutely no integrity or concern for their voters. They don't give a damn about the constitution. They'd throw that mother f***er in the trash after tearing it up to roll blunts with, if they thought they could get away with it.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    The government is a democratic republic, yet, Congress doesn't represent you, they represent the people who payed to get them elected (every union and special interest group at the fringe of culture and society). They don't represent YOU because YOU (in the general sense, not direct) vote for completely unvirtuous scumbags with absolutely no integrity or concern for their voters. They don't give a damn about the constitution. They'd throw that mother f***er in the trash after tearing it up to roll blunts with, if they thought they could get away with it.
    Exactly.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WithoutaFace View Post
    The part never defines the whole. Just because a part of the government does something unconstitutional, does not mean its not intended for the people's best interest.
    So, it's okay to break the law as long as your heart is in the right place. Got it.

    Your stance is so contradictory. You agree with Risen that Congress doesn't represent you, but you're okay with Congress doing things that are unconstitutional to (supposedly) help you? You actually believe that's their intent? It's not about pandering for votes?
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #29
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldanen View Post
    As long as they don't start making "hate speech" laws, I'm okay....
    "Hate speech" laws everywhere were typically preceded by this bullshit-not surprisingly, as the mindset is the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    That would be unconstitutional.
    Our legal system is dominated by jurist who believe that the Constitution is a "living document"-in other words, the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean in order to advance their personal agenda. Current politics is dominated by politicians who believe the same thing. So long as the rule of law is discarded, individual liberties are not secure. So long as society supports laws which institutionalize the dilution of an "individualist" (i.e. classically liberal) mindset, the rule of law is insecure.

  10. #30
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WithoutaFace View Post
    For more clarity in understanding, I think hate crimes should be renamed to "intractably stupid crimes." Then nobody would argue about this. Some thoughtless politician always screws up the semantics, and then a debate arises unnecessarily. "Hate crime" sounds too biased and dogmatic. "Intractable/stupidity" is factual. You can't argue it.
    Can't you?

    I think some of the conservative church holds beliefs that are factually stupid and cannot be supported by science or experience, reasonably.

    Yet they would claim that their beliefs are valid and I don't have the right to try to change their beliefs by forcing them to accept mine. They also don't think their beliefs are stupid. Soon enough we end up in a battle over who is more stupid than the other. So no, it's NOT clear-cut anymore once faith issues get involved, among other things.

    I appreciate booya's response to Eileen, but some of the others were -- and I don't even know a nice word for it -- hasty, mayhaps? (Sorry, that's about as tactful as I can go.) At least take a breath to see why she was suggesting what she was before just kicking the legs out from under her.

    If the notion of "hate crime" is ill-formed because it veers into the motivations of people (which can never be quite specified anyway), then lets discuss the reasons the notion of "hate crime" came up and counter-solutions to accomplish that desired end. Because basically I think that the "hate crime" concept developed to accomplish a particular goal, but it seems the majority consensus is that this is not the way to go about it.

    So what is, then?

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    "Hate speech" laws everywhere were typically preceded by this bullshit-not surprisingly, as the mindset is the same.
    And what "bullshit" is this? You're a little vague here.

    Again, if "hate speech" is coming up as something some people want to implement, they're trying to meet a need.

    What's the need... and what might be better solutions (in your view) of how to meet it?

    Our legal system is dominated by jurist who believe that the Constitution is a "living document"-in other words, the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean in order to advance their personal agenda. Current politics is dominated by politicians who believe the same thing. So long as the rule of law is discarded, individual liberties are not secure. So long as society supports laws which institutionalize the dilution of an "individualist" (i.e. classically liberal) mindset, the rule of law is insecure.
    Apparently no one can agree on what the original intent of the constitution was, because we all still argue about. This is starting to remind me of Biblical scholarship, where everyone claims to have ownership of the text but the basic fact is that even the guys who wrote the document might have had varied views of what the document meant. Is "constitutionality" dependent on who can leverage the most power?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Your thread was boring, and it ended up going a direction you didn't intend. Deal with it.
    I know you, and you can do better than this.
    We're adults, and we can all approach this on that level, correct?
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. [E7] The Wisdom of the Enneagram Seven
    By Starry in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 717
    Last Post: 07-27-2017, 04:16 PM
  2. Video: Carl Jung - The Wisdom of the Dream - A Life of Dreams Part 1 of 3
    By highlander in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-26-2014, 01:03 AM
  3. [Enneagram] The Wisdom of the Enneagram (Riso and Hudson)
    By highlander in forum Typology and Psychology Book Reviews
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-18-2014, 09:11 AM
  4. The Wisdom Of Foolishness
    By highlander in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-15-2010, 12:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO