Survey: Liberal Recom?

[Dominic]

Originally Posted by Cactus

Is this name-calling?

Wouldn't it be less idiotic to act upon one's conviction?

Only if you really believe that you're an idiot. Notice that I never mentioned anyone specifically.

And acting upon one's conviction, like deciding to have breakfast because one believes in the importance of it, is not wrong. However, forcing everyone around you to have breakfast with you would be considered rather idiotic.

Originally Posted by day_dreamer

Maybe we can have a room here, a mini subforum for those radically minded? BUT then again, if we do that, we risk our self getting detained by the ISA.

There are many such places all over the internet. It's pretty easy to find them with Google. However, such places should never be frequented as psychologically speaking, having a discussion with a group of strong-minded people (especially in a negative way) can influence your thoughts and behaviors as well.

[Cactus]

Originally Posted by Dominic

Only if you really believe that you're an idiot. Notice that I never mentioned anyone specifically.

==

Nothing against you, but the reason I (apparently) oppose to calling people idiots (or an opinion idiotic) in this forum is that it tends to inhibit an open and honest exchange of ideas and opinion.

Alright, everybody go on with their discussion. Not going to start an argument on this.

[Dominic]

Originally Posted by Cactus

==

Nothing against you, but the reason I (apparently) oppose to calling people idiots (or an opinion idiotic) in this forum is that it tends to inhibit an open and honest exchange of ideas and opinion.

Alright, everybody go on with their discussion. Not going to start an argument on this.

OK, was wondering what your comment meant at first.

Saying XXX is an idiot would be name-calling. You do have to admit that some people are just plain idiotic at times. If someone said that women do not deserve equal rights as men because they are beneath us, wouldn't you call that idiotic?

[Cactus]

Originally Posted by Dominic

If someone said that women do not deserve equal rights as men because they are beneath us, wouldn't you call that idiotic?

Calling him/her or their opinion idiotic wouldn't be helpful to convince that said person otherwise.

[after deliberating for 20 seconds: But that is the case only if we believe in pure reason, which I don't. If it is in your interest to make the person agree with you, then perhaps you might want to shame him/her into agreeing with you, either by appealing to whatever authority or exerting pressure apart from (or instead of!) arguing "rationally". The power of rational reasoning in persuasion is limited. The reasoning process alone won't tell us whether we should repeal the Article 377b of the Penal Code, whether abortion should be allowed etc, unless we share some common fundamental values/beliefs which may act as "axioms" in our discussion/debate/argument from which other opinion can be developed.]

Sometimes, when we recommers debate on certain social/political issues, we are actually disagreeing on those fundamental values that serve as "axioms". Say homosexuality, a "liberal-inclined" (or gay) recommer might say it should be accepted, because nobody is harmed, whereas another recommer would point out that their religion says homosexuality is immoral so they can't accept it, and might further assert that the government should regulate "homosexual activities" (e.g. by criminalizing consensual fellatio and penile-anal sex). So in the end the issue boils down to whether you believe, as a first principle that an individual's right extend to right before where it infringes upon the rights of others, or that such rights are inferior to your religion that prescribes a different set of rules.

I consider myself to be irreligious and I believe in secular laws. So when someone appeals to their religion in a debate, it usually means the end of discussion to me. It would be similar to teaching complex numbers with your students insisting that there can only be real numbers.(*1) Of course, I could be the teacher or students. Not being condescending here.

-----------------------------
Note *1: A complex number has an imaginary component. E.g. Real numbers would be -- 1, 2, -1, -2, 0, pi, e, square root of 2 etc....

Complex numbers are 2 + 8i, 3 + ei , a + bi, in which a and b are real numbers, i = square root of (-1)/

[Sillyboy]

Originally Posted by Cactus

Calling him/her or their opinion idiotic wouldn't be helpful to convince that said person otherwise.

[after deliberating for 20 seconds: But that is the case only if we believe in pure reason, which I don't. If it is in your interest to make the person agree with you, then perhaps you might want to shame him/her into agreeing with you, either by appealing to whatever authority or exerting pressure apart from (or instead of!) arguing "rationally". The power of rational reasoning in persuasion is limited. The reasoning process alone won't tell us whether we should repeal the Article 377b of the Penal Code, whether abortion should be allowed etc, unless we share some common fundamental values/beliefs which may act as "axioms" in our discussion/debate/argument from which other opinion can be developed.]

Sometimes, when we recommers debate on certain social/political issues, we are actually disagreeing on those fundamental values that serve as "axioms". Say homosexuality, a "liberal-inclined" (or gay) recommer might say it should be accepted, because nobody is harmed, whereas another recommer would point out that their religion says homosexuality is immoral so they can't accept it, and might further assert that the government should regulate "homosexual activities" (e.g. by criminalizing consensual fellatio and penile-anal sex). So in the end the issue boils down to whether you believe, as a first principle that an individual's right extend to right before where it infringes upon the rights of others, or that such rights are inferior to your religion that prescribes a different set of rules.

I consider myself to be irreligious and I believe in secular laws. So when someone appeals to their religion in a debate, it usually means the end of discussion to me. It would be similar to teaching complex numbers with your students insisting that there can only be real numbers.(*1) Of course, I could be the teacher or students. Not being condescending here.

-----------------------------
Note *1: A complex number has an imaginary component. E.g. Real numbers would be -- 1, 2, -1, -2, 0, pi, e, square root of 2 etc....

Complex numbers are 2 + 8i, 3 + ei , a + bi, in which a and b are real numbers, i = square root of (-1)/

COMPLEX NUMBERS DO NOT EXIST! One of my lecturers wholehearted believes that...apologies lol! Couldn't resist the cheeky comment!

[CelineD]

Originally Posted by ayjiahui

i don't think you can polarize the ReCom community to 100% pro-liberal stances and 100& conservative stances. it is a huge sweeping statement to say that all liberals are anti-government, anti-establishment, anti-tradition.

so could you be a bit more specific?

Haha, to clarify myself I wan't trying to make a general statement. I did make a rather general observation though, because (other than the usual scholarship and tertiary education stuff) you see more liberal stands on many issues, but I am also aware that this may not reflect every young person around (like in my school for instance many people are conservative, sticking to their own race/religion and significantly pro-government) so I'm trying to see how true is the seemingly liberal slant of Recom by asking you guys' opinions.

Originally Posted by youngyew

Having a private racist sub forum defeats the whole point of free speech. What are we gonna do? Create a place where racists could spew bigotry and where others aren't allowed to criticize?

Haha, I have nothing against forums where people of the same faith gather to discuss faith issues (note: to strengthen the fellowship among believers,not to blast other faiths, btw!) but well, classing based on race is a step back in achieving real unity.

Speaking of race, it's funny to see how among many people, unity is still "Malay, Chinese and Indian". First of all, there are many other races besides these 3 and secondly (and most importantly) if people are really united shouldn't they don't give a hoot about race at all when talking about other people, e.g "that boy" instead of "that Indian boy"?

[youngyew]

Originally Posted by CelineD

Haha, I have nothing against forums where people of the same faith gather to discuss faith issues (note: to strengthen the fellowship among believers,not to blast other faiths, btw!) but well, classing based on race is a step back in achieving real unity.

A sub-forum in ReCom for Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc are fine if it's just set up to classify the nature of the discussion. However, some people have this idea that those sub-forums should be limited to only its own believers in order to isolate itself from "assaults" from people of other faiths, and it is such an idea that I oppose, as this defeats the purpose of free speech. Same for "Malay" sub-forum, "Chinese" sub-forum etc, if it's a sub-forum for racist Chinese to lambast Malays together, and then expect immunity from criticism, then no, that's not going to happen.

[day_dreamer]

Originally Posted by youngyew

A sub-forum in ReCom for Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc are fine if it's just set up to classify the nature of the discussion. However, some people have this idea that those sub-forums should be limited to only its own believers in order to isolate itself from "assaults" from people of other faiths, and it is such an idea that I oppose, as this defeats the purpose of free speech. Same for "Malay" sub-forum, "Chinese" sub-forum etc, if it's a sub-forum for racist Chinese to lambast Malays together, and then expect immunity from criticism, then no, that's not going to happen.

I think it is possible to create one such subforums about religion.. it actually help us understand our religion more. AS long as there are active moderators around to keep an eye on things everything should be fine.

[Dominic]

Originally Posted by day_dreamer

I think it is possible to create one such subforums about religion.. it actually help us understand our religion more. AS long as there are active moderators around to keep an eye on things everything should be fine.

I think you can just create a thread for that. It would be easier.

[youngyew]

We create a sub-forum when there are a lot of threads belonging to the same category, and the obvious examples are JPA, Malaysian politics, undergraduate studies, etc etc.

There are threads out there about various religions (just search for "buddhism", "islam" etc) but they aren't really that numerous so it doesn't really justify a sub-forum at this point. Otherwise we will be creating three hundred sub-forums for all sorts of topics under the sun.