The paradox of Liberalism: Morally relativist yet hysterically judgmental

reply to post by ollncasino


one of your biggest cases you brought up about liberals is their mis understanding or fear of competition,,, war is the oldest and most original form of competition and most liberals do not dig war...

also being on a conspiracy site,, which i dont know if this is considered a conspiracy because it seems semi obvious,, but a lot of wars america is involved in is for economic and corporate reasons,,, or at least there are major benefits in those areas,,,, just another consequence of a miniscule quantity of men doing F'ed up things for personal gain and profit,, because,, thats the game we (?) wanna play,,,

reply to post by ollncasino


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

if or if not this is directed at me,,,


everyone should compete and everyone should cooperate,,,,, in a modern civil society war should not be a form of competion,,, its a huge waste of the cooperative money raised by the laborers of the countries,,,,, a country is a cooperative,,,, a corporation is a cooperative,,, a society is a cooperative,,,

individuals competing makes both individuals stronger,,,competition is the driving force of evolution and progression,,,, but we would have never left the caves if we did not cooperate with one another,,,,,, could you have created every material youve ever come in contact with in your life, build your own house and car from scratch,, perform your own medical necessities? if not,,, then you have cooperated with your fellow man by obeying the nations established laws,, and benefited from your fellow mans crafts and services,,,, this is cooperation,,,,

competition is you and I want the same job,,,,, you get it i dont,,,,,, you have a job,,,, i keep looking,,,, i eventually get one,,, there is nothing wrong with this,,,,,,

competition is you open a restaurant across the street from mine,,,, you attract more customers,,, i must close and attempt another venture,,,,

when you speak highly of competition,,,, the only real problems conservatives have with anything is people receiving government benefits,, thats it,,,,, you believe if they cannot succeed on their own competition should prove them failures and they shall die,,,,, you are mad at liberals because liberals tend to think all humans have potential value and if physically and mentally able,, can benefit society in some manner,,,,

a problem i have with free market,,,, is all the jobs,,, ( which are suppose to be a part of the whole,, which benefits society) which do not benefit society,,,,,, but thats a whole nother topic i suppose,,,

reply to post by ImaFungi

I know this is only a small part of your post, but it struck me.

a problem i have with free market,,,, is all the jobs,,, ( which are suppose to be a part of the whole,, which benefits society) which do not benefit society,,,,,, but thats a whole nother topic i suppose,,,

Somebody is paying him to do that job, which means it's a benefit to at least one member of society, the guy who's paying him. That's instant and clear proof that the work he is doing has value.

reply to post by charles1952


oh not only that but literally most jobs you can think of create product, service or value to many living humans,..,,..,.,

construction worker,,, gas station attendant,,, mechanic,,, doctor,,,, farmer,,,, police officer,,,,, restaurant worker,,,,

you get the jist? almost everything,..,.,,.,.,..,

i might get blasted for this but i dont know how much people gambling on the turning rates of daily currency is productive to society,,, and because of free market there is allowed to be endless junk produced,, that fills landfills while the next new piece of junk hits commercials and billboards,,,,,

reply to post by ImaFungi

Dear ImaFungi,

Yup, we understand each other. Capitalism, or the free market, or whatever we're calling it, is a production system. It produces what people want, produced at a price they are willing to pay, as efficiently as possible. If people want cheap junk, the system produces cheap junk.

There's a huge list of junk that society produces, no question, but it's what the people want. The alternative, of course, is the government deciding what you want. This results in pig-tail lightbulbs, Smart cars, and the disastrous shortages of the Soviet economy.

The free market system doesn't make value judgments. If people are willing to pay for something, the system will provide it. Sure, there is a lot of embarassing stuff produced, but we can take some comfort from the fact that we did it to ourselves.

i might get blasted for this but i dont know how much people gambling on the turning rates of daily currency is productive to society,,,

You could be right, but the test isn't whether it's productive to society, the question is whether some one wants it enough to pay someone to do it.

(All of the above assuming that the product or service isn't illegal.)

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by DCLXVI

Interesting subject but you are clearly biased so i will pass on this one.

Why am I not surprised

reply to post by charles1952


This is all wrong.

Capitalism isn't about figuring out what people want. Capitalism is about selling people what you have.

And the real product of capitalism isn't products, it's profit.

Capitalism is: (resources + work) - cost = profit

If you can make more than you spend, your a business, if you spend more than you make, you're the government.

It is a society's right and responsibility to deterrmine what is acceptable behavior and what is unacceptable behavior. Bottom line, this is what drives liberal-lefties up the wall. Without societal controls, anarchy results. there is a time and a place for empathy. It is an individual to indvidual action and is not relevant in the realm of governace. That is why justice is considered blind.

Liberals misconstrue cultural preference with a person believing one culture is better than another. Typical liberal mindset.

The OP is spot-on. Liberal-lefties are intolerant of any idea that opposes their world view. They resort to name-calling, personal attacks, ridicule, and nasty inuendos (as well as flat out lying) to try to crush any who dispute the validity of their arguments.

The sophisty of Liberal-lefties is laughable as well as pathetic. I'm offended that they keep trying to dictate to me what I should tolerate. They may call me a bigot, but, I do not hold my opinions out of ignorance. I form my opinions after I have studied a particular subject or social/politcal idea.

I've stated my opinions....so start up the bar-b-que...

reply to post by FailedProphet


I would love to have a few political examples of Liberals being caught in this so called paradox. It seems to me the only people shrilling and screaming over human rights (given or taken away) is conservatives. You dont see Liberals out there donating money to Groups preventing mosques from being built in the US, or preventing gay couples from being married. I am not trying to argue, but instead hear your arguement completely. And to do that, I would like some sort of example of a political argument where liberals were at odds with their party.

I do agree that the original OP is biased. Even the OP admits that this hypocrisy runs through all forms of government, conservative-liberal.. But chose to have the conversation centered around the hypocrisy of the left.

I see a lot of people saying the lefties call name, and ridicule.. And this just shocks me. You dont see rachel maddow calling people sluts for being on birth control etc.. just because you say something doesnt make it true. A lot of this seems like wishful thinking.

There is a lack of morality in this conversation that is lacking.. I can think of dozens of examples of where the conservative solution to a political problem is directly at odds with the 'small government', 'personal responsibility', and 'fiscal conservative' ideas. I dont however see this with Leftist issues.. If you disagree, please cite an example. I would love to see an example, as apposed to saying oh leftist call names and get mad when challenged.. Because that can be said of any point of view when its challenged

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary

 

"So their ideals are based off of a lot of assumtions, such as all people want to live peacefully and work hard...etc. "

So living a peaceful life is a liberal desire? I think across the board humans want the chance to live their life in peace, making them self happy. Are you saying that conservatives do not see peace as a reality? Even though their 'morality' comes from a book that preaches love, acceptance, and peace for all?

reply to post by FailedProphet


S & F. INCREDIBLE Original post. I could not have said it with more wit.

I have said this time and again, and it never stops titillating me. South Park once mocked this mantra in their episode on tolerance: "We will not tolerate intolerance"..

What moral relativists really mean is: we will tolerate people who tolerate everything the way we do. We will not, however, tolerate people who do not subscribe to moral relativism.

It's the same my way or no way that traditionalists present.

I ultimately agree with you. That's the only sound way out. Different moral cannons - different nations, cultures, languages. Difference is good.

What I despise are these judgemental, backwards far leftists who engage in demonizing people who subscribe to a traditional morality, as if were some how insulting their modern sensibility. It's outrageously judgmental of them.

reply to post by FailedProphet

but at least they are anchored in something identifiable, and at least make an effort to be self-consistent.

Hegel shows where these people root their ideology: in the void, before the I becomes differentiated.

In 5, it is only one side of the will which is described, namely, this absolute possibility of abstraction from every determination in which I may find myself or which I may have set up in myself, my flight from every content as from a restriction. When the wills self-determination consists in this alone, or when representational thinking regards this side by itself as freedom and clings to it, then we have negative freedom, or freedom as the understanding conceives it. – This is freedom of the void which rises to a passion and takes shape in the world; while remaining theoretical, it takes shape in religion as the Hindu fanaticism of pure contemplation, but when it turns to actual practice, it takes shape in religion and politics alike as the fanaticism of destruction (of the whole subsisting social order), as the elimination of individuals who are objects of suspicion to a given social order, and as the annihilation of any organization which tries to rise anew from the ruins. Only in destroying something does this negative will possess the feeling of itself as existent. Of course it imagines that it is willing some positive state of affairs, such as universal equality or universal religious life, but in fact it does not will that this shall be positively actualized, and for this reason: such actuality leads at once to some sort of order, to a particularization of organizations and individuals alike, while it is precisely out of annihilation of particularity and objective determination that the self consciousness of this negative freedom proceeds. Consequently, whatever negative freedom means to will can never be anything in itself but an abstract idea, and giving effect to this idea can only be the fury of destruction. – G.W.F Hegel, Outlines of the Philosophy of Right, pg. 29, Oxford World Classics

There you have it. There is 'no reason' to the mentality of the left (or those who subscribe to moral relativism). They destroy because it's apart of their ethos. Destroy morality - as they do - means doing in fact, what they accuse traditionalists of doing, but in their case, morality in general is a byword. Something nonsensical and unimportant relative to the face of nihilism. Of the Void.

Hence Saul Alinsky's philosophy. Where was he trying to go with it? Nowhere. Change. Just for the sake of change. Destroying the present order as an expression of this nihilism - of this hate of the permanent, deterministic, moral world.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by FailedProphet

 

S & F. INCREDIBLE Original post. I could not have said it with more wit.

I have said this time and again, and it never stops titillating me. South Park once mocked this mantra in their episode on tolerance: "We will not tolerate intolerance"..

What moral relativists really mean is: we will tolerate people who tolerate everything the way we do. We will not, however, tolerate people who do not subscribe to moral relativism.

It's the same my way or no way that traditionalists present.

I ultimately agree with you. That's the only sound way out. Different moral cannons - different nations, cultures, languages. Difference is good.

What I despise are these judgemental, backwards far leftists who engage in demonizing people who subscribe to a traditional morality, as if were some how insulting their modern sensibility. It's outrageously judgmental of them.

I dont see this as any different than how Conservatives behave when their stance is questioned, seems to be more of a human experience, than a political experience.

I think its obvious that both parties have things that dont align with the parties platform or whatever, but to act like leftists are the only ones is just blind thinking.

reply to post by SamLuv


I said traditionalists - which means 'conservatives'.

I am on the center right. To be too much to either side creates a political and social situation that proves untenable in the long run.

The commis - an expression of the left - displayed that in their ruthlessness - as well as the Nazis - an expression of the right - with their inhumanity. They both denied the existence of an objective moral standard, and thus both ran over their opposition.

Their needs to be a fixed moral standard with the room to tolerate and respect whats different and other from yourself. There needs to be a pursuit for the right, and a compromise with what you think is wrong.

Genocide is the result of my way or no way. Hence, I think the greatest dangers to world security today emanate from the far left - people like obama and hillary and globalists - and the far right - Islamists. It's paradoxical that they 'work together'; but theres a mutual understanding of a dissatisfaction with the present order. Hence, the former cynically uses the latter for it's own devices, not realizing or taking seriously enough the fact that the Islamists, after finished with Israel and America, will come after them: Moral relativists don't want the imposition of any morality (which in itself is the imposition of a morality), while Muslims want only their morality - shari'a.

Aye..Our world is heading for disaster. In the west were taught to ignore the threat of Islamist Iran and Islamist Egypt and the overall ascent of Islamism in the Muslim world - but to our own peril....

The real difference comes from liberals moral relativism's intolarance of those who disagree with them and the conservatives understanding that we answer to a higher power.