Flin Flon said:
So, if words have the same meaning to you as they do to me, then this implies: That social democrats have the same potential to adopt Marxist beliefs if nationalists have the potential to adopt fascist beliefs.
Perhaps not exactly the same, but to a certain extent. A degeneration in economic conditions has proven to push some moderate or otherwise politically disinterested people in more radical directions (which is basic human adaptivity: If the existing group of people created or can't solve the existing problems, then the only option is voting for someone else).
Both the ideas of fascism and nationalism, inherently, rely on the (illogical) notion of supremacy over other peoples. The method of the expression of this idea can only be in the form of conflicting forces. We culturally or societally combat notions of supremacy, because, we know that it's bogus and not conducive to a functional society.
I disagree with this. Fascism is a form of Ultranationalism, that does define itself as inherently superior (either racially, or culturally/historically/religiously). But Nationalism can mean a lot of things. A person who has a preference for their own culture(which in this hypothetical is exclusive to their country), promotes continuing it in their own country, while not saying that it is superior to the culture of any other country, and does not advocate for spreading it anywhere else; could be considered a Nationalist, and yet by definition is not a "supremacist". A "Nation" isn't necessarily based on race/ethnicity.
...all parties in Eastern Europe were effectively communist because that was the only permissible party
Yes, I meant after that, and the countries legalized other parties.
Even in Europe, we have seen a rise in violence and discrimination against non-natives - all have a causal link to supremacist (or nationalist) notions. This not comparable to the danger that social democrats pose if you hold that the protection of (the quality of) life is the purpose here. Hence, I call your mention of potential radicalization of social democrats as conflation.
Well I suppose that depends on what you define to be "quality of life". Ultimately, I can be thrown in prison for saying something naughty (there's a few steps to get there, like me not paying the fine, or not doing my community service, etc., which leads to me getting arrested eventually). And this legislation was brought about in my country via the party with Social Democracy as their stated platform. Does me being thrown in prison for having an illegal opinion not constitute a reduction in my "quality of life", comperable to say, the business of a person of minority background having bricks thrown through it's windows because the owner is of said background? Near as I can tell, they're both completely unacceptable, and both constitute an unacceptable reduction in "quality of life".
I have no idea of social democrats flipping to Marxism which results in actual harm. Maybe you can tell or link me more if you want.
Well here's a couple of quick examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh
If you're looking for specific, recent ones: then I admit I probably won't be able to find them. I also took a moment to try and find some specific recent ones for the turn of ordinary nationalists to violent extremists and couldn't find them. Because the patterns of ideological belief that, e.g terrorists of this broader background, had prior aren't exactly clear most of the time.
So, should we or should we not instil a feeling (thinking) of repulsion in people with regard to rape?
It should be obvious that parents should instill a feeling of repulsion to rape in their children. Which basically all do. We don't need a government or governmental entity telling us that beyond telling us that if you do rape someone they'll send you to prison.
Should we or should we not instil a feeling that we should be equal if we have arrived at that conclusion to our best ability in view of our understanding of how society works and should work (on the bases of sciences in sociology, biology, psychology etc.)?
This one I can't answer. On one hand, in my experience: no two people are ever actually equal in terms of their ability to influence/affect the world, or complete a task. And yet at the same time, equality under the law is essential. I actually don't know what to think with this inescapable contradiction, as I don't with any real human contradiction. But my instinct is to avoid giving any additional power to any monopolized entity than is absolutely necessary. And since I can't escape the contradiction, my thought and response to your question would be: no. If the society cannot reach a basic consensus conclusion based on ordinary, bottom-up, social interactions, then giving the power to force this change to a small group of often barely accountable individuals will only make things worse, from my perspective.
I'll respond to the rest of your post in the morning(by editing this post), I've been away for a week, and I thought I should at least respond to some of your points right now.
edit:
Can you explain the bold part?
Oh, I was just repeating myself. The rest of the paragraph previously highlights what I was saying.
Excuse me, did checks and balances seize to exist? This is a meaningless slippery slope argument.
Hypothetically (which is what my argument was); yes the checks and balances might cease to exist. They only mean something as long as people think they mean something. In the United States, their constitution (which can be considered a check and balance, of sorts), the second amendment speaks specifically about how the right to bare arms shall not be infringed. And yet governments/states have placed restrictions on purchasing and owning firearms (mental illness, were a felon, etc.), despite the fact that this activity completely contradicts the the most significant legal document in the United States. While this example isn't completely related, it's relevant to my point, which is: checks and balances don't mean anything unless people think they mean something. And if the government has the potential to engage in social engineering, then it has the ability to act completely against the spirit and word of the law, for it's own benefit.
Also not all slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies either. If examples can be used.
Are you really this thick? Do you seriously think that I would suggest that we don't peer review information which we choose to promote? For god's sakes, didn't you say that you were interested in sociology? Wtf is 'organically' or 'ordinary social interaction'? Do you realize how stupid this sounds in view of how complicated our society is, and how no social interaction is 'ordinary' or 'organic'? This is reliance on dum**** loaded terminology instead of making arguments.
"Organic" and "ordinary social interaction", despite your claims, do exist. Social/behavioural contagion effects highlight that it is just as possible for ideas and behaviour to spread from one person doing something, to others in their immediate vicinity, and then flowing outwards, without any specific or intentional system of organization, or goal, or interest group. While states and special interest groups are capable of utilizing(and sometimes co-opting) this social mechanism, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Merely that in the age of mass media it's difficult to find social trends that haven't been organized or co-opted by interested parties. It is also difficult to determine to what extent things are organized, and to what extent they are organic social interactions.
And the argument is made, regardless of your desire to disagree that it is an argument.
Do you have papers, studies, textbooks or articles that would be helpful for me to understand your concern with how contemporary studies have been used, or have the potential to be used, to promote ideas that are for their 'own political reasons' (I assume this means that it doesn't properly consider all the variables involved?) in a liberal democracy?
Which "Climate Scientists" or other scientists are most likely to be opposed to the concepts of man-made climate change? Those bribed by, or have had studies funded by, the fossil fuel industry.
(example: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry)
A specific example of this was Coca Cola (and other carbohydrates-based food/snack companies, but specifically Coca Cola) bribing scientists, nutritionists, and non profit organizations, to blame fat(decades ago), or lack of exercise(more recently) for the obesity epidemic. There is a concerted effort to draw blame away from sugar drinks, and other carbohydrates-based foods (which are a leading cause of obesity, especially the misinformation, or ignorance on behalf of much of the public) and point fingers elsewhere. This is a specific example of a company (which donates to politicians too, by the way) using it's power to corrupt information, and bribe these "experts" to pushing an agenda that is helpful to their bottom line. I can cite some links to this sort of thing, but it might be easier for you to just search for them and find some sources which you think are more credible (they really aren't hard to find, I'm not trying to dodge, here).
Now considering the United States, as an example of a Liberal-Democracy, over 90% of congressional elections (in 2008 it was 98% if I remember correctly) are won by the candidate with the most funding. Which moneyed interests know. Which is why I have been talking about "the government or special interests engaging in social engineering", since these economic entities are engaged in what basically amounts to election tampering (it's much the same in many western liberal democracies, but not all, and not quite as bad). These congressional candidates, who will do anything to suck up as much money for their election campaign, are then beholden to special interests, and are fully capable of engaging in social engineering, using bribed "experts" to push specific agendas. And this sort of thing happens everywhere in liberal democracies. All of this is what I was talking about in regards to my specific opposition to social engineering, because I don't see how it can ever remain incorruptible when most people are disinterested in politics. Studies can be selectively chosen, by politicians, to support whatever conclusion they want.
Wait, do we not agree that some values are more correct than others and that we should obtain as correct positions as we can?
Yes, we can agree based on subjective notions that some values are more correct than others. What you might consider to be a "correct position", because you have certain priorities which determines what trade offs are reasonable and what aren't, isn't objectively good. Only in a hive mind, where everyone is working from the same point, to the same goals, with the same outcomes, can values potentially be considered "objective", but that's only because there's no variation in thought or preference. Humans are obviously not like that.
