Liberals?

[Norsefire]

I don't know if this belongs here exactly, but oh well, here it is.


Now......my question is, liberals don't mind killing innocent, unborn babies (abortion), and yet they are against the death penalty for criminals?:shrug:


And anything else liberal-related or conservative, bring it here!


And I'll add a poll

 

[Xev]

I'm sure this topic, being so rationally constructed, will lead to an informative and respectful debate.

 

[Norsefire]

I'm sure this topic, being so rationally constructed, will lead to an informative and respectful debate.

Thanks!


OK fine, I'll try to edit the poll options
Never mind, forgot how...

 

[pjdude1219]

i seeing something that i see al to often with conservatives they think being conservative is the only good path

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat - Political Correctness

Mod Hat — :wallbang:

I'm sure this topic, being so rationally constructed, will lead to an informative and respectful debate.

I figure to give it twenty-four hours to see what comes. You know, for the sake of political correctness.

 

[Norsefire]

What is the problem Tiassa?
"Selfishness" was used to emphasize that liberals find personal liberty more valuable than a society

 

[pjdude1219]

What is the problem Tiassa?
"Selfishness" was used to emphasize that liberals find personal liberty more valuable than a society

the fact that you don't see the problem means you probably will never get what the problem is

 

[Xev]

What is the problem Tiassa?
"Selfishness" was used to emphasize that liberals find personal liberty more valuable than a society

I'll bite:

How are the two incompatible?
A society that is not based on a rational, encompassing view of personal liberty would easily degenerate into anarchy, tyranny or mob rule. History bears this out. Therefore, respect for personal liberty is not more valuable than "a society" but necessary for the survival of society.

 

[Norsefire]

I'll bite:

How are the two incompatible?
A society that is not based on a rational, encompassing view of personal liberty would easily degenerate into anarchy, tyranny or mob rule. History bears this out. Therefore, respect for personal liberty is not more valuable than "a society" but necessary for the survival of society.

Certainly there must be some level of respect to personal rights, but if all are doing as they please, when they please, how they please, the society lacks an identity, lacks a culture, a tradition, and even interaction. There is nothing bringing the people together, and too much offending them or driving them apart. Without respect to tradition, patriotism, faith, honor, and respect, personal liberty is pointless.

 

[Xev]

Certainly there must be some level of respect to personal rights, but if all are doing as they please, when they please, how they please, the society lacks an identity, lacks a culture, a tradition, and even interaction. There is nothing bringing the people together, and too much offending them or driving them apart. Without respect to tradition, patriotism, faith, honor, and respect, personal liberty is pointless.

If all did "as they please, when they please, how they please" they would inevitably come into conflict with the desires of others to do the same. Thus we are led back to the need for personal liberty.

 

[Norsefire]

If all did "as they please, when they please, how they please" they would inevitably come into conflict with the desires of others to do the same. Thus we are led back to the need for personal liberty.

Personal liberty without constraint by common sense, tradition, patriotism, honor, and respect is not beneficial.

 

[pjdude1219]

Personal liberty without constraint by common sense, tradition, patriotism, honor, and respect is not beneficial.

patriotism is a dangerous thing. it is volatile and unstable. and people will do stupid things for honors sake

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat - Response

Mod Hat — Response

What is the problem Tiassa?

The problem is that the topic post and the poll are flame bait.

"Selfishness" was used to emphasize that liberals find personal liberty more valuable than a society

In the first place, selfishness was used in a pejorative context and compared against a completely different aspect of the proposed opposite.

Secondly, given how frequently and consistently liberalism is accused of assaulting individual (e.g., personal) liberty in favor of a societal mechanism (e.g., state regulation), it seems rather strange that liberalism should now be defined as focusing on "personal liberty and selfishness".

Third, and perhaps especially because I'm an American, the change about how liberalism is described—while still maintaining the general theme of the wrongness and undesirability of liberalism—seems conspicuously calculated. After all, the conservative platform in my country right now is built almost entirely on personal liberty, authority, and empowerment. Tax cuts ("my wallet"), violence ("my gun"), the war ("my country"), religion and equality ("my right to decide for others").

Your definitions are suspect, and the topic itself is low-effort. The whole thing is flame bait.

The only reason I left the topic open is because I'm willing to pretend this really is the best you can do, and because, as your neighbors are obviously trying to do, someone might come along and make something useful out of it. Excrement, handled properly, makes an excellent fertilizer. I'm willing to wait and see what grows.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I don't see a problem with norsefire's reasoning. I too have never been able to understand how you can be pro abortion and anti death penalty. In my head you have to be pro-death penalty before you can be pro-abortion. It's a linear thing. But yeah, almost invariably those who are pro-abortion are anti-death penalty.
I think it does prove the irrationality of liberal ideals. It's like a test of the logical soundness of liberalism, and it fails. It's fundamentally logically unsound.

I'm pro death penalty and pro abortion. And for what it's worth I think both heinous criminals and unborn fetuses are as innocent as one another.
I don't think anyone has any control over who they become, it's not about punishment, it's about pruning the hedge of humanity. Unwanted babies and unwanted adults are both fair game.

 

[iceaura]

Personal liberty without constraint by common sense, tradition, patriotism, honor, and respect is not beneficial.

So how did we get from people doing what they want to people who do not want to be honorable, follow tradition, respect each other, and act with common sense ?

Do people then only behave well when cowed and disciplined by the overlords?

 

[Asguard]

Liberalisum is concerned with the relationship between the good of the group as a whole and the good of the indervidual. This is shown by liberal surport for human rights

Conservitives on the other hand tend to be interested in the economie over the sociaty, preserving power and preserving what they see as "a moral sociaty" (ie subjecting and demonising homosexuals)

Now this maybe to harsh as its based on the POLICAL leaders and there are examples of quite caring people who sit on the right wing side of the spectrum when it comes to the economie but the right has become tied with religion to the exstent that someone who is right wing when it comes to economic policy is enevably tied to the "moral" policy

 

[ashura]

To be fair, both liberals and conservatives want that Asquard (the good of the group as a whole and the good of the individual). The difference is how the two, in theory, would try to achieve it. Conservatives believe that liberal policies would inevitably hurt the group and the individual compared to what conservative policies would do. However, the "right" in the US has become so entwined with it's religious base and big business that the concept of creating policies for the good of the people while maintaining respect for the individual and his/her rights has been tossed out the window.

 

[ashura]

The poll options immediately made me think of this:

According to the research of Drew Western, political partisans -- and especially the smart, well-informed ones -- not only feel better when their brains downplay contradictory political information, they actually get a little emotional "high" when the brain (unconsciously) rejects evidence that contradicts their deeply held political beliefs.

http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2008/03/14/political-junkie-redefined

An unselfish liberal? Stop it, you're making my head hurt.

 

[Asguard]

ashura i realise that

I just thought seeing as the poll and first post as so biased i would let some of my own bias run away with me

 

[Tiassa]

I don't see a problem with norsefire's reasoning. I too have never been able to understand how you can be pro abortion and anti death penalty. In my head you have to be pro-death penalty before you can be pro-abortion. It's a linear thing. But yeah, almost invariably those who are pro-abortion are anti-death penalty.
I think it does prove the irrationality of liberal ideals. It's like a test of the logical soundness of liberalism, and it fails. It's fundamentally logically unsound.

Given your difficulty understanding issues like fetal viability or even a simple phrase like "independent existence", it's easy to see that the issue would confuse you:

Dr. Lou: Explain to me the qualities a new born baby has that an unborn baby doesn't? The qualities that make it infinitely more deserving of life?

I honestly can't think of one thing, and that is why I have a problem with the blase attitude towards abortion.

Tiassa: Independent existence.

Dr. Lou: Are you serious?

I'm 24 and I'd say I'm just starting to reach the level of independent existence now, not completely just yet, let's not get carried away, but soon enough.

Tiassa: Am I to believe that you really, sincerely, can't tell the difference?

Dr. Lou: Am I to gather that you truely, seriously, can't explain the difference?

Tiassa: Are you still physically attached to your mother?

Dr. Lou: And congratulations, that couldn't be more arbitrary.

(see "Abortion", #91-104)

As you demonstrate, Lou, the presupposition alleging to validate the comparison is dishonest.

Which leads us back to the point that the topic post and poll are flame bait.

• • •​

To be fair, both liberals and conservatives want that Asquard (the good of the group as a whole and the good of the individual).

Historically, this is incorrect. Dress up conservatism with whichever philosophical vestments you want, but in the end, the long, sad tale of conservative political philosophy has centered around greed. The appearance of altruism in modern conservative politics is a con job, as evidenced by the fact that the altruism requires the maintenance of social injustice and the perpetuation of the traditional structures leading to that inequity.

An unselfish liberal? Stop it, you're making my head hurt.

And your point? After all, liberals are human, too. Or does that fact somehow surprise you?

The question of what one aspires to, the political philosophy as such, is certainly colored by human self-interest, but to take a basic issue for examination, the topic post and poll would assert of liberals and conservatives:

• Selfish: "I may not agree, but it's your right, too."
• Unselfish: "If I can't suppress your rights, I'm being oppressed."​

Do you see anything counterintuitive about those assertions and their labels?

• Selfish: "This is what we owe to one another."
• Unselfish: "That's mine. And that. And that. And that. Oh, hey, this, too. Hey! Hands off! That's mine!"​

I should probably just relax and learn to simply laugh at conservatives' efforts to argue rubber-glue. And maybe if there weren't questions of civil rights, wars and rumors of wars, and the future viability of the society I was born into involved in the outcome, I would.