best –adjective, superl. of good with better as compar. 1. of the highest quality, excellence, or standing: the best work; the best students.
Pretty simple. If something is worth doing, it's worth doing well.
Live and let live - that means tolerance. Should everyone tolerate everything? Got any lines drawn? How about your side tolerating my side?
If it doesn't directly affect you, then who cares? Who cares if the guy down the street smokes pot every day after work. As long as he's not going to get in his car and fall asleep and run over some people. Who cares?
If some woman wants to dress seductively and let someone take pictures of her. Who cares? It's her demon to live with, not mine, not your's.
I believe in laissez-faire. Not just economically.
I don't need to control other's behavior. And guess what...I can't, neither can you. We can only control our own behavior. End of story.
This is from another thread Kev. Instead of AM you could easily slip in AK
To: SeekAndFind
B-CHAN: Thousands of years of Western civilization preferring male-female bonding leading to marriage and family is a good thing, and Anna feels that it’s a bad thing. Is that totally fair? Or am I putting words in your mouth?
AM: I don’t think it’s necessarily preferable. I think that people should be able to make their own choices.
B-CHAN: Why?
AM: Because it’s wrong to coerce anyone into behaving a certain way.
B-CHAN: Wrong? As in morally wrong?
AM: Yes.
B-CHAN: Sez who?
AM: Excuse me?
B-CHAN: You said that it’s wrong to coerce someone into behaving a certain way. Sez who? Who says it’s wrong to coerce people?
AM: Well, it’s against freedom.
B-CHAN: So what?
AM: Well, freedom is good, so anything that restricts it is evil.
B-CHAN: Who says freedom is good?
AM: Human nature. People naturally want to be free.
B-CHAN: But I thought that human nature didn’t exist. Didn’t you just say that human nature was, in effect, socially determined?
AM: Well, the desire for freedom isn’t. It’s natural.
B-CHAN: Again, says who?
AM: Says reality, I suppose.
B-CHAN: So freedom is the ultimate value? The standard of goodness?
AM: Yes.
B-CHAN: Sez who?
AM: Look, this is —
B-CHAN: Skip it. Are you saying that people should be totally free to do whatever they want?
AM: As long as they’re not hurting anyone else, or the Earth, yes.
B-CHAN: So it’s wrong to hurt other people? Or the Earth?
AM: Yes.
B-CHAN: Sez who?
AM: This interview is over.
22 posted on Monday, December 29, 2008 6:18:36 PM by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
1. Everyone has his own idea of “best” - the “best” pimp, the “best” drag queen, the “best” porn star or producer, the “best” Marine, the “best” medieval scholar, etc etc.
In your world, apparently, these are all equally valid. No moral judgements allowed. Each person can make his own morality and they are all equal.... but...
2. Laissez faire - no moral judgements - let everyone choose his own path, they’re all equal - EXCEPT, those who disagree with you. THEY are wrong.
Internal nullification of your own philosophical foundation. If you were truly laissez faire you’d tolerate and be neutral about opinions and viewpoints that are diametrically in opposition to your own. But no, you are right and I am wrong, according to your comments here, so you do not have a laissez faire viewpint after all. A truly laissez faire advocate would see this thread (if they bothered to read it at all) and think with a shrug of the shoulders - “each to his own” and leave it at that.
You just want your side of unrestricted hedonism to be the default cultural standard, falsely parading the banner of laissez faire or tolerance. But your own words belie that so-called tolerance.