i am in the midst of a neo-nazi...

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- i am in the midst of a neo-nazi...

Posted by Acid John on Jan-01-2004 11:41:

i am in the midst of a neo-nazi...

a friend of mine recently said:
"opinions can, and should be forced"

and he firmly believes that he is right, and elite among everybody else, just because he believes he is in the majority of people, and that the majority is always right.

had he said this to me in person, i wouldda punched him in the face, and walked away, but it was said online about 20 minutes ago...

neway, what are your thoughts upon this?

edit: i just felt like sharing. that quote goes against pretty much everything i stand for. (in general i stand for open minded-ness)

Posted by DannyO on Jan-01-2004 11:57:

Re: i am in the midst of a neo-nazi...

Posted by Perfect_Cheezit on Jan-01-2004 12:00:

i think madison it was who said that the mob rule of the majority is the greatest constitutional threat a free nation could face, tell that to your friend if hes american and gives a damn at all about democracy

Posted by astroboy on Jan-01-2004 12:53:

Happens all the time. There are no moral absolutes... the only reason certain things are illegal is that most of us find them abhorrent and enforce that opinion on the rest of society. The most one can do to avoid acting in bad faith is to admit that one's opinions are no more valid than anyone else's and are only "superior" because they are held and enforced by the majority in the form of law/policy, and for no other reason.

Posted by Tranc3 on Jan-01-2004 13:19:

Haha

Haha that's great, so far two people have said they support being open-minded, and yet their solution is to beat the crap out of the offending party.

Anyone else see a circular argument here?

I've found that, for the most part, people's opinions are very personal and represent a part of them. Because of that, no matter how much you try to show them the "validity" of your cause/opinion/side/what_have_you, other people will (generally) refuse to accept your version. It's generally best not to interfere with people's opinions, unless of course they're causing physical or emotional harm to someone (I mean serious harm....not "he hurt my feelings but I'll be O.K. in five minutes" harm).

So to summarize - aren't you being just as closed-minded as your friend by suggesting that physical violence would get him to change his mind, or at least look at your side of the argument, see how "stupid" he is?

It should be noted that I'm a strong liberal, although not on the Ayn Rand business side of the liberal spectrum. Meaning I also embrace the idea of being "open-minded," and I have no affiliation of any sort with the nazi party.

Posted by Tranc3 on Jan-01-2004 13:28:

quote:
Originally posted by Perfect_Cheezit
i think madison it was who said that the mob rule of the majority is the greatest constitutional threat a free nation could face, tell that to your friend if hes american and gives a damn at all about democracy

Right but the great thing about a Republic like the one in America is the fact that we are allowed to be of the opinion that our opinions should be forced onto others. Don't you see that by restricting that kind of talk (i.e. politically incorrect things), you're only chipping away from one of the best freedoms America has?

Sure it's a constitutional threat, but as Locke said (paraphrased - I can't remember his exact wording), if enough people believe the government is doing a crappy job, then it is their duty to overthrow it. In such cases mob rule is a good thing - let's say the German citizens of WW2 decided that their government wasn't being very nice to humanity in general, and because of it, they decide to overthrow it. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but does mob rule not seem better in this case? Sure you're getting rid of the established government, but if people think it's worth their lives to change the order of life, then there must be either:

1) The largest, most successful brainwashing/PR/Marketing campaign in history has just gone underway

or

2) There must be some validity to the reason(s) for so many people risking their lives to overthrow their government.

Looking at the two scenarios, the more likely one is the second one.

What I suppose I'm trying to say is I believe humanity will not overthrow their current government for nazi-ish reasons. When your own life is on the line, you tend to think very, very carefully about what you're about to do.

Posted by Audio Beverage on Jan-01-2004 13:42:

Re: Haha

quote:
Originally posted by Tranc3

So to summarize - aren't you being just as closed-minded as your friend by suggesting that physical violence would get him to change his mind, or at least look at your side of the argument, see how "stupid" he is?

It should be noted that I'm a strong liberal, although not on the Ayn Rand business side of the liberal spectrum. Meaning I also embrace the idea of being "open-minded," and I have no affiliation of any sort with the nazi party.

Bleh! Bleh! Bleh! I don't feel like reasoning with someone as clear minded and as logical as you! My first reaction was to punch that guy in the face, and I'm still standing by it!

Posted by Tranc3 on Jan-01-2004 13:45:

Re: Re: Haha

quote:
Originally posted by GelatinPufF
Bleh! Bleh! Bleh! I don't feel like reasoning with someone as clear minded and as logical as you! My first reaction was to punch that guy in the face, and I'm still standing by it!

Rofl.

Actually I've been up approx. 19 hours...no big thing, but my mind isn't as clear as it could be. Man I gotta get to bed.

Posted by DannyO on Jan-01-2004 19:47:

Re: Haha

quote:
Originally posted by Tranc3
Haha that's great, so far two people have said they support being open-minded, and yet their solution is to beat the crap out of the offending party.

Anyone else see a circular argument here?

....sooo you don't like what I have to say eh?, I'm gonna have to kick your ass then...LMAO

BUT on second thought you made some good points, so I'm gonna let it slide, oh man your sooooo lucky... I was like , but I'm like the Fonz now...I'm cool.

Posted by Perfect_Cheezit on Jan-01-2004 20:05:

quote:
Originally posted by Tranc3
Right but the great thing about a Republic like the one in America is the fact that we are allowed to be of the opinion that our opinions should be forced onto others. Don't you see that by restricting that kind of talk (i.e. politically incorrect things), you're only chipping away from one of the best freedoms America has?

Sure it's a constitutional threat, but as Locke said (paraphrased - I can't remember his exact wording), if enough people believe the government is doing a crappy job, then it is their duty to overthrow it. In such cases mob rule is a good thing - let's say the German citizens of WW2 decided that their government wasn't being very nice to humanity in general, and because of it, they decide to overthrow it. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but does mob rule not seem better in this case? Sure you're getting rid of the established government, but if people think it's worth their lives to change the order of life, then there must be either:

1) The largest, most successful brainwashing/PR/Marketing campaign in history has just gone underway

or

2) There must be some validity to the reason(s) for so many people risking their lives to overthrow their government.

Looking at the two scenarios, the more likely one is the second one.

What I suppose I'm trying to say is I believe humanity will not overthrow their current government for nazi-ish reasons. When your own life is on the line, you tend to think very, very carefully about what you're about to do.

good points, but what i had more in mind was the fact that because this guy perceives the majority to be in the right and his views to reflect that of the majority, he feels the justification of his actions are unnecessary due to it reflecting the logic of the majority. and what happens when the logic of mob rule falters, and the majority is faced with a crisis? they can either reform if individuals have the strength to change their path and deviate from the mob, or they can (and at times often do) react violently to assertive challenges to their strength. your example is one in which the majority acts in a conscientious manner and prevents horrible things from occuring; tragically, we both know that it didnt turn out that way and it was instead the leaders of a mob who were orchestrating a war and other things. the danger of the mob exists and thats why challenges to the majority need to be met in a political forum in which all (including, if noted by a representative sample) are represented equally, and thats why when madison wrote about threats to the constitutional republic, he actually targeted political parties as the machine for doing not-so-good (this was in the Federalist papers, i dont remember which one though).

And with regards to the social contract and locke's bit, you are right that the people have the right to end the social contract by force if necessary if the gov't isnt holding up its end of the bargain, unfortunately the practicality of such events is not always applicable, although I can think of a few historical examples in which it has been done. Today, the dominance of the political machine and the right of equal representation by law and protected by the statutes laid down by both the majority and the minority is whats needed to guarantee that the mob wont get caught up and commit acts of desperation and terror before they realize what they are doing is wrong, all of which would be committed in the name of the "majority, who has a right to rule because we rule" etc.

Posted by Narcissus on Jan-30-2004 02:44:

Re: Re: i am in the midst of a neo-nazi...

quote:
Originally posted by Prodigy Child
so he should shut up and suck monkey testicals.

They should make people do that on Fear Factor

Posted by pismofilmdude on Jan-30-2004 03:01:

I pity the fool!!!

Posted by dukes on Jan-30-2004 03:11:

some opinions should be forced like "stop buying songs like las ketchup macarena and bustop"

they should defo be forced!

it corupts the gene poor and hinders evolution!

Posted by astroboy on Jan-30-2004 08:51:

No matter how you attampt to justify enforcing any rules, if one deconstructs the principles to which the rules and regulations attempt to adhere, one finds a set of value judgements. Values are formed as a result of a complex mix of environmental and cultural factors (as well as some genetics, I guess). Thus at the heart of ANY policy lies something predicated on essentially arbitrary morals. Hence the only justification of enforcing any rule is that these arbitrary values are held by the majority, who are uncomfortable when these values are not upheld. That is the nature of democracy. And it is a concept I'm comfortable with so long as people accept its nature and don't pretend that they have discovered some sort of Universal morality, thus justifying the oppression of other cultures whose values may be different.

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Jan-30-2004 12:02:

Re: i am in the midst of a neo-nazi...

quote:
Originally posted by Acid John
a friend of mine recently said:
"opinions can, and should be forced"

and he firmly believes that he is right, and elite among everybody else, just because he believes he is in the majority of people, and that the majority is always right.

had he said this to me in person, i wouldda punched him in the face, and walked away, but it was said online about 20 minutes ago...

neway, what are your thoughts upon this?

edit: i just felt like sharing. that quote goes against pretty much everything i stand for. (in general i stand for open minded-ness)

Heh, the concept does hold a trace of valid reasoning, although it is far from being reasonable as a whole. Basically it comes down to two issues, one being the majority rule while the other one being forcing opinions upon individuals. Let's deal with the easier one first, and that is the idea that majority is always right. It has been clearly shown that is not the case many times throughout history, so that idea is clearly a false one.

Now, forcing opinions upon people is a pretty vague term. Are we forcing our opinions upon murderers when we throw them in jail? In a way we are. The society must find a balance between forcing people to think in a certain way and letting everyone do whatever he/she wishes. Individuals should be guided towards principles that have shown themselves to be in the best interest of both people and the society as a whole. Now, if someone violates those principles in a way that is clearly harmful to the society without any potential benefits, then that person should be punished and the opinion of the masses should be forced upon such an individual.

Posted by Harmonic on Jan-30-2004 14:23:

Re: Haha

quote:
Originally posted by Tranc3
Haha that's great, so far two people have said they support being open-minded, and yet their solution is to beat the crap out of the offending party.

Anyone else see a circular argument here?

I've found that, for the most part, people's opinions are very personal and represent a part of them. Because of that, no matter how much you try to show them the "validity" of your cause/opinion/side/what_have_you, other people will (generally) refuse to accept your version. It's generally best not to interfere with people's opinions, unless of course they're causing physical or emotional harm to someone (I mean serious harm....not "he hurt my feelings but I'll be O.K. in five minutes" harm).

So to summarize - aren't you being just as closed-minded as your friend by suggesting that physical violence would get him to change his mind, or at least look at your side of the argument, see how "stupid" he is?

It should be noted that I'm a strong liberal, although not on the Ayn Rand business side of the liberal spectrum. Meaning I also embrace the idea of being "open-minded," and I have no affiliation of any sort with the nazi party.

Here! Here!