 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Now, it is put up or shut up time and it appears he's going to shut up. |
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
You are of course right. But he throw mudd at me and then said he could prove it to be true. If he had jsut made an outlandish statement and then disappeared into the wood work like he normally does then I would have looked the other way, but, he choice confrontatin and said he could prove it. Now he's MIA. |
No, now he's at school college because it's the first day back for UK schools. As FP said, it was 3am over here when you posted this, and Elijah has only just got up, and has some pretty important things to worry about today, such as his future education. I'll text him and inform him of this thread, and he willr espond, but it will take until this evening GMT. Have some patience, not all of us are online when the US is. However he did say in his post that he didn't wish to spam it so if you wanted to continue it do it in PM. I wouldn't be surprised if on principle he ignores this thread, as it's just a blatant insulting thread. I'd like to see him reply, and I'm pretty sure he will, but when soemone says "let's continue this in PM" it usually means don't start another thread about it. Why should he be compelled to answer just because you decided you wanted to start a thread on it, on your terms? Then after a few hours when he is asleep you presume he's not going to reply? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
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.
but gee, i guess us sane middle of the roaders just masochists who like getting sore sitting on the fence. |
Exactly. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
Achtung Babies!!
Sorry I'm late, I was at college, apparently Oerdin expects me to devote my life to responding to his  
Ok my position, and taking account of what Ming said, I'm not wanting to get banned, so I'm going to keep this philosophical and not flaming.
I'm going to use the traditional debate between European Liberals and Neocons in matters of foreign policy. Basically me versus PNAC. The Neocon position is that democracy and Western justice, morals and cultural values should be spread throughout the world. The Liberal position, or rather, mine (which is part of liberalism, but that is a position that is too disperate to use in this case), is that each cultural and moral position is as valid as each other, and that even in a situation such as a society there is much room for tolerance of different moral views.
The neoconservative position in this instance holds that despots, dictatorships, communism etc etc is less valid than democracy, or the Western/American way, and thus we are doing them a great favour by "liberating" them or "giving" them the gift of democracy and all that.
Each position, however, is equally valid, until you apply some means of judging it. I assume you (Oerdin) live in America, and I live in Britain, so we are both going to side with democracy. We are judging between two or more options and choosing, then using logic to back up that position.
The problem is that this renders us as subjective as the position we purport and one subjective judging over an equally valid subjective, is objectively illogical. (I say objective within that context). Consider it like two brothers, and one trying to parent the others children, when the true parent wishes it not.
This is called cultural relativism. It is one of the relativisms that is relatively easy to support. Cognetive relativism, which is largely irrelevant here, is easier to attack, though it is a position I have, it doesn't matter here.
Another is one of moral relativism, probably the easiest of all to maintain. Put simply, my morality is as valid as yours, and that is even the case in a society until of course, ones morality causes a breach of law. As such, imposing moral views on the nation (though influencing, which we all do every day of course, is perfectly fine... so education in other words), is unsatisfactory (so for example, banning polygamy, sodomy or cannabis etc etc). In this case, liberalism tends to lend itself to the libertarian argument, not necessarily as far out as mine, though imo, it adds to consistency.
This use of relativism is key. It is not an easy position for people to work with. I find it hard to constantly uphold relativism, but that is my subconscious, rationally, its not as hard. People familiar with such philosophies, and the notions it spawns tend to be intellectuals, simply because it requires that kind of background, not to mention the immense amount of logic it demands from our minds.
Some people don't have the time to be intellectual and so default to other positions. Each position is equally logical of course, being a relativist for me, means being able to emulate objectivity to the best of my abilities.
I am not saying that liberalism is objectively more logical than conservatism, which uses "hate and fear", because that is simply not true. Conservatism and liberalism are equally logical and equally valid. Having said that, some racist, hating bigots that claim to be conservative of various types do exist, but they represent nothing against thinking conservatives, indeed, many conservatives, including many here, are very intelligent people.
All I am saying is that intellectuals and members of the intelligentsia are more prone to liberalism. It may appear extreme, indeed it was to me when I first thought of it, but think about it for a while, it makes sense. Indeed, all the intellectuals I know are liberal, whereas non-intellectuals (that is irrelevant to intelligence which is a completely irrelevant matter) have a far higher proportion of conservatives, in my experience, the experience of others, and speaking generically. I say again, that is NOTHING on the use of logic of either position. I agree with one and not that other, but we all have our own personally disposition and use of logic that makes us choose. One mans fallacy is another mans religion.
I hope this has clarified my position, and refuted its misrepresentation. I do not hate conservatism, indeed, I adopt many of its aspects into a wider liberalism. I do not believe that conservatism is less intelligent, or a malevolent philosophy as the thread title would seem to suggest. I do not believe conservatives are less intelligent. To each his own, but to me, mine.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
"Conservatives are cold-hearted, and hate all those who are different."
|
I don't recall saying that! Where did I say that, or what did I say that caused you to infer that this was something I would have as my position?
quote:
Elijah wants us to take such statements seriously.
|
Again, I never said that, don't strawman me. Take what I do say seriously or not if you will, but don't even consider something that is something I didn't say, and use it as if it was.
quote:
Conservatives are cold-hearted, and hate all those who are different.
|
Conservatives can be a lot more than neocons. Indeed, by some economic measures, I am conservative!! (I'm a right-wing (libertarian) liberal). Cold hearted? Some of the nicest people I know are conservatives and I would never go so far to make such an insiduous, offensive and fallacious claim. Hate all those who are different? While I believe that conservatives are more likely to "hate" their "enemies", it would require four of my six senses to be blinded for me not to see that such a proposition is complete idiocy.
Indeed, its possible for conservatives to be relativists, particularly with moral relativism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
I don't recall saying that! Where did I say that, or what did I say that caused you to infer that this was something I would have as my position?
Again, I never said that, don't strawman me. Take what I do say seriously or not if you will, but don't even consider something that is something I didn't say, and use it as if it was.
Conservatives can be a lot more than neocons. Indeed, by some economic measures, I am conservative!! (I'm a right-wing (libertarian) liberal). Cold hearted? Some of the nicest people I know are conservatives and I would never go so far to make such an insiduous, offensive and fallacious claim. Hate all those who are different? While I believe that conservatives are more likely to "hate" their "enemies", it would require four of my six senses to be blinded for me not to see that such a proposition is complete idiocy.
Indeed, its possible for conservatives to be relativists, particularly with moral relativism. |
No -- you didn't actually say the words I stated, but you put in so many other words -- or do they call it implications?
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2003 11:10
|