 |
|  |
 |
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999 time: 23:30
|
|
liberals and conservatives both use logic, reason, fear, and hatred. it's nothing new.
you have idiots on both sides, extremists on both sides, who bring nothing but evil under a guise of progress or morality.
maybe if the hatemongers and the terrorizers, those who like coulter, moore, and savage bring nothing but noxious vitriol would shut the hell up, and let those who used logic form the discussion, america wouldn't be in such a fix.
but gee, i guess us sane middle of the roaders just masochists who like getting sore sitting on the fence.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Goingonit
|
 |
Toronto, Canada - AECCP member
Apr 2001 time: 00:30
|
|
It's not a liberal/conservative divide, it's an orthodox/progressive divide.
Those who take moral authority from a religion or other unchanging authority don't base their position upon logic in the first place, and thus don't rely on logic as a tool to defend their beliefs. Their views, while in many cases just as valid, don't originate from a logical though process, but from (say) the bible, which they trust instinctively. Most of these people also tend to be Conservative, but not all; Marxists fall into this category.
Those who believe that moral authority originates from humanity and society, on the other hand, have viewpoints based entirely upon logic, and thus have no trouble defending their beliefs logically. Though these people can be either Conservative or Liberal, they are almost entirely secular; thus, this category includes most Liberals but only some Conservatives.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Odin
|
 |
Biology Nerd at Minnesota State University Moorhead
Sep 2000 time: 23:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed
liberals and conservatives both use logic, reason, fear, and hatred. it's nothing new.
you have idiots on both sides, extremists on both sides, who bring nothing but evil under a guise of progress or morality.
maybe if the hatemongers and the terrorizers, those who like coulter, moore, and savage bring nothing but noxious vitriol would shut the hell up, and let those who used logic form the discussion, america wouldn't be in such a fix. |
Exactly my point, Q. 
Goingonit, Communism dosn't = Marxism, Marxism is a subset of Communism. I am a Communist, but I think the rise of social democracy has made some of Marx's ideas not relavent in today's world. I wish to expand the communist cause by educating people, not spilling blood.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:30
|
|
|
|
02-09-2003 08:31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16
|  |
|
Re: Elijah proves conservatives only use hate & fear while Liberals use logic & reas
|
Increase Your PM Length
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Oerdin
so any ways as evidience I was given a book written by a left wing ideology named Jerry Lembcke in which Mr. Lembcke made claims such as that liberals always use reason & logic while conservatives only use fear & hate to arrive at their point of view. |
Point of order... please cite where Mr. Lembke makes such a claim. You stated this in the previous thread, but I don't see anywhere in the sites linked to in the other thread that has him stating this.
It'd be a shame to begin a debate with an instant strawman.
Another point is that elijah didn't say he agreed with that phrase entirely. What he said was:
quote: My position is somewhat similar, see my sig, a position I have backed up numerous times (and would be happy to repeat if necessary, though I dont want to spam this to complete death so PM me), so the owness [sic] is on you to refute this position. |
The quote in elijah's sig is thus:
quote: To hell with political correctness, I might as well admit it. Only the intellectual are capable of liberalism, the vast majority of the intellectually challenged default to conservatism, because its requires less thought. |
That is what he proferred to defend, not the quote (or is it even a quote?) given above.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Oerdin
Ok, Boris. For you I will go down to the book store and pull out the page from his book where he said that. Until then you can go to amazon.com and read the very first reader review in which Mr. Lembcke is quoted making the quote in question. I promise I will get you a page number tomorrow when the bookstore opens. |
Done. Very first reader review is thus:
quote:
Ideologues generally make poor historians. This book is proof of this maxim. Written by a leftist college professor, (redundant, I know), the author attempts to disprove the myth that anti-war radicals treated veterans returning from Vietnam like plague-bearing rats. This thesis will elicit guffaws from any honest person who had the misfortune of living through the sixties. Vets were routinely called racists, fascists, rednecks, babykillers, and a multitude of obscene insults by radicals who considered themselves the enlightened and anyone who disagreed with them scum. Chants in support of the forces killing American troops, "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh! The NLF is sure to win!", were a staple at "anti-war", actually pro-communist, rallies. With a laughable argument and turgidly written, this book is a prime example of the type of politicized junk history produced by academics today. A true time waster except for aging members of the SDS and other radical groups nostalgic for the days of their youth. |
While I now see where you plagiarized your line about idealogues, I don't see the quote you mentioned. Not a particularly enlightened critique, either.
Regardless, a reader review (from a hostile one, no less) on Amazon.com is hardly a fair and accurate way to assess a statement, or even if the author really said it. Unless you can cite the passage and the context, it's a lot of hot air.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001 time: 21:30
|
|
Boris don't be daft. The one you quoted was an editorial review not a reader review. I did however make one mistake. It wasn't the first but the second reader review and the exact quote was thus:
quote:
For one thing, Lembcke is himself a rabid leftist who refuses to acknowledge the possibility of any other viewpoint. At one point, he says, outrageously, that the left always argues a point by using reason, logic, and empirical evidence whereas the right uses myth and legend and appeals to emotion. A person of wider reading and more profound learning would not say such a thing. You're going to tell me that writers like David Hume, Edmund Burke, Thomas Jefferson, and T.S. Eliot (all rabid conservatives by today's standards) were a bunch of dummies who didn't know how to argue. And hell, I think George Will is a lot more witty and lively than all the dime-a-dozen academic morons trying to sound like Lacan and Foucault. |
I made sure the whole paragraph was included just so no one could claim it was taken out of context.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|