1
   

What's the most controversial subject?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Taliesin181
 
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 03:24 pm
I would say abortion, but religion seems to be fairly loaded as well. what do you guys think?

The reason I ask is because the forums have seemed a bit lackluster the last few times I've been here, and I'm looking to draw the whole 'gang' together and have a good, heated, loaded-topic debate. I've missed the impassioned debates that used to happen here.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,894 • Replies: 89
No top replies

 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 05:20 pm
What is controversial is society specific. For example, abortion isn't controversial in many European countries (because it's simply accepted) nor is it particularly controversial in many Middle Eastern countries (because it's simply not allowed). Are we talking about what is most controversial in the USA? If that's the case, the three most controversial subjects currently seem to be abortion, gay rights/marriage, and religion. However, since the abortion and gay marriage debates are strongly fueled by religion (at least on one side), we might have to conclude that religion is the most controversial, especially since the moral majority, which is neither moral nor a majority, seems to be getting its way.
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 05:24 pm
I agree with Mills, abortion is bad.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 10:46 pm
Re: What's the most controversial subject?
Taliesin181 wrote:
I would say abortion, but religion seems to be fairly loaded as well. what do you guys think?


The creation/evolution debates are always good for some activity, but that's really just religion wearing a different mask.

Come to think of it, the abortion issue is pretty much religion too. And separation of church/state, that's religion too.

Is there any active debate which isn't tied to religion in some way?

Maybe the war in Iraq... that's about oil, or in essence, money. Of course, the root problems in the middle east pretty much stem from religion, which led to terrorism, which gave us a good excuse to grab some strategic geography to protect our oil source (economy).
0 Replies
 
Waldo2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 08:48 am
Religion is certainly the answer. In no other subject do you find people who wish to argue against all of the observable facts os the issue.

Especially in this forum, you have a lot of rational thinkers who reject mysticism, and religion in most forms is certainly mystical.

Furthermore, these are beliefs that have been held by the "beleivers" for their entire lives. Their parents began indoctrinating them as children, so it's a deeply rooted understanding.

Finally, religion doesn't need non-religion to be controversial. Two religious zealots are as likely to start a war against one another as any two people on Earth. So, religion gets the benefit of infighting as well as fighting the agnostics and nontheists.
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 09:36 am
Highly controversial subjects have nothing to do with 'philosophy'; they are all about unconstrained emotional excess.

[philosophy is the use of the capabilities of the mind to seek knowledge, not the use of language, and hyperbole to support the unsupportable.]
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 10:01 am
SCoates wrote:
I agree with Mills, abortion is bad.

hmmmmm....the only opinion I expressed on abortion here is that it's controversial.

rosborne979: The cause of terrorism, of course is up for debate. In the Middle East fundamentalist religion provides the organization and "moral" justification for that specific breed of terrorism, but oppression and economic hardship give rise to conditions that favor fundamentalist religion (just look at the poorer regions of the US). The US has a long history of supporting oppressive governments who happen to be friendly to the US (in the Middle East: Hussein, The Shiek in Iran whose overthrow marked Iran's shift to a fundamentalist Theocracy, the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia--though they actually foster a hatred of the US among their people to divert attention away from all the money they're syphoning into their own pockets, and I might very well be missing some). Wouldn't you see the US as an enemy if it supported oppressive tyrants in your country or region of the world? Personally, I would take a non-fundamentalist Muslim (most aren't fundamentalist) over a fundamentalist Christian anyday of the week.

Waldo: I've always found this to be an amusing analogy to folks who argue from a religious perspective (I saw it on a website years ago)--

"I am a member of the Shrine of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Like all good religions, ours is a combination of faith and logic: We have faith that she's pink, and logically we know she's invisible because we can't see her."
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 10:12 am
Mills75 wrote:
"I am a member of the Shrine of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Like all good religions, ours is a combination of faith and logic: We have faith that she's pink, and logically we know she's invisible because we can't see her."


damn hard to argue with 'that'!

[terrorism is the congress of an intellectual bankruptcy in dealing with reality, phenomenizing as wanton violence]
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 10:16 am
BoGoWo wrote:
Highly controversial subjects have nothing to do with 'philosophy'; they are all about unconstrained emotional excess.

Philosophy's never controversial? Socrates might disagree (especially after he was forced to drink hemlock). Galileo might also have something to say on the subject (he was, after all, forced to retract the knowledge he'd discovered and spent much of the remainder of his life under house arrest for discovering it).

Quote:
[philosophy is the use of the capabilities of the mind to seek knowledge, not the use of language, and hyperbole to support the unsupportable.]

I will agree that we see entirely too much 'one-up-manship' in philosophical debates, but if you believe you have found truth, or at least a portion of truth, then you will want others to believe as you do. If there's an opposing view to yours, then you will probably need to employ the powers of rhetoric. Unfortunately, the masses are usually moved by good speech more quickly than good logic.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 10:35 am
Mills75 wrote:
rosborne979: The cause of terrorism, of course is up for debate. In the Middle East fundamentalist religion provides the organization and "moral" justification for that specific breed of terrorism, but oppression and economic hardship give rise to conditions that favor fundamentalist religion (just look at the poorer regions of the US).


Agreed. The situation is far more complex than I described. I'm sure that if we removed any aspect of the recipe, we would have a very different brew.

Mills75 wrote:
Personally, I would take a non-fundamentalist Muslim (most aren't fundamentalist) over a fundamentalist Christian anyday of the week.


Me too.
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 11:08 am
Mills75 wrote:
Unfortunately, the masses are usually moved by good speech more quickly than good logic.


we are clearly on the same page (literally Laughing ); philosophy is about enlightening by discussion, not the onslaught of verbal battering.

[philosophical 'ideas' will always be a source of controversy, but not the medium in which they such debates are executed.]
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 01:58 pm
BoGoWo wrote:
[philosophical 'ideas' will always be a source of controversy, but not the medium in which they such debates are executed.]

Precisely the reason, I suspect, why so many ancient philosophers stressed the study of rhetoric.

And let us not forget Socrates famous last words: "I drank WHAT?!" Shocked

rosborne979: So much of the confusion regarding terrorism seems to stem from efforts to link it definitionally to its causes when terrorism is merely a tactic--one that most major nations have used, including the US.

Going back to religion: what gives rise to the progressive and regressive impulses in religion? Religion isn't always bad--historically it has united people as much as it's divided them, has frequently been the custodian of knowledge rather than its prison guard or destroyer, and even the abolition and civil rights movements in the US were heavily rooted in religious organizations. In modern times we see the Swords to Ploughshares anti-war movement, The Catholic Workers Movement, and activist priests who have worked for years to end tyranny and oppression in Latin America (I apologize that these examples are all Christian--it's what I'm most familiar with). The point is that religion doesn't always lead to oppression and tyranny. So what makes it positive sometimes and negative at other times?
0 Replies
 
Nietzsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 02:03 pm
Mills75 wrote:
So what makes [religion] positive sometimes and negative at other times?


Uh, because there are humans involved?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 02:04 pm
Mills75 wrote:
The point is that religion doesn't always lead to oppression and tyranny. So what makes it positive sometimes and negative at other times?


I would guess that it often depends on character and goals of the particular leader who happens to be in charge.
0 Replies
 
Taliesin181
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 02:05 pm
Interesting questions, Mills.

I think we can all agree that Religion is the most controversial subject. SO, I think I'll start a topic about why religion is controversial. The only problem - do I put it in Religion, or Philosophy and Debate? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 02:21 pm
Nietzsche: I think we'll be wanting a little more specificity on this one. Confused

rosborne979: I'm sure that's a factor, but what causes people to be more apt to listen to negative leaders than positive leaders?

Taliesin181: Definitely Philosophy and Debate--this is a social philosophical discussion concerning a major human institution, not a debate about how many angels can stand on the head of pin :wink: .
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 02:30 pm
Mills75 wrote:
rosborne979: I'm sure that's a factor, but what causes people to be more apt to listen to negative leaders than positive leaders?


Charisma.
0 Replies
 
Nietzsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 02:44 pm
Mills75 wrote:
Nietzsche: I think we'll be wanting a little more specificity on this one. Confused


Well, granted it was a rather general comment; but I was quite serious. What makes anything positive at some times and negative at others? The complexity of the species; the ambiguity of language; the conflicting drives both within the individual and within a society or culture. When there are humans involved, you're going to get the entire spectrum of potential outcomes of a given circumstance.

In other words, one could say religion is good when in the hands of the good, bad when in the hands of the bad, foolish in the hands of the foolish and so forth.
0 Replies
 
Taliesin181
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 02:48 pm
Okay, there's now a new topic devoted exclusively to discussing why religion is so polarizing. Hope to see you there!
0 Replies
 
Dutchman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 04:28 pm
very nice topic,
I agree with Taliesin it can be abortion (and lookalike euthanasia) and religion, more explicit;
If you follow the rules of logic - instead of religion - life is a terrible accident and preventing it a blessing.
But this logic ultimately leads to preventing all reproduction of life.
www.accidentism.com
Don't go there if you don't like a very sick joke, that is possibly not a sick joke.
Also the softening parts of this theory are not translated yet. It is of course a Dutch site (homeland of legal euthanasia and abortion - and drugs and prostitution).
I wonder if Mills 75 still want the masses to be moved by good logic if auto genocide is the final answer of mankind.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish
can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What's the most controversial subject?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/30/2024 at 11:48:05
▲ ▼