Economic Freedom vs Social justice

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not the reading here that is the problem, it's rather the writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is hilarious, coming from a guy who routinely misquotes and quotes out of context.

[etgryphon]

Eph 5:22-23 is nothing without the contexts of Eph 5:25-33

[ QUOTE ]

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have known VERY few men that follow verse 25-33. I hope to attain that myself. Men beat their chest with verse 22-23 but fail to realize it is being adressed TO THE WIFE.
As a husband, I am to only focus on verse 25-33.

It is easy to take both out of context. I choose to focus on my part. It is a whole lot harder to do than the wife's admonition.

-Gryph

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[You] routinely misquote and quote out of context.

[/ QUOTE ]
Care to point out one example of this practice?

I say you are losing your temper. (And that's in context.)

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Your comments sound dangerously close to advocating the tyranny of the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm a supporter of democracy -- an imperfect and undefined political system that remains the best we have. (Did I write "the beast we have"?)

In order to avoid the tyranny of the majority, the rights of the individual must be safe-guarded. This has been shown to be possible and workable through the legacy of the American Revolution. (All efforts by the American Right to the contrary.)

What else you got?

[ QUOTE ]
From Lenin to Che to Chavez, the tyranny of the majority is justified by the few who claim to be the "will of the people".

[/ QUOTE ] You have shown to be ignorant of what "the Left" is. All you have to go on are platitudes --- easily recalled, inanely used, mindlessly discarded. Political debate as junk food.

Here's a wrench in your motor: If Salvador Allende was from "the Left", how come he was democratic to the (bitter) end, refusing to use brute force to prevail or instigate measures against individual rights?

[ QUOTE ]
Get some sleep.

[/ QUOTE ]Speak for yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to sleep.

[/ QUOTE ]There you go. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[You] routinely misquote and quote out of context.

[/ QUOTE ]
Care to point out one example of this practice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Earlier in this thread, I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
However, you could argue that religious persecution is an economic violation since it's a violation of property rights (assuming you're practicing on private property, where the owner approves).

[/ QUOTE ]

You quoted it like this:

[ QUOTE ]
Religious persecution is an economic violation since it's a violation of property rights - assuming you're practicing on private property, where the owner approves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made a statement of how a argument could be framed, and you re-purposed it to make it appear as though I was declaring a hardline position. You didn't use an elipsis and you capitalized "Religious".

I didn't make a big deal out of it at the time because your follow-up attack on the pseudo-strawman you poorly constructed was so pathetic.

Also in this thread, you said that I claim that societies don't exist, which is also out of context. I have claimed that societies are not sentient beings. I have probably said "society does not exist" but in the context of society being a rational, self-aware entity.

These are just examples in this thread. From now on, I'll point them out as you commit them.

[ QUOTE ]
I say you are losing your temper. (And that's in context.)

[/ QUOTE ]

What gives you that idea?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
In order to avoid the tyranny of the majority, the rights of the individual must be safe-guarded. This has been shown to be possible and workable through the legacy of the American Revolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Then Hamilton came around and ruined it all.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]

Earlier in this thread, I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
However, you could argue that religious persecution is an economic violation since it's a violation of property rights (assuming you're practicing on private property, where the owner approves).

[/ QUOTE ]

You quoted it like this:

[ QUOTE ]
Religious persecution is an economic violation since it's a violation of property rights - assuming you're practicing on private property, where the owner approves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made a statement of how a argument could be framed, and you re-purposed it to make it appear as though I was declaring a hardline position. You didn't use an elipsis and you capitalized "Religious".

[/ QUOTE ]
I apologize if this is construed (by you) as a "distortion". I was interested in the religion-related argument and simply edited for brevity the text. I did not alter it or deleted any words in-between. If the editing out of the words "you could argue that" is what constitutes for you "quoting out of context", then I'm apparently doing everything alright.

And I do not get this bit, now, about me making you out as supporting a "hardline position"! Either you subscribe to the notion that religious persecution is an economic violation -- or you don't! I don't care how deeply you believe that. If you do, and no matter how much you do, hardline or no hardline, I am disputing it. That's all there was to it.

[ QUOTE ]
Your follow-up attack on the pseudo-strawman you poorly constructed was so pathetic.

[/ QUOTE ] So you still argue that religious persecution is economic persecution?? Oh boy. And then you act all offended when I suggest that "everything is money with you".

[ QUOTE ]
You said that I claim that societies don't exist, which is also out of context. I have probably said "society does not exist" but in the context of society being a rational, self-aware entity. [WARNING! Quote was edited for brevity! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]]

[/ QUOTE ] It is not sentience or self-awareness that were propagated by me; society is not, of course, a living being literally. There is a number of attributes that a society has, inherently. Your denial of many of 'em was the core of the disagreement.

You sport an instictive abhorrence towards most things collective which blinds you to everything non-tyrannical about collectivity and which makes you refuse to acknowledge societal life in its many manifestations.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I apologize if this is construed (by you) as a "distortion". I was interested in the religion-related argument and simply edited for brevity the text. I did not alter it or deleted any words in-between. If the editing out of the words "you could argue that" is what constitutes for you "quoting out of context", then I'm apparently doing everything alright.

[/ QUOTE ]

It clearly changes the meaning of the quoted sentence.

[ QUOTE ]
And I do not get this bit, now, about me making you out as supporting a "hardline position"! Either you subscribe to the notion that religious persecution is an economic violation -- or you don't!

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless, you framed a quote in such a way to distort the intended meaning. My personal position was not what I was referring to at the time I typed that.

[ QUOTE ]
So you still argue that religious persecution is economic persecution?? Oh boy. And then you act all offended when I suggest that "everything is money with you".

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you maintain that religious persecution is not a violation of property rights? Or do you maintain that property rights are a non-economic issue?

[ QUOTE ]
It is not sentience or self-awareness that were propagated by me; society is not, of course, a living being literally. There is a number of attributes that a society has, inherently. Your denial of many of 'em was the core of the disagreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Attributes like "decision making" (actually I believe that is the primary dispute). I deny that societies make decisions. People make decisions, and people ascribe these decisions to "society" in order to advance their agenda.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you maintain that religious persecution is not a violation of property rights? Or do you maintain that property rights are a non-economic issue?

[/ QUOTE ]

Religious persecution is not a violation of property rights,per se. Property rights are, of course, an economic issue -- and also a socio-political issue.

Sorry for the use of the term "socio-"; can't help it. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Hey, I do hope we are talking about property rights in their literal sense. I would just love to be conversing metaphorically about my property with the tax man! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Sorry if I'm repeating something, I haven't bothered to read all the way thru the thread, but OP is correct as far as this being a classic liberal vs. conservative issue, in fact this is what is called the modern dillema of government - whether to promote freedom (free market economy) or equality (regulations, universal health care, gov't assistance programs, etc). The original dillema of government, FWIW, is whether to promote freedom (civil rights) or order (security). Conservatives tend to promote freedom in the modern dillema, hence the support for tax cuts, free-trade agreements, deregulation, and privatization. Liberals favor equality - regulation and government assistance (social justice). Here's another classic liberal vs. conservative issue that I find fascinating (and pardon me if I hijack the thread): is the purpose of prison to punish or rehabilitate?