On the Threshold of Bigotry

How about the bit about demonstrating no personal effect? Surely that's in the eye of the beholder?One of the 'softer' elements of society is it's general and not unimportant flavour. Dutch society, for example, is very much like Ireland except that they are a fair bit tighter on abiding by the law than the Irish are. The Germans in turn are much tighter-of-sphincter than the Dutch.I would tend to resist any movement that would shift the flavour we have in Ireland to that of Holland - even though I'd have a hard time coming up with a rational argument as to why the law of the Irish land shouldn't be more rigidly enforced than it currently is - if all it would do is alter personally treasured flavour

But what constitutes "irrational ideology" lies in the eye of the beholder too.Pub life in Irish rural society is Irish rural society. Or an essential element of it at any rate. Rational lawmaking has clamped down on drink driving to the point where you can't go to the pub anymore: a pint of beer would likely put you over the limit if the latest Euro levels of blood/alcohol are introduced - which they look like being.I don't see the introduction of such destructive laws (in terms of effect on rural society) as rational - even if I do recognise that they are ideology driven. Driven by an ideology that says we must conform to European Standards in this case.- Were it that you could get agreement on what constitutes irrationality! Empiricism is an irrational ideology yet it forms the basis of the thinking of so many here - posited as if the most rational thing in the world

Bearing in mind that your section on Democracy focused on individual freedom rather than effects on the body society ...

quote:

---

Each individual must have the right to campaign for their point of view and to oppose laws that restrict their personal freedoms.

---

...could you give examples as to your objections?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The notion of anything (more-or-less) goes - so long as it doesn't compromise the freedom of others to activate their own version of "anything goes" is itself an ideology. And an irrational one at that.- The principle of consent is an ideological affair ...- I was under the impression that this was about rights. Not practicalities as to the application of rights.

"Should be?" In your subjective opinion perhaps."...the very practical need to avoid" is the nub of your ideology. But it doesn't deal with the claim of those whose ideology couldn't give a fig about the avoidance of conflict - indeed, their ideology may well necessitate conflict.I have said an ideology such as you promote here is irrational - not least because it would fold as soon as anothers conflict-based ideology threatened to take over and conquer what you considered to be yours. See above. That founding principle is your subjective one (in the case of a lack of God to establish it for us all). What constitutes pragmatic depends upon the ideology one is seeking to promote.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The assertion was rational.You are keen to assign these "rights" (not that it is up to you to do so in any absolute sense) up to a point. You might well tolerate a certain amount of inconvenience from those who are expressing irrational (to your mind) ideological belief. But there will come a point where you decide that your ability to express your own ideology is being compromised beyond tolerance and you will stand to restrict the "rights" you now campaign to assign.The ideology is thus irrational in the sense that it floats so longs as it's outworkings suit your book. It sinks as soon they don't.As will be revealed in your message, I suspect.- Agreed. Although I wouldn't suppose that we can't be rational. An irrational ideology to one might be perfectly rational to another. Barring some absolute judge of rationality, rationality often lies only in the eye of the beholder.- War?- Total War?- Keep ahead of ones enemy in terms of weaponry?. I'm not being deliberately smart, it's just that the march of history shows us mankind as it has always behaved).There is also room for compromise. The reality is that a balance is always found between the expense and hassle of war vs. the discomfort that comes with compromise.But I see you got there before me..- Right, we have moved from the nation vs. nation sphere into the individual realm. Not that anything is fundamentally altered. The nation I live in becomes the canvas on which "wars and compromise" are played out. It is true that I can take the stance you suggest in order that my own ideology find satisfactory levels of expression - this might include objectionable aspects of others ideologies being expressed.But what if my own ideology isn't finding expression sufficient under this laissez-faire regieme? What if my satisfaction requires less "compromise" and more "war"? What if I am prepared to have others ideologies suppressed if it means my own undergoing expansion? What if I am prepared to "die" in the attempt?(ps: don't take the "language" to literally - I'm simply carrying on the national analogy to logical conclusions)My ideology could desire society to be a certain way, a way that it currently isn't under the laissez-faire regieme and so I begin to press home my own wishes. I'd use the various "weaponry" at my disposal; legislation, campaigning, media, money, power, etc to achieve the suppression of other ideologies necessary to furtherance my own. You would agree that if the Expression of Ideology pie is limited and you want a bigger slice then someone will have to give up their share (not that it's anyone share to start with - no one has a right to assign rights).- That's a risk I should be free to be willing to take. Rationally speaking, I am free to take those risks.- Central to the rationale here is you in the driving seat. But what if you come up against someone who embarked on the ideology described by me here? One that sought to suppress yours in order to rise above yours.Can I suggest you'd alter your idealogy in a way that would align more closely to mine? Certainly the gay marriage lobby in Ireland are very well organised and are applying no small expertise in the application of the various "weapons of war"- Logically your ideology is similarily subject to be conquered by the foundations of the ideology described by me here. It's not as if the world has never known war nor will never know it again. There really is nothing new under the sun.- The alternative approach is survival of the fittest. This may necessitate compromise as well as war - whatever works best in achieving own ends is best. If the history of the world tells us anything it tells us that this way is the way it has forever been.If you have a "right" to your ideology - and the way in which you establish, maintain and propagate it then rationally speaking I have that same "right". There is no rational difference. The irrationality begins as soon as yours is pushed at by mine and you begin to complain or shout "bigot".For are you not doing precisely the same as me, playing things in such a way as to best protect and support your preferred ideology. You find compromise does that - but are prepared for more war when push comes to shove. I find too much compromise has taken place w.r.t. where I would like my ideology to be, and so it's time to go to war - just as the gay marriage lobby are doing.- Your goal is to protect your ideology. You would support the law against gay marriage being changed because you suppose this to better protect your own ideology (irrespective of your personal views on gay marriage perhaps). Your ideological view would be sustained or advanced by such a move.My view is also ideological and I want the law to remain as it is (in Ireland) in order to better sustain my view. If anyone has rights to go to war/compromise in order to advance their cause, then both have those rights.I'm not sure if it's to yourself I made these comments but "restriction in personal freedom" isn't the only consideration that warrants attention (at least not in my ideology). Society can have particular 'flavours' and I can act ideologically in order to maintain the current flavour or change the flavour to another. All in accordance with the kind of society I desire to live in.If this means restricting the freedom of others to have the flavour that they want then so be it. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

It was. Laissez-faire is a rational approach that arises when the preparedness to compromise outweighs the desire to have particular aspects of your ideology hold sway.War is a rational approach as well. It arises when compromise on points of ideology isn't considered desirable.- That's a fair enough point. Although I wonder did Martin Luther King have a rationale for stating what he believed was the case. If not, then it would go to show that irrational ideologies can be powerful agents of change.- I don't believe that there is such a thing as independant and objective arbitration. Every democracy is assembled from the ideological parts-bin of the people that established (and continue to modify) it. The mechanisms you describe are the very battlegrounds on which the fight takes place: in the courts, in the media, in the legislature, on the juries heartstrings.Your own ideologies interests leak from the page here by the way. You seek to have your own and all other ideologies agree to bow to the objective-outsider. This, in order that all ideologies will have equal and communally protected recourse to expression. All because you see this as the best way to have expression of your ideology protectedBut there is no account taken of an ideology prepared for war - one which will, in other words, utilise the instruments of state to it's own best advantage - just as it expects it's ideological opponants to do.- Forgive me if some won't think you a Patsy in that case. They'll be out lobbying the judge the day before the hearing, while you sit on your hands in hope of an objective bite of the cherry.- You never heard of the trick whereby you cut the cake obviously disproportionately - whilst angling the knife sharply into the larger piece and so delivering more to the side of the 'smaller' portion. Present top surface of the cake to your brother and...If your ideology is worth anything then it's worth fighting to have the biggest piece of the expression-of-ideology cake. To settle for a happy medium without a fight would signify an ideology consisting of tenets which are not worth fighting for. Don't push the greed analogy though - for it's not about greed - the ideology might well be about what a person figures is best for society at large. We all (if at all) have a right to do what we think is best for society at large.- Not at all - simply because it wouldn't be possible (nor necessarily desirable). This doesn't mean that you should approach things in a completely laissez-faire fashion however. War when war is best /compromise when compromise is best / laissez -faire when it doesn't matter enough to suffer the others.- The history of the world says otherwise. Empires spanning centuries have come and gone and have been sustained through a warfare / needs-must diplomacy approach. But you've acknowledged as much here ...- Another unavoidable aspect of humankind. We forget the lessons of history (hence the Bibles wisdom about there being nothing new under the sun) For sure, we can read about the past and understand it in a "head sense". But it tends to be exposure to the actual horror of war, seared into the collective consciousness, that would scrabble to seek ways to avoid going there again. And only that that would sustain those ways for a season. All until the horror dissolves from memory and present day needs and desires come bubbling back up to the surface. The cycle repeats simply because the nature of human beings doesn't change.- It's not a matter of choice for there is no choice. The way you propose simply isn't the way the world actually works. You're swimming against the tide.Gay marriage lobbyists are currently emboiled in a battle to have gay marriage legalised in Ireland. The ideology they push is the very one you apply "equal rights for all". And they call those who fight against their ideology in order to have their own ideology hold sway homophobes and bigots.Perhaps all is fair in love and war.- Like I say, there is no choice about it. War and not peace governs mankinds spiritual makeup. It'll never be any different, not until Christ comes. It's not meant to be.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

double postEdited by iano, : No reason given.

You'll accept that there is nothing irrational about the method whereby some one/group attempts to have their ideology exert influence: war and compromise-if-I-must are the actual tools used and, in the case where aspects of anothers ideology matter not a whit to you, laissez-faire.- Your own position gets agitated because the world doesn't work in the way you would like it to (ideologically). And you accept it never will. How rational to desire for a world that will never be? ever.As has been already pointed out, your own laissez-faire position is ideologically driven - it has the express aim of bringing about circumstances in which your own ideology remains free to express itself and survive. It's no more rational that a war approach though - just a means to an end. Indeed, laissez-faire is arguably less rational - given the success of the war approach in sustaining ideologies at No.1 positionOn compromise, would you consider compromising the central tenets of your own laissez-faire ideology?- What consitutes the boundaries of "adverse"? How is it measured? Without some objective judge (for there are no non-ideological judges) how can we progress? Practical / rational reasons for restricting the rights of cannibals. And whether or not you would society to adopt this particular flavour.Clearly, there is more to this than mere "so long as it doesn't affect me directly". Indirectly is a broader brushstroke - far more difficult to nail down in a sentence. As previously mentioned, ability to compromise is inversely proportional to the desire to have aspects of one's ideology hold sway. If you don't care all that much for aspects of your ideology then you'll compromise them away. If you care very much you won't.Fine sounding words Straggler, but that's all that lies at the root. See the response to your first bullet point. Expense is very much in the eye of the beholder. As mentioned, rational expression and utilisation of all the tools at one's disposal forms part of the game called "war". And all other ideologies are free to have a crack at the same whip. I just don't pretend that everyone else isn't attempting to do the same as me.The gay marriage lobby are certainly fighting on the beaches and in the air, in Ireland.