Are liberals killing the Dems?

[Larrison]

Harsh maybe, but still befitting. Any reasonable morals system will allow people not to help those that they feel unworthy of it, and I would in this (as of now purely hypothetical) case just be exercising that unalienable right. [ ... ]

I'm going to strongly disagree with this, in my personal opinion. If people need help, you cannot withhold your help even if you feel they are unworthy of it.

Example -- would it be proper to withhold help from someone who was drowning because "you thought they were unworthy of your help"? Once you draw the line saying you don't need to help someone who needs it, where do you draw the line?

You cannot claim this situation (profane saying on a t-shirt) is morally absolute. I'm offended by folks wearing t-shirts that say "F*** my job!", and while I may not say anything about it, I don't like it. It's rude and tacky... without any political implication. But am I going to force someone to dump the t-shirt? Probably not.. but then I will probably choose not to associate with them either.

[Slim]

I'm going to strongly disagree with this, in my personal opinion. If people need help, you cannot withhold your help even if you feel they are unworthy of it.

Example -- would it be proper to withhold help from someone who was drowning because "you thought they were unworthy of your help"? Once you draw the line saying you don't need to help someone who needs it, where do you draw the line?

You cannot claim this situation (profane saying on a t-shirt) is morally absolute. I'm offended by folks wearing t-shirts that say "F*** my job!", and while I may not say anything about it, I don't like it. It's rude and tacky... without any political implication. But am I going to force someone to dump the t-shirt? Probably not.. but then I will probably choose not to associate with them either.

Maybe it's legal in Sweden to let someone die by withholding assistance because they just didnt feel like helping? Maybe it's socially acceptable? Perhaps this is an example of an enlightend liberal society with a "reasonable moral system"? Scary.

Peter, regardless of our differences in opinions and philosophy here, I would be happy to help you if the situation arose. And, I would feel good about myself in doing so.

[Inquartata]

IMO, yes. But then, I feel that many of the provisions of McCain-Feingold are also infringements, despite the Supreme Court's blessing.

If a voter can actually be swayed by a t-shirt on the doorstep of the polling place, he or she is an idiot who probably oughtn't be voting. But what possible harm can it do to the system? If it is that problematic the system has much more serious difficulties to worry about, IMO.

Restrictions on speech in a private business environment being attacked as illicit, and limitations on it in a government controlled venue by agents of that government: It's the world turned upside down!

[Larrison]

Maybe it's legal in Sweden to let someone die by withholding assistance because they just didnt feel like helping? Maybe it's socially acceptable? Perhaps this is an example of an enlightend liberal society with a "reasonable moral system"? Scary.

Peter, regardless of our differences in opinions and philosophy here, I would be happy to help you if the situation arose. And, I would feel good about myself in doing so.

Umm.. Slim are you referring to me in this post? If not, you might check who you are attributing things go?

[Larrison]

IMO, yes. But then, I feel that many of the provisions of McCain-Feingold are also infringements, despite the Supreme Court's blessing.

If a voter can actually be swayed by a t-shirt on the doorstep of the polling place, he or she is an idiot who probably oughtn't be voting. But what possible harm can it do to the system? If it is that problematic the system has much more serious difficulties to worry about, IMO.

Restrictions on speech in a private business environment being attacked as illicit, and limitations on it in a government controlled venue by agents of that government: It's the world turned upside down!

I think the issue is here one of degree. One t-shirt won't, but if one is allowed why not allow 100 people to electioneer at the door of the polling place? And if not one, why not 100? or 1000? And if you allow t-shirts? why not banners and billboards? Bands and free drinks for voting for candidates? Let's keep the electioneering away from the polls on election day and let people vote uncoeirced and in privacy.

I agree with the ban on electioneering at a polling place. I also don't like some of the provisions of McCain-Feingold (and this isn't one).

[Slim]

Umm.. Slim are you referring to me in this post? If not, you might check who you are attributing things go?

nope. To Peter. Sorry. Grabbed the wrong post.

[Zilverzmurfen]

Maybe it's legal in Sweden to let someone die by withholding assistance because they just didnt feel like helping?

No.

Maybe it's socially acceptable?

No!

Perhaps this is an example of an enlightend liberal society with a "reasonable moral system"?

No.

I think Peter was trying to say something different than what might have been parsed.

[Gav]

What is "McCain-Feingold"? Is this one of the attempts to control election rigging?

[telkanuru]

McCain-Feingold is a election reform bill which is theoretically supposed to diminish monitary donations from any one specific source to a campaign, and it named after its authours.

[Gav]

McCain-Feingold is a election reform bill which is theoretically supposed to diminish monitary donations from any one specific source to a campaign, and it named after its authours.

Ahhhh - is this one the that inadvertantly made it easier? Now you have groups whose sole job is to farm donations. I remember watching a documentary about it.

[telkanuru]

I'm not sure, as when I am at school I am more or less ignorant of current events. I only have so much time.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Slim
Maybe it's legal in Sweden to let someone die by withholding assistance because they just didnt feel like helping?

No.

Acccording to a work written at one of our Judicial faculties in 2004, it is legal, provided:
1. The passive person was not bound by specific law to act (being position of policeman, firefigther, parent, and a few other groups),
2. The passive person is not under contractual obligation to act,
3. The passivity is not a case of not reporting one of a specified set of serious crimes.
The link:
Peter's link
Look at page 26.

The work also notes that there is a legal duty of activity in the French legal system, it was introduced during the Vichy regime in order to get ordinary people to hand in the french opposition.

Maybe it's socially acceptable?

No!

In general, I would say that ZZ is correct. However, if the unlucky person is disagreeable enough to a lot of people, he will find very little sympathy. I could give specific examples here, but none outside of Sweden would know about them, so it would be a bit pointless.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

I'm going to strongly disagree with this, in my personal opinion. If people need help, you cannot withhold your help even if you feel they are unworthy of it.

I assume that you mean "should not" where you write "cannot". If this is not so, please explain.

As explained in previous post, the legal situation is a bit different where I reside.

That said, I have twice helped people who were in considerable danger, in one case putting myself into some risk. It is not that I am afraid or not willing to help out in general - my above noted dislike is more specific than that.

Example -- would it be proper to withhold help from someone who was drowning because "you thought they were unworthy of your help"? Once you draw the line saying you don't need to help someone who needs it, where do you draw the line?

Simple:
1. You draw the line that people are not allowed to cause problems or dangers for other people.
2. Nobody should be allowed to make it more difficult for others to help some 3rd person in need.

Also, this is the reason we have a society and taxes. Taxes are paid, to a great extent, so that specialists can be funded to help people with a lot of stuff - soldiers so that we are not invaded, doctors so that we do not have to treat our relatives, etc. The whole point of a society is division of labor - things work better when as many as possible work with a specified task, and pay for everything else. I pay taxes in order not to have obligations all around!

You cannot claim this situation (profane saying on a t-shirt) is morally absolute. I'm offended by folks wearing t-shirts that say "F*** my job!", and while I may not say anything about it, I don't like it. It's rude and tacky... without any political implication. But am I going to force someone to dump the t-shirt?

What do you mean? Does their t-shirt say that they dislike their own job, or that they dislike Larrison´s job? In the 1st case I would find it mildly amusing, in the 2nd, I understand your dislike.

Probably not.. but then I will probably choose not to associate with them either.

Yes, and no one should force you to associate with them - or anyone else who you do not want to associate with. Helping people, in any of its forms, is a way of associating with them.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Hi!


Harsh maybe, but still befitting. Any reasonable morals system will allow people not to help those that they feel unworthy of it, and I would in this (as of now purely hypothetical) case just be exercising that unalienable right.

Upon rereading, I will modify this:

Any reasonable morals system will allow people not to help those that:
1. they are not bound by prior agreement (be it contract, job position, or otherwise) to help
2. they are not bound by previous help given by the person now in need of help
3. they feel greatly unworthy of it.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[telkanuru]

Peter's right, but it does tend to become logically semantic, ie. someone being in the position of needing assistance makes them worthy of assistance, therefore you consider them worthy and assist.

or
1) Only people considered worthy are to be assisted
2) All people in need of assistance are considered worthy
ERGO
3) All people in need of assistance are to be assisted
QED

You cannot morally justify assistance based on previous actions. If you didn't save Hitler from being trampled by a rampaging elephant, no one would feel particularly bad, but it wouldn't be morally right...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

You cannot morally justify assistance based on previous actions. If you didn't save Hitler from being trampled by a rampaging elephant, no one would feel particularly bad, but it wouldn't be morally right...

I seem to read about such justifications quite often.

The example is eeirly close to home - when he was 6, Hitler was saved from drowning by a villager. That man, on his deathbed, said that it was the worst thing he had done.

Another thing: I have often seen moral justifications for some people being killed for the greater good. War, collateral damage, that kind of thing.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Gav]

And don't for get that "hindsight is always 20-20".

[Slim]

Hi!


Acccording to a work written at one of our Judicial faculties in 2004, it is legal, provided:
1. The passive person was not bound by specific law to act (being position of policeman, firefigther, parent, and a few other groups),
2. The passive person is not under contractual obligation to act,
3. The passivity is not a case of not reporting one of a specified set of serious crimes.
The link:
Peter's link
Look at page 26.

The work also notes that there is a legal duty of activity in the French legal system, it was introduced during the Vichy regime in order to get ordinary people to hand in the french opposition.


In general, I would say that ZZ is correct. However, if the unlucky person is disagreeable enough to a lot of people, he will find very little sympathy. I could give specific examples here, but none outside of Sweden would know about them, so it would be a bit pointless.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Moral of the story: Disagree with Peter and given the opportunity, he'll leave you to die.

Have a nice time (unless you disagree with him, then it's #$&! -you)!

[Gav]

I altered Peter's link so that it didn't screw up the page layout - hope you guys don't mind.

[Aestro]

Here are some examples of some things equated with liberalism that people I know who could be considered "independent" get really tired of hearing about:

1. Gay marrige/homosexual agenda - people resent sexuality and alternative lifestyles being shoved down their throats
2. Bush = Hitler - It's off the wall and people resent their president being equated with someone responsible for genocide.
3. Increase taxes for more social/entitlement programs - Clinton knew this and got some major points for welfare reform.
4. Removing the flag and religious images from long standing traditions - No more nativity scenes, flag burning is A.O.K., no more "Under God" in pledge.
5. Teaching manditory "Koran Sensitivity" while trying to ban classroom prayer time.
6. People like Noam Chomsky saying "911 - We deserved it"
7. The ACLU - defending dirtbags like NAMBLA doesnt do much for their image
8. Socializing health care

If the dems make illegal immigration and spending their issue in the upcoming elections, they're in a good position to do some damage. Not enough, hopefully, but some for sure.

Others have responded to this, why can't I?

1. This is an issue from both sides, but last I check most of the legislation was banning gay marriage, not bringing it out. Needless to say, this is hardly the liberal standpoint.

2. This is asinine and generally from more outlying groups than the democrat politicians. Constant criticism of the president is at this point very understandable, but I don't think this is exactly a platform of the democratic party.

3. My my, someone really likes conservative talk radio. Right now most liberals/democrats harp about fiscal responsibility, which starts with eliminating tax cuts. While I actually wouldn't mind a rise in taxes, I am vastly in the minority. Most Democrats just want the country to stop spending more money than it has.

4. I haven't heard of anything about removing the flag from anyone. It was a supreme coutry ruling 16 years ago to allow flag burning, but it's not like Kerry ended every rally by setting fire to the flag.

5. Generally the Koran would be taught as with any other religion under a religious studies program. If you can't seperate studies from worship, then perhaps a private school would be the better environment. Seperation of church and state doesn't mean the government should openly attack religion, but it does mean it shouldn't endorse it. There is no national religion, and children are free to pray at home before or after school.

6. I haven't really heard that much lately, but political commentary exists from all sides.

7. The ACLU sometimes takes up cases most people would disagree with, yes. They are not sponsored by the Democratic party, and are established to promote free speech, regardless of the content. Do they sometimes do stupid things? Yes. They also do a number of good things.

8. I think you're just against liberals having stances on issues, and your friends are as "independent" as Bill O'Reilly claimed he was.

The Democratic party has been attempting to cater to the middle-road for far too long, and at the same time tossing up weak candidates. Clinton got away with it because he followed a very weak H.W. Bush term, and Clinton oozed Charisma. Plus, he was a much better POLITICAL leader than Kerry, and more charismatic than Gore (for the record, no one likes Gore anymore, but most non-conservatives have no idea why they don't like Gore). As a leftist, I'm tired of the Democratic party simply being about opposing the Republican party. I'd like for them to make an issue about SOMETHING, and more importantly keep it in the spotlight. I think the party lacks leadership, and a correlation to this is that it also lacks direction. Maybe if the Democrats agreed to turn more to the left, we might see two parties instead of one party and its argumentative cousin.

One a side note: Cohen V. California (1971) in which Paul Cohen was arrested for wearing a jacket with "F*** the draft" in a courthouse. The Supreme court overturned the ruling on the basis of First and Fourteenth Amendments. Of course, there are two big differences here: 1. This was in a government-owned building and 2. he was arrested, rather than simply removed from an airplane. I think it kind of sucks the lady got kicked off, but I can understand the airline doing so if there were children or the like onboard.