Liberals?

[Tiassa]

And on and on and on and on and on and on

You didn't win the argument you quote, getting the last word doesn't mean you were right

A very telling statement, Lou.

like I said, your distinction is arbitrary, you still haven't explained how it isn't.

You asked for one difference. I gave you a fundamental difference. You called it arbitrary. Just because you say so doesn't mean you're right, Lou. That you're willing to dismiss considerations of fetal viability and how the fetus continues to survive as arbitrary reminds that your argument is without substance.

Defining "independent existence" as not being physically attached 24/7 is a peculiar and illogical cut off point given the weight of the consequences at hand.

Given that the discussion was based on your warped digression intended to avoid a point, I'm not surprised that you continue to attempt to define the discussion according to your political needs.

Let us consider this point of yours:

How this could make it more deserving of death defies rational reasoning

This is one of those dishonest, irresponsible injections of presumption that makes it easier for you to form an argument. I'm sorry if the truth of what people actually believe is too complex for you, Lou, but attempting to reduce the argument to such a moronic contrast really is an exercise in idiocy.

Babies can't run away only to be shot in the back? Of course not, Lou! Duh! But their mothers can!

Like I said then: Understand that it's a difficult proposition to find your point credible. You don't seem to respect your intelligence. Why should anyone else?

Seriously, when you demand that the discussion be reduced to idiot simplicity, how do you really expect people to regard you?

You can point out how there is a difference between a post-birth baby and a pre-birth baby, good work, you pass a biology exam, but this sub forum is about ethics and morality and you can't explain how this arbitrary difference in stage of development is significant in relation to one's "right to life".

Sovereign territory. When something happens inside your body, Lou, we'll see if you continue to think the difference between that and what happens outside your body is arbitrary.

It follows they'd be happy to wear a blindfold and stomp on a meaty lump on the ground, but would be appauled if they could see it was a baby.

That you should have to reach to such stupid, inflammatory crap, Lou? Is it really all you're capable of? Is this how you want to be viewed? As you're aware, I can certainly accommodate you.

• • •​

The "choice" comes BEFORE you have sex and bring someone else into the picture. Protected or not, If you can't deal with perenthood, don't have intercourse.

Ever read Lysistrata?

• • •​

It doesn't matter if a Nobel Peace Prize winner constructs/leads/starts off the topic, liberals vs. conservatives NEVER leads to an informative and respectful debate

I find it hard to disagree. I will, however, suggest that there is a difference between allowing the discussion to falter and fail on its own and posting a flame bait topic.

Seriously, you and I could spend some time formulating a purely academic juxtaposition drawn from the historical record and put those in front of the audience, and the discussion would fall apart of its own accord. Or we could do what Norsefire did. I could poison a discussion at the outset, too. So could you.

Cutting to the chase is one thing, but when that means skipping to rancid flame bait, there's a question of whether one should bother.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Hitler also agreed that wiping one's arse was beneficial for hygienic reasons. As soon as I learned of this horrific fact I did a big shit and refused to wipe, and then I hugged as many jews as I could find.
They seemed to flare their large nostrils in approval of the sentiment, it was a spiritually gratifying day.

I was pointing out the meaningless level of abstraction his concepts have and how easily they can be used for horrible actions. Just as liberal ideas can be used for horrible actions. His poll was biased and poorly thought out.

but I hope your little carthasis helped you in some way.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

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

It could equally be argued that it is the conservatives who find personal liberty more valuable than society.

For the average conservative, as tiassa said, above, its all about "me me me". My gun, my tax cuts, my freedom of religion, my freedom of speech, my legal rights, my right to dictate to other people how they must live their lives, my right to get rich at the expense of other people, etc.

To be fair, liberals and conservatives view "personal liberty" in different ways. The liberal thinks that "personal liberty" involves living in a democratic society in which people owe duties to one another as members of a common community. The conservative thinks that "personal liberty" involves being able to do what you want when you want, and not be hindered by other pesky people getting "in your face" about how you choose to live your life. So, liberals believe that government has an important role to play in ensuring a fair society, while conservatives mostly want government "hands off" their personal stuff.

 

[James R]

By the way, can we please stay on topic here, people? This thread should not be another abortion debate. If you want to debate abortion (again), start a thread on that.

 

[nirakar]

Who were those guys saying "greed is good" during the 1980s? Republic beamer driving Yuppies.
They weren't liberals and they weren't Christian Conservatives.

We keep trying to make politics/cultural attitudes conform to a two poled number line like left and right. It's just not working for me.

Even those people who expand it to a plane, left/Liberal and right/conservative as one dimension and up/authoritarian and down/anti-authoritarian fail to make a model that satisfies me.

George Lakoff 's Strict Father vs Nurturant Parent model is on to something, but it fails as a model. What are the libertarians?

Lao Tsu's Tao Te Ching 38 is in some ways better
Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue
Virtue is lost, and then benevolence
Benevolence is lost, and then righteousness
Righteousness is lost, and then etiquette
Those who have etiquette
Are a thin shell of loyalty and sincerity
And the beginning of chaos
Those with foreknowledge
Are the flowers of the Tao
And the beginning of ignorance

2nd translation
Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
When kindness is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there is ritual.
Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.
Knowlege of the future is only a flowery trapping of Tao.
It is the beginning of folly.
..........................................................
My interpretation
Tao being the way a person with extremely clear understanding relates to the world
well intended objective Intelligence being the slightly less clear way of seeing the world
kind empathy being a slightly less clear way of seeing the world than intelligence
Justice, laws, rewards for approved behavior and punishment for unapproved behavior being slightly less clear.
Consciously carrying out rituals and traditions being slightly less clear.
Loyalty to your group and doing whatever your body tells you to do being slightly less clear.

"Clear" is the wrong word but I can't find the right word. Each of us is Liberal on some issues and conservative on others. Each of us applies the different styles of relating to the world in different situations.

Loa Tsu sort of diagrammed two poled dimension of style of consciousness. Add that dimension to the Liberal vs Conservative and libertarian vs authoritarian dimensions and you would still have a bad model of political/cultural attitudes; but it would be a better model than any other model I have seen.