The paradox of Liberalism: Morally relativist yet hysterically judgmental

My take on liberals:

People who mean well, have ideas that would work if mankind were a species NOT drawn towards violence, crime, and envy.

Liberals are just people who are too naive to realize they cant see the forest through the trees. Usually because they're too busy hugging them

reply to post by FailedProphet


The answer to your question is that you don't understand liberalism at all.

reply to post by FailedProphet


Riddle me this.. why do you continue to divide the world into left and right?? what purpose does this serve. Both sides have their problems which are conveniently overlooked by both sides. So either side ever becoming dominant will come with its own set of problems. which will in due time swing back to the other side, with no solution to the problems just switching one set of problems for another. So why continue the stupidity.

How about instead of going back and forth with this stupidity we stop being divided and actually come up with solutions with the problems brought by both sides.

This won't happen because people are enamored with tribalism. It makes about as much sense as the bloods and the crips .

enjoy your gang activity

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
You just labeled half of the world and completely judged it in a post about hysterical judging, implying that our morals are crappy because they aren't based on a questionably immoral root...i.e. old-fashioned or Biblical(anto-black, anti-rock'n'roll, anti-homosexual, anti-everything modern).

So tell me: how is the right-wing any better than the left-wing? Isn't this the kind of divisiveness we need to fight? But you just took your knife and hacked straight down the middle in an attempt to prove that your opinions are actually facts, by dividing the people of the world and setting them against one another.

People divide themselves into groups around the world to compete with other groups.

Liberals struggle with this concept.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
You just labeled half of the world and completely judged it in a post about hysterical judging, implying that our morals are crappy because they aren't based on a questionably immoral root...i.e. old-fashioned or Biblical(anto-black, anti-rock'n'roll, anti-homosexual, anti-everything modern).

So tell me: how is the right-wing any better than the left-wing? Isn't this the kind of divisiveness we need to fight? But you just took your knife and hacked straight down the middle in an attempt to prove that your opinions are actually facts, by dividing the people of the world and setting them against one another.

People divide themselves into groups around the world to compete with other groups.

Liberals struggle with this concept.

Complete nonsense.

Originally posted by ollncasino

People divide themselves into groups around the world to compete with other groups.

Liberals struggle with this concept.

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Complete nonsense.

It could be observed that your response merely proves my point. Liberalism struggles with the concept that people naturally divide themselves into groups.

People identify with their family, ethnic/geographical groups, religion and nations and happily compete with other groups on those bases.

To pretend otherwise merely demonstrates the inherent intellectual bankruptcy at the core of modern liberalism.

Originally posted by votan


enjoy your gang activity

reply to post by FailedProphet


Any ideology or political stance can be co-opted in the mainstream so that it can be used to the ends of the globalists. Left wing and right wing stances in the mainstream seem to be there only to justify the existence of one-another, or at the least, a form of political theatre to keep people distracted from the real solutions and to keep people believing in the myth of the hero, the dogmatic, charismatic leader who will fix everything for us. This is obviously not the truth. The solution lies in the wrestling back of the monopoly on power and force that our governments have become, and making sure that the leaders know who they work for. "Democratic" (the word sort of lost it's meaning for me when it got perverted beyond recognition) governments are there to serve the people, not the other way around, and it seems that somewhere along the line, they forgot that. I think it's high time to remind them. Sadly enough, though, I think most world leaders know exactly who they work for, and it's usually not the people.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by ollncasino

People divide themselves into groups around the world to compete with other groups.

Liberals struggle with this concept.

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Complete nonsense.

It could be observed that your response merely proves my point. Liberalism struggles with the concept that people naturally divide themselves into groups.

People identify with their family, ethnic/geographical groups, religion and nations and happily compete with other groups on those bases.

To pretend otherwise merely demonstrates the inherent intellectual bankruptcy at the core of modern liberalism.

edit on 27-7-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)

That could NOT be argue, by a reasonable person.

You've stated an OPINION about why "people divide themselves into groups". That it's purely to engage in competition.

People divide themselves, and are divided, by much more than a desire to compete. In fact many disparate groups work TOGETHER while other very similar groups compete violently.

To say that you think that Liberals have a hard time understanding your very incorrect declaration says much more about your simple-minded understanding of who or what "liberals" are and what they stand for AND why people divide into groups.

reply to post by votan


lol Funny metaphors at work there. I agree with you that the whole left-right paradigm is there only as a means of self-justification and as a form of political theatre to keep people at eachother's throats. The divide-and-conquer MO is widely known in mainstream history as being used by tyrants to keep populations under control, and yet so many people (who I assume are not history majors, now that's a safe bet) fall right for it. It has been used time and time again, since the time of the Babylonians, and yet we still fall for it. That is the issue which irks me the most. I suppose it's true that when people are in a group of more than 5, their collective IQs shrink to that of a 4 year old. Kinda funny when you have the equivelant of 3 or 4 four-year-olds running around arguing about politics lol.

The only paradox here is the poster trying to overlay ethical code with moral relativism.

That and yanking every word he can out of the Urban Dictionary.

The entire premise of your question is a red herring and bunk, as well as selective. There are many time honored traditions that conservatives reject and/or overlook because it does not fit within their narrow world view. Let's take the very current conservative hysteria about marriage. If you are intellectually honest about following time honored traditions, you'd have to say that historically throughout nearly the entire history of mankind, save for the hundred and fifty years maybe, marriage was an arranged contract meant principally to establish political and economic ties between tribes (whether a "tribe" is distinct royalty from one city state or feudal territory to another, or what most think of as a "tribe"). The concept of marriage for love is a recent trend. Arranged marriages still dominate the concept of marriage in many parts of the world. Even today, upper classes tend to cultivate and promote marriage for much the same reason, though they don't admit it..."He comes from a very good family..." "She is well-bred."

Instead, I'd argue that what constitutes modern American conservatism bears little resemblance to historic conservatism, instead reflecting a hard right religious orthodoxy. That's why Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Christians share pretty much identical political values.

I would agree that "Conservative" also means limited government and that is consistent across the years, but in truth the modern Republican only uses that as a talking point and claim to share that value. Empirically however, modern Republicans embrace an extremely intrusive and powerful central government. In fact, that's the one area where they will fund to the hilt, regardless of deficit realities. Spy on Americans? The Republicans endorse it 100%. Target citizens for assassination without charge or trial? The Right jumps to line up in sponsorship. Attempt to establish federal law that controls one actions -- especially relating to what consenting adults wish to do and how much control a woman may have over herself? The Republican of today will spend whatever it takes to assert federal control. Property forfeiture without conviction? Sign them up.

Basically, the modern Republican has no true convictions as they extract only the convenient and selective phrases of the Constitution or their interpretation of the Bible, ignoring all the Scripture that does not fit their agenda, ignoring even core tenets of the Constitution (laid out in the Preamble), such as to "promote the general welfare." The Right acts like those words do not exist.

Other than this post, I am not going to debate a phony premise born of your small-mindedness.

Originally posted by longlostbrother
You've stated an OPINION about why "people divide themselves into groups". That it's purely to engage in competition.

People divide themselves, and are divided, by much more than a desire to compete. In fact many disparate groups work TOGETHER while other very similar groups compete violently.

Competition between individuals and groups for scarce resources is as old as the human race.

Liberals struggle with this concept.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by longlostbrother
You've stated an OPINION about why "people divide themselves into groups". That it's purely to engage in competition.

People divide themselves, and are divided, by much more than a desire to compete. In fact many disparate groups work TOGETHER while other very similar groups compete violently.

Competition between individuals and groups for scarce resources is as old as the human race.

Liberals struggle with this concept.

Sorry, can you just decide on what your opinion is and post it? I can't respond to you if you gonna change what you believe every time you get busted saying silly crap.

Is that your final opinion about groups?

If it is, then it's wrong. Liberals don't struggle with that concept at all. And I'm pretty sure you couldn't define the word liberal if your life depended on it.

Hang on, lets try that.

Define the "liberal" you think has trouble understanding that competition is an inherent part of the human condition.

I'll start you out.

A liberal is...

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by beezzer
There is not a stand-alone stance (that I am aware of) that liberals hold.

Equal rights, Science, Environment, Religion (aka, keep it out of government), Big projects (Nasa, etc. Things a nation has to build, not a company), Personal liberties.

Problem is, there are almost no liberals in power at the moment..just the choice of one neocon, or one centerist...none to the left. When Ronald Reagan is an example of a leftist now, that means both sides have moved to the right so far that a proper leftist simply has none that represent his/her interest.

Personal liberties?
Could you expand?
Is that the same as individualism that the Tea Party espouses?

I smoke what I want, I watch what I want, I read what I want, I play what I want, I don't want nanny to be deciding what is good for me.
I also know I cannot do things alone. If ACME Toxic Chem company down the road is dumping trash into the canal I fish from, me personally walking up and telling them to stop will get only laughs...this is where gub-ment is required...to protect me, some tiny puny mortal, from the savage machine of industry..my liberty stops where someone elses starts.
If it effects only me, then thats my turf...if I am doing things to effect others, then that is when mediators need to come in to determine equality and fairness. If I am say, smoking cigarettes in my home, thats my decision..if I am creating a toxic cloud of smoke from my property that is choking off my neighbors..thats when I have crossed the line. Its a pretty simple code really.

Curious.

Also, I harken from an ideology that some (Misoir) would call "classical liberal". Do you see a difference between the classical liberal (conservative) and modern liberal?

Thanks

I have no issue with some conservatism of old. Fiscal sound policys based on numbers, economic facts, and a clear understanding of a long term position is great. Todays conservatism is not about that..it shares almost no common ground with the founding principles of conservatism.

Liberalism to me is as the word says..liberty. But, liberty for all means also regulating, else it quickly becomes liberty for some while the rest deal with crushing power looming over them. Government =can= be a force of equality and fairness to ensure maximum liberty...does it? very open for debate. I am more concerned about corruption and inefficiency in the fed than I am worried about size. big and stupid, small and stupid..both are stupid. what is required is smart, then debate about the size once its streamlined.

Todays liberal I don't agree with totally. I have no position on gun laws for example outside of a ban on heavy machinery (assult weapons, ak's, extended clips, etc). I also am indifferent about gay marriage. My position is that marriage itself should not be part of governmental legislation to begin with and should not be recognized, etc.

I don't know what Misoir believes today. He seems to change often. He is young, your allowed to change often when your young. Eventually you settle on a set of principles and then see what general political ideologys are closest to you. I tend to go more with core liberal views on many issues, and in todays conservative camp, if you have one liberal view, your a liberal...fair enough..I have many..so I am super lib and comfortable with it.

I have also explored the world. My view goes outside what is going on on my street alone. I see the connected world and try to view decisions based on a worldview approach moreso than what gives my neighborhood the best benefits without concern of the next town over

Any party that has a xenophobic view of the world is not a viable party for a evolving society or species.
Freedom fries anyone?

Originally posted by longlostbrother
Sorry, can you just decide on what your opinion is and post it? I can't respond to you if you gonna change what you believe every time you get busted saying silly crap.

Competition for food, shelter and mates has existed as long as mankind has existed on this planet.

While Liberals can perhaps prevent competition within one society (by the force of law), they can't prevent competition between societies.

Liberals struggle with the concept of competition.

reply to post by ollncasino


No they don't.

Sure, why not provide some evidence that they do.

Originally posted by longlostbrother
No they don't.

Sure, why not provide some evidence that they do.

Liberals struggle with the concept of competition.

Perhaps, as a liberal, you could stoop to explain how liberals incorporate competition between individuals and groups into liberal ideology?

The floor is yours...

Originally posted by DCLXVI
reply to post by FailedProphet

 

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

"zing"
"OUCH!
"If you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a threatening question!"

My wife has dibs on our copy of reformed liberal david mahmets book:
"The secret knowledge;
On the dismantling of the American culture"
subtitle:"The struggle of the left to rationalize its positions is an intolerable, sisyphean burden. I speak as a reformed liberal."

I AM CHOMPING AT THE BIT for my turn at it ;( I wish she would read faster!).
Good post o.p.

reply to post by ollncasino


so your view of someone who is liberal,,,, is that that liberal person cares more about everyone,, then themself winning? and this is non competitive,,,,, because in order to be competitive there has to be losers and failures,,,,,, so you view being conservative as being a winner and not caring but encouraging others to lose and fail?