(1) The honorable purpose of a marriage between a man and a woman is not the procreation, and that's what proponents of it do not think. The debate on this issue is the result of what you desire: engaging moral convictions, by respecting the One who institued the word and idea of marriage the way He conceived it. Why would a not believing person be so much interested in things and the way they should be, by someone they don't believe in. Not believing in God, is not believing in marriage.
(2) You take something made by endless wisdom and pervert it to something that will never fit... and as a sideline without conceiving it open the door for further things that were not ment to be in the beginning and additional decay.
A caddy does away with the argument of false assistance.Is having a caddy essential to the game.?The history of the game declares caddy's irrelevent until clubs became heavier more cumbersome. So caddy's were added. By default Casey deserves a cart by convience.Just as caddy's were added for comfort. Or eliminate caddy's than in honesty eliminate carts.But you already started a game based on change concerning endurance.
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
I think TED's format o short easy to digest infotainment contributes in some ways to the inability and lack of desired to have real democratic arguments. It requires information to be basic and extremely limited in scope leaving those with a good foundation of understanding bored and those without it possessing an incomplete understanding that is essential to critically think about it and debate. Love this guy though. assuming the man was the golfer was a funny moment.
Ha ha, he doesn't get it. The shit is this way because intelligence is not inborn, you need to get votes with populism, and people in power don't want citizens to ask intelligent questions. Intelligence is a threat to human sentimentality and those in power.
Opponents of same-sex marriage are not only confined to religious people, but also include communitarians who emphasize the importance of sustainable development of the society. Also include tradition-respectful people, who object against changing the definition of 'marriage' as one-man-one-woman without appeal to democratic votes for this change. It violates procedural justice. If same-sex relation can be regarded as marriage in civil domain, why not polygamy?
@Hania454 he probably put a lot of thought into that lecture and into the examples. He was speaking to a new crowd, so mine as well start with his biggest and best punch.
Sorry folks, but golf is as much a "sport" as billiards or ping-pong is. It's merely a skill game. I'm not saying that athletic sports are better in any particular respect, but let's not call ourselves athletes if we are doing so on the basis that we play golf.
democracy, even though a bit better than feudalism, contains feudalism and in no way actually represents any consensus on 'ideas' or 'actions to do now' rather it involves a false hope that 'this person voted in' will listen to ideas or realize actions in some logical way. this is a shame, seeing as so many people seem to require 'a leader' rather than owning their own responsibility to life. pure lazyness.
Democracy died with the Roman empire -- there has never been a "democracy" since. Well not in a 1st world country anyway.
American was founded as a Republic with extremely limited voting rights and slavery. It was backed financial by the Banks of England and France.
"Civil Debate" is stooooopid; it is only usefull if there is "voting" -- the kind of voting that circumvents consumer-will. Which is why we have Corporatism and why no "side" ever gets fully what they want.
@ToshiroDK -- Ummmm no! "Kingdom of Denmark" is a Constitutional Monarchy, the King or Queen has the power to remove or approve Premiers.
Regardless this would of been a poor example even if it was true. I think you are missing my point -- there has not been a "true" democracy since Rome and you do not WANT a "true" Democracy or anything near it. What you want is more control at the individual level, that's "YOU" are freer -- not by an ever enlarging and fractionalizing union.
@OctoBox Thank you for the teaching about my own country. It's a common known thing that the king and queen does not have ANY power in Denmark. They would never oppose a decision of the people. But yes, it's a constitutional monarchy... for historical reasons. But it is COMPLETELY democratic. Maybe you oppose the idea because it's completely contrary to your position on democracies? Wikipedia only tells you -some- data. Not the actual facts :)
@ToshiroDK -- Its okay. Most Americans do not know American was founded as a Constitutional Republic, nor do they know what Capitalism, Corporatism, nor Free-Markets mean. I do not get my info off of Wikipedia.
300K lived on welfare in Denmark in the 70's and now 900K with a relatively unchanged level of population; the "utopia" will run dry if you can't get more people working there. A flat population means one of two things (many are leaving or many are dying compared to births).
@OctoBox You aren't entirely incorrect about welface versus population. What you don't take into account is ability to create GDP, which has changed quite radically. In Denmark we are actually having that exact discussion about expenses versus GDP and a growing "older burden" as we call it.
I think you are being unfair when you compare reality to your idea about democracy. The discussion we are having is "utopia" versus "reality" which is why we have the discussion to begin with.
@OctoBox Now the democratic process will be the playing part in deciding what will happen -- what is the popular opinion.. is it people living in utopia, or is it people living in reality? The voters will decide. That is the democratic process. I don't doubt that people would prefer living in utopia for as long as it lasts.. but they will one way see that "living in utopia" means Denmark will get poor, and the they will vote for "living in reality". In either case, democracy did it!
@ToshiroDK -- Okay, you are very close here, it is the "voters" but not the ballot box voters that make utopia and reality one. It is the consumer-voter, the daily-dollar-vote. If all taxes and all social decisions are handled by the consumer then in a short while you'll know the truth of peoples hearts and minds and if there is NO GOV'T to back the wrong decisions of unions and corporations then the consumer will rule; which follows economically speaking. Thus the "individual" rules.
Am I understanding you correct when I say "consumer-voter" = choices you make on a daily basis (i.e. shopping.. etc.), and "ballot-box voter" = choice you make from ideals ?
@ToshiroDK -- Ballot-box Voter means election day voting or issue-amendment-bill voted upon by a statistically small percentage of society (either the legislators they elect or the small population that actually gets out and votes). Regardless the voters never have "perfect" knowledge of what people need in their own neighborhood let alone across the country so people "rally" under political parties, it makes decision making "easier" and thus more ignorant. The consumer is far more honest
@OctoBox But, how does this make Denmark a non-democracy. The only case I can see is that the voter is not being honest because they are so HAPPY, that they have SO MUCH freedom that they are not concerned with either choice. I'm a voter in Denmark, and I know I will have to pay more if we become a socialist-driven country again. But I'm not AFRAID about it... so that means I vote for my ideals, .. my IDEA about what is right. That only makes my vote EVEN MORE TRUE! I don't vote for fear...
@ToshiroDK -- No no. In Denmark when you adjust for excise tax and sales tax (which is a negative in a tourist-driven country). The sales tax is 25% and with falling GDP in the most tourist-emigrating countries, this spells disaster. For every 100 people in Denmark 33 are on entitlements and a 4th of the population are below working age. Idealism Voting is EXACTLY what got you in this mess.
No I'm not touting American Economic Policy, we are not "free" here either.
@ToshiroDK -- I didn't finish my first thought in my last post. Denmark has a 70% tax rate when you add in excise and sales tax (the latter being 25%).
@OctoBox In either case, to answer your question, democracy is an idea.. and not unlike any other ideas/theories, ideas often have to be adjusted for reality and human attributes. If your point is I don't want true democracy, then no, I probably wouldn't... but going back to your original statement, you are ultimately wrong that there aren't any democracies. But maybe you'll keep banging your drum about "true" democracies, now you realize you are actually wrong about democratic states.
One of many great things TED has done is to provide a platform for academics, scientists, engineers, designers and present them as figures that communicate world changing messages directly to the community. The academic or scientist as a "rockstar" figure is a very powerful example for kids from impoverished backgrounds from all over the world who can broaden their horizons and set their goals on attaining academic success and pursue these kind of careers!
Re: Golf question: It is the golf organisation's place, rules and environment. It is none of the Supreme Court's business. Vs. violating Freedom of Association, the right to play golf is minute by comparison.
@MusicStudyMan Rational debate, discourse, and compromise are, to the exclusion of all else, the principles on which all existing, functional nations were founded.
@RvLeshrac And look at state of the nations. Aristotle's method of contentious argument is a very old fashioned wasteful use of intellect. Debating is another name for arguing. Arguments are more often won by those with the greater linguistic skills, not necessarily the person that is factually or morally right i.e "He with the best lawyer wins" etc. Debating is a basic/animalistic tool (fighting with words not spears) and it no longer best serves our complex issues in humanity.
Opponents of same-sex marriage aren't reasoning about the procreation value of marriage or they would be against infertile hetero couples. Their real motivation is religion.
Democracy and theocracy aren't either-or; they are sliding scales of involvement. America is more democratic than theocratic, but prohibition of same-sex marriage illustrates that we are a bit theocratic.
@darkmiles22 religion is a big part of the reason why in america it is such a big problem. america is more bound by the laws of religion then say europe. american's are more religious.
in principle you look at the definition of the word for marriage and see that its between a man and a woman. either you change the definition of a word (wich is not done often) or you get a new word describing the gay 'marriage'. the new word can still have al the meaning of 'marriage' just with a twist.
The issue of fatigue while walking the course seemed to be the major issue? What about the disadvantage the man had with his leg. It seems to me that if allowed to use the cart it would even the field without giving advantage. He would still have to walk out to the greens and fairways. The real problem with debate is that it is 1 against the other. I suggest debate should mean give and take to solve a problem. A good deal is when both sides walk away happy.
Those seeing Sandel for the first time should go to justiceharvard org where he has all the lectures for his class online. (Including this one.)
On the Golf, as usual Scalia was there for the answer which nobody actually says these days: It's None of Our Damn Business. If you want him to have a cart, have your own tournament. If fans want to see him with a cart, they can watch one that allows it. (Some already did.) At some point this "morality" became NOT letting people be different.
@roidroid That's hardly a parallel. Race is non-functional, and bus-riding is not a manufactured definition. If they were denying him access to a Chess tournament I'd agree it's unfair descrimination. But why can't there be some sports for which walking is a component?
Because a triathalon can disallow carts but a PGA tournament can't, that means this wasn't a defense of "all people all activities", but rather the Court granting itself the right to define Golf.
I think, If that guy doesn't want to play by the rules of that League, he should not play in it. If he had to play in that League to survive then he, as every one else, should get the right to use a cart.
I don't think that it is about whether or not the ability of walking is part of the game.
There is a right for free speech, food, medicine, education, ... but not to play golf the way you want to play, in a privat league.
Instead of holding a lecture in front of students around the world, maybe it would be best to do it in front of politicians and journalists. They're the ones who really need it.
@NsaneNtheNbrane I disagree that holding these lectures to students is not as good as lecturing politicians. Students, especially ones attracted to places like Oxford and TED, will be the politicians and journalists of the future. Educate young to yield results later. It's too late for the current generation of politicians.
@UnOxonien@UnOxonien Partially agree. The answer is to do both. Preach to both the powerful and the 'potentially powerful'.
Moreover, if Sandel preaches to those in power, and they offer the respect of sitting down and listening - this will send a real message to plugged-in youth about the respect given to how Sandel thinks about democratic debate.
@UnOxonien Partially agree. The answer is to do both. Preach to both the powerful and the 'potentially powerful'.
Moreover, if Sandel preaches to those in power, and they offer the respect of sitting down and listening - this will send a real message to plugged-in youth about the respect given to how Sandel thinks about democratic debate.
It's an "ATHLETIC" Pursuit. if you cannot complete it physically you are not in the game! it's that simple. you have a RIGHT to play a golf tournament?!? if a baseball stadium was built where only the home team had a dugout, would that be fair? do i have the right to use a car in a bike race because i'm paralyzed from the waist down? IF a golfer has to walk the whole course in the hot sun and THEN swing, then each should deal with the same fatigue involved. p.s. i don't actually watch sports.
@caseyforever Imagine for a second that someone suggested that wearing your glove the whole time you were in the outfield was essential to playing baseball. Jim Abbot wouldn't have been allowed to play, even though he can compete when it comes to the point of the game, catching and throwing the ball well. I'm sorry, but if walking a golf course is a big enough strain that it makes a difference, then I think calling golfers athletes is being generous.
hmmm. your argument is unfounded and does not equate to mine, or the case of the golfer suggested in this video. for your argument to hold any relevance you'd have they would have had to decide under scrutiny a reason that not having a glove on continually caused an advantage not available to the other players, at which point, whether or not he got to play is not really the question. fairness to all involved is.
@caseyforever That's your opinion... to me both distinctions seem equally arbitrary. Golf is about what happens when you have a ball in front of you, a club in your hand, and terrain between the ball and the whole. How you wind up standing in front of the ball is superfluous. If there was some part of the score determined by how this happened, that might matter, but it doesn't. Like I said, anyone with two feet, who thinks the equivalent of a casual stroll makes an impact, isn't an athlete.
my lord... how many times i gotta say this... it's about an even playing field. fine then, by your argument they should have taken the "carts for everyone" option. sounds good to me.
just as long as only one gets the option of a cart. okay? :)
@caseyforever Fine by me... either carts for everyone or gimp everyone's right leg I guess. Not that I care about the specific incident too much, the idea of pro sports strikes me as silly. My complaint is that, if someone can do the essential task at hand, insisting on irrelevant bullshit that excludes them is just obnoxious.
regardless of his hand, when he joined the national league he had to bat just like anyone else because they didn't allow a 'designated hitter'. he didn't sue for special privileges. hey, i'm not some old crank right wing bottle of anger, but i think people answer these questions too emotionally. maybe if they all get a cart. in competition sports (BASED ON PHYSICAL ABILITY) i don't think the same 'rights' apply as they might to other things. ability to compete is basic.
The "who gets the flute" left out the right answer. The right answer is "Whoever the person who made the best flute wants to give it to." All other answers involve stealing from the flute maker.
@neoaeonian I think you took the example out of context. He was simply illustrating a point. And the rest of the talk wasn't following from the example of the flute was it? They were separate and solid talking points he was discussing.
yeah it's all just "appoint your favorite biased justice and then watch them sing the songs you like or fire the one who doesn't sing the songs you like".
The real question here is how a retarded golf cart case ever made it to court, let alone the Supreme Court. This is unfortunately how the U.S. and other albino dumbfuck countries conduct themselves in the normal course of life. They have no notion of priorities and what constitutes common sense in everyday existence. The case is a simple one - that of a disability. He should be given a cart because he's disabled, not because of some warped sense of unfair advantage. To be contd...
@buzzin1975 It was brought to the supreme court because of the fundamental principals that were at stake. It looks like it is just a disability, and yes he was disabled, but the possible ramifications of supplying the disability is why it was an issue.
@mchkeegan the implication only existed because of other golf players who were arrogant, sadistic, and greedy. If they were decent human beings to begin with, it would be a non-issue and be treated just like any disability case.
The real problem here is with how socially evolved a particular population is. America is a country of religious zealots who practice a form of godless capitalism. Ironic, ain't it.
@buzzin1975 Just because he has a disability does not mean that he is entitled to compensation. Further more America is probably one of the best countries when it comes to treating cripples with compensation and compassion Further more I would hate to see capitalism where god is involve. And America has a diverse culture of religions and non religions. I suppose what I am really trying to say is
1. You are completely wrong
2. Fuck you in the neck you arrogant anti-American cocksucker.
The real question here is how a retarded golf cart case ever made it to court, let alone the Supreme Court. This is unfortunately how the U.S. and other albino dumbfuck countries conduct themselves in the normal course of life. They have no notion of priorities and what constitutes common sense in everyday existence. The case is a simple one - that of a disability. He should be given a cart because he's disabled, not because of some warped sense of unfair advantage. To be contd...
This was a worthless Time of the people who watched it. He never gave anything on the ART of debating. They do all this in gov't now. My five year old could have a debate of not going to bed now, or wait til he sees his cartoon.
This isnt even a problem in govt. The problem is the politicians who run for office dont really believe in what they are petraying themselves to be. Only say things in order to get re-elected.
The ART of debate was not referenced because his talk was about the art of democratic ARGUMENT. The title is a little misleading, but there is no doubt what Sandel was on about, he states it explicitly in the last line of his presentation at 17:18.
Hes right, people always only looks at the negative side of everything instead of looking at the pro's of the argument and what said debate is really about.
@throwsparx That is pretty much the opposite of what a debate is about. Debate is about bringing up the pros AND the cons. Through use of logic and reason, weighing these positives and negatives lead the observer of said debate figuring out which side (if any) is the logical position to hold.
i think marriage is going to be outdated soon anyways. a lot of people are only doing it right now for tax reasons, if you got rid of money benefits with marriage, you would find a lot less people doing it.
@NickBlackDIN Hmm marriage outdated soon? Very interesting idea. I mean you can still have a party, and rings and birds and everything as a fun ritual.
Seriously, if anyone can get married, and then cheat on his/her spouse without getting punished for it, what is the damn point of it being governmental?
And it's not like that bit of tax saving is gonna get people to marry and care for each other if they otherwise wouldn't.
@rabbitwho If I live in a neighbourhood where my car gets stolen all the time it isn't up to me to move; the thief who steals my car is in the wrong. Same goes for the rest of my capital in the case of taxes. I would love to live in anarchy, but socialists like yourself use the state to prevent me from leaving your club of enforced "solidarity".
@NietzscheanMan How are you going to leave? Where you are going to go - space?
The laws of physics prevent you from leaving the solidarity because there's no-where to go - you can't escape the same world we all live in. So you have no choice but to deal with the rest of us who are stuck here with you.
The ADA notwithstanding, the govt should have no power to decide what is fair and what is not fair for any private association. It must always be illegal for the GOVT to discriminate based on sex, race, disability, etc., but the first amendment, and our right to freedom of association require that racist, sexist associations must be tolerated by the law. Nazis can speak and march, but they can not kill or injure. Our job in civil society is to boycott such ignorant and hateful groups.
@freesk8 This applies to marriage as well, since marriage is a free association. Govt must not have the power to violate the liberty of individuals when they decide whom to marry.
If the peaceful activities of marriage, and golf are beyond the power of govt to regulate, then such issues cease to be divisive political issues. We boycott or participate as we choose. Now democracy is not at issue.
Limitations on govt scope and power is the road to peace and civility.
@freesk8 the govt doesn't have an issue the govt exists to protect liberties and extend them to all... majority groups in this case religious can effectively prevent minorities from access to civil liberties.. govt in that case has to forcefully extend liberties to all... traditionalism and religious moral happens to inhibit social liberties and when this (as usually) is the case govt intervention happens. it is up to people to act in a non discriminative manner your rights are yours to lose..
@Th3Wab3 I agree if you say that the purpose of govt is to defend our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property. But under the right to liberty is the right to freedom of association. This means that if I am a racist bigot, I can form a racist club, and the govt violates my rights by prohibiting me. If the PGA wants to discriminate against the disabled, or even Jews or blacks, the govt must tolerate it.
But you and I do not, and that is just what you and I would be doing.
@freesk8 i agree with your points... however the truth is that for many spectrum like say the pga they are able because of wealth resources and size to form governing influences that then create standards which other facilitators of the common activity fell overwhelming pressures comply say for instance contracts with course maintenance suppliers which in effect would make it impossible for other facilitators to compete run it primary function. in this case govt has a duty to intervene..
@Th3Wab3 I'd say the PGA has a monopoly. I wonder if the govt supports/enforces that monopoly, as it does with Major League Baseball. If so it should stop. Competition is just what we need here. Imagine a competing golf league that voluntarily complied with the ADA where the PGA did not. Then people like you and I who cared about this could boycott the old PGA and it's advertisers.
But private orgs have a right to be bigoted. And none should get any money or power from the govt.
@freesk8 the funny thing is that when you have competing organizations like this it tends to lead to a precarious existence for both they don't benefit from the competition they both suffer.. we can see that humanity does not act rationally and it difficult to compel them to when we have institutions (public school, religion, cultural traditions, states etc) that dumb them down.. people are sagacious and do not think.. competition creates more anxiety that innovation... 1-1000 innovate....
@Th3Wab3 I agree that the govt schools tend to dumb down. I also agree that intense competition tends to reduce profit margins for competitors. But it also improves product quality and leads to innovation and price reductions to the consumer. Competition creates innovation BECAUSE of the anxiety! Without the anxiety about competitors taking your market share, why innovate? Necessity is the mother of invention.
@freesk8 .... intervene because of the greater negative externalities that will directly affect public and private life like for example the creation of more golf courses with dubious maintenance practices (because of aformentioned contracts) that will greatly effect the environment and safety of wild life and human life...
in principle i agree with what you are saying but business pursues a profit by any means necessary incentive that leads to loop hole or criminal practices legal force etc...
@Th3Wab3 If the golf courses have fertilizer run-off that is affecting neighboring properties or that is getting in streams that affect the property of others, then this should be addressed via lawsuit or legislation.
But golf course owners/managers get to decide what to do with their land as long as it hurts the rights of no one else.
Why don't you attend golf courses that create habitat consistent with your values? Why not picket at "bad" courses, or write letters to the editors about them?
@freesk8 the affected don't always have means (money for good lawyers, intelligence) or in natures case: dead fish birds and biodiversity have no remedial course of action. look at the Bhopal India or the BP oil spill. legislation will end up leading to a less free society. the more i investigate the right course of action the more i come to the conclusion that, an educated population who can consider the negative effects of actions. profit must fall behind respect for all life.
@freesk8 Democracy and debate don't fit together you say? What if the sheep and the wolf had a debate about the problem at hand, and simply decided to settle for the wolf eating the chicken, deer or fish instead? That is, considering the wolf and the sheep are about sentient and able to speak and care.
Men like Michael Sandel are few, but they all make me question my ambition to study Medicine in favour of taking up Law.
xGotheDistancex 5 days ago
I'd say eff you, you can get a wheelchair.
BrandonShayMusic 6 days ago
I love how he interacts with the audience :)
mobaccho 2 weeks ago
i watch this guy for relaxation he has a very calm voice
onxiaftw 3 weeks ago
@onxiaftw ew. he always swallows and sounds like a frog lol. good speech though
BrandonShayMusic 6 days ago
@BrandonShayMusic XD
onxiaftw 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(1) The honorable purpose of a marriage between a man and a woman is not the procreation, and that's what proponents of it do not think. The debate on this issue is the result of what you desire: engaging moral convictions, by respecting the One who institued the word and idea of marriage the way He conceived it. Why would a not believing person be so much interested in things and the way they should be, by someone they don't believe in. Not believing in God, is not believing in marriage.
CalinDemian 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(2) You take something made by endless wisdom and pervert it to something that will never fit... and as a sideline without conceiving it open the door for further things that were not ment to be in the beginning and additional decay.
CalinDemian 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
CalinDemian 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
CalinDemian 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
CalinDemian 4 weeks ago
how could someone possibly dislike this video? blows my mind...
quanta412 2 months ago
awesome. this is why people need to sign up for twosides.co
j0b0sapi3n 2 months ago
Love Michael Sandel, but can't help being bothered by the fact that he wears clothes 2 sizes too big for him.
KostaStar 3 months ago
incredible.
nurave03 3 months ago
666 likes as of now! Yikes! Great video btw.
4thcoming 3 months ago
Phenomenological foundation for ethics!! Heck yes!
iMentieth 4 months ago
NEED HEALTH CARE ? TRY GOP NO CARE !
kn9ioutom 4 months ago
@kn9ioutom Agreed.
4thcoming 3 months ago
FOX = GOP PROPAGANDA
kn9ioutom 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very tiny sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “autumntree2011” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
(I'm not a fan of Hitler or KKK.)
autumntree2011 4 months ago
A caddy does away with the argument of false assistance.Is having a caddy essential to the game.?The history of the game declares caddy's irrelevent until clubs became heavier more cumbersome. So caddy's were added. By default Casey deserves a cart by convience.Just as caddy's were added for comfort. Or eliminate caddy's than in honesty eliminate carts.But you already started a game based on change concerning endurance.
polopowers1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thumbs up for Michael Sandel for president 2012!
guittarmaster 6 months ago
He reminds me of Data from Star Trek TNG
MyNameIsAldi 7 months ago
I think TED's format o short easy to digest infotainment contributes in some ways to the inability and lack of desired to have real democratic arguments. It requires information to be basic and extremely limited in scope leaving those with a good foundation of understanding bored and those without it possessing an incomplete understanding that is essential to critically think about it and debate. Love this guy though. assuming the man was the golfer was a funny moment.
honkles 8 months ago
How about let's give everyone a golf cart? YA HAPPY NOW? like this if you think that giving everyone a golf cart is fair:)
DaLittleHorror 8 months ago
Ha ha, he doesn't get it. The shit is this way because intelligence is not inborn, you need to get votes with populism, and people in power don't want citizens to ask intelligent questions. Intelligence is a threat to human sentimentality and those in power.
Ebuverthebicepcurler 8 months ago
Opponents of same-sex marriage are not only confined to religious people, but also include communitarians who emphasize the importance of sustainable development of the society. Also include tradition-respectful people, who object against changing the definition of 'marriage' as one-man-one-woman without appeal to democratic votes for this change. It violates procedural justice. If same-sex relation can be regarded as marriage in civil domain, why not polygamy?
bsp08dh 9 months ago
I'm dissapointed that Prof Sandel has just repeated his Harvard lectures in this talk. Surely he could've talked about some different examples.
Hania454 10 months ago
@Hania454 he probably put a lot of thought into that lecture and into the examples. He was speaking to a new crowd, so mine as well start with his biggest and best punch.
daobagua 9 months ago
@Hania454 This lecture was not meant for you. It's for us who heard it the first time.
blogger365 8 months ago
Comment removed
Hania454 8 months ago
@Hania454 Ok. I got your point.
blogger365 8 months ago
@Hania454 most of the audience members never attended those Harvard lectures.
teufelkim 7 months ago
All politicians should be required to a Michael Sandel class.
htddu908 11 months ago
please run for president
mr4nonymous 11 months ago
Sorry folks, but golf is as much a "sport" as billiards or ping-pong is. It's merely a skill game. I'm not saying that athletic sports are better in any particular respect, but let's not call ourselves athletes if we are doing so on the basis that we play golf.
instereovideos 1 year ago
Comment removed
langengro 1 year ago
he could have said a lot more and certainly said too much to illustrate his point at the end
sgtmcwallace 1 year ago
lol charlie should've said it doesn't contribute to the score
thecity180 1 year ago
democracy, even though a bit better than feudalism, contains feudalism and in no way actually represents any consensus on 'ideas' or 'actions to do now' rather it involves a false hope that 'this person voted in' will listen to ideas or realize actions in some logical way. this is a shame, seeing as so many people seem to require 'a leader' rather than owning their own responsibility to life. pure lazyness.
IntuitiveLeap 1 year ago
Democracy died with the Roman empire -- there has never been a "democracy" since. Well not in a 1st world country anyway.
American was founded as a Republic with extremely limited voting rights and slavery. It was backed financial by the Banks of England and France.
"Civil Debate" is stooooopid; it is only usefull if there is "voting" -- the kind of voting that circumvents consumer-will. Which is why we have Corporatism and why no "side" ever gets fully what they want.
OctoBox 1 year ago
@OctoBox How can you claim that there never has been a democracy since the roman empire? What do you base that on?
ToshiroDK 1 year ago
@ToshiroDK -- I base it on history. Can you "name" a Democracy?
American -- Constitutional Republic
Britain -- Constitutional Monarchy then Social Capitalism
France -- Various kinds of Republics and Monarchies
Germany -- Various kinds of Republics and Monarchies
You don't want a "democracy" -- if you understand the true definition
OctoBox 1 year ago
@OctoBox Denmark is a Parliamentary Democracy.
ToshiroDK 1 year ago
@ToshiroDK -- Ummmm no! "Kingdom of Denmark" is a Constitutional Monarchy, the King or Queen has the power to remove or approve Premiers.
Regardless this would of been a poor example even if it was true. I think you are missing my point -- there has not been a "true" democracy since Rome and you do not WANT a "true" Democracy or anything near it. What you want is more control at the individual level, that's "YOU" are freer -- not by an ever enlarging and fractionalizing union.
OctoBox 1 year ago
@OctoBox Thank you for the teaching about my own country. It's a common known thing that the king and queen does not have ANY power in Denmark. They would never oppose a decision of the people. But yes, it's a constitutional monarchy... for historical reasons. But it is COMPLETELY democratic. Maybe you oppose the idea because it's completely contrary to your position on democracies? Wikipedia only tells you -some- data. Not the actual facts :)
ToshiroDK 1 year ago
@ToshiroDK -- Its okay. Most Americans do not know American was founded as a Constitutional Republic, nor do they know what Capitalism, Corporatism, nor Free-Markets mean. I do not get my info off of Wikipedia.
300K lived on welfare in Denmark in the 70's and now 900K with a relatively unchanged level of population; the "utopia" will run dry if you can't get more people working there. A flat population means one of two things (many are leaving or many are dying compared to births).
OctoBox 1 year ago
@OctoBox You aren't entirely incorrect about welface versus population. What you don't take into account is ability to create GDP, which has changed quite radically. In Denmark we are actually having that exact discussion about expenses versus GDP and a growing "older burden" as we call it.
I think you are being unfair when you compare reality to your idea about democracy. The discussion we are having is "utopia" versus "reality" which is why we have the discussion to begin with.
ToshiroDK 1 year ago
@ToshiroDK -- Well said and I detract that part of my commentary.
OctoBox 1 year ago
@OctoBox Now the democratic process will be the playing part in deciding what will happen -- what is the popular opinion.. is it people living in utopia, or is it people living in reality? The voters will decide. That is the democratic process. I don't doubt that people would prefer living in utopia for as long as it lasts.. but they will one way see that "living in utopia" means Denmark will get poor, and the they will vote for "living in reality". In either case, democracy did it!
ToshiroDK 1 year ago
@ToshiroDK -- Okay, you are very close here, it is the "voters" but not the ballot box voters that make utopia and reality one. It is the consumer-voter, the daily-dollar-vote. If all taxes and all social decisions are handled by the consumer then in a short while you'll know the truth of peoples hearts and minds and if there is NO GOV'T to back the wrong decisions of unions and corporations then the consumer will rule; which follows economically speaking. Thus the "individual" rules.
OctoBox 1 year ago
Am I understanding you correct when I say "consumer-voter" = choices you make on a daily basis (i.e. shopping.. etc.), and "ballot-box voter" = choice you make from ideals ?
ToshiroDK 1 year ago
@ToshiroDK -- Ballot-box Voter means election day voting or issue-amendment-bill voted upon by a statistically small percentage of society (either the legislators they elect or the small population that actually gets out and votes). Regardless the voters never have "perfect" knowledge of what people need in their own neighborhood let alone across the country so people "rally" under political parties, it makes decision making "easier" and thus more ignorant. The consumer is far more honest
OctoBox 1 year ago
@OctoBox But, how does this make Denmark a non-democracy. The only case I can see is that the voter is not being honest because they are so HAPPY, that they have SO MUCH freedom that they are not concerned with either choice. I'm a voter in Denmark, and I know I will have to pay more if we become a socialist-driven country again. But I'm not AFRAID about it... so that means I vote for my ideals, .. my IDEA about what is right. That only makes my vote EVEN MORE TRUE! I don't vote for fear...
ToshiroDK 1 year ago
@ToshiroDK -- No no. In Denmark when you adjust for excise tax and sales tax (which is a negative in a tourist-driven country). The sales tax is 25% and with falling GDP in the most tourist-emigrating countries, this spells disaster. For every 100 people in Denmark 33 are on entitlements and a 4th of the population are below working age. Idealism Voting is EXACTLY what got you in this mess.
No I'm not touting American Economic Policy, we are not "free" here either.
OctoBox 1 year ago
@ToshiroDK -- I didn't finish my first thought in my last post. Denmark has a 70% tax rate when you add in excise and sales tax (the latter being 25%).
OctoBox 1 year ago
@OctoBox In either case, to answer your question, democracy is an idea.. and not unlike any other ideas/theories, ideas often have to be adjusted for reality and human attributes. If your point is I don't want true democracy, then no, I probably wouldn't... but going back to your original statement, you are ultimately wrong that there aren't any democracies. But maybe you'll keep banging your drum about "true" democracies, now you realize you are actually wrong about democratic states.
ToshiroDK 1 year ago
lmao @ 15:00
whitewalls1222 1 year ago
One of many great things TED has done is to provide a platform for academics, scientists, engineers, designers and present them as figures that communicate world changing messages directly to the community. The academic or scientist as a "rockstar" figure is a very powerful example for kids from impoverished backgrounds from all over the world who can broaden their horizons and set their goals on attaining academic success and pursue these kind of careers!
EmpireStateofLife 1 year ago 13
Just a great moment at 8:35 onwards hahaha
kondadotm 1 year ago
I had hope for this talk until he talked about democratic distribution of flutes as an activity that holds justice...
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago
I don't see his point about Golf.
If walking the course was an integral part of Golf, then why would golf buggies even exist? They exist on every course the PGA plays tournaments on.
If golf courses that have buggies, arn't real "golf courses".
So why does the PGA chose to play on them? Oh snap.
Also shouldn't the PGA ban hats and sunscreen? If white skinned people get sunburn while walking the course, that's their disability.
roidroid 1 year ago
Comment removed
roidroid 1 year ago
@SomethingSeaTrashed put his gimp leg on the cart, and walk with the other leg?
... that's not a bad idea.
roidroid 1 year ago
Regarding the guy with the golf cart: what about the idea that it just isn't any of the government's business how a sports league sets its rules?
nine9s 1 year ago
@nine9s Civil Rights are part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
For good reason.
Unless you want to sit at the back of the bus.
roidroid 1 year ago
Re: Golf question: It is the golf organisation's place, rules and environment. It is none of the Supreme Court's business. Vs. violating Freedom of Association, the right to play golf is minute by comparison.
harlingtonstraker 1 year ago
I can't stand this guy's voice. Eugh.
hymnofashes 1 year ago
He sounds like Ben Linus...
gr1283 1 year ago
Debate/argument is dead and thank goodness. What an out-of-date outmoded waste of time it is.
MusicStudyMan 1 year ago
@MusicStudyMan Rational debate, discourse, and compromise are, to the exclusion of all else, the principles on which all existing, functional nations were founded.
RvLeshrac 1 year ago
@RvLeshrac And look at state of the nations. Aristotle's method of contentious argument is a very old fashioned wasteful use of intellect. Debating is another name for arguing. Arguments are more often won by those with the greater linguistic skills, not necessarily the person that is factually or morally right i.e "He with the best lawyer wins" etc. Debating is a basic/animalistic tool (fighting with words not spears) and it no longer best serves our complex issues in humanity.
MusicStudyMan 1 year ago
@MusicStudyMan then we have to have a debate about what a debate is.
stijnhaki 1 year ago
@stijnhaki what is it then? I might have missed his point. Thanks
MusicStudyMan 1 year ago
Opponents of same-sex marriage aren't reasoning about the procreation value of marriage or they would be against infertile hetero couples. Their real motivation is religion.
Democracy and theocracy aren't either-or; they are sliding scales of involvement. America is more democratic than theocratic, but prohibition of same-sex marriage illustrates that we are a bit theocratic.
darkmiles22 1 year ago 21
@darkmiles22 Agree.
MusicStudyMan 1 year ago
@darkmiles22 religion is a big part of the reason why in america it is such a big problem. america is more bound by the laws of religion then say europe. american's are more religious.
in principle you look at the definition of the word for marriage and see that its between a man and a woman. either you change the definition of a word (wich is not done often) or you get a new word describing the gay 'marriage'. the new word can still have al the meaning of 'marriage' just with a twist.
stijnhaki 1 year ago
@darkmiles22: I could not agree more!
Anniathemaster 7 months ago
The issue of fatigue while walking the course seemed to be the major issue? What about the disadvantage the man had with his leg. It seems to me that if allowed to use the cart it would even the field without giving advantage. He would still have to walk out to the greens and fairways. The real problem with debate is that it is 1 against the other. I suggest debate should mean give and take to solve a problem. A good deal is when both sides walk away happy.
10Pups 1 year ago
It's awesome to hear the classical form of argumentation, and to see the incredible longevity of these philosophical traditions.
Waranoa 1 year ago 2
You know when a countries general health is in trouble when you consider people who can walk a few miles as something special..
theMaxyy 1 year ago 3
This guy reminds me of Benjamin Linus.
MajDigi 1 year ago
I would love if there was a discussion group like he was talking about. I have longed been saddened by the lack of real discussion in our society.
Viperzka 1 year ago
@KingofNH I a gree. My only regret watching those is that I couldn't partake in any of the debates myself.
MrCattlehunter 1 year ago
excellent speaker although i disagree with some of his main ideas and with Socrates :)
princeofexcess 1 year ago
why argue when you can discuss and collaborate?
rubbermuck 1 year ago
@rubbermuck Good luck entertaining a discussion with no arguments in it.
MrCattlehunter 1 year ago
@rubbermuck
To the extreme I rock a mic like a vandal
Light up a stage and wax a chump like a candle.
roidroid 1 year ago
Those seeing Sandel for the first time should go to justiceharvard org where he has all the lectures for his class online. (Including this one.)
On the Golf, as usual Scalia was there for the answer which nobody actually says these days: It's None of Our Damn Business. If you want him to have a cart, have your own tournament. If fans want to see him with a cart, they can watch one that allows it. (Some already did.) At some point this "morality" became NOT letting people be different.
notme222 1 year ago 2
@notme222 "If you want him to have a cart, have your own tournament"
"if black people don't want to sit at the back of the bus, let them buy their own buses."
roidroid 1 year ago
@roidroid That's hardly a parallel. Race is non-functional, and bus-riding is not a manufactured definition. If they were denying him access to a Chess tournament I'd agree it's unfair descrimination. But why can't there be some sports for which walking is a component?
Because a triathalon can disallow carts but a PGA tournament can't, that means this wasn't a defense of "all people all activities", but rather the Court granting itself the right to define Golf.
notme222 1 year ago
Is that Ben Linus talking?
morfeo82 1 year ago
I think, If that guy doesn't want to play by the rules of that League, he should not play in it. If he had to play in that League to survive then he, as every one else, should get the right to use a cart.
I don't think that it is about whether or not the ability of walking is part of the game.
There is a right for free speech, food, medicine, education, ... but not to play golf the way you want to play, in a privat league.
0MoTheG 1 year ago
@0MoTheG What a great argument for abolishing private leagues.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
his voice sounds like Ben from Lost... =D
yohanberaldi 1 year ago 3
@yohanberaldi LOL I was thinking the same thing >_>
Radjehuty 1 year ago
@Radjehuty right?? maybe that´s why Ben was so good in making people to do stuff!!
yohanberaldi 1 year ago
If he had to walk, he would be at a disadvantage (handicap).
xxSilverPhinxx 1 year ago
@xxSilverPhinxx
so what? It is a GAME.
0MoTheG 1 year ago
@0MoTheG
Yes, I'm aware of that *eyeroll*
But if the aim is fairness, then if the guy under his conditions had to walk, then he would be handicapped and at a physical disadvantage.
xxSilverPhinxx 1 year ago
Instead of holding a lecture in front of students around the world, maybe it would be best to do it in front of politicians and journalists. They're the ones who really need it.
NsaneNtheNbrane 1 year ago 27
@NsaneNtheNbrane One day the students will become politicians and journalists
anasapple 1 year ago
@NsaneNtheNbrane I couldn't think of a bigger waste of time.
Brassmouth 1 year ago
@NsaneNtheNbrane
You think they'd listen?
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@NsaneNtheNbrane I disagree that holding these lectures to students is not as good as lecturing politicians. Students, especially ones attracted to places like Oxford and TED, will be the politicians and journalists of the future. Educate young to yield results later. It's too late for the current generation of politicians.
UnOxonien 1 year ago 7
Comment removed
doIsoundlikeicare 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UnOxonien @UnOxonien Partially agree. The answer is to do both. Preach to both the powerful and the 'potentially powerful'.
Moreover, if Sandel preaches to those in power, and they offer the respect of sitting down and listening - this will send a real message to plugged-in youth about the respect given to how Sandel thinks about democratic debate.
doIsoundlikeicare 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UnOxonien Partially agree. The answer is to do both. Preach to both the powerful and the 'potentially powerful'.
Moreover, if Sandel preaches to those in power, and they offer the respect of sitting down and listening - this will send a real message to plugged-in youth about the respect given to how Sandel thinks about democratic debate.
doIsoundlikeicare 1 year ago
this guy teaches a killer ethics class @ Harvard
sonoflove07 1 year ago
he just forgot one thing: The individual participants of a discussion need to listen to their oponents before any discussion can emerge.
Talking is just one half of a discussion. In my opinion, the less important one.
liquidminds 1 year ago
WOW. a video that SURELY demonstrates that the art of debate has been lost but does little to find it.
caseyforever 1 year ago
It's an "ATHLETIC" Pursuit. if you cannot complete it physically you are not in the game! it's that simple. you have a RIGHT to play a golf tournament?!? if a baseball stadium was built where only the home team had a dugout, would that be fair? do i have the right to use a car in a bike race because i'm paralyzed from the waist down? IF a golfer has to walk the whole course in the hot sun and THEN swing, then each should deal with the same fatigue involved. p.s. i don't actually watch sports.
caseyforever 1 year ago
@caseyforever Imagine for a second that someone suggested that wearing your glove the whole time you were in the outfield was essential to playing baseball. Jim Abbot wouldn't have been allowed to play, even though he can compete when it comes to the point of the game, catching and throwing the ball well. I'm sorry, but if walking a golf course is a big enough strain that it makes a difference, then I think calling golfers athletes is being generous.
AutodidacticPhd 1 year ago
@AutodidacticPhd
hmmm. your argument is unfounded and does not equate to mine, or the case of the golfer suggested in this video. for your argument to hold any relevance you'd have they would have had to decide under scrutiny a reason that not having a glove on continually caused an advantage not available to the other players, at which point, whether or not he got to play is not really the question. fairness to all involved is.
caseyforever 1 year ago
@caseyforever That's your opinion... to me both distinctions seem equally arbitrary. Golf is about what happens when you have a ball in front of you, a club in your hand, and terrain between the ball and the whole. How you wind up standing in front of the ball is superfluous. If there was some part of the score determined by how this happened, that might matter, but it doesn't. Like I said, anyone with two feet, who thinks the equivalent of a casual stroll makes an impact, isn't an athlete.
AutodidacticPhd 1 year ago
@AutodidacticPhd
my lord... how many times i gotta say this... it's about an even playing field. fine then, by your argument they should have taken the "carts for everyone" option. sounds good to me.
just as long as only one gets the option of a cart. okay? :)
caseyforever 1 year ago
@caseyforever Fine by me... either carts for everyone or gimp everyone's right leg I guess. Not that I care about the specific incident too much, the idea of pro sports strikes me as silly. My complaint is that, if someone can do the essential task at hand, insisting on irrelevant bullshit that excludes them is just obnoxious.
AutodidacticPhd 1 year ago
@AutodidacticPhd
hahaha i agree on both accounts! (pro sports are silly to me too)
caseyforever 1 year ago
Comment removed
caseyforever 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AutodidacticPhd
regardless of his hand, when he joined the national league he had to bat just like anyone else because they didn't allow a 'designated hitter'. he didn't sue for special privileges. hey, i'm not some old crank right wing bottle of anger, but i think people answer these questions too emotionally. maybe if they all get a cart. in competition sports (BASED ON PHYSICAL ABILITY) i don't think the same 'rights' apply as they might to other things. ability to compete is basic.
caseyforever 1 year ago
The "who gets the flute" left out the right answer. The right answer is "Whoever the person who made the best flute wants to give it to." All other answers involve stealing from the flute maker.
And the talk went downhill from there.
neoaeonian 1 year ago
@neoaeonian I think you took the example out of context. He was simply illustrating a point. And the rest of the talk wasn't following from the example of the flute was it? They were separate and solid talking points he was discussing.
Crazyfish66 1 year ago
Comment removed
Crazyfish66 1 year ago
It's what America needs. I must say it was kinda bothersome to feel that he was about the puke the whole presentation.
xilliah 1 year ago
yeah it's all just "appoint your favorite biased justice and then watch them sing the songs you like or fire the one who doesn't sing the songs you like".
human partiality always bleeds through.
xjustamem0ryx 1 year ago
The golfer question was a serendipity at it's best.
wodahsking 1 year ago
Superb!
Vortex42 1 year ago
The real question here is how a retarded golf cart case ever made it to court, let alone the Supreme Court. This is unfortunately how the U.S. and other albino dumbfuck countries conduct themselves in the normal course of life. They have no notion of priorities and what constitutes common sense in everyday existence. The case is a simple one - that of a disability. He should be given a cart because he's disabled, not because of some warped sense of unfair advantage. To be contd...
buzzin1975 1 year ago
@buzzin1975 It was brought to the supreme court because of the fundamental principals that were at stake. It looks like it is just a disability, and yes he was disabled, but the possible ramifications of supplying the disability is why it was an issue.
It made it to court because the golfer sued.
mchkeegan 1 year ago
@mchkeegan the implication only existed because of other golf players who were arrogant, sadistic, and greedy. If they were decent human beings to begin with, it would be a non-issue and be treated just like any disability case.
The real problem here is with how socially evolved a particular population is. America is a country of religious zealots who practice a form of godless capitalism. Ironic, ain't it.
buzzin1975 1 year ago
@buzzin1975 Just because he has a disability does not mean that he is entitled to compensation. Further more America is probably one of the best countries when it comes to treating cripples with compensation and compassion Further more I would hate to see capitalism where god is involve. And America has a diverse culture of religions and non religions. I suppose what I am really trying to say is
1. You are completely wrong
2. Fuck you in the neck you arrogant anti-American cocksucker.
mchkeegan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The real question here is how a retarded golf cart case ever made it to court, let alone the Supreme Court. This is unfortunately how the U.S. and other albino dumbfuck countries conduct themselves in the normal course of life. They have no notion of priorities and what constitutes common sense in everyday existence. The case is a simple one - that of a disability. He should be given a cart because he's disabled, not because of some warped sense of unfair advantage. To be contd...
buzzin1975 1 year ago
Comment removed
buzzin1975 1 year ago
democracy would be great....
beliebigerusername 1 year ago
This was a worthless Time of the people who watched it. He never gave anything on the ART of debating. They do all this in gov't now. My five year old could have a debate of not going to bed now, or wait til he sees his cartoon.
This isnt even a problem in govt. The problem is the politicians who run for office dont really believe in what they are petraying themselves to be. Only say things in order to get re-elected.
c22dividedby7 1 year ago
@c22dividedby7
The ART of debate was not referenced because his talk was about the art of democratic ARGUMENT. The title is a little misleading, but there is no doubt what Sandel was on about, he states it explicitly in the last line of his presentation at 17:18.
lightsculler 1 year ago 9
I oppose gay marriage.
but I oppose straight marriage too. I really don't know who to vote for :S
GRNoam 1 year ago
Hes right, people always only looks at the negative side of everything instead of looking at the pro's of the argument and what said debate is really about.
throwsparx 1 year ago
@throwsparx That is pretty much the opposite of what a debate is about. Debate is about bringing up the pros AND the cons. Through use of logic and reason, weighing these positives and negatives lead the observer of said debate figuring out which side (if any) is the logical position to hold.
braap02 1 year ago
i think marriage is going to be outdated soon anyways. a lot of people are only doing it right now for tax reasons, if you got rid of money benefits with marriage, you would find a lot less people doing it.
NickBlackDIN 1 year ago
@NickBlackDIN Hmm marriage outdated soon? Very interesting idea. I mean you can still have a party, and rings and birds and everything as a fun ritual.
Seriously, if anyone can get married, and then cheat on his/her spouse without getting punished for it, what is the damn point of it being governmental?
And it's not like that bit of tax saving is gonna get people to marry and care for each other if they otherwise wouldn't.
xilliah 1 year ago
@rabbitwho If I live in a neighbourhood where my car gets stolen all the time it isn't up to me to move; the thief who steals my car is in the wrong. Same goes for the rest of my capital in the case of taxes. I would love to live in anarchy, but socialists like yourself use the state to prevent me from leaving your club of enforced "solidarity".
NietzscheanMan 1 year ago
@NietzscheanMan How are you going to leave? Where you are going to go - space?
The laws of physics prevent you from leaving the solidarity because there's no-where to go - you can't escape the same world we all live in. So you have no choice but to deal with the rest of us who are stuck here with you.
roidroid 1 year ago
@roidroid Which gives you a right to rob me then?
NietzscheanMan 1 year ago
@NietzscheanMan Rob you of things that don't even belong to you?
You are in a school playground, you put your hands on a tree and say "this tree is mine".
Later, another kid puts their hands on the same tree and says "this tree is mine".
You can breathe air and say "this air is mine, no-one else is ever allowed to breathe it". But that doesn't make it so.
roidroid 1 year ago
@roidroid If they don't belong to me they sure as hell don't belong to you :)
NietzscheanMan 1 year ago
@NietzscheanMan then it's not robbing, is it.
roidroid 1 year ago
@roidroid Based on that kind of reasoning, I'm inclined to think you aren't capable of complex thought.
NietzscheanMan 1 year ago
@NietzscheanMan I think it more likely there has been a misunderstanding.
Your inappropriate rage has revealed more about your character than mine.
roidroid 1 year ago
@roidroid Your inappropriate perception of "rage" is quite revealing too, so I guess we're even :)
NietzscheanMan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The ADA notwithstanding, the govt should have no power to decide what is fair and what is not fair for any private association. It must always be illegal for the GOVT to discriminate based on sex, race, disability, etc., but the first amendment, and our right to freedom of association require that racist, sexist associations must be tolerated by the law. Nazis can speak and march, but they can not kill or injure. Our job in civil society is to boycott such ignorant and hateful groups.
freesk8 1 year ago
@freesk8 This applies to marriage as well, since marriage is a free association. Govt must not have the power to violate the liberty of individuals when they decide whom to marry.
If the peaceful activities of marriage, and golf are beyond the power of govt to regulate, then such issues cease to be divisive political issues. We boycott or participate as we choose. Now democracy is not at issue.
Limitations on govt scope and power is the road to peace and civility.
freesk8 1 year ago
@freesk8 the govt doesn't have an issue the govt exists to protect liberties and extend them to all... majority groups in this case religious can effectively prevent minorities from access to civil liberties.. govt in that case has to forcefully extend liberties to all... traditionalism and religious moral happens to inhibit social liberties and when this (as usually) is the case govt intervention happens. it is up to people to act in a non discriminative manner your rights are yours to lose..
Th3Wab3 1 year ago
@Th3Wab3 I agree if you say that the purpose of govt is to defend our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property. But under the right to liberty is the right to freedom of association. This means that if I am a racist bigot, I can form a racist club, and the govt violates my rights by prohibiting me. If the PGA wants to discriminate against the disabled, or even Jews or blacks, the govt must tolerate it.
But you and I do not, and that is just what you and I would be doing.
freesk8 1 year ago
@freesk8 i agree with your points... however the truth is that for many spectrum like say the pga they are able because of wealth resources and size to form governing influences that then create standards which other facilitators of the common activity fell overwhelming pressures comply say for instance contracts with course maintenance suppliers which in effect would make it impossible for other facilitators to compete run it primary function. in this case govt has a duty to intervene..
Th3Wab3 1 year ago
@Th3Wab3 I'd say the PGA has a monopoly. I wonder if the govt supports/enforces that monopoly, as it does with Major League Baseball. If so it should stop. Competition is just what we need here. Imagine a competing golf league that voluntarily complied with the ADA where the PGA did not. Then people like you and I who cared about this could boycott the old PGA and it's advertisers.
But private orgs have a right to be bigoted. And none should get any money or power from the govt.
freesk8 1 year ago
@freesk8 the funny thing is that when you have competing organizations like this it tends to lead to a precarious existence for both they don't benefit from the competition they both suffer.. we can see that humanity does not act rationally and it difficult to compel them to when we have institutions (public school, religion, cultural traditions, states etc) that dumb them down.. people are sagacious and do not think.. competition creates more anxiety that innovation... 1-1000 innovate....
Th3Wab3 1 year ago
@Th3Wab3 I agree that the govt schools tend to dumb down. I also agree that intense competition tends to reduce profit margins for competitors. But it also improves product quality and leads to innovation and price reductions to the consumer. Competition creates innovation BECAUSE of the anxiety! Without the anxiety about competitors taking your market share, why innovate? Necessity is the mother of invention.
freesk8 1 year ago 2
@freesk8 .... intervene because of the greater negative externalities that will directly affect public and private life like for example the creation of more golf courses with dubious maintenance practices (because of aformentioned contracts) that will greatly effect the environment and safety of wild life and human life...
in principle i agree with what you are saying but business pursues a profit by any means necessary incentive that leads to loop hole or criminal practices legal force etc...
Th3Wab3 1 year ago
@Th3Wab3 If the golf courses have fertilizer run-off that is affecting neighboring properties or that is getting in streams that affect the property of others, then this should be addressed via lawsuit or legislation.
But golf course owners/managers get to decide what to do with their land as long as it hurts the rights of no one else.
Why don't you attend golf courses that create habitat consistent with your values? Why not picket at "bad" courses, or write letters to the editors about them?
freesk8 1 year ago
@freesk8 the affected don't always have means (money for good lawyers, intelligence) or in natures case: dead fish birds and biodiversity have no remedial course of action. look at the Bhopal India or the BP oil spill. legislation will end up leading to a less free society. the more i investigate the right course of action the more i come to the conclusion that, an educated population who can consider the negative effects of actions. profit must fall behind respect for all life.
Th3Wab3 1 year ago 2
Cisco can help create a global classroom.
RevJoshua 1 year ago
Democratic debate is a contradiction in terms.
Democracy is the rule, by force, of the majority over the minority.
Debate, on the other hand, precludes the use of force. It is based only on reason and passionate rhetoric to persuade peacefully.
But democracy, ultimately, is like two wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner.
I choose peaceful persuasion, not democracy.
These two are fundamentally in conflict.
freesk8 1 year ago
@freesk8 Democracy and debate don't fit together you say? What if the sheep and the wolf had a debate about the problem at hand, and simply decided to settle for the wolf eating the chicken, deer or fish instead? That is, considering the wolf and the sheep are about sentient and able to speak and care.
xilliah 1 year ago 2