Fundamentalist Mormons and individual rights


Recommended Posts

Would you consider polygamy a right? Or at least would your concept of individual rights go that far?

Bob

Mine certainly would.

Ellen

Adding to this post. My original terse answer might seem to accept a premise of the question which I don't accept -- i.e., Bob Mac's describing including polygamy under one's "concept of individual rights" as "go[ing] that far," as if the idea is some enormous distance. I don't see its being any distance at all. Of course, in my view, if people want a polygamous relationship, that's their business; it's no "distance," as the question indicates it would be.

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 334
  • Created
  • Last Reply
So Michael, why are personal attacks just fine when they are against me, but if I defend myself, then the "garbage" is moved to a different thread?

"Mom, how come it's okay if the other kids are statist cultist hypocrites and stupid and disgusting, but if I call them on it I get smacked and not them? They are the enemy. You don't have to play nice with enemies. Or are you turning into a hypocritical cultist hyena state-loving slut yourself? Huh? Whattaya say to that, ma? Got you cornered now, don't I, you dumb bitch?"

Is this the kind of stuff you like in your forum Michael? Gonna leave this here, while you throw my responses into the "garbage" pile? Nice example of "civility".

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you Americans will do right by the kids and the sect, ultimately, though there will be more heartache.

Ah, William:

(a) That prognostication sounds amazingly rose-colored glasses to me;

(b ) Who are the "you Americans" to whom you refer (as if all Americans thought alike or something of the sort)?

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is ust hopeless Michael.

Another sample of "civility". Leave this one here too. Just dump my stuff to "garbage."

Shayne

Did you at least try the game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fear my post #76 (see), answering Bob Mac's question on the polygamy issue, will be lost in the shuffle, so I'm reminding the contendants of said post's presence.

Something I'm intrigued by re William N. Grigg, whose blog Shayne linked (see), is that he describes himself as writing from "a Christian Libertarian perspective" and yet he's strongly supportive of the FLDS against the Texas Department of Family and Child Protective Services. I wonder how he might react to the circumstances in Rabbit-Proof Fence, in which the school from which the aboriginal girls escape is a Christian one. I hope he'd react consistently (as I see consistency in the circumstances) with his views on the present case. (I'm aware, btw, of the controversy about the accuracy of Rabbit-Proof Fence; I'm taking the movie at face value in reacting to it.)

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you consider polygamy a right? Or at least would your concept of individual rights go that far?

Bob

Mine certainly would.

Ellen

Adding to this post. My original terse answer might seem to accept a premise of the question which I don't accept -- i.e., Bob Mac's describing including polygamy under one's "concept of individual rights" as "go[ing] that far," as if the idea is some enormous distance. I don't see its being any distance at all. Of course, in my view, if people want a polygamous relationship, that's their business; it's no "distance," as the question indicates it would be.

___

Hi Ellen,

I'm reminded of the great libertarian Tibor Machan, who claimed in private communication that he couldn't see any difference between men and women as moral actors. This was laughable in view of his behavior as a houseguest, but more importantly it's defective moral philosophy. Men and women have contrary moral purposes for reasons I will explain if required. But it's no surprise that Mormon men, like their likeminded Islamic brothers-in-thuggery preach that women exist to serve in silence. Polygamy in Saudi Arabia is no different than Utah or Nevada.

W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is ust hopeless Michael.

Another sample of "civility". Leave this one here too. Just dump my stuff to "garbage."

Shayne

Did you at least try the game?

Well, I did. New link on my Favorites. Thanks! :D

P.S. Shayne, get help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you consider polygamy a right? Or at least would your concept of individual rights go that far?

Bob

Mine certainly would.

Ellen

Adding to this post. My original terse answer might seem to accept a premise of the question which I don't accept -- i.e., Bob Mac's describing including polygamy under one's "concept of individual rights" as "go[ing] that far," as if the idea is some enormous distance. I don't see its being any distance at all. Of course, in my view, if people want a polygamous relationship, that's their business; it's no "distance," as the question indicates it would be.

___

I think though, that definitions are in order. Are we talking about consenting adults without a double standard, or the nasty anti-women multi-wife-for-men-only variety? I think it's a violation of basic human rights when one gender is prohibited from an activity while the other is free to do as they please. That's the test for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you consider polygamy a right? Or at least would your concept of individual rights go that far?

Bob

Mine certainly would.

Ellen

Adding to this post. My original terse answer might seem to accept a premise of the question which I don't accept -- i.e., Bob Mac's describing including polygamy under one's "concept of individual rights" as "go[ing] that far," as if the idea is some enormous distance. I don't see its being any distance at all. Of course, in my view, if people want a polygamous relationship, that's their business; it's no "distance," as the question indicates it would be.

___

I think though, that definitions are in order. Are we talking about consenting adults without a double standard, or the nasty anti-women multi-wife-for-men-only variety? I think it's a violation of basic human rights when one gender is prohibited from an activity while the other is free to do as they please. That's the test for me.

Initiation of physical force is for me. You need that for any rights' violation.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is ust hopeless Michael.

Another sample of "civility". Leave this one here too. Just dump my stuff to "garbage."

Shayne

Did you at least try the game?

Well, I did. New link on my Favorites. Thanks! :D

P.S. Shayne, get help.

Thanks. It is intriguing and the solution is to employ geometry. It is why straight pool is such a great game.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Initiation of physical force is for me. You need that for any rights' violation.

--Brant

Force can be subtle, or even absent. If you mess with someone's mind enough you might not need any force for them to comply. Look at the suicide bomber 'schools'. Fill them up with enough hate and other nonsense and they'll willingly blow themselves up.

Preying on weaker and/or young minds, for your benefit and to another's detriment ,to me, is a rights violation whether or not force is involved.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Men and women have contrary moral purposes for reasons I will explain if required. But it's no surprise that Mormon men, like their likeminded Islamic brothers-in-thuggery preach that women exist to serve in silence. Polygamy in Saudi Arabia is no different than Utah or Nevada.

W.

I'd be interested in you expanding on this. 'contrary moral purposes' is strong language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. Shayne, get help.

You rarely post Laure, but the prospect of piling on me stirred you out of your lurking?

Hatred of intelligence for being intelligence combined with a mob mentality. That is the only explanation for this sort of behavior.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Men and women have contrary moral purposes for reasons I will explain if required.

You could probably infer that it would be required from the fact that it goes against Rand's position. As human beings men and women share a lot of common purposes. And some of the purposes they don't share are not inherently in conflict. So I guess you must be referring to some subset of purposes that are in inherent conflict. I for one can't guess what you have in mind.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. Shayne, get help.

You rarely post Laure, but the prospect of piling on me stirred you out of your lurking?

Hatred of intelligence for being intelligence combined with a mob mentality. That is the only explanation for this sort of behavior.

Shayne

Shayne:

So essentially, I have badly underestimated you. I now see that you are brilliant. You pose as a completely hostile person to folks, but you are actually using this material to develop a career as a philosophical rodeo clown.

I am impressed.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You pose as a completely hostile person to folks,

I see. You think that if I best you in a debate, then that's "hostile". If I name the reason why you take it as "hostile" to refute your ideas, you will call that "hostile" as well but I will anyway: You only take being shown wrong as "hostile" because you have a fragile self-esteem. I do not intend personal hostility when I refute bogus arguments or make black and white evaluations. One might call that "hostility" toward certain ideas I believe to be evil, but it's not personal hostility.

You on the other hand are incessantly personally hostile. But that has to be the case.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You pose as a completely hostile person to folks,

I see. You think that if I best you in a debate, then that's "hostile". If I name the reason why you take it as "hostile" to refute your ideas, you will call that "hostile" as well but I will anyway: You only take being shown wrong as "hostile" because you have a fragile self-esteem. I do not intend personal hostility when I refute bogus arguments or make black and white evaluations. One might call that "hostility" toward certain ideas I believe to be evil, but it's not personal hostility.

You on the other hand are incessantly personally hostile. But that has to be the case.

Shayne

Shayne, once again, for the record, I taught debate at Queens College, in the City of New York. The Debate/rhetoric Department was one of the top ten in the United States, which I think still includes Utah. I will rely on the objective results of our "debates" being evaluated by the users of this forum.

Has it ever occurred to you that I am just "pulling you leg" or that great debates involve wit, satire, self-deprecating humor, barbs and other rhetorical arts.

Finally, for the record, I mean you no harm. I am sorry that you take my jokes personally. Additionally, you do raise some solid points and questions. {If you would just learn to count to ten before you respond, wait maybe we should have an auction as to what number you should count up to before you should respond} <<<the paren. part is the joke.

Again,

I am sorry you take it so personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Selene, when you say "He is [j]ust hopeless Michael", that's just an example of your learned high rhetorical art, and not the rude personal attack it appears to be? Please educate me in these fine debating arts.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Selene, when you say "He is [j]ust hopeless Michael", that's just an example of your learned high rhetorical art, and not the rude personal attack it appears to be? Please educate me in these fine debating arts.

Shayne

Shayne:

Since I am pre Yahoo-Icons, I use an (emotional) Pathos trope which would express a sad sigh that I think that your mind is better than than your heated ad hominim responses which, to be fair you also receive [and it is probable that I go too far at times]. Would it have been more palatable to you if I had said:

:console: or

:hug:

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Initiation of physical force is for me. You need that for any rights' violation.

--Brant

Force can be subtle, or even absent. If you mess with someone's mind enough you might not need any force for them to comply. Look at the suicide bomber 'schools'. Fill them up with enough hate and other nonsense and they'll willingly blow themselves up.

Preying on weaker and/or young minds, for your benefit and to another's detriment ,to me, is a rights violation whether or not force is involved.

Bob

In such cases I would posit that this is a moral position that should not see the light of enacted and enforced law. I was constantly preyed upon as a child. It toughened me up. That's why I can cope with adulthood and am not to be trifled with. I think this is reflective of pretty normal maturation and development. Most people I meet think I'm a very nice guy. (This state is probably abnormal. :) )

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Selene, you might think that I not know how to be politically-correct polite. I do. There are contexts where pointing out someone's wrongness is pointless at best and more often than not, rude and inappropriate. I don't do it in those contexts. But I don't count an *Objectivist* forum as one of these. I figure I should speak my mind about what's what. The minute I figure I should not speak my mind here, I won't post here.

I'm sure you perceive what I do as "hostile" or "ad hominem". I can see why an Objectivist, who deems himself an adherent of individual rights, would take it as "hostile" if I call him a "statist". But if he actually is one, it's his problem, and he ought to at least know about it. I'm doing him a favor by telling him what he is and why. It's not an insult, it's an identification. If he takes it as an insult, then perhaps he should stop being a statist. I won't refrain from informing him of his status, and I reject your categorization of it as "ad hominem", as well as the appropriateness of the genuinely rude and hostile remarks directed at me.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Selene, you might think that I not know how to be politically-correct polite. I do. There are contexts where pointing out someone's wrongness is pointless at best and more often than not, rude and inappropriate. I don't do it in those contexts. But I don't count an *Objectivist* forum as one of these. I figure I should speak my mind about what's what. The minute I figure I should not speak my mind here, I won't post here.

I'm sure you perceive what I do as "hostile" or "ad hominem". I can see why an Objectivist, who deems himself an adherent of individual rights, would take it as "hostile" if I call him a "statist". But if he actually is one, it's his problem, and he ought to at least know about it. I'm doing him a favor by telling him what he is and why. It's not an insult, it's an identification. If he takes it as an insult, then perhaps he should stop being a statist. I won't refrain from informing him of his status, and I reject your categorization of it as "ad hominem", as well as the appropriateness of the genuinely rude and hostile remarks directed at me.

Shayne

Here's the crux of the problem: People generally don't like, even hate, to be told what they are, even positively. They have their own, personal view of themselves and you are coming into their homes without knocking.

Wrong: You are a statist.

Right: Your view on this matter IMO is statist. Please reconsider.

Wrong: You are a lousy SOB and I'm going to shoot you!

Right: You shot my dog and I'm going to shoot you!

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

It's not that I don't appreciate what you are saying. It's that GS is positively and absolutely a diehard statist. I don't see him changing his view for anything, or if he does, it will be years later after having undergone some sort of radical reformation. If I say what you said, then it's a lie. It's me pretending to mean one thing, when I really think something else, and on rational grounds. Now I don't object to that kind of lying from an irrationalist whose thoughts bear no relation to reality. But from someone who honestly tries to adhere to it, they should say what they think.

Not that there aren't times when the sort of lying you are calling for isn't appropriate. I just don't think it's appropriate here.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.