Iranian woman to be stoned for adultery

[peter12]

Originally Posted by FireFly

So what you're saying is democracy trumps liberty?

Hell, Canada is more liberal than the US. In fact, I would consider Canada a much better beacon of liberty than the US. Let's talk about a dictionary definition of liberty first and go from there...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty

Now if you click that link, one of my favorite definitions pops up... I'll highlight it here just to show you if you're too lazy to click the link.

This is just a sample of what liberty is, there are additional definitions listed.

Now if you look at number three, would you say that having a gay marriage bill defeated would give gays 'freedom from control to do, think or speak according to choice"? I don't think so. Liberty would mean that those opposing gay marriage can say, "I don't think that's right!", (as they are free from the control of their speech,) while gay people say, "that's too bad! I am at liberty to choose the spouse that I wish!"

Just as an example. Neither act would infringe on the rights of others as stated in the constitution, but would allow for maximum liberty. See?

I'm not saying Canada is perfect; the battle over the Alberta Human Rights Act is proof of that. However in general, Canada is a beacon of liberty, and a damn good one at that.

Weird response. First of all, regardless of what Webster's says, liberty is not unconstrained freedom from authoritative institutions or rules. That's actually called nihilism.

We live in democracies where the right to rule is given by majority consent. In cases like gay marriage where the legitimacy of a right granted and protected by the state is not entirely clear-cut, democratic options should be exercised to facilitate a dialogue.

Gay marriage in Canada does not mean that Canadians are more tolerant people than Americans. It was legalized in Canada by the elites, not through democratic or constitutional consensus.

Even if Canada is more free than the United States, which I actually believe it somewhat is, we are a fairly insignificant middle power state which has literally no sway in global politics or the political culture on liberal democracy. Following my above argument, every liberal country holds themselves to an American standard of liberty, whether they agree with it or not.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Congratulations to the US for electing a non-white male leader 16 years after Canada's female Prime Minister served a term in office?

Put in place as a scapegoat by an outgoing leader and resoundingly defeated in a following federal election?

I was more pointing out that the United States has essentially overcome it's legacy of institutionalized racism against black people.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

I was more pointing out that the United States has essentially overcome it's legacy of institutionalized racism against black people.

Wow. Is this actually something you truly believe?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Congratulations to the US for electing a non-white male leader 16 years after Canada's female Prime Minister served a term in office?

She was never elected.... she inheirited the office when Mulroney quit.

Then she lost the first election she faced, when John Q Public actually had a chance to vote for her, as PM.

Not only did she lose her seat but her party lost every seat except 2, if I recall.


Canada has nothing to brag about here.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

All of those countries struggle with institutionalized racism. Besides, I wouldn't call Denmark or Sweden "liberal" countries. More like conservative communitarian cultures that create social institutions to preserve a culture.

I have a unique perspective on this thanks to spending so much of my life outside of Iceland, I will say early 90's that Iceland definitely had issues with racism, in fact in some small percentage of the people I'd say xenophobic issues.

A lot has changed in the last 20 yrs, a noticeable minority exists now where as in the 80's/90's just seeing a non white person would make your head turn.

In the nordic nations, there is definitely some of that, although the younger generations growing up with diversity are not going to be anything like their previous generations. The real 'racial' issues now are a lot more to do with growing immigration concerns and many perceived fears of Islamic groups moving in and changing the culture they hold so dear.

Just because you don't call them 'liberal' countries by your American standards if that is your standard those nations are certainly by many definitions more liberal and yes more socialized/institutionalized. By no means a libertarian haven.

If its simply a debate about how people are given rights, how they are protected and nothing else; I'd hazard to say it would be hard to find countries more liberal than these countries.

But I'm no expert on this issue.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Weird response. First of all, regardless of what Webster's says, liberty is not unconstrained freedom from authoritative institutions or rules. That's actually called nihilism.

We live in democracies where the right to rule is given by majority consent. In cases like gay marriage where the legitimacy of a right granted and protected by the state is not entirely clear-cut, democratic options should be exercised to facilitate a dialogue.

Gay marriage in Canada does not mean that Canadians are more tolerant people than Americans. It was legalized in Canada by the elites, not through democratic or constitutional consensus.

Even if Canada is more free than the United States, which I actually believe it somewhat is, we are a fairly insignificant middle power state which has literally no sway in global politics or the political culture on liberal democracy. Following my above argument, every liberal country holds themselves to an American standard of liberty, whether they agree with it or not.

The question was whether Canada is more liberal that the US. Your bolded comment suggests that if the decision was put through a referendum in Canada it would have been defeated, I would dispute that, certainly there is way more support for gay marriages in Canada than the US.

BTW I don't know what you mean by "Constitutional Consensus", if you mean through a courts interpretation of what the Charter of Human Rights guarantees, then that is exactly how it was legalized in the provinces.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

The question was whether Canada is more liberal that the US. Your bolded comment suggests that if the decision was put through a referendum in Canada it would have been defeated, I would dispute that, certainly there is way more support for gay marriages in Canada than the US.

BTW I don't know what you mean by "Constitutional Consensus", if you mean through a courts interpretation of what the Charter of Human Rights guarantees, then that is exactly how it was legalized in the provinces.

Ohhhhhh this is the wrong day to be having this discussion. Seriously, I am hungover and tired and the neural synapses aren't firing at all.

When I say constitution, I mean regimes. That's really what a constitution is: a reflection of what the citizens of a particular society love, hate, honour etc...

Aside from the flamboyant title, Barry Cooper does a pretty good job of explaining it here:

http://www.amazon.ca/Its-Regime-Stup...8531419&sr=8-1

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

I have a unique perspective on this thanks to spending so much of my life outside of Iceland, I will say early 90's that Iceland definitely had issues with racism, in fact in some small percentage of the people I'd say xenophobic issues.

A lot has changed in the last 20 yrs, a noticeable minority exists now where as in the 80's/90's just seeing a non white person would make your head turn.

In the nordic nations, there is definitely some of that, although the younger generations growing up with diversity are not going to be anything like their previous generations. The real 'racial' issues now are a lot more to do with growing immigration concerns and many perceived fears of Islamic groups moving in and changing the culture they hold so dear.

Just because you don't call them 'liberal' countries by your American standards if that is your standard those nations are certainly by many definitions more liberal and yes more socialized/institutionalized. By no means a libertarian haven.

If its simply a debate about how people are given rights, how they are protected and nothing else; I'd hazard to say it would be hard to find countries more liberal than these countries.

But I'm no expert on this issue.

I have Danish heritage and I can say basically the same. I think when people say "liberal," they mean CNN liberal. That is, they understand liberalism within the crude context of the modern political spectrum. Philosophically, the way liberalism developed into the societies we see today is pretty different. It's not about progress and it's not about tolerance.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by peter12

Ohhhhhh this is the wrong day to be having this discussion. Seriously, I am hungover and tired and the neural synapses aren't firing at all.

When I say constitution, I mean regimes. That's really what a constitution is: a reflection of what the citizens of a particular society love, hate, honour etc...

Aside from the flamboyant title, Barry Cooper does a pretty good job of explaining it here:

http://www.amazon.ca/Its-Regime-Stup...8531419&sr=8-1

Why refer to a book you know 99% of people on this forum haven't read?

How about you explaining your point of view instead of passing off the responsibility to another author. We want to know your position, not research a random author we know nothing about.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

We'll see how liberal the Americans are at the end of the year elections.
Seems to me the US is split right down the middle. Totally bi-polar.
40% one side, 40% the other side. The rest are independents or people who are always upset with the status quo and will vote for whoever sounds better than the current president.

In 2008 it was "Sick of Bush"
Maybe in 2012 it will be "Sick of Obama"

Well considering Obama has basically spent the last 2 years making a fool of himself and the office of the President I'd sure as hell think that a lot of Americans are going to want him out, or reduce his powers by taking away the Democratic majority in the legislative branch.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Why refer to a book you know 99% of people on this forum haven't read?

How about you explaining your point of view instead of passing off the responsibility to another author. We want to know your position, not research a random author we know nothing about.

Because describing one's position outside of the ideological norms of today is really difficult. Our words no longer are sufficient to describe what we mean or what we believe.

Really what I was doing was pointing the way to someone who understands the issues far better than I do. That's not a sign of arrogance, but a sign of humility on my part.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by peter12

Weird response. First of all, regardless of what Webster's says, liberty is not unconstrained freedom from authoritative institutions or rules. That's actually called nihilism.

We live in democracies where the right to rule is given by majority consent. In cases like gay marriage where the legitimacy of a right granted and protected by the state is not entirely clear-cut, democratic options should be exercised to facilitate a dialogue.

Gay marriage in Canada does not mean that Canadians are more tolerant people than Americans. It was legalized in Canada by the elites, not through democratic or constitutional consensus.

Even if Canada is more free than the United States, which I actually believe it somewhat is, we are a fairly insignificant middle power state which has literally no sway in global politics or the political culture on liberal democracy. Following my above argument, every liberal country holds themselves to an American standard of liberty, whether they agree with it or not.

One point I would raise is women's rights.

It's much more liberal in Scandinavia where their record of equal gender equality in the workplace and in education is far more advanced than in the US.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Ohhhhhh this is the wrong day to be having this discussion. Seriously, I am hungover and tired and the neural synapses aren't firing at all.

When I say constitution, I mean regimes. That's really what a constitution is: a reflection of what the citizens of a particular society love, hate, honour etc...

Aside from the flamboyant title, Barry Cooper does a pretty good job of explaining it here:

http://www.amazon.ca/Its-Regime-Stup...8531419&sr=8-1

Referencing Barry Cooper is not going settle this debate. I don't think we can really take the viewpoint of a marginal Alberta quasi-separatist's viewpoint as to what Canada really needs?

Since this is not good time to have this discussion I will drop it.

Have a great day! A couple Tylenol and 2-3 glasses of water will go a long way with that hangover.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by peter12

Because describing one's position outside of the ideological norms of today is really difficult. Our words no longer are sufficient to describe what we mean or what we believe.

Really what I was doing was pointing the way to someone who understands the issues far better than I do. That's not a sign of arrogance, but a sign of humility on my part.

I take it as a way of avoiding difficult questions.

How can anyone accurately debate the points you are attempting to raise? You can't really expect them to get these books, read, evaluate, and then come back and respond.

While identifying the sources of your ideas is good, your failure to explain them is frustrating.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

Referencing Barry Cooper is not going settle this debate. I don't think we can really take the viewpoint of a marginal Alberta quasi-separatist's viewpoint as to what Canada really needs?

Since this is not good time to have this discussion I will drop it.

Have a great day! A couple Tylenol and 2-3 glasses of water will go a long way with that hangover.

We shouldn't treat people's ideas the way we treat diseases. Dismissing someone's thoughts before immersing ourselves in those thoughts is just like getting an inoculation.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I take it as a way of avoiding difficult questions.

How can anyone accurately debate the points you are attempting to raise? You can't really expect them to get these books, read, evaluate, and then come back and respond.

While identifying the sources of your ideas is good, your failure to explain them is frustrating.

I'll come back to this thread in a couple of days perhaps and try again. In regards to recommending a book, some topics are too complicated to have without a good mutual understanding. I'm a student of political philosophy, I attend a good graduate school and will go on to do a PhD. I'm not being arrogant when I say that I have a better understanding of politics than probably most people on this board. That's totally fine. I am totally useless at just about everything else.

That said, I can't really discuss something like regime theory or history of political thought without at least recommending some background sources for other people. It's the only way I can get out of a debate sometimes. I'm not in a position of authority and frankly, I'm not well versed enough in these topics to pedagogically engage with my peers.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by peter12

We shouldn't treat people's ideas the way we treat diseases. Dismissing someone's thoughts before immersing ourselves in those thoughts is just like getting an inoculation.

Yes we can, if one takes in account past history of that person and doesn't agree with the fundamental concepts, then yes. Barry Cooper and the Calgary School I am very familiar with and their concept of the Alberta firewall is a thinly veiled separatist agenda.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

Yes we can, if one takes in account past history of that person and doesn't agree with the fundamental concepts, then yes. Barry Cooper and the Calgary School I am very familiar with and their concept of the Alberta firewall is a thinly veiled separatist agenda.

Yes, why though? The book is a pretty adequate apology for Western difference from Central Canada.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm not well versed enough in these topics to pedagogically engage with my peers.

You're not well versed enough to have ideas about the different methods of teaching philosophy? And you're in graduate school?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

You're not well versed enough to have ideas about the different methods of teaching philosophy? And you're in graduate school?

I know nothing except the fact of my own ignorance.