Originally Posted by XenoX101
So why is this important? Simple, these incompatibilities exist with other freedoms too, for example you can't support the right to abortion as well as the right to live, as a mother's choice to abort impedes on the freedom of the fetus' life by completely removing it. Similarly by agreeing earlier that you would be OK with people selling their babies, you were supporting a right for a mother to choose the residence of a child, and thus you were impeding the child's freedom to choose his or her residence. Furthermore with respect to freedom of speech, if you give people the freedom to be publicly offensive, then you are impeding the freedom other people have to not be offended/mentally hurt by other people, particularly with intrusive mediums such as radio and television. One person's freedom can lead to another person's impediment. If you disagree with how I've put this, I suggest you look into Thomas Hobbe's Social Contract
for a possible explanation of why people need to renounce certain rights in order for others to be allowed theirs and so live in harmony, and why ultimate freedom doesn't work.
It's good that you're putting in this effort, XenoX, but the Noowatheist cottage industry (whose business models involves suckering people of mediocre intelligence into believing that they're part of an intellectual elite) has flattered its followers with reasurrances that they are "Rationalists" by definition- such that they are left with no further motivation to actually behave or think rationally to secure this honor- and has loosed them on teh intrawebz to spread their gospel. It is a new Manicheanism, really, will the forces of good (science! enlightnment! reason! liberty! yay!) on one side, and the forces of evil (religion, conservatism, cOonNtrROollL
) on the other. Scratch a little below the surface and you'll find those feel-good buzzwords "enlightenment" and "reason" are alarmingly absolutist in their connotations-- dangerously absolutist, in my opinion. But you'll never
see them examine these terms critically; these are terms that can mean everything they want them to mean by virtue of the fact they mean nothing at all. They have fabricated an historical dialectic of Science vs. Religion, a belief system that says wherever religion has flourished human degradation followed, and that religion is such a universally corrupting force that its eradication would necessarily mean a utopia by default. Don't expect the noowatheist fanboi base to have given a whole lot of thought to what this utopia looks like, though (no, it's not the Netherlands); they're so culturally and historically blinkered that I fully believe they'd be perfectly willing to have us relive every horror of the 20th Century just so they can vindicate their neo-Victorian worldview. You can bring up philosophy, but it's unclear what if any use they have for philosophy. Apparently, all areas of human endeavour have to pair off Thunderdome style and battle to the death, and the natural sciences are expected to emerge victorious over religion. I would imagine a similar fate awaits philosophy, since, you know, all three serve the purpose of, like, explaining shit, and obviously there can only be one way
of explaining shit.