Okay, Dr. now-it-all, you nailed it! People that state to know the truth of any matter up for opinion are brainwashed, people who are willing to reason and see their opinion is never right (as it is an opinion) are not.
You're the one who said it. Not sure what it has to do with what I said though. Or what you mean, for that matter.
Video games create a lot of mental “unhealth” amongst youth, which will reflect on those youths when they become adults, resulting in a lot of unhappy adults.
Citation needed.
So does competition, discipline, lack of hugs, being told “no,” and everything else.
Lack of hugs may cause mental unhealth. It probably does, due to our need for physical closeness to our parents. But the rest causes mental unhealth? In what way?
Depending on your mindset children will always have crap thrown at them that is evil/wrong/bad for society no matter what.
So because of this we should allow a policy that will make the average kid a mental wreck?
Maybe we should restrict certain books that don’t have the better consequences of other books, maybe making them illegal would be right. Maybe we should restrict speech that doesn’t have the better consequences of other nicer types of speech. Maybe we should restrict opinions in lieu of opinions that have better consequences.
Talking
hate speech there? In general I'm a great believer in spreading of information though. So there's pretty much no such thing as banning certain kinds of books/speech because doing so has better consequences than not doing so.
What is right? What is a better consequence? You are talking opinion with some sort of moral authority and correctness.
What is wrong? And, more importantly, why is it wrong? I've found nothing but consequences to motivate why there can be right and wrong. The option is God, and I'm an agnostic so that doesn't work. What is good consequences then? I'd say that is what improves the well being of pepole (I'd say happiness, but well being is a more general term that includes happiness). Why? Well, what better definition is there?
As for opinions, avoiding opinions is impossible. But at least I try to go beyond the "well, I think social security is a good idea" and acually try to put some kind of substance to my statements. Why is it a good idea?
"The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty." -- Former Lord Chief Justice Halisham
I agree, in a sence. But I use it to justify taxes and the likes...
"Too many people are only willing to defend rights that are personally important to them. It's selfish ignorance, and it's exactly why totalitarian governments are able to get away with trampling on people. Freedom does not mean freedom just for the things *I* think I should be able to do. Freedom is for all of us. If people will not speak up for other's people's rights, there will come a day when they will lose their own." - Tony Lawrence
I agree with this too.
"Once governments are given the authority to restrict the liberty of some sane adults for what it considers their physical or moral welfare, there is no principled stopping point in terms of what governments will have the authority to prohibit. The consequence will be that virtually anything which anyone holds of most value may become prohibited to them on grounds of its being judged immoral or dangerous to them. There are practically no forms of activity in which sane adults like to engage that others are not able to find reasons to condemn as morally or physically bad for those who engage in them. This ranges from drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco, to eating certain types of food, to not taking exercise, to taking too much, engaging in dangerous sports, practising certain religions, not practising any religion, reading books on science, etc. Unless government draws the line at only prohibiting conduct that harms others against their will, no member of society can be secure in being able to do or have anything they most want and value." --David Conway
Well, I prefer this to anarchy. Why? Because at least I'm not at the mercy of crimelords with guns if it's the goverment that's in charge.
The only thing I suffer from is the tendency to try and reason with insufferable bastards far too often. What I have is called a constant narrative, an overarching philosophy, which is the freedom for others to do that in which I disagree with.
I have one of those too. Mine's grounded in reality (consequences). What's yours grounded in?
What everyone else has is a hodgepodge amalgamated opinion filled with hypocrisy and contradictions which boils down to, “People should do what I believe to be correct, because my opinion makes sense and is right.” Its childish ignorance, and dangerous.
Like I said above, that's the kind of shit I try to avoid. By the way, are you aware that this is pretty much exactly what you're doing? "We should abolish the goverment, abolish taxes and yadda yadda yadda! Why? Because I think everything else is tyranny!" You're not really saying "we should do this because I think so", but I made the same modifications to your reasoning you do about everyone else.
It a bigoted statement, never intended to be open minded. I don’t want them to be forced to dress like an adult.
What I wonder is why you even care about what they like to wear. It's a complete waste of energy!
Well, again what you think should have nothing to do with it. Can adults enter into contracts? Yes. Would the contracts cause any direct physical harm to anyone? No. No restriction. And who is to say what is and isn’t in the best interest of society? Freedom is not in the best interest of society. Go to communist China and see how nice a government that makes policy for the best interest of society can be (and it is nice, truly).
Like Ritahrandil said, China isn't working in the best interest of society. You could say they're working in the best interest of the state. Freedom might not be in the best interest of the state. But what's in the best interest of society is what's in the best interest of the pepole, since the pepole is the society.
If you want a good example of this, I suggest you look at Scandinavia.
Übereil
