Activism

[StillILearn]

You said it, veggiedog. I've had a couple of peace bumperstickers on the back of my car for quite a while now and I have had some interesting experiences with the "love it or leave it" brand of fundamentalist style patriotism. (Although "Go back to your county heathen trash" does sound just like something Jesus would stick on somebody's locker, doesn't it?)

What flavor on non-Christian are you?

 

[StillILearn]

The Universality of the Golden Rule in the World Religions

Christianity
All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1
Confucianism
Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Analects 12:2
Buddhism
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1
Hinduism
This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517
Islam
No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Sunnah
Judaism
What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 3id
Taoism
Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien
Zoroastrianism
That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

Thank you for this veggiedog. A lot of these rules or laws are saying less than one might think they would about what one is actually doing to one's fellow humans, but are more about simply refraining from behaving harmfully towards them. An interesting distinction.

 

[SFG75]

Oh yeah, Mother Theresa was definitely full of herself.

The title of nun or priest doesn't in any way provide a person with a sense of pride?, pride that perhaps one would have to confess to on occassion? Or does simply helping the poor make you a completely selfless person who *never* has an ill-thought?

 

[Carrot]

I don’t believe that there is anything as a truly altruistic act.
It seams to me that what ever religion or system of ethics used and whatever political stance they take every human on the planet thinks that they are doing “the best” for themselves AND for the people around them. Whether doing “the best” means they get more riches now, better life or that they will have a better afterlife. Humans do good to the people around them because ultimately they or their decedents might benefit. Even if that person believes it is a selfless act I think they are deluding themselves.
I cannot think of one example of a truly altruistic act

 

[novella]

In the hopes of going back to the discussion on activism, I'd like to point out that all activists don't claim to be altruistic, they merely hope to persuade people to do what they want, sometimes for good and sometimes not. Judging each on their own merits, I would say that many activists do good through their actions.

 

[Libre]

In the hopes of going back to the discussion on activism, I'd like to point out that all activists don't claim to be altruistic, they merely hope to persuade people to do what they want, sometimes for good and sometimes not. Judging each on their own merits, I would say that many activists do good through their actions.

I would agree - but with the stipulation that many do harm. There was a movement in the late 1930's and early 1940's in Europe to expell or exterminate all Jews and non-Arian races. That wasn't the thinking in the early 1930's. Activists - lead by Adolph Hitler - changed things.

Somehow the term "ACTIVISTS" connotes a person as liberal (or at least non-conservative), and if mis-guided, at least their hearts are in the right place.
Not always.

 

[Carrot]

In the hopes of going back to the discussion on activism, I'd like to point out that all activists don't claim to be altruistic, they merely hope to persuade people to do what they want, sometimes for good and sometimes not. Judging each on their own merits, I would say that many activists do good through their actions.

Sorry novella but we got lost in altruism but that’s us just trying to be helpfull.

I would disagree that many activists do good. They may believe they are and many appear to be doing good at the time but many activists of the past are considered today to be the villains of society.

You say yourself that “they merely hope to persuade people to do what they want”. However I think that the only way for people to make a choice is for them to be given free and unbiased information (all the facts) not for them to be persuaded.

 

[StillILearn]

Sorry novella but we got lost in altruism but that’s us just trying to be helpfull.

hehe

... I think that the only way for people to make a choice is for them to be given free and unbiased information (all the facts) not for them to be persuaded.

Let's hear a "for instance", Carrot. Please choose something that you feel pretty sincerely about and give us only the free and unbiased facts.

Um. Let's say tax-supported abortions. Do you have an opinion on that? (I tried to choose something that has two distinct and emotionally charged sides to discuss, but you could use some other hot topic of your own choosing.)

 

[Carrot]

Let's hear a "for instance", Carrot. Please choose something that you feel pretty sincerely about and give us only the free and unbiased facts.

Um. Let's say tax-supported abortions. Do you have an opinion on that? (I tried to choose something that has two distinct and emotionally charged sides to discuss, but you could use some other hot topic of your own choosing.)

yes, I do have an opinion on that but that does not mean that I would not put the facts for both sides fairly. I will certainly rise to the chalenge and try to put forward the facts but give me a little time. I'll post tomorow.

 

[StillILearn]

yes, I do have an opinion on that but that does not mean that I would not put the facts for both sides fairly. I will certainly rise to the chalenge and try to put forward the facts but give me a little time. I'll post tomorow.

I'll look forward to it. Are you going to try not to proselytze at all? (Just curious. I'd love to see if I can guess which side you secretly come down on. If you dont. Proselytize, I mean.)

 

[Motokid]

Let's say tax-supported abortions. Do you have an opinion on that?

It may be best to wait for the "Mature Discussion" forum to open up before you go into such a "potentially" charged discussion.

Remember, it's not so much the actual discussion, but the "potential" of the discussion. At least for now. At least at TBF/BAR.


Bravo to everyone involved in this "General Chat" discussion by the way. Best one at TBF/BAR in quite some time.

 

[veggiedog]

Somehow the term "ACTIVISTS" connotes a person as liberal (or at least non-conservative), and if mis-guided, at least their hearts are in the right place.
Not always.

I've noticed this too. It seems to me that the word 'liberal' has somehow acquired a negative connotation in America over the years. Darn liberals! They're takin' away our guns an' Bibles!

To me, the activist seems to be symbolized by a misled, tree-hugging, hippie college kid. Activists are often defined as people who call for change, and since liberals are the more progressive group, activists are associated with them. Many young people are activists, and many young people are liberals. College kids tend to be noisier about what they want than sleazy Congressmen, who pass money beneath each others' noses to get things done, and so activism becomes linked with liberalism.

 

[Ell]

I would disagree that many activists do good. They may believe they are and many appear to be doing good at the time but many activists of the past are considered today to be the villains of society.

If we're to condemn activism based on this logic, then we may as well condemn the progress made in terms of the human and civil rights we hold so dear. If it weren't for activism, women wouldn't have the vote, blacks would still be attending segregated schools and sitting at the back of the bus, and there'd still be apartheid in South Africa. Just because some activists are "villains", doesn't make activism a bad thing. If it weren't for activism, we'd be living in very different circumstances -- not all good.

As for altruism, pure or otherwise, it seems a moot point. Did suffragettes have a self-serving agenda? You bet. Did the blacks of the civil rights movement have something to gain? Of course. Just because people aren't purely altruistic, doesn't mean the causes they stand for are wrong or flawed.

And if I remember correctly, wasn't the US founded on political activism?

activism: A policy of taking direct and militant action to achieve a political or social goal

 

[StillILearn]

It may be best to wait for the "Mature Discussion" forum to open up before you go into such a "potentially" charged discussion.

Remember, it's not so much the actual discussion, but the "potential" of the discussion. At least for now. At least at TBF/BAR.

Bravo to everyone involved in this "General Chat" discussion by the way. Best one at TBF/BAR in quite some time.

You think this topic is to hot to handle? It isn't Religion or Politics and even our youngest members are aware that such a thing as legalized abortion exists.

Oh, Moto. Is that your tongue I see in your cheek, or is it one of those all-day jawbreakers?

 

[novella]

Well said, Ell.

Further, I would say that activism springs from the powerless, not the powerful.

And that activism is voluntary, not compulsive. These two factors further fuel the notion that activism is essentially a liberal undertaking--because it arise from the disenfranchised, noncorporate social underbelly. Activism implies that without that impulse toward action, that group of 'activists' would be steamrolled

 

[StillILearn]

As for altruism, pure or otherwise, it seems a moot point. Did suffragettes have a self-serving agenda? You bet. Did the blacks of the civil rights movement have something to gain? Of course. Just because people aren't purely altruistic, doesn't mean the causes they stand for are wrong or flawed.

activism: A policy of taking direct and militant action to achieve a political or social goal

Oh, Ell. It's always so good to know you're there.

 

[Carrot]

If we're to condemn activism based on this logic, then we may as well condemn the progress made in terms of the human and civil rights we hold so dear. If it weren't for activism, women wouldn't have the vote, blacks would still be attending segregated schools and sitting at the back of the bus, and there'd still be apartheid in South Africa. Just because some activists are "villains", doesn't make activism a bad thing. If it weren't for activism, we'd be living in very different circumstances -- not all good.

While in my opinion these have brought good this in not necessarily the opinion of everyone and indeed future generation may view them differently. Indeed some activists are now campaigning to reverse things that were “changed for the good” in the past. I can’t speak for American history but in the UK homosexuality was not always illegal or frowned upon, Abortion was legal, capital and corporal punishment were the norm and euthanasia was a common practice. All these things were “changed for the good”. Some have been changed back for the good and others have activists working now to change them back.

I think that the important thing you said here was “we hold so dear”.

My only complaint with activists is that any argument that they put forward is always biased and always will be. Because of this they quite often get things changed that the majority of people do not agree with or the majority of people are fooled into believing are good.
It does come down to things like this, if we banned activists we would not have votes for women but the WW2 holocaust would not have happened.
I know this is not exactly a fair comparison but I am biasing my remarks to prove a point however unlike activists I am prepared to state this and listen to other views.

And if I remember correctly, wasn't the US founded on political activism?

As I said not everyone thinks that what actavists create are a good idea

It may be best to wait for the "Mature Discussion" forum to open up before you go into such a "potentially" charged discussion.

Remember, it's not so much the actual discussion, but the "potential" of the discussion. At least for now. At least at TBF/BAR.

Bravo to everyone involved in this "General Chat" discussion by the way. Best one at TBF/BAR in quite some time.

Im not ducking out of this but I do agree with you Motokid (also I want more time to get my facts straight).


Before I post this mail I would like to point out that I don’t necessarily agree with points I may put forward. Call me a devils advocate if you will I just believe that there are 2 sides (or more) to everything.

 

[Ell]

While I agree that not all changes wrought by activism are found to be good in the long run, I don't see that this should preclude the use of activism to effect change. I completely agree that there's always more than one side to an issue; and it's true, information and views presented by activists may be biased. People who are impassioned about issues are not always logical. It's part of being human.

However, I don't think the "majority of people" are "fooled" by activists. If people are fooled, it's as much their own fault as the activists'. That's why it's important for individuals to be better informed.

This brings me to my own private little soapbox: Being informed is the individual's responsibility. It's up to the individual to seek out and hear both sides of the story, then form an opinion. Just because one side or the other is biased, doesn't prevent individuals from using their brains to make up their own mind.

For me, activism is better than apathy and no attempt to change the injustices or ills we see around us.

p.s. Carrot, I suspected you were playing devil's advocate.

 

[pontalba]

Originally posted by Carrot It does come down to things like this, if we banned activists we would not have votes for women but the WW2 holocaust would not have happened.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the above. Would you please explain the extrapolation?
How could banning activists make the Holocast 'not happen'?

 

[veggiedog]

How could banning activists make the Holocast 'not happen'?

Couldn't Nazis be considered activists on the radical right? So then, banning activism would mean banning all Nazi activity.