Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

American Liberals and Personal Freedom?

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2011 7:54:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I asked a similar question before, relating to political parties and apparent ironies/contradictions in their "ideologies" but found no satisfactory answer and I cannot understand it...

What's the deal with modern American liberals and their contradictory views on freedom and liberty?

Liberals are so adamant and persistent in their advocacy for personal social liberties, when it comes to abortion, same sex marriage, the death penalty, etc. They firmly believe with absolute conviction that the state should have no say whatsoever in what a woman chooses to do - or not to do - with her body. They are so adamant that homosexuals enjoy the same civil rights as heterosexuals, because after all, there are certain rights that everybody deserves and if marriage is one of them then who is the state to discriminate? And of course the death penalty is inhumane, certainly "cruel and unusual punishment", and so on and so forth...

Yet modern American liberals are so ready to hand over and completely disregard economic and fiscal freedoms. They see no danger in giving the state maximum power to levy unfair taxes (where somehow the richer you are, the more of an obligation you have to contribute to those who, for whatever reason, have less), in throwing out fiscal responsibility in favor of the welfare "nanny" state, where an infallible government has the power and ability to take care of its citizens from cradle to grave... And in general, liberals have no problem with the American government possessing totalitarian, Big Brother like characteristics because somehow, their government is the magical exception to the rule of what happens when any government since the dawn of civilization is afforded too much power.

I don't get it. It makes absolutely no sense. Why do American liberals adopt such an ironic, flawed, and contradictory philosophy, and more importantly, how did that philosophy come to be? How did it develop? Any thoughts on the matter are much appreciated, thanks.
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 2:36:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree, they oppose war and the death penalty but when it comes to abortion well they just can't oppose that. Although I would say I see hypocrisy in the fact that conservative will oppose abortion yet support wars of aggression. It goes both way.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 9:37:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 2:36:43 AM, BennyW wrote:
I agree, they oppose war and the death penalty but when it comes to abortion well they just can't oppose that. Although I would say I see hypocrisy in the fact that conservative will oppose abortion yet support wars of aggression. It goes both way.

I don't think it's a hypocrisy on either side; it's two different mindsets. The left is against killing any person, innocent or guilty, but do not believe that fetuses are people, thus exempting them. The right is against killing any innocent people, thus exempting war and the death penalty, but they include fetuses as people.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 12:00:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Neither side really thinks things through very well to be honest.

Both sides advocate freedom for some things and restrictions for others, often times without realizing they are doing so.

I'm specifically talking about Democrats and Republicans. Both might as well be different sides of the same party.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 1:13:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/9/2011 7:54:15 PM, jat93 wrote:
I asked a similar question before, relating to political parties and apparent ironies/contradictions in their "ideologies" but found no satisfactory answer and I cannot understand it...

What's the deal with modern American liberals and their contradictory views on freedom and liberty?

There is no deal. Your views and perceptions are highly distorted that liberalism = anarchy. That you are unable to fathom why it is wrong for so few to live in high opulence at the expense of so many unable to afford even the basic necessities is the very reason you are confused; you have inconsistent views and have no respect nor appreciation for a true freedom, liberty and justice-based ethical and moral code.

The gap between rich and poor has never been wider in our nation's history, and it continues to degrade the farther we go. We are gradually (though accelerating, ove time) to a state similar to Mexico in which the vast majority are so impoverished that they must look elsewhere to be able to support themselves, while an elite minority reap the benefit from exploiting the impoverished masses.

Those who call the poor greedy and the wealthy generous will never be able to understand liberalism, so don't bother trying.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 7:36:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What you have described is better labelled as socialist, or social democrat.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 7:47:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/9/2011 7:54:15 PM, jat93 wrote:
I asked a similar question before, relating to political parties and apparent ironies/contradictions in their "ideologies" but found no satisfactory answer and I cannot understand it...

What's the deal with modern American liberals and their contradictory views on freedom and liberty?

Liberals are so adamant and persistent in their advocacy for personal social liberties, when it comes to abortion, same sex marriage, the death penalty, etc. They firmly believe with absolute conviction that the state should have no say whatsoever in what a woman chooses to do - or not to do - with her body. They are so adamant that homosexuals enjoy the same civil rights as heterosexuals, because after all, there are certain rights that everybody deserves and if marriage is one of them then who is the state to discriminate? And of course the death penalty is inhumane, certainly "cruel and unusual punishment", and so on and so forth...

Yet modern American liberals are so ready to hand over and completely disregard economic and fiscal freedoms. They see no danger in giving the state maximum power to levy unfair taxes (where somehow the richer you are, the more of an obligation you have to contribute to those who, for whatever reason, have less), in throwing out fiscal responsibility in favor of the welfare "nanny" state, where an infallible government has the power and ability to take care of its citizens from cradle to grave... And in general, liberals have no problem with the American government possessing totalitarian, Big Brother like characteristics because somehow, their government is the magical exception to the rule of what happens when any government since the dawn of civilization is afforded too much power.

I don't get it. It makes absolutely no sense. Why do American liberals adopt such an ironic, flawed, and contradictory philosophy, and more importantly, how did that philosophy come to be? How did it develop? Any thoughts on the matter are much appreciated, thanks.

They value equality over freedom, always. Freedom is far more expendable than equality ever is, and equality always overrides freedom when there is conflict. Freedom to the liberal is a nice sounding thing, but they will toss it out the window in a heartbeat if it means they have more of their illusion of equality.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 6:15:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't get it. It makes absolutely no sense. Why do American liberals adopt such an ironic, flawed, and contradictory philosophy, and more importantly, how did that philosophy come to be? How did it develop? Any thoughts on the matter are much appreciated, thanks.

1. It's naive to call out liberals for their hypocrisy and ignore the fact that the right-wing is just as hypocritical. Basically the OP suggests that it's wrong for the left to value social freedoms and ignore economic ones, while the right swears they value freedom yet ignore social freedoms. Also, as mongeese pointed out, a lot of pro-choice people do not regard fetuses as humans, and many against the DP don't think the government should be able to condemn people to death. These are not contradictory ideals.

2. I'm not sure that leftists are necessarily hypocritical; it depends on their economic views. Some don't think that the economy can be sustained in a completely laissez-faire system. Some are pro union and workers rights, and think that capitalism is inherently immoral. Thus they don't think that endorsing capitalism is protecting freedom. Some think that capitalism is anti-freedom.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 6:22:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Some are pro union and workers rights, and think that capitalism is inherently immoral. Thus they don't think that endorsing capitalism is protecting freedom.
Your thus is false, the conclusion here does not follow from the premise.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 6:36:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't get it. It makes absolutely no sense. Why do American liberals adopt such an ironic, flawed, and contradictory philosophy, and more importantly, how did that philosophy come to be? How did it develop? Any thoughts on the matter are much appreciated, thanks.:

I find most liberal positions, from a social perspective, quite appealing (save the really libtard ways they go about it). But from a fiscal perspective, they're hopelessly lost statists.

It's no mystery that this sense of government infallibility is a relic of communism, whether they would admit it or not. They have a Robin Hood mentality to steal from the rich to benefit the poor. In that sense, they can feel sanctimonious for paying their taxes, as if they actually did something to enfranchize the poor.

The cruel irony is that, while admirably well-intentioned, they keep the poor man shackled to the very plantation mentality that they desire to free them from through mollycoddling and a lack of personal accountability. It's a f*cking nanny state mentality, where people feel that Uncle Sam should pamper their little @sses from cradle to grave.

But make no mistakes, conservatives are no better fiscally. While it's inarguable that Obama has spent, by leaps and bounds, more than any other president in HUMAN HISTORY (let alone US history), conservatives are not much better despite their rhetoric to the contrary.

They just spend it differently. The problem therefore cannot be a blame game of liberals vs conservatives. This nation has to be able to get beyond that. Our spending habit as a nation is endemic of something far more sinister. But then, perhaps we should be DEMANDING that the government be fiscially responsible or suffer the consequences of an uprising. Let the State fear the People, for that is an appropriate balance of power. The government can only take what we allow them to have. So we are therefore complicit in our own slavery.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 6:42:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 6:22:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Some are pro union and workers rights, and think that capitalism is inherently immoral. Thus they don't think that endorsing capitalism is protecting freedom.
Your thus is false, the conclusion here does not follow from the premise.

Oh okay.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 6:47:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 6:36:14 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It's a f*cking nanny state mentality, where people feel that Uncle Sam should pamper their little @sses from cradle to grave.

I think that this is a naive presumption. Many people do advocate this, but not everyone sees is that way. I agree that liberal economics are extremely flawed, but I don't think the premise for their ideals is necessarily wrong or that a nanny state is the goal. I just think they are too retarded to see why their policies are completely counterproductive, and keep perpetuating bad legislation.
President of DDO
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 7:06:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 6:47:13 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/11/2011 6:36:14 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It's a f*cking nanny state mentality, where people feel that Uncle Sam should pamper their little @sses from cradle to grave.

I think that this is a naive presumption.:

You're entitled to have the wrong opinion. :) I kid, I kid!!!

Many people do advocate this, but not everyone sees is that way. I agree that liberal economics are extremely flawed, but I don't think the premise for their ideals is necessarily wrong or that a nanny state is the goal. I just think they are too retarded to see why their policies are completely counterproductive, and keep perpetuating bad legislation.:

Well, like I said before, no one can reasonably deny that they don't have very well-intentioned, er, intentions. They do, and I don't take that away from them. I just often see their ways of going about it as either ineffectual or actually compounding the very problem they seek to rectify.

For instance, I was by the Texas Capital building the other day, and there were these ladies outside protesting. I believe they called themselves "Women in black against War," or something like that. Their whole mantra was typical of the hippy movement, you know, war is bad, we should all love each other, yada-yada.. which is all well and good, but they forget that peace is reciprocal, and more to the point, standing out there served no other purpose than excessive perspiration and a bad sunburn.

Hugs are nice, but they aren't going to feed the world. Hell, all the money on the planet couldn't feed the world. So we might as well look at the problem realistically. Call it cliche, but I'd rather teach a man to fish than give them one daily.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 7:15:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 9:37:18 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:36:43 AM, BennyW wrote:
I agree, they oppose war and the death penalty but when it comes to abortion well they just can't oppose that. Although I would say I see hypocrisy in the fact that conservative will oppose abortion yet support wars of aggression. It goes both way.

I don't think it's a hypocrisy on either side; it's two different mindsets. The left is against killing any person, innocent or guilty, but do not believe that fetuses are people, thus exempting them. The right is against killing any innocent people, thus exempting war and the death penalty, but they include fetuses as people.

This
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 7:48:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 7:47:46 AM, innomen wrote:
At 7/9/2011 7:54:15 PM, jat93 wrote:
I asked a similar question before, relating to political parties and apparent ironies/contradictions in their "ideologies" but found no satisfactory answer and I cannot understand it...

What's the deal with modern American liberals and their contradictory views on freedom and liberty?

Liberals are so adamant and persistent in their advocacy for personal social liberties, when it comes to abortion, same sex marriage, the death penalty, etc. They firmly believe with absolute conviction that the state should have no say whatsoever in what a woman chooses to do - or not to do - with her body. They are so adamant that homosexuals enjoy the same civil rights as heterosexuals, because after all, there are certain rights that everybody deserves and if marriage is one of them then who is the state to discriminate? And of course the death penalty is inhumane, certainly "cruel and unusual punishment", and so on and so forth...

Yet modern American liberals are so ready to hand over and completely disregard economic and fiscal freedoms. They see no danger in giving the state maximum power to levy unfair taxes (where somehow the richer you are, the more of an obligation you have to contribute to those who, for whatever reason, have less), in throwing out fiscal responsibility in favor of the welfare "nanny" state, where an infallible government has the power and ability to take care of its citizens from cradle to grave... And in general, liberals have no problem with the American government possessing totalitarian, Big Brother like characteristics because somehow, their government is the magical exception to the rule of what happens when any government since the dawn of civilization is afforded too much power.

I don't get it. It makes absolutely no sense. Why do American liberals adopt such an ironic, flawed, and contradictory philosophy, and more importantly, how did that philosophy come to be? How did it develop? Any thoughts on the matter are much appreciated, thanks.

They value equality over freedom, always. Freedom is far more expendable than equality ever is, and equality always overrides freedom when there is conflict. Freedom to the liberal is a nice sounding thing, but they will toss it out the window in a heartbeat if it means they have more of their illusion of equality.

Reply: Equality and freedom can coexist very easily together. I don't see your reason for thinking that they cannot.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 8:02:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Opinion: The social and economic structures are all flawed and are the root of almost every problem that humans face today. These design flaws will never go away until the flaws are fixed, and the design is made better than it was before. That is evolution. If the human race would only help evolution along with our human ingenuity, then we all wouldn't have to suffer the pains that the flaws produce. Instead, we hold on to selfish desires and act stubbornly ignorant towards the flow of evolution.

I am sorry, but that's how I see it. I am not alone in my perspective. The human race needs to fix the flaws in the designs it has created, or else more unneeded suffering will inevitably continue.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 9:18:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'd like to know how Capitalism is ever confused with economic freedom. Economic freedom only exists in a society where a government implements NOTHING concerning the economy. That means not no taxes but no property laws, no contract laws, nothing. A progressive economy implemented by the government is no more authoritarian than a Capitalist economy implemented by the government.

So, I have a two part answer to your question.

First of all, there is indeed a contradiction but it turns out the same one applies to you.

Now, second of all, the reason why liberals have the views they do has to do with moral psychology. To put it most simply, liberals care about people. Their empathy tells them to let people have the lifestyles they wish but it also tells them we need to take care of each other.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 4:24:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 9:18:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I'd like to know how Capitalism is ever confused with economic freedom. Economic freedom only exists in a society where a government implements NOTHING concerning the economy. That means not no taxes but no property laws, no contract laws, nothing.
We already have a word for that, it's called anarchy. No need to conflate the word freedom with it from the get go and reduce the expressive value of the English language.
Furthermore, such an idea of freedom is inherently self-contradictory. Scarcity means that if the government doesn't defend property, then someone else will implement something with all the "problems" and none of the merits.

A progressive economy implemented by the government is no more authoritarian than a Capitalist economy implemented by the government.
Writing property laws doesn't implement an economy, it just provides tools with which it will be implemented.

Now, second of all, the reason why liberals have the views they do has to do with moral psychology. To put it most simply, liberals care about people. Their empathy tells them to let people have the lifestyles they wish but it also tells them we need to take care of each other.
People don't wish, individuals do.
If we need to take care of each other, then since I don't want to take care of you, I'm not getting the lifestyle I wish when this need is imposed on me.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 5:36:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 9:37:18 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:36:43 AM, BennyW wrote:
I agree, they oppose war and the death penalty but when it comes to abortion well they just can't oppose that. Although I would say I see hypocrisy in the fact that conservative will oppose abortion yet support wars of aggression. It goes both way.

I don't think it's a hypocrisy on either side; it's two different mindsets. The left is against killing any person, innocent or guilty, but do not believe that fetuses are people, thus exempting them. The right is against killing any innocent people, thus exempting war and the death penalty, but they include fetuses as people.

I understand the distinction between innocent and guilty, and if the war was merely self defense and not targeting civilians I would be fine with it. Also, although the death penalty is aimed at the guilty the innocent still are occasionally executed.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 7:55:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yeah, in brief, most democratic socialists (and perhaps most American liberals) see "free" markets as contrary to personal freedom because they permit economic enslavement.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 12:28:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 6:15:32 PM, Danielle wrote:
I don't get it. It makes absolutely no sense. Why do American liberals adopt such an ironic, flawed, and contradictory philosophy, and more importantly, how did that philosophy come to be? How did it develop? Any thoughts on the matter are much appreciated, thanks.

1. It's naive to call out liberals for their hypocrisy and ignore the fact that the right-wing is just as hypocritical. Basically the OP suggests that it's wrong for the left to value social freedoms and ignore economic ones, while the right swears they value freedom yet ignore social freedoms.

Yeah, unfortunately I've got a limited amount of characters I can use to make a point, so I can't point out every "hypocrisy" out there. And just because the right-wing may be just as hypocritical doesn't make the liberal hypocrisy any less so. Two wrongs don't make a right, you know. But yes, neoconservatives are just as hypocritical if not worse than liberals when they're so adamant about how unjust it is to be taxed, personal economic liberty and all that jazz but believe it's their obligation to push a socially conservative social agenda on everybody else in their society. Maybe if I had an infinite amount of time and character space I would have mentioned that.


2. I'm not sure that leftists are necessarily hypocritical; it depends on their economic views. Some don't think that the economy can be sustained in a completely laissez-faire system. Some are pro union and workers rights, and think that capitalism is inherently immoral. Thus they don't think that endorsing capitalism is protecting freedom. Some think that capitalism is anti-freedom.

Don't really get what you're saying here. Some think that capitalism is anti-freedom? Some think a lot of things, doesn't make those things right. Is a hypocrite not a hypocrite just because he doesn't believe he is? By your logic, nobody can be a hypocrite as long as they believe that they're in the right. Believing that you're doing the right thing and that some views are online with others does not necessarily make it so. And I'm pretty sure as far as freedom goes, capitalism and freedom (at least personal freedom) are nearly synonymous.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 12:48:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 9:37:18 AM, mongeese wrote:

I don't think it's a hypocrisy on either side; it's two different mindsets. The left is against killing any person, innocent or guilty, but do not believe that fetuses are people, thus exempting them. The right is against killing any innocent people, thus exempting war and the death penalty, but they include fetuses as people.

Are you kidding? You don't think it's hypocrisy for some on the right to piss away a woman's right to get an abortion on the grounds of immorality for killing what will eventually become a full human being, yet so adamantly persisting in America sending its iron fist down upon those who gave us no immediate danger or threat, and take away the lives of who knows how many innocent full human beings? Surely then someone who would fight for the latter situation is a hypocrite if they deem it morally reprehensible for a teenage girl to abort what will someday develop into a functioning human being, if the baby will grow up impoverished, or at some other disadvantage in life... as fetuses in abortion cases would.

Anyone who would call getting an abortion in that case immoral - which is a vast majority of the religious right and social conservatives, and many Republicans - on the grounds of "personal freedom" or the "sanctity of life" yet is so enthusiastic to do away with hundreds of thousands of citizens who in no way posed them any threat of danger is a hypocrite beyond reasonable doubt. Especially if those casualties are "God's will." Sanctity of life my @$$, that's a joke.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 12:54:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 6:47:13 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/11/2011 6:36:14 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It's a f*cking nanny state mentality, where people feel that Uncle Sam should pamper their little @sses from cradle to grave.

I think that this is a naive presumption. Many people do advocate this, but not everyone sees is that way. I agree that liberal economics are extremely flawed, but I don't think the premise for their ideals is necessarily wrong or that a nanny state is the goal. I just think they are too retarded to see why their policies are completely counterproductive, and keep perpetuating bad legislation.

I think your presumption is even more naive. You exempt people from incorrect and potentially extremely harmful opinions just because they believe in them firmly and don't see why they're wrong. I don't care how good the premise is, and I don't care if a nanny state isn't their goal, because if that's what they perpetuate, retarded, blind or not, ignorance is no excuse. Surely neither are mere good intentions.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 12:57:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 12:48:13 AM, jat93 wrote:
Surely then someone who would fight for the latter situation is a hypocrite if they deem it morally reprehensible for a teenage girl to abort what will someday develop into a functioning human being, if the baby will grow up impoverished, or at some other disadvantage in life... as fetuses in abortion cases would.

Sorry, I meant as many fetuses in abortion cases would...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 1:10:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 12:48:13 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 9:37:18 AM, mongeese wrote:

I don't think it's a hypocrisy on either side; it's two different mindsets. The left is against killing any person, innocent or guilty, but do not believe that fetuses are people, thus exempting them. The right is against killing any innocent people, thus exempting war and the death penalty, but they include fetuses as people.

Are you kidding? You don't think it's hypocrisy for some on the right to piss away a woman's right to get an abortion on the grounds of immorality for killing what will eventually become a full human being, yet so adamantly persisting in America sending its iron fist down upon those who gave us no immediate danger or threat, and take away the lives of who knows how many innocent full human beings?

Well, they tend to believe that the targets of military attack do pose an immediate threat, and are not guilty. This doesn't make them hypocritical, just wrong.

Surely then someone who would fight for the latter situation is a hypocrite if they deem it morally reprehensible for a teenage girl to abort what will someday develop into a functioning human being, if the baby will grow up impoverished, or at some other disadvantage in life... as fetuses in abortion cases would.

That particular argument would apply equally to a newborn or toddler, after one takes into account the belief that human life begins at conception.

Anyone who would call getting an abortion in that case immoral - which is a vast majority of the religious right and social conservatives, and many Republicans - on the grounds of "personal freedom" or the "sanctity of life" yet is so enthusiastic to do away with hundreds of thousands of citizens who in no way posed them any threat of danger is a hypocrite beyond reasonable doubt. Especially if those casualties are "God's will." Sanctity of life my @$$, that's a joke.

You're just confusing hypocrisy with incorrectness, really.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 1:29:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 1:10:51 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/13/2011 12:48:13 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 9:37:18 AM, mongeese wrote:

I don't think it's a hypocrisy on either side; it's two different mindsets. The left is against killing any person, innocent or guilty, but do not believe that fetuses are people, thus exempting them. The right is against killing any innocent people, thus exempting war and the death penalty, but they include fetuses as people.

Are you kidding? You don't think it's hypocrisy for some on the right to piss away a woman's right to get an abortion on the grounds of immorality for killing what will eventually become a full human being, yet so adamantly persisting in America sending its iron fist down upon those who gave us no immediate danger or threat, and take away the lives of who knows how many innocent full human beings?

Well, they tend to believe that the targets of military attack do pose an immediate threat, and are not guilty. This doesn't make them hypocritical, just wrong.

Wait, so if they think that the targets of military attack do pose an immediate threat, even if they don't - as is the case in the wars we have entered in the last decade - as long as they just don't accept that given truth, they are wrong but not hypocritical? Why not both? Do you pose that someone is immune from hypocrisy just for believing wrongly in an erroneous cause? Nobody acknowledges the fact that they are a hypocrite, so believing you're right and that you're not a hypocrite does not make it the case... Or else nobody could be a hypocrite.

Surely then someone who would fight for the latter situation is a hypocrite if they deem it morally reprehensible for a teenage girl to abort what will someday develop into a functioning human being, if the baby will grow up impoverished, or at some other disadvantage in life... as fetuses in abortion cases would.

That particular argument would apply equally to a newborn or toddler, after one takes into account the belief that human life begins at conception.

And? First of all, there's really no way that you can actually equate an undeveloped fetus which is still dependent on another life form with that of a fully functioning, independent human being with a beating heart and working brain and who contributes to society. But even if you do, all I'm saying is that anyone who fights so adamantly for the right of that fetus to live on the grounds of life's sanctity and holiness, yet fights so adamantly for the inevitable deaths of hundreds of thousands of other "sanctified" and "holy" human beings that really do not pose a direct threat to their lives IS certainly a hypocrite. And as I stated before, you can't simply let them off the hook of hypocrisy just because they believe they're in the right.

Anyone who would call getting an abortion in that case immoral - which is a vast majority of the religious right and social conservatives, and many Republicans - on the grounds of "personal freedom" or the "sanctity of life" yet is so enthusiastic to do away with hundreds of thousands of citizens who in no way posed them any threat of danger is a hypocrite beyond reasonable doubt. Especially if those casualties are "God's will." Sanctity of life my @$$, that's a joke.

You're just confusing hypocrisy with incorrectness, really.

Refer to comments above. If one follows through with the respect of sanctity and holiness of human life in one case, but completely disregards it in another, that is both incorrectness AND hypocrisy.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 3:43:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 7:55:38 AM, feverish wrote:
economic enslavement.

Like nonviolent murder or dry swimming. :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 8:27:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 3:43:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/12/2011 7:55:38 AM, feverish wrote:
economic enslavement.

Like nonviolent murder or dry swimming. :)

he he

But hold on Raggy, don't you view taxation as economic enslavement?

And as for inherent contradictions, what about those non-aggessive wars you support?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 1:48:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 1:29:52 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/13/2011 1:10:51 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/13/2011 12:48:13 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 9:37:18 AM, mongeese wrote:

I don't think it's a hypocrisy on either side; it's two different mindsets. The left is against killing any person, innocent or guilty, but do not believe that fetuses are people, thus exempting them. The right is against killing any innocent people, thus exempting war and the death penalty, but they include fetuses as people.

Are you kidding? You don't think it's hypocrisy for some on the right to piss away a woman's right to get an abortion on the grounds of immorality for killing what will eventually become a full human being, yet so adamantly persisting in America sending its iron fist down upon those who gave us no immediate danger or threat, and take away the lives of who knows how many innocent full human beings?

Well, they tend to believe that the targets of military attack do pose an immediate threat, and are not guilty. This doesn't make them hypocritical, just wrong.

Wait, so if they think that the targets of military attack do pose an immediate threat, even if they don't - as is the case in the wars we have entered in the last decade - as long as they just don't accept that given truth, they are wrong but not hypocritical? Why not both? Do you pose that someone is immune from hypocrisy just for believing wrongly in an erroneous cause?

Well, yes. Under their interpretation of the facts, their views are consistant.

Nobody acknowledges the fact that they are a hypocrite, so believing you're right and that you're not a hypocrite does not make it the case... Or else nobody could be a hypocrite.

Not true. Examples of hypocrites would be an anti-gay conservative who is actually secretly gay and acts on it, or a liberal who believes in lowering consumption of fossil fuels yet allows his car to idle for great lengths of time without use.

Surely then someone who would fight for the latter situation is a hypocrite if they deem it morally reprehensible for a teenage girl to abort what will someday develop into a functioning human being, if the baby will grow up impoverished, or at some other disadvantage in life... as fetuses in abortion cases would.

That particular argument would apply equally to a newborn or toddler, after one takes into account the belief that human life begins at conception.

And? First of all, there's really no way that you can actually equate an undeveloped fetus which is still dependent on another life form with that of a fully functioning, independent human being with a beating heart and working brain and who contributes to society.

No way? They're both human lives. The other differences that you mention are seen as irrelevant by conservatives when determining the right to life.

But even if you do, all I'm saying is that anyone who fights so adamantly for the right of that fetus to live on the grounds of life's sanctity and holiness, yet fights so adamantly for the inevitable deaths of hundreds of thousands of other "sanctified" and "holy" human beings that really do not pose a direct threat to their lives IS certainly a hypocrite. And as I stated before, you can't simply let them off the hook of hypocrisy just because they believe they're in the right.

But you can. If I see a man who appears to be trying to rob someone else, and I tackle him to the ground, and it later turns out that he was actually just trying to give a high-five, a practice I regularly engage in, am I a hypocrite, or just really bad at assessing situations?

Anyone who would call getting an abortion in that case immoral - which is a vast majority of the religious right and social conservatives, and many Republicans - on the grounds of "personal freedom" or the "sanctity of life" yet is so enthusiastic to do away with hundreds of thousands of citizens who in no way posed them any threat of danger is a hypocrite beyond reasonable doubt. Especially if those casualties are "God's will." Sanctity of life my @$$, that's a joke.

You're just confusing hypocrisy with incorrectness, really.

Refer to comments above. If one follows through with the respect of sanctity and holiness of human life in one case, but completely disregards it in another, that is both incorrectness AND hypocrisy.

They tend to believe that the right to life is lost when one infringes on another's right to life, or something similar. Therefore, while a fetus has a right to life, the suspected terrorists do not. In no way is it hypocrisy.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 2:31:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 8:27:51 AM, feverish wrote:
At 7/13/2011 3:43:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/12/2011 7:55:38 AM, feverish wrote:
economic enslavement.

Like nonviolent murder or dry swimming. :)

he he

But hold on Raggy, don't you view taxation as economic enslavement?
It's enslavement for economic purposes, but it's by violent means, not by economic means. I'm assuming by the modifier "Economic" you were speaking of means, not ends-- if one was speaking of nonviolent murder they are saying it was achieved in a nonviolent manner, not it was achieved for the purposes of nonviolence, presumably.


And as for inherent contradictions, what about those non-aggessive wars you support?
Aggressive means initial. They certainly aren't nonviolent wars. :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.