RANK the concepts below in their importance to you. Discussion welcome.

Oh Glis, Glis, Glis....:-/

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person. Why would you spout such a load of hogwash as this? Without culture and civilization, your "individual liberty" would start and end with the "liberty" to die of exposure as an infant.

I disagree.  
As for culture,  culture doesn't doesn't protect liberty in and of itself.   In fact there are numerous examples throughout history and current times that are in or have been in direct opposition to individuality and liberty.

Civilization is similar.   Take Rome for example.  The Roman civilization was created and thrived on slavery, conquest, domination, and a rigid class system with stringent rules limiting personal liberty and expression.  It could  even be argue that civilization is historically a  repeatedly failed human experiment.  All have failed and collapsed into complete disaster  so far.

Neither culture or civilization uphold or represent liberty and human rights in and of themselves.  I put culture and civilization behind liberty and our doctrine of Law because there are so many examples of oppressive civilizations and cultures.  Without liberty everything else is chit.

@Glis -- You are missing the point. We agree that some cultures/societies do a BETTER job of securing individual liberty than others. But without culture, there IS NO INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. Liberty cannot exist if people are dead, and a human being without a culture to protect, nurture, and educate him/her is just a naked infant powerless to secure its own survival.

Moreover, I would argue what you call "liberty" I call the fundamental basis of the social compact. I give up some of my "liberty" (i.e. the liberty to bash other people's heads in with rocks). You give up some of your "liberty" (your ability to bash others' heads in if you so desire). In exchange for giving up those liberties, we agree to COOPERATE within a society/culture for mutual benefit.

Disagree again.   The natural drive for a parent to take of their young isn't cultural, it's instinctual.

Liberty in it's very essence is mutual.   Bashing someones head in with a rock outside of defense isn't liberty.  It's a direct assault on liberty.  Civilizations have historically been about entitlement and preservation of social positions as opposed to actual liberty.  They have been oppressive by their very nature. Corruptions of freedom not bringers of liberty. Liberty in essence is equality, not the freedom of some to oppress and deny others.


 i gather your point about being dead but it's a platitude. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 25, 2016 12:04 PM MST

@Gils -- I'm going to abandon the discussion here, because it would take too long to establish a mutually-agreed-upon framework where terms like "liberty" were firmly enough defined to make progress. I encourage you to study some linguistics, particularly the subject of metaphoric construction and concept mapping.

I will end by noting my appeal to survival is anything but a platitude. There are many Five-Time Losers...er, Objectivists/Libertarians who SERIOUSLY BELIEVE nonsense like "We reject all forms of altruism" and their nonsense has a significant influence on our moral and political discussions in the United States.

Not all libertarians are objectivists and in truth make up a fairly small number of them.  Many of us reject objectivism, especially as an absolute.  They are not the same thing.

My linguistics are fine, but I agree to end it and was gonna say the same thing when I saw you  replied again( not saying you shouldn't have or to shut up and listen or any of that nonsense).  To be honest I just don't think we are that far off from our views just express them differently on the subject so their really isn't much point to it.

" (but you dont get to be racist, sexist or use any language which is mean to others)"

This is a ridiculous provision that guts free expression. Anything of any substance whatsoever is upsetting to some hypersensitive weakling somewhere. People have free speech or they don't. You need to decide which side you're on.

Being overly "civil" is actually a massive threat to society because it enshrines people's feelings above the truth. Civilizations are built on truth and they collapse when people no longer care about the truth.

This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 25, 2016 9:17 AM MST

ah you make a fundamental mistake my friend.. it takes GUTS to stand up to racist and sexist nastiness.. it takes guts AND intelligence and it takes being CIVILISED to understand that all people are equal all people deserve respect... its the gutless spineless head in the sand idiots who spout racist sexist and discriminatory comments.. it's cowardly.. stupid.. 

And this word weaklings.. see that's a fundamental mistake.. to think that someone of another race is weak just because they are of a different race or colour? Now that's illogical! And erm dumb... would you spout racist rubbish if you were in Africa among all black people? no of course you wouldnt and you would know you are the weak one there.. so you would have to accept, (but probably wont) that intrinsically neither race is inherrently weaker.. and most likely physicaly you would be the weaker...

I am therefore on the side of civilisation.. of respect... 

One is free to say what one wants.. and in fact believe it or not Brits tend to have more free speech than most because we don't cowtow to the rich and we do speak up to bosses and managers.. we are strong on our rights.. but respecting our rights mean we have to respect others..  

And this IS the truth.. that we are no better, stronger or anything than someone from another race and the trouble with spouting racist evil is that it does incite violence.. I bet you wouldn't be feeling so brave and so proud if you say something racist or sexist and the person you say it to turns round and hits you.. 

What destroys civilisations is many things but it aint truth! It's being to greedy, destroying and polluting the land AND being invaded.. oh and disrespect.. if we go about with hate for anyone who is different all that will do is cause wars and violence..

One fundamental mistake??
Only one??
That thing has more holes in it than the Albert Hall.

LOL I was trying to be tactful :P

You didn't understand a word I said. I'm not racist or any other kind of "ist".

I did not say that people are weak when they stand up to racists. When strong people feel insulted they ignore it or they fight back with their free speech. When weak people feel insulted they ask the government to intervene and gag their opponent. They want laws that protect their feelings.

Stop representing yourself with that stupid face and moniker and maybe you might be taken more seriously.  Ever think that maybe you are a hate magnet?

That's cool if you can take the heat.

You are getting beaten down before you start typing every time someone sees that freakazoid up there, they get totally turned off.

Sorry i read your response and mine still stands.. fwiw you are still mistaken and that stems from what you repeat again.. the mistaken assumption that those who are subjected to racist, sexist and other ist comments are somehow "weak" - you took the trouble to repeat that mistaken assumption... sooo..

Civilizations collapse when their power and population becomes bigger than the amount of resources left that they were built on. You can't tell me that Ancient Egypt with it's Pharaohs  giving power based on there divinity granted from animal headed gods was based on truth for example.  Just sayin'.

Civilizations have all grown from a dominance of resources or technologies and collapse once those resources are depleted and/or the technology is brought to common knowledge.  It has little to nothing to do with truth. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 25, 2016 10:10 AM MST

There are many ways civilizations can collapse. Refusal to see the truth is one of them. I'll give you an example. 

To avoid demographic collapse a nation must achieve an average birth rate greater than 2 in the long term. If it doesn't it will suffer economically because there are too many old people taking out of the system and not enough young people paying in. Eventually it would die out.

Many liberal nations are obsessed with gender equality. They think that everyone who wants traditional gender roles is a horrible sexist. Though equality is causing their birth rates to collapse. Europe averages a 1.6. This has hugely negative consequences and will destroy the society if not turned around.

Nations like Germany and Sweden are welcoming lots of Muslim migrants to help prevent demographic collapse because Muslim societies have high birth rates. If current trends continue Islam will take over many European nations and destroy the liberal values they hold dear. Anyone who tries to point it out is called racist and sexist, so their society is doomed. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at November 25, 2016 10:53 AM MST

Possible future scenarios are not proofs in the present.   You failed to prove your point.

"Individual liberty ( but you dont get to be racist, sexist or use any language which is mean to others) "

That's an oxymoron.   Not saying I condone it, but it's their right to say whatever they think and it's our right to user our freedom to shame them for it and prove them to be wrong and nonsensical.