[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

Yes, but who said you (or I, or anyone) have the ability to determine for people what 'right-thinking' is?

Just sayin'

Just go through this example, which part of your brain tells you that allowing necrophilia is wrong?

There are limits to liberalism, every conservative will tell you that. As a lefty I am generally appalled that there are no real left forces who try to occupy this very space that conservatism so successfully holds.
Liberalism for example undermines families, that's where I agree with conservatives and I'd like to see left forces argue with them about the meaning of family, i.e. that it should include patchwork and homosexual families.

Originally Posted by kevin

Maybe not. Should it then let itself be destroyed by another species through a kind of Darwinism because it's flawed?

Not at all, social darwinism is bullsh*t with a capital B. I only wanted to shed some light upon the mistakes of the Federation and claim that they shouldn't flip so volatilely between extremes.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

Just go through this example, which part of your brain tells you that allowing necrophilia is wrong?

There are limits to liberalism, every conservative will tell you that. As a lefty I am generally appalled that there are no real left forces who try to occupy this very space that conservatism so successfully holds.
Liberalism for example undermines families, that's where I agree with conservatives and I'd like to see left forces argue with them about the meaning of family, i.e. that it should include patchwork and homosexual families.

It's not the example, it's the principle behind it.

You start by telling people what they should think about one thing. Then you move on to another. Then another.

I wouldn't say 'necrophelia' is right. That is obviously a more extreme example.

The family one on the other hand, is a more immediate and better one. I believe 'families' can be in other configurations than 'Mum, dad and 2.4 kids', including the ones you listed. Others will try and tell you that's all it can be, all it should be. So there should be a discussion about it and what 'family' means.

However, since I already know what I think - and conservatives can yak as much they want otherwise, I ain't changing mine - then in arguing for what I think, I could be contrued as trying to tell others how to think as much as they were trying to tell me what to think!

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

Not at all, social darwinism is bullsh*t with a capital B. I only wanted to shed some light upon the mistakes of the Federation and claim that they shouldn't flip so volatilely between extremes.

We can but work with what the scripts give us!

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

It's not the example, it's the principle behind it.

You start by telling people what they should think about one thing. Then you move on to another. Then another.

I wouldn't say 'necrophelia' is right. That is obviously a more extreme example.

The family one on the other hand, is a more immediate and better one. I believe 'families' can be in other configurations than 'Mum, dad and 2.4 kids', including the ones you listed. Others will try and tell you that's all it can be, all it should be. So there should be a discussion about it and what 'family' means.

However, since I already know what I think - and conservatives can yak as much they want otherwise, I ain't changing mine - then in arguing for what I think, I could be contrued as trying to tell others how to think as much as they were trying to tell me what to think!

Of course there shouldn't be any thoughtcrime, on the other hand Islamism is the only radical ideology which is treated as a thought crime after 9/11 in the Western World. As much as I oppose some police state measures which we implemented in the last decade, I cannot claim that putting someone who wants to blow up himself behind bars isn't better than waiting until he has blown himself up.

Apart from this one instance of thoughtcrime I don't advocate punishing free thought, on the contrary. By the way, pure economic liberalism doesn't lead to free though by the way. I am not at least a leftie because egalitarianism is the opposite of conglomeration of power which implies the power over thoughts. At the moment there is a public debate about the freedom of the internet going on and as the the internet is so far the best way to get access to news and information beyond the one produced by the big media companies I am on the pro side.
Back to thoughtcrime and free thinking, there are some social axioms which exist beyond liberal logic and shouldn't be questioned:

When somebody wants to screw a child or a corpse it is wrong, independent of whether the child or the corpse would mind it.
You don't screw your siblings or parents, independent of medical-utilitarian considerations which vanish if contraceptives are used.
You don't eat human meat (unless it is a survival situation like the one familiar to us from the Alive story).
You don't torture or talk about it.
A society needs "cells" at its base and these cells are usually called families. What family means differs among people.