A moment of jaw dropping shock (political)

[popcorn2721]

Isn't that was Colly believed?...

I suppose we could toss in some sort of desire to control everyone else's religious beliefs, too.

Dont forget the attempted control of everyones thoughts through abuse of the "liberal" media...and the attempt to control the way everyone fucks too.

 

[Liar]

LIAR! What a crock of crap.

Damned nearly everyone respects tradition. Otherwise the world would wake up every morning and have to re-invent the wheel again.

The wheel is a social arrangement now?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

WRJAMES

What your answer to morons who insist on the right to buy snake-oil, dice-o-matics, and fund missionaries who bring pirates back to Jesus?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

For the last . . . well, we really don't need to go into how long . . . I've firmly believed that "conserve" meant "take care of" and "be careful with". I still do. What some collection of paranoid neo-fascists may call themselves doesn't change my belief.

Politics should be the practise of the "possible" not the impostion of the "correct" whoever is in charge. That's why government must be limited. Everytime some enthusiast gets in charge and starts dictating the One Way to behave, the result is unpleasant.

Take care and be careful. 'nuff said.

 

[amicus]

The wheel is a social arrangement now?

~~~

You must have missed the Memo. Liar, the relativist liberal left have abolished the 'circle' as politically incorrect for it reflects a religion tenet of completedness.

Quite the same with polygons and five or six pointed stars, for they too are replete with deist symbology.

Further, the 'perfect square', has been abolished, for nothing in the Liberal world is either 'perfect' or 'absolute'.

A liberal wheel is a wonder to behold as it thumps along in a parallelogram repetitiousness producing slightly off key harmonics.

Life is amazing, ain't it?

ami

 

[3113]

Ah, I do love how some people define themselves to victory. I suppose a "liberal" is therefore one who:

is NOT committed to individual liberty (like gay marriage), tempered by the conviction that genuine freedom entails more than simply an absence of restraint...?

Has no belief in limited government (what is "limited" government? At what point is it "limited" and at one point is it not limited? It was Liberals who insisted on the freedom to say obscenities in public, not be arrested for it; ditto for not having sodomy on the books as being against the law), fiscal responsibility, or the rule of law?

Has no veneration for our cultural inheritance combined with a sense of stewardship for Creation?--well, that's probably true of Liberals

Is willing to tamper with traditional social arrangements (hm. Was it "liberals" who wanted to outlaw drugs used traditionally by American Indian tribes? What is a "traditional" social arrangement? According to who's tradition?)?

No wariness of the market’s corrosive impact on humane values?

No suspicion of utopian promises?

Soooo bogus.

 

[amicus]

Ah, 3113, the real problem with Liberals is that they will not, under any circumstances, define themselves.

The left is a weak-kneed reflection of Socialism without the backbone to actually come out and say, "we are going to force you to live like this!"

They all mutter in a ritual circle jerk about "for the good of society", "The Greater Good", or some other bromide meant to hide their real intent to control, manage, and otherwise direct the lives of individual men and women.

Individuals simply require protection from folks like you who wish to control their lives and we accomplish that by exercising the legitimate and enumerated powers of government to protect life, liberty and property.

Left to ourselves, we do quite well, thank you.

Amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Read Anthony Daniels memoir of travels to Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, and Communist Albania....UTOPIAS ELSEWHERE.

I just ordered his book COUPS & COCAINE. Another travel memoir of life in South America where communist gangs control the area.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Over at another forum I followed a link to this article.

When I read this particular piece of it I had a moment of self revelation.



Holy shit! I'm a conservative!



Well, I don't share the author's view on every point. But overall I'm far more in agreement than disagreement.

Heh.

Y'know, the most important part of this post is the last one. It's funny how we look at things like this, anything with any "defined label" to it. Conservative/Liberal? It's like Black/White. We tend to forget the world, in its entirety, not only in parts, is pretty much gray. It's a long band of gray with darker shades on one side and lighter ones on the other.

Nothing more than that. The more we strive for uncompromised purity, the more dire the need for compromise. That's a reference to both sides, for the record. Politics right now, is focusing on what's currently a popular drive, on the details of what's being said, and not necessarily the values that are driving it, not necessarily whether it's about changing things or keeping them the same.

I pose a question: When does Abortion become a "conservative" topic? It's been legalized for over thirty years in the US. Not long ago, it was a major concern to people that Rowe vs. Wade be overturned. Why isn't the struggle about "conserving" the option to abort?

(Note: I don't want to discuss abortion here.)

Q_C

 

[amicus]

Not to pick a fight with you, Quiet_Cool, but to address:

"...We tend to forget the world, in its entirety, not only in parts, is pretty much gray. It's a long band of gray with darker shades on one side and lighter ones on the other..."

So many say that, or paraphrase it in one way or another, that it continues to boggle the mind.

Reality, by its nature, dictates that things either are or are not, to begin with, and from that point, what 'they' are is defined in absolute terms of yes and no, and certainly, 'black and white', with very, very few things being indeterminate or, 'gray', in your terms.

It is rather akin to your dismissal of abortion, the premeditated taking of an innocent human life, as a 'social' issue to conserve the right to taking a life without cause.

I don't want to plunge into a discussion of abortion either, but those 'gray' areas of human behavior you proclaim, have spilled over into the arena of 'life', which is the primary value of individual humanity and is certainly a 'black and white' issue, from which all other values emerge.

Discussion, debate and even argument, are means to an end, that end being to discover truth, that 'white' area you disdain to acknowledge.

You can step away from the very human pursuit of knowledge and truth, as so many have done, and quietly agree that there is no truth, no white, no black and all is relative and transient. But to do so is to basically withdraw from the human community.

Amicus...

 

[SemiColon]

Not to pick a fight with you, Quiet_Cool, but to address:


You can step away from the very human pursuit of knowledge and truth, as so many have done, and quietly agree that there is no truth, no white, no black and all is relative and transient. But to do so is to basically withdraw from the human community.

Amicus...

Actually, it's the opposite. To accept the shades of gray is to accept what it is truy is to be human. To divide everything up into black and white is too easy, when life and ethics are fluid. If we stay on the abortion example, you can say it is wrong, but what about to preserve the life of the mother? Or after rape? Nothing is ever black and white, unless you don't bother to actually try and see the world through someone else's eyes.

 

[Guest]

Actually, it's the opposite. To accept the shades of gray is to accept what it is truy is to be human. To divide everything up into black and white is too easy, when life and ethics are fluid. If we stay on the abortion example, you can say it is wrong, but what about to preserve the life of the mother? Or after rape? Nothing is ever black and white, unless you don't bother to actually try and see the world through someone else's eyes.

You just may have pegged ami in your last sentence, RL.

(Sorry Ami. But you know 'tis true.)

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Not to pick a fight with you, Quiet_Cool, but to address:


So many say that, or paraphrase it in one way or another, that it continues to boggle the mind.

Reality, by its nature, dictates that things either are or are not, to begin with, and from that point, what 'they' are is defined in absolute terms of yes and no, and certainly, 'black and white', with very, very few things being indeterminate or, 'gray', in your terms.

It is rather akin to your dismissal of abortion, the premeditated taking of an innocent human life, as a 'social' issue to conserve the right to taking a life without cause.

I don't want to plunge into a discussion of abortion either, but those 'gray' areas of human behavior you proclaim, have spilled over into the arena of 'life', which is the primary value of individual humanity and is certainly a 'black and white' issue, from which all other values emerge.

Discussion, debate and even argument, are means to an end, that end being to discover truth, that 'white' area you disdain to acknowledge.

You can step away from the very human pursuit of knowledge and truth, as so many have done, and quietly agree that there is no truth, no white, no black and all is relative and transient. But to do so is to basically withdraw from the human community.

Amicus...

Okay. I'm gonna say this one thing before I ask you one question: Personal philosophy is a valuable thing; it is also a personal thing, not even a societal value, not a psychological theory, nonetheless a fact. It doesn't pose an argument, but makes a clever substitution for one and nothing more. I've been arguing with Pure for years on this board, and I've noticed a distinct similarity in your and his posting styles. I've learned the hard way with him; when it comes to philosophy, there's always somewhere to hide, some excuse to avoid answering the question posed and some way to manipulate the words of others when they don't fit your particular purpose.

Why did I say that? I'm letting you know in advance what I expect from you, and that if I don't post a response, I'm simply not setting myself for the same old pattern that is nothing more that smoke and mirrors to begin with.

Here's my question: If the world is black and white, as you suggest, and is based on definite terms. Why don't you clearly define the terms liberal and conservative for us? Better yet, define the words right and wrong? Give us some examples.

Q_C

 

[amicus]

Actually, it's the opposite. To accept the shades of gray is to accept what it is truy is to be human. To divide everything up into black and white is too easy, when life and ethics are fluid. If we stay on the abortion example, you can say it is wrong, but what about to preserve the life of the mother? Or after rape? Nothing is ever black and white, unless you don't bother to actually try and see the world through someone else's eyes.

~~~

Well, and SSS too, looking through someone else's eyes, is to purport that the individual cannot perceive reality and that reality is subjective, depending upon the viewpoint of the observer.

That is an old and dead philosophy, one you should discard along with eugenics and theosophy.

Your question about abortion can be answered, rationally, although you might not like the answers. If the question is concerning the survival of the mother or the child and not both, there is an answer. Concerning rape, as you mentioned, again, life is the value and the answer is evident.

"..***** and ethics are fluid..."

Are they now? It appears to me that life is absolute; you either possess it or you do not, alive or dead, rather black and white doncha think?

Since ethics are simply the formal definition of those acts to sustain human life, they are also quite rigid, you cannot consume granite and survive, nor can you breathe under water.

99.9 percent of all things are absolute and irrefutable, although you are free to believe anything you wish, the world is full of people who believe God will swoop down at death and whisk them off to eternity.

I think they are foolish, but they can believe as they wish and my system protects their right to be fools.

amicus...

 

[impressive]

Remove these and I'm a conservative too.

Problem is, I'm too fond of freedom to compromize it with cultural or social oppression.

You gotta watch out for those judgmental code words like "cultural inheritance" (a/k/a the culture of Caucasian Christians), "stewardship for Creation" (-ism), "traditional social arrangements" (a/k/a "the sanctity of marriage"), "respect" (a/k/a "reluctance to budge"), and "wariness" (a/k/a "reluctance to budge"), "humane values" (as opposed to inhumane values? WTF?), "suspicion of utopian promises" (see "respect" and "wariness" re "reluctance to budge"), and "sinfulness of man" (um, SIN? in government? Who defines that sin?)

... all the stuff that gets twisted to mean whatever they want it to mean at any given time. I'll pass.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Quiet_Cool;27410676]Okay. I'm gonna say this one thing before I ask you one question: Personal philosophy is a valuable thing; it is also a personal thing, not even a societal value, not a psychological theory, nonetheless a fact. It doesn't pose an argument, but makes a clever substitution for one and nothing more. I've been arguing with Pure for years on this board, and I've noticed a distinct similarity in your and his posting styles. I've learned the hard way with him; when it comes to philosophy, there's always somewhere to hide, some excuse to avoid answering the question posed and some way to manipulate the words of others when they don't fit your particular purpose.

Why did I say that? I'm letting you know in advance what I expect from you, and that if I don't post a response, I'm simply not setting myself for the same old pattern that is nothing more that smoke and mirrors to begin with.

Here's my question: If the world is black and white, as you suggest, and is based on definite terms. Why don't you clearly define the terms liberal and conservative for us? Better yet, define the words right and wrong? Give us some examples.

Q_C[/QUOTE]

~~~

Well, we share that, an ongoing disagreement with Pure.

"... Personal philosophy is a valuable thing; it is also a personal thing, not even a societal value, not a psychological theory, nonetheless a fact...."

I want to deal with that statement before moving on. Every man has a personal philosophy, it is essential to his existence and his psychological health. I hasten to offer that Philosophy has always head great societal value, even today we revere the names of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. Those unique men who defined the terms of our existence, hopes and dreams.

Your question is loaded with things, perhaps intended, perhaps not. First of all, defining Conservative and Liberal is merely a task of looking in a dictionary and then an encyclopedia and then a history to understand the evolution of both terms as they are political in nature and do indeed evolve with time.

Should I offer my definition, you would deem it personal and subjective and we would have gained nothing. Thus I suggest that you consider that words do have basic, fundamental and 'real' definitions and it is our task to comprehend them.

The same holds true with 'right and wrong'. If you search the roots of these words you will find that they are associated with 'good and evil', and if you go further, you will discover that those words can be defined in each and every language in the world in the same manner.

'Right', is that, or those acts that benefit human life.

'Wrong', is that, or those acts that are detrimental to human life.

If you are argumentative or picky, like a woman, then you can find dozens of avenues to confront my assessment of your question.

But if you, as I, search for truth, then the first aspect of communicating with another human is to define ones terms, which you have asked me to do.

Secondly, is the assumption granted, that terms can be defined.

Third, that human language describes concepts and abstractions that are universal, common to all humans and being such, can be communicated.

None of my statements on any thread are merely 'personal opinion', unless identified as such. What I state reflects a lifetime of learning, which I have endeavored to make clean, rational, logical and non contradictory and congruent with those who have gone before.

The reason I chose to address your first statement is that a consistent philosophy of life, however sophisticated, is essential to each person in order for them to grasp in a rational, logical manner, the aspects of reality one must observe to live successfully and to be at peace psychologically.

Without such a philosophy, or one filled with contradictions, one is sentenced to unhappiness, failure and mental illness.

That is why I am so adamant in addressing the relative/subjective, collective rhetoric that permeates this forum and most discussions.

Hope that satisfies you.

Amicus....

 

[SemiColon]

Nope. Doesn't satisfy me. Sorry. Just because cultures all have a word for something doesn't make it so. And although you say life can not be fluid, until we all die we won't be able to answer that one, will we?

 

[WRJames]

Let me venture a few comments.

First -- on the world as black and white, vs. "shades of gray"

I think that we tend to see the world -- at least our moral universe -- as one or two dimensional, as black and white, or as best shaded into various gray hues.

The world is three dimensional and full of color. So is the moral universe. Any attempts to reduce things to simply Conservative or Liberal, good or evil, etc. simply miss that complexity. The one thing we can be sure of is that a simple, straight line action is bound to miss the mark.

Even the simplest statements of American ideals are fraught with apparent contradictions. What about "liberty and justice for all?" We say that all the time, without really thinking about it, but what does it really mean?

All Christians believe that we need to be active in the world, to fight against "evil." But there the agreement ends -- on the one hand, "evil" is characterized as oppression, poverty, etc -- "social justice" At the other end of the spectrum, evil is defined in terms of personal behaviour -- mostly sexual practices. Each side is quite convinced that they are soundly based theologically and that the other is in grave error.

Well, I suppose you might think that these schisms within the Christian community are of no consequence outside of it -- but are these exactly the fault lines of the Liberal/Consersative split.

Is what we need government that will stay out of the bedroom and the boardroom?

 

[amicus]

Well...Reverie, WR, life is complex, is it not?

If you wait until you die, what a sad life one must have not knowing.

The human mind determines the existence of something by the evidence available to confirm and define that existence.

Way back when....humanity didn't understand the workings of nature and reality very well, but the need to 'know', drove man to 'create' answers when none were evident.

Thus we have thousands of religions, all with a different version of the Creator, we have devils and demons and dragons and vampires and even unicorns for the girls to dream about.

As a species, we are still in the toddler stage. Sometimes it is hard to imagine that a mere century or so ago, we were riding horses to work each day. A little before that we were burning whale oil for lighting. It is amazing sometimes to attempt to encompass the progress the species has made in even the past half century with the advent of computers and such.

But the foundation for all this acquired knowledge and expertise, is the fundamental acknowledgment that the mind of man can perceive the real world, reality and comprehend the laws of nature and physics and mathematics and all the sciences, including the social sciences.

When one begins ones quest for knowledge by assuming there is no truth, no black and white, no absolutes, no right or wrong, one basically rejects the human mind and reverts to a world of faith and belief, cynicism and subjective relativity, which I state is harmful to ones mental health.

Once upon a time, I asked my young son, 'what is the color of the water in the lake?' He replied, 'blue, of course, can't you see it?"

Well, of course, the glass of water I drew from the lake opened his eyes.

Ain't nuances wunnerful?

Amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Your question is loaded with things, perhaps intended, perhaps not. First of all, defining Conservative and Liberal is merely a task of looking in a dictionary and then an encyclopedia and then a history to understand the evolution of both terms as they are political in nature and do indeed evolve with time.

Should I offer my definition, you would deem it personal and subjective and we would have gained nothing. Thus I suggest that you consider that words do have basic, fundamental and 'real' definitions and it is our task to comprehend them.

That's a cop-out Ami; If you insist on black-and-white terms, it is your responsibility to make those terms known. Otherwise, you're just going to sit there complaining about how no one wants to play with you.

The same holds true with 'right and wrong'. If you search the roots of these words you will find that they are associated with 'good and evil', and if you go further, you will discover that those words can be defined in each and every language in the world in the same manner.

'Right', is that, or those acts that benefit human life.

'Wrong', is that, or those acts that are detrimental to human life.

Good job! But these are not the definitions you were asked for.

If you are argumentative or picky, like a woman, then you can find dozens of avenues to confront my assessment of your question.

There you go again, blaming other people for your failure to convince anyone.

But if you, as I, search for truth, then the first aspect of communicating with another human is to define ones terms, which you have asked me to do.

Secondly, is the assumption granted, that terms can be defined.

Third, that human language describes concepts and abstractions that are universal, common to all humans and being such, can be communicated.

Yes, but you have not made the definitions you were asked for. You have not done much communication.

None of my statements on any thread are merely 'personal opinion', unless identified as such. What I state reflects a lifetime of learning, which I have endeavored to make clean, rational, logical and non contradictory and congruent with those who have gone before.

That would be your personal opinion. I disagree with it. Thus far, we have seen muddy, emotional, illogical, contradictory and vague mouthings that you claim contain the above virtues. Unfortunately, claiming doesn't make it true. All you are doing is thumping your intellectual chest.

The reason I chose to address your first statement is that a consistent philosophy of life, however sophisticated, is essential to each person in order for them to grasp in a rational, logical manner, the aspects of reality one must observe to live successfully and to be at peace psychologically.

Without such a philosophy, or one filled with contradictions, one is sentenced to unhappiness, failure and mental illness.

That is why I am so adamant in addressing the relative/subjective, collective rhetoric that permeates this forum and most discussions.

Except, of course, for the conservative forums, where you pretend to be a liberal. AS you have told us. What were you thinking?
One wonders about your own state of mind. Really. Why else would you spend so much time haranguing people who don't really give a fuck?

Hope that satisfies you.

Amicus....

[/QUOTE]Not too satisfactory, Ami. It's just the same old same old.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Over at another forum I followed a link to this article.

When I read this particular piece of it I had a moment of self revelation.

Holy shit! I'm a conservative!



Well, I don't share the author's view on every point. But overall I'm far more in agreement than disagreement.

A Burkeian conservative, to be precise. The philosophical orientation embodied in the works of Edmund Burke. Unlike the modern usage, "conservative" in this sense actually means something more than a collection of disconnected biases with a reactionary tendency.

 

[WRJames]

But the foundation for all this acquired knowledge and expertise, is the fundamental acknowledgment that the mind of man can perceive the real world, reality and comprehend the laws of nature and physics and mathematics and all the sciences, including the social sciences...

Ami, I am trained as a mathematician. I also have a fairly advanced knowledge of physics. There is the variously attributed saying that the universe is not only stranger than we know, but stranger than we can know -- this is a very popular saying among physicists.

When one begins ones quest for knowledge by assuming there is no truth, no black and white, no absolutes, no right or wrong, one basically rejects the human mind and reverts to a world of faith and belief, cynicism and subjective relativity, which I state is harmful to ones mental health.

Really? Then I guess I'm just doomed. I would say that taking off the blinders and looking at the world as it is might be important to mental function.

I assume you've never encountered a feedback loop or a nonlinear system or a partial differential equation in your education?

 

[rgraham666]

reverts to a world of faith and belief, cynicism and subjective relativity

That sums up my observations on your though processes quite nicely, friend.

Thanks.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Once upon a time, I asked my young son, 'what is the color of the water in the lake?' He replied, 'blue, of course, can't you see it?"

Well, of course, the glass of water I drew from the lake opened his eyes.

Ain't nuances wunnerful?

Amicus...

Yes, nuance is wonderful. That is what everyone here says, in every conversation with you, and the thing you avoid and deflect, with your 'black and white' logic.

I don't suppose you helped your kid figure out why the water looked blue in the lake, did you? Did you point out that sometimes it looks green, or brown, or yellow-- and sometimes positively rainbowed from pollution?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

My old man was a Marine. I asked him, once, what Semper Fidelis meant. He said, "Hooray for me and fuck you."

I believe this pretty much sums up most political philosophies. Conservatives rob you with a pistol, Liberals send a mob to do it.