The paradox of Liberalism: Morally relativist yet hysterically judgmental

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
what are the parties within civilization that do not wish to compromise and cooperate with civilization?


China is uncompromising in its claim over the South China sea. Yet the Chinese will proudly tell you they have a civilization of 5000 years.

Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany were uncompromising in their desire to dominate Europe in WWI and WWII.

Microsoft is uncompromising in its desire to dominate the operating system market for PCs.

Alexander Graham Bell was uncompromising in his desire to enforce his telephone patent.

The US Democrat party was uncompromising in its refusal to co-operate by sharing power with the Republicans after the 2008 election.




posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by longlostbrother
That's NOT really what Liberal means. You know that I suppose.

Here, go read some books on liberals and liberalism. Figure out who or what you actually have an issue with and then start a thread about those people.

The "liberal" you seem to want to define in this thread is almost a parody.

If you want a SERIOUS conversation (not just a political polemic) learn more about liberals and start over,

Few are arguing that you're wrong, we're all arguing that you don't know what liberal means.


Could you be kind enough to descend from your ivory tower and share what you think a liberal is?

Or would that be below you?






Liberal could mean a million things.

Form parties called "Liberal" to individual beliefs... unless you specifically choose to define which "liberal" you mean, it's essentially meaningless.

You might as well say, "cool".

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
Form parties called "Liberal" to individual beliefs... unless you specifically choose to define which "liberal" you mean, it's essentially meaningless.


So we agree that liberalism has many different definitions.

You still haven't told me what your definition is. I was kind enough to give you a definition of a liberal from a UK perspective.

Would you be kind enough to give me yours from your US/London/Irish perspective?



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by ImaFungi
what are the parties within civilization that do not wish to compromise and cooperate with civilization?


China is uncompromising in its claim over the South China sea. Yet the Chinese will proudly tell you they have a civilization of 5000 years.

Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany were uncompromising in their desire to dominate Europe in WWI and WWII.

Microsoft is uncompromising in its desire to dominate the operating system market for PCs.

Alexander Graham Bell was uncompromising in his desire to enforce his telephone patent.

The US Democrat party was uncompromising in its refusal to co-operate by sharing power with the Republicans after the 2008 election.



The Chinese, in fact, made political compromises with other nations that used the SCS, but due to foriegn (i.e. US) interference, due to Taiwan, the Chinese are taking a harder line... but the claim that the Chinese have never compromised on the SCS issue is not even close to true.
The Nazis cooperated with plenty of people.
Microsoft isn't a group. It's a corporation. They are different.
Bell isn't a group, but a person, he wasn't really in a position to compromise either, was he?
Politics in America has a long history of compromise. Choosing one or two years out of 200+ is hardly proof of the groups unwillingness to compromise, as a rule.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FailedProphet

Libbies and lefties, riddle me this: how do you resolve the paradox stated in the topic's subject line?



Just because you state that there is a paradoxical conflict does not mean there is either
a paradox or a conflict, you have invented one based up your relative perception of liberalism.
Because of your bias, you are unable to see the exact same structure of "paradox which exists
in conservatism, but your thesis conveniently choses to focus on one over the other. I will
fill the conservative swimming pool with paradox before this thread is through and we will see
that relativity is not a sin, but a part of the human condition and reality itself.




Leftist philosophy is characterized by moral relativism: no culture or moral code should be "privileged" over another, and all are to be celebrated equally in the great multicultural stew of groovy relativism.


The sentence above is your assertion, it is not a fact, it is your interpretation and it is
relative to your perception. Again, relativism is woven throughout everything.


Michelangelo'a art and the rock scratchings of the tribes of Upper Uffangi River are equally masterpieces, right? Just "different ways of looking at things."

Who said there are both masterpieces? Again you are asserting a point that you have invented.
Now, the value individuals place upon anything, is based upon their perception. That is the
basis of a market based economy, freedom and capitalism, people are allowed to define and
assign value as they see fit relative to their perception. You cannot have a free society if you
allow one portion of society or one perception to dictate value and worth. Conveniently enough,
conservatives accept relativism when it is applied to trade and business, but shun the same concept
when it is applied cultural things, sexuality, religion, in some cases drugs use, art or human expression.

So it is established that Conservatives accept relativism and use it in the way that see fit.
More recent examples of relativism are the big spending and growth of government of the last 30 years.
Three Conservative administration spent and grew government with impunity, but we have all witnessed that
conservatives have only decided to protest and become vocal about government because they are
not in power now. This is a pure and raw act of relativism, all relative to which party is in power.
The Tea Party decided to form AFTER sitting around for nearly a decade of big government, big
spending policy... Again, the outrage of conservative America is completely relative to the who
is doing what.

I did not see you mention this form of relativism, but it is a magnificent truism that lies at
the heart of conservatism in America. Therefore it should be clear that relativism or hysterical
(i.e Tea Party) is a facet of politics and reality, not just liberalism.





Same with moral codes: The Bible, the Qaran, and the 1968 Atheist Manifesto of the San Francisco People's Free Love Commune are all equally valid ways of perceiving reality. There can be no greater sin in the Liberal cannon than privileging one ethical code over another. (Unless you are talking about the evil no-goodnick rotten hegemonic shackles of traditional dead white male western culture, of course. That one goes at the bottom of the barrel every time, right?)


White western culture gets the short end of the stick because white western culture is the most
powerful force in this society. Do I need to remind you that White, Christian, Males erected and
defended the institutions of slavery, Jim Crow and all the other institutions some liberal oppose?

Last I checked, Muslims, Gays and Illegal Immigrants did not manufacture slavery, Jim Crow
and a myriad of other things.



Conservatives can usually point to well-defined traditions in which their morals and worldview are anchored. Some will point to the Bible, for example, while others will base their thought on strict constitutionalism, the Federalist Papers, or simply received, time-honored traditions.  


And in those Conservative things lies all manner of relativism and hypocrisy -

Conservatives apply the bible in a manner that is relative to their personal beliefs.
The relativism that is in this one realm alone is staggering to say the least.
American Conservatives disregard many of core teachings of Jesus when they
apply it to their political system and policies, pro war, pro rich, pro judgement,
pro punishment.

We can look at "Constitutionalism" - again just relative to what conservatives
desire. Spending or a very simply example; NDDA

thehill.com...

MAY 18th of this year

Conservatives upheld indefinite detention, 221 vote in favor, liberals attempted
to vote it down

Clearly unconstitutional, but apparently acceptable, RELATIVELY SPEAKING...
edit on 28-7-2012 by pisssss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by longlostbrother
Form parties called "Liberal" to individual beliefs... unless you specifically choose to define which "liberal" you mean, it's essentially meaningless.


So we agree that liberalism has many different definitions.

You still haven't told me what your definition is. I was kind enough to give you a definition of a liberal from a UK perspective.

Would you be kind enough to give me yours from your US/London/Irish perspective?


I don't have a single definition.

If you recall correctly you said this:


Leftist philosophy is characterized by moral relativism: no culture or moral code should be "privileged" over another, and all are to be celebrated equally in the great multicultural stew of groovy relativism. Michelangelo'a art and the rock scratchings of the tribes of Upper Uffangi River are equally masterpieces, right? Just "different ways of looking at things." Same with moral codes: The Bible, the Qaran, and the 1968 Atheist Manifesto of the San Francisco People's Free Love Commune are all equally valid ways of perceiving reality. There can be no greater sin in the Liberal cannon than privileging one ethical code over another. (Unless you are talking about the evil no-goodnick rotten hegemonic shackles of traditional dead white male western culture, of course. That one goes at the bottom of the barrel every time, right?) If this is the case, what provides the basis for the endless, shrill, hysterical screeching about race, gender, and sexual preference?


You chose not to, even though you obviously no better, define who you were talking about, instead labelling a huge portion of the worlds population, due to ... laziness?

On top of that, we haven't even begun to discuss how your understanding of Moral Relativism is probably wrong. Which definition of liberal engages in, "endless, shrill, hysterical screeching about race, gender, and sexual preference".

I am considered VERY liberal, politically and socially, but I almost never discuss any of these things and happy let people believe whatever they want... as long as they're not forcing it on others...

I may argue a position, with friends, but I never get up and tell people they are morally wrong for not liking gay marriage, etc.

Me thinks you've been watching too much TV.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
The Nazis cooperated with plenty of people.


That must be a comfort to the Russians they slaughtered. Little talk was of co-operation and compromise when they invaded Russia in 1941.


Originally posted by longlostbrother
Microsoft isn't a group. It's a corporation. They are different.

Bell isn't a group, but a person, he wasn't really in a position to compromise either, was he?


Why do countries and political parties need to co-operate but individuals and corporations don't?


Originally posted by longlostbrother
Politics in America has a long history of compromise. Choosing one or two years out of 200+ is hardly proof of the groups unwillingness to compromise, as a rule.


I find that quite surprising to read as in my living memory American politics has been characterized by competition between the Democrats and Republicans for power.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FailedProphet

Originally posted by DCLXVI

Remember that the topic at hand is the paradox of leftism, not the faults of conservatism. So any argument based on attacking conservatism (or any other ism besides leftism) will be considered an invalid evasion. I'm lookin for an answer to the question in the OP, nothing more and nothing less.
edit on 7/26/2012 by FailedProphet because: (no reason given)


And the premise is that liberals engage in Relativism... It is fully cogent to expose the
relativity which exist in the opposite sphere, conservatism, in order to show that relativism
and paradox exist in every ideology and belief system.

It is invalid evasion to place boundaries on philosophical discussions, unless you are using
those bars to camouflage the holes in your thesis, like you are attempting to do.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

If you recall correctly you said this:

"Leftist philosophy is characterized by moral relativism: no culture or moral code should be "privileged" over another, and all are to be celebrated equally in the great multicultural stew of groovy relativism. Michelangelo'a art and the rock scratchings of the tribes of Upper Uffangi River are equally masterpieces, right? Just "different ways of looking at things." Same with moral codes: The Bible, the Qaran, and the 1968 Atheist Manifesto of the San Francisco People's Free Love Commune are all equally valid ways of perceiving reality. There can be no greater sin in the Liberal cannon than privileging one ethical code over another. (Unless you are talking about the evil no-goodnick rotten hegemonic shackles of traditional dead white male western culture, of course. That one goes at the bottom of the barrel every time, right?) If this is the case, what provides the basis for the endless, shrill, hysterical screeching about race, gender, and sexual preference?"


That wasn't me. It was another poster. Was that the OP?


Originally posted by longlostbrother
Me thinks you've been watching too much TV.


Have you been watching TV as your read this thread perhaps?



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by FailedProphet
 

FailedProphet, rare is the erudite thread.
*applause*

If I may, liberalism requires a target, a topic, a goal.

Conservatism does not.




BARACK

OBAMA



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by longlostbrother
The Nazis cooperated with plenty of people.


That must be a comfort to the Russians they slaughtered. Little talk was of co-operation and compromise when they invaded Russia in 1941.


Originally posted by longlostbrother
Microsoft isn't a group. It's a corporation. They are different.

Bell isn't a group, but a person, he wasn't really in a position to compromise either, was he?


Why do countries and political parties need to co-operate but individuals and corporations don't?


Originally posted by longlostbrother
Politics in America has a long history of compromise. Choosing one or two years out of 200+ is hardly proof of the groups unwillingness to compromise, as a rule.


I find that quite surprising to read as in my living memory American politics has been characterized by competition between the Democrats and Republicans for power.



You were listing "groups" unwilling to compromise. You happened to choose bad examples. Oh well, back to square one.

I never said anyone NEEDS to cooperate. But it's hardly a rational argument to say, "Liberals - many of who run successful businesses - don't understand commercial competition". Are you looking to make a rational argument?

You claim Democrats and Republicans compete, which is hardly a secret, but they also have a long history of compromise. In fact, the time we live in is more notable for it's lack of political compromise than it's continuation of aggressive competition. Politicians, for decades, knew that politics aside, the country and it's people were more valuable than a fleeting political victory. There's literally thousands of examples of political compromise between parties in American history. You just discount them because they don't support your worldview.

It's hard to be truly informed and aware when you ignore the facts that you don't "agree with".



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
edit on 28-7-2012 by pisssss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


ahh correct, you were just defending his indefensible post.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


you mentioned things like war.. which can never be justified between intelligent, modern and civil human beings,

and competition between businesses in the free market which is the idea behind the free market and its establishment and implementation,,, something conservatives adore,,,, you agree with competition and blast liberals for attempting to interfere with natural competition so would you think the case of microsoft is bad? also nazi germany,, the world should just be in constant war so we can really see who is competitively superior,,, this is the conservative ideal model/reality?



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
you agree with competition and blast liberals for attempting to interfere with natural competition so would you think the case of microsoft is bad?


I do agree with competition but I no more believe in unfettered competition without limits than I suspect you do.

Microsoft incidentally is a monopoly, so there isn't a great deal of competition in the PC operating market which works against innovation and the consumer. Can monopolies and a lack of competition be good at times? Quite possibly in terms of utility companies and other natural monopolies.


Originally posted by ImaFungi
nazi germany,, the world should just be in constant war so we can really see who is competitively superior,,, this is the conservative ideal model/reality?


Certainly it was Hitler's idea but you are being somewhat unfair to suggest that Conservatives see constant war as an ideal reality. You don't really think that Conservatives think that, do you?



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
ahh correct, you were just defending his indefensible post.


Instead of biting the bullet and taking on board that you had made an honest mistake, a mistake that anyone can make, you come out with both guns blazing again.

Look, you seem like an intelligent chap but how am I supposed to regard your opinion when you reply to my posts within 30 seconds of them being posted (fast reader or something else?) and get my posts mixed up with the OP's?



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
I never said anyone NEEDS to cooperate. But it's hardly a rational argument to say, "Liberals - many of who run successful businesses - don't understand commercial competition". Are you looking to make a rational argument?


I neither said nor implied that. Could you stop mixing me up with other posters?

Liberals understand competition, who doesn't? Many people who call themselves liberals however struggle incorporating the concept of competition into liberal ideology.

For instance, according to one poster, individuals and companies are allowed to compete but countries and political parties should co-operate.

By the way, I'm still waiting for your definition of what you consider a liberal to be.

It would make our little debate a lot more productive.

edit on 28-7-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by longlostbrother
I never said anyone NEEDS to cooperate. But it's hardly a rational argument to say, "Liberals - many of who run successful businesses - don't understand commercial competition". Are you looking to make a rational argument?


I neither said nor implied that. Could you stop mixing me up with other posters?

Liberals understand competition, who doesn't? Many people who call themselves liberals however struggle incorporating the concept of competition into liberal ideology.

For instance, according to one poster, individuals and companies are allowed to compete but countries and political parties should co-operate.

By the way, I'm still waiting for your definition of what you consider a liberal to be.

It would make our little debate a lot more productive.

edit on 28-7-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)


I confused one thingn you said.

You DID say:


Why do countries and political parties need to co-operate but individuals and corporations don't?


As part of your claim that:


Liberals struggle with the concept of competition.


ergo "Liberals" struggle with competition in business. Never mind all the successful "liberal" business people.

I think you have yet to show any proof that, whatever you mean by liberal, some group called "liberals" in general, "struggle incorporating the concept of competition into liberal ideology".

I think you may know what you mean in your own head, but it's far from clear here.

I told you, I don't have a single definition of liberal.

Choose one of the half dozen I showed you earlier and we can discuss how that group .

In fact, better yet, show me an example of a "liberal" that has a hard time integrating competition into their ideology and we can discuss it.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by longlostbrother
ahh correct, you were just defending his indefensible post.


Instead of biting the bullet and taking on board that you had made an honest mistake, a mistake that anyone can make, you come out with both guns blazing again.

Look, you seem like an intelligent chap but how am I supposed to regard your opinion when you reply to my posts within 30 seconds of them being posted (fast reader or something else?) and get my posts mixed up with the OP's?



I am a very fast reader... shockingly so... I typically don't confuse posters, but as the OP has disappeared and you have taken over arguing his position, well, I made a mistake...

That does happen.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
No Mystery-

Mind Control really really does work-
The word liberal is a mind control anchor and didn't really start its assault on American minds until FOX NEWs deployed it. Deployed what?
A MEME basically-

Until you realize that there is no such thing as liberals, conservatives, teabaggers, libetarians, and every other misdirect they have thrown out in the arena there is no hope for your recovery and you will continue down the rabbit hole to where there is no return.

The paradox-
There are no sides at the country club
Now watch this drive...





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join