8 Answers

  1. And why do you drink vodka right in the morning and not have a snack?

    I don't care. Liberals don't promote any of these things. Liberals promote the value of individual rights. The rights to equally engage in sex and not engage in it, to masturbate and abstain, to see the meaning of life in pleasure, to serve Christ or Buddha, to discover the theory of everything and to have children – in anything. The only restriction is not to interfere with the exercise of their rights by other individuals.

  2. Genby: It pisses me off when modern young women and men say, ” you have to try everything in life.” “Everything” usually refers to drugs, homosexuality, and making porn videos. Much less often — nuclear physics, mountain climbing and chess.”

    Liberalism assumes that everyone has a set of inalienable rights that they are born with. Such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to choose sexual partners, etc. Respect for these rights is, in fact, the main goal of liberalism. How people manage these freedoms is their own business, it's sad that you see only the list you listed in the huge opportunities for self-realization, but I'll focus on it in more detail:

    Such a concept as “cattle” – in fact, simply means the majority, the majority that is less educated, which has fewer opportunities to realize itself in life and liberals, in general, strive to ensure that this majority has the same opportunities as others. Most people choose this way of life often simply because they have no other choice, while liberalism seeks to give them this choice. And how they use this choice, I repeat, is their own business – you can't make a person be happy.

    The INTEGRAL is completed in 120 days. The great, historic hour is near when the first INTEGRAL will call out into world space. A thousand years ago, your heroic ancestors conquered the entire globe under a Single State. You will have even more glorious feat: glass, electric, fire-breathing INTEGRAL to integrate the infinite equation of the universe. You will have to subjugate to the beneficent yoke of reason unknown beings that live on other planets-perhaps still in a wild state of freedom. If they don't understand that we bring them mathematically infallible happiness, it's our duty to make them happy. But first, we will experience the word.

    Zamyatin “We”

    The bottom line is that there is no mathematical formula for happiness, following which each person will find it, so by allowing other people to go their own way, we get the freedom to go our own, choosing the theater pivasika at padik or vice versa. If your path is through self-restriction of sexual freedoms-go ahead, just do not force me to follow them, please.�

    When you talk about turning people into animals , you distort it. You attribute non-committal sex to animals, but you can also attribute strong family ties to them for life, such as swans, penguins, wolves, and salamanders. Masturbation is common in most animal species, including Homo Sapiens, which is reflected in culture and art from rock paintings to Renaissance paintings.�

    If you mean the suppression of the animal principle, then, first, we need to agree on which principles we suppress and which do not, because if you suppress all animal principles, then such principles include sex and sexual attraction in any of their manifestations, the need for delicious food, joy, self-development, childbirth, and almost everything, it's easier to lie down and die. And here we come to “second”. Secondly, the suppression of the animal principle must have its own purpose. In some traditions, a warrior without a family is much better at fighting. Although in other traditions, a warrior who has someone to protect is equal to him. Which brings us to “third”. Third, as many arguments as there are for, there are just as many against. Without sufficient justification, it is stupid to try to forbid someone something, just because you think so.�

    Drugs are a very slippery topic for discussion, because it gives rise to even more discussions, almost like the Second World War, so I'll limit myself to quoting Omar Khayam:

    Prohibition of wine – a law that takes into account the fact that
    Who is drunk, and when, and how much, and with whom.
    When all these caveats are met,
    Drinking is a sign of wisdom, not a vice at all.

    Well, for dessert, let's talk about pleasure. Pleasure is an integral engine of humanity, the main method of reinforcement of useful activity by the brain. Neil Armstrong, stepping on the moon, I think, experienced great pleasure. Gagarin, who pierced the sky blue on his rocket, the poet who finished the poem, the mathematician who discovered the formula, all of them experienced pleasure from these actions. But you can not force a person to do something that he does not like, so that he would feel pleasure at the same time. Either we don't force him, or we force him to do what he likes, in no other way. The best option from the point of view of efficiency is when a person does it voluntarily and with pleasure. This is exactly what liberalism claims to be free for. There is no ideal in life and we never know what will be useful to us tomorrow or the day after, because many people simply do not know how to use their freedom, but liberalism strives to ensure that they have at least the opportunity and the necessary resources for this. And I will equally support anyone in matters of porn from a person escaping from loneliness, to two lovers or a physicist relieving stress after hard work.

  3. The author of the question is ill or uneducated. Liberalism does not contribute to such phenomena in any way, moreover, they flourish in patriarchal Russia, so you can only laugh at such questions.

  4. Liberalism promotes the rejection of compulsory state control, in any sphere – from the absence of state regulation of the economy to, in fact, freedom of speech and personal freedom, in which sexual freedom plays only a small role.
    And if you see in sexual freedom only cattle, masturbation, fucking in the ass and homosexuality, then the problem is not in the liberals, but in you.

  5. Neoliberalism is in the field of the postmodern paradigm, which postulates the rejection of all meanings, freedom from everything absolutely. They need blind freedom from.

  6. For such questions, you need proof, you need to show who, where and how promotes all these ideas. But only such evidence was not and is not. The liberals have never said anything like this anywhere and do not say it. The essence of liberal politics is in the freedom of a person from the state and his protection from the state, in the recognition of civil rights and freedoms for a person. Liberals do not pry into a person's private life, but they have never promoted or encouraged the collapse of the institution of the family.

    The question, in fact, contradicts the facts. The Bolsheviks began to promote family disintegration, free relations, and communization of personal life. But their propaganda was not built from scratch, it was fueled by Marx's ideas. He began to talk about how socialism would “liberate” the family. In his” Manifesto of the Communist Party”, when listing the priorities of the new government, it is called “public education of children” – is this not the destruction of the family and the socialization of children?

    But the same Manifesto also speaks of the community of wives. Shifting the question from a sore head to a healthy one, Marx first blames the bourgeoisie for what the Communists are going to do, and then calmly pretends that the Communists are not to blame for anything, but only preserve the phenomenon supposedly created by the bourgeoisie: “The Communists could only be reproached for wanting to introduce an official, open community of wives instead of a hypocritically disguised one.”

    Marx is generally hard to imagine as a defender of the family and marriage ties. In parallel with living in an official marriage, with his wife, Marx had a long-term relationship with his maid, from whom he fathered an illegitimate daughter. Marx never recognized this daughter as his child, and openly exploited the maid: taking advantage of the hopelessness of her situation, he simply did not pay her wages, realizing that she still had nowhere to go.

    Almost all Bolshevik leaders had mistresses or second and even third families.

    Recording the development of events in Russia, the British mission in Moscow reported in 1918 on the appearance in the Volga region of local decrees on the socialization of women.

    The fact that this whole topic was not an “inflection” only for some Russian Bolsheviks is clearly demonstrated by the activity of one of the most prominent neo-Marxists of the twentieth century, G. Lukacs, as Deputy Commissioner for Education in the Hungarian Socialist Republic in 1919. He introduced into the school curriculum the promotion of freedom of sexual relations and the uselessness of the family. His students and followers from the “Frankfurt School”, in particular, Marcuse, already working in the United States after World War II, ideologically justified and also promoted the theme of free love. It was the ideas of these neo-Marxists that strongly influenced the views of hippies and the student movement in the United States and in the West in the 1960s.

  7. First, liberalism promotes freedom, not animal life.

    Secondly, what's wrong with sex, masturbation, and so on? Is an onanist dangerous to society? Why is this considered animal behavior at all?

    Third, a normal person has his own personal beliefs and will not commit any obscenities even in the complete absence of laws.

    Fourth, if an animal is forced to behave like a human being by violence, it will not become a human being. It will simply become trained. He will show off his training and master and call everyone else a redneck.

  8. Before answering, I would like to emphasize that I am not a liberal and I do not like the liberal ideology.

    Liberalism is an ideology that generally allows state control if and only if it brings real benefits to citizens. Or to put it another way, a person has the right to do anything as long as he does not harm others.

    Thus, liberalism does not turn a person into cattle, and even more so does not promote such a way of life, this ideology only gives a person freedom, and the fact that people use freedom in this way is another matter and has nothing to do with liberalism.

Leave a Reply