It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
what are the parties within civilization that do not wish to compromise and cooperate with civilization?
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by FailedProphet
Libbies and lefties, riddle me this: how do you resolve the paradox stated in the topic's subject line?
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.
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?)
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.
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?
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?
Originally posted by longlostbrother
The Nazis cooperated with plenty of people.
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?
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.
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.
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?"
Originally posted by longlostbrother
Me thinks you've been watching too much TV.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Originally posted by longlostbrother
ahh correct, you were just defending his indefensible post.
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?
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)
Why do countries and political parties need to co-operate but individuals and corporations don't?
Liberals struggle with the concept of competition.
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?