IntenseDebate - judahlevi

11 years ago @ Frontpage Magazine - London Police to Hire ... · 0 replies · +2 points

Discriminating by race is pure discrimination. There is no such thing as "positive" discrimination. It is always negative because it is based on collective thinking and judgmentalism.

People are individuals, not groups. It is the mind that creates diversity, not the skin color. The essence of each individual is their mind, not their body.

Multiculturalism is flawed. It is based on a false premise that people are groups and that people are defined by which group they can be put into. People are individuals no matter what their religion or ethnicity is. A racist sees people as groups, an individualist sees people as individuals.

Multiculturalism thinks like a racist; Individualism can never be racist.

http://centerforindividualism.wordpress.com

11 years ago @ Frontpage Magazine - The Radical Dream · 1 reply · +6 points

Adam Smith was better as an economist than he was as a moralist. Let's not confuse the two.

The world economies have moved beyond what Smith even understood, and we need to move on as well. Smith's greatest economic contribution was his attack on central planning compared to free market movements. Unfortunately, the left continues to believe in central planning because they can only create their utopia by controlling all pricing and wages. Of course, they will tell us where to live, what to do, and how much we can have "each according to (what they determine are) his needs." Yes, there is a difference between the left and the right.

11 years ago @ Frontpage Magazine - The Radical Dream · 0 replies · +6 points

"Remember, along with the American Left which brought us the drug epidemic and lots of bad ideas, it also brought us the Civil Rights Act, concern for the environment and so on."

This is baloney. The American Left is institutionalizing racism and other collective forms of thinking - just observe Obama. They won't let us get beyond the fifties because of their obsession of thinking of people as groups instead of as individuals.

It is the Republican party which pushed for civil rights laws for the last 100 years. It was the Democratic party which formed the KKK, created the Jim Crow laws, and even voted with less proportionality for the Civil Rights Act than Republicans. It was only Republicans who voted for the 14th Amendment without one Democratic vote.

The American Left, as with all other leftists, is a disaster and always has been. And yes, I am conflating the Democratic party with the left because 'it is what it is.'

11 years ago @ Frontpage Magazine - Is Gay Marriage Actual... · 0 replies · +5 points

I am not "imposing" anything. There is no such thing as "gay" marriage. That is the law of my state and I am happy to keep things the way they are.

11 years ago @ Frontpage Magazine - Is Gay Marriage Actual... · 17 replies · +3 points

No, it is not a matter of "common decency", it is a matter of your opinion. People who disagree are not indecent. Again, you cannot impose your morality on others anymore than you want them to impose their morality on you. And, no, your position is not the only moral one.

Jumping to conclusions is also not helpful. My "higher authority" has never endorsed slavery or polygamy but go ahead and read too much into that as well.

11 years ago @ Frontpage Magazine - The Life of a Modern J... · 0 replies · +9 points

Until the world stops grouping people and assigning values to them, negative or positive, we will continue suffer the tragedies of human conflict. The only solution is the human relational philosophy of Individualism which states that all human beings are deserving of respect. It also states that all individuals are unique and no one should be assigned to any grouping for judgmental purposes. Collective thinking has been one of the worst human traits in history.

11 years ago @ Frontpage Magazine - Is Gay Marriage Actual... · 36 replies · +3 points

Polls do not validate or invalidate an individual's position on changing the definition of marriage. There are courageous people who will stand on principle even if they are the only one standing. No matter what any public opinion poll or court may decide, for those of us who have a higher authority than public opinion or changing laws, a true marriage will always be between one man and one woman.

Public opinion in Nazi Germany changed laws to take private property and rights away from the Jews. Public opinion in Egypt today would take property and rights away from Coptic Christians. Public opinion is never the sole arbiter of what is right or what is moral.

11 years ago @ Frontpage Magazine - Is Gay Marriage Actual... · 1 reply · +3 points

Saying that marriage is between one man and one woman is not "foisting" any morals on anyone. That is a pathetic and irrational statement. And if you believe that it is morally correct to change the definition of marriage, then exactly who is "foisting" their morality on others?

This argument often breaks down into phantom concepts which never existed.

Marriage Equality - there is no such thing. Marriage is marriage.

Civil Right of Two Men or Two Women to Call Their Relationship Marriage - there is no such civil right.

Gay Marriage - there is no such thing.

None of these abstract concepts exist except in the minds of supporters of two men or two women changing the definition of marriage to include same genders. If the supporters of this change in definition can convince the majority of Americans that these non-existent rights and terminology needs to be made valid by changing the definition of marriage, then that may happen. This does not change the fact that none of these so-called rights have ever existed before.

11 years ago @ Frontpage Magazine - Is Gay Marriage Actual... · 8 replies · +1 points

Your comparison of a true civil rights issue with a false one is apples to oranges. There is no civil right for two men or two women to get married. Frankly, your historical reference is a dilution to a real civil rights issue which is almost as off base as PETA comparing the slaughter of chickens to the Holocaust. There is no comparison between the two.

If you extrapolate the logic in changing the definition of marriage, you will legitimize polygamy. That's fine if that is what you want to do - but let's not play favorites for homosexuals and leave out polygamists. How fair is that?

Besides, as asked before, why would you be opposed to three people getting married if they really loved each other? If it IS a civil right, why is the number two sacred? Why not three or more? Only a bigot would oppose polygamy if marriage is truly a civil right for all. Either you are for 'civil rights' for everyone or you are discriminating against someone.

11 years ago @ Frontpage Magazine - Is Gay Marriage Actual... · 7 replies · +5 points

Keith, please. Oh yes, the almighty "law" is the arbiter of morality in our country. Anyone who believes this does not understand morality - it has nothing to do with law.

If you haven't noticed - laws change. The US Supreme Court at one time legally sanctioned individuals as personal property. It has also more recently allowed discrimination against individuals because of their skin color for university admissions. Both decisions were immoral - both decisions sanctioned discrimination. One is still law.

Your faith in the "courts' sounds very much like a naïve law student who is awestruck by his law professors. Laws can be anything a group in power wants them to be - just look at the history of Nazi Germany. As for the "right" of two men or two women to marry, there is no such civil right unless the definition of marriage is changed. If you change it, you might as well change the number as well. Every question you asked about polygamy can be answered and precedents set. Besides, how could you be so cruel and inhuman to deny the right of three people who love each other to marry?

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with judahlevi

People I'm following

judahlevi