Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Liberalism

YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:32:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The overriding theme of liberal political ideology is a commitment to individualism, and the belief that society ought to be ordered in such a way that individuals can satisfy their interests and pursue happiness. Liberals that because people are rational beings, it is only proper that they should enjoy the maximum possible freedom consistent with like freedom for all. While individuals are all equally entitled to consistent freedoms, equitable legal standing and political rights, liberals also believe that people have a right to be rewarded proportionally to their abilities and willingness to work. However, how those ideas have translated into policy and practice has changed over time. Classical liberalism rests on the idea of a minimal state purposed only to ensure negative rights by maintaining social order and providing security for individuals to provide for themselves. Modern liberalism builds on that ideal, but modifies the state's role from one limited to only secure negative rights, but also to provide positive rights. Modern liberals therefore believe that the state can and should help people help themselves.

Like conservatism, liberalism as a coherent political theory did not exist before the 19th century, even though "liberal" ideas had been growing for more than three hundred years prior to the 1800s. Liberalism's ideological roots begin with feudalism's breakdown in Europe and its replacement with capitalism, and the emergence of the earliest form of what we today recognize as a "middle class." At the time, liberals were radicals because they challenged monarchy and aristocracy's political and economic privileges by demanding equality of political and economic rights in a context where previously only kings and aristocrats had the right to own property or rule. Liberals likewise questioned the role of the church in the state, and were among the earliest advocates of a right to religious freedom.

Liberals argues that industrialization and open markets ought to be free from government interference, and businesses ought to be free to develop and trade with one another. Because liberalism became the most dominant ideological force in the western world, it eventually lost its "radical" character with success. However, as classical liberals became increasingly conservative in their defense of their now realized status quo, others advocated for further reform and contended that government had a fundamental responsibility not only to provide that people's lives, liberty and property were secured against violation but also that government ought to ensure that basic human welfare needs were met. To provide healthcare, pensions and education, whether rights or not, became central legislative goals of modern liberals and thus emerged the divergence between classical and modern liberalism. While classical liberalism offered the freedom to starve, modern liberalism offered society both the right to life and the means to live it.

Even though modern liberalism, especially after the 20th century has prioritized the right over the good, liberal society nevertheless seeks to create the kind of conditions in which individuals can pursue the good life as each defines that end for him or her self. In that sense, liberalism exists both as an ideology and a meta-ideology that frames the context for where political and ideological debate may take place. But, that does not mean that liberalism is a philosophy of moral permissiveness; self determination also connotes a particular moral thrust grounded in liberalism's core values which are oriented around individualism and personal autonomy: the individual, freedom, reason, justice and toleration.

In the wake of feudalism's demise, reason's triumph emerged and organic understandings of society yielded to others centralized on individuals. Individuals, then, were regarded as having special value and inherent worth grounded in human dignity and commensurate and equal value of all persons. Organicism yielded to atomism (the idea that society is made up of self interested and self sufficient entities, individuals, rather than social groups and classes), but that required a reframed conception of human nature. Unlike conservatives, liberals were more optimistic about man's inherent qualities and believed that man was at least neutral, neither inherently good nor inherently bad or inherently good.

Individual primacy led to the belief in individual freedom, such that for liberals the supreme political right and unifying ideological principle was liberty which all men were due as a natural right, from natural law. Only when individuals have liberty can they exercise free choice, can they realize their talents and act to self actualize and thereby maximize their own potential for themselves and to society's common benefit. But, liberty is not unlimited. It is rather constrained by others' liberty, such that all are due the maximum degree of liberty consistent with other's enjoying equitable and commensurate rights. On Liberty, Mill wrote that the only just exercise of power was to prevent one individual from abusing another.

Liberal's faith in human reason grounds their value of freedom. If liberalism's central project is to free humans from superstition and ignorance and unleash an age of reason, Enlightenment rationalism reframed conceptions of human nature in a way which posited that individuals themselves, rather than the church or state, are capable and ought to define for themselves what their best interests were and decide how to pursue them.

Liberals conception of justice denotes a specific kind of moral judgment about the distribution of rewards and punishment. While liberals share the Socratic understanding of justice as a state of affairs in which each are given their due, liberal theories of justice attempt to define how goods and services ought to be distributed in society and are typically grounded in equality and fairness. While liberals believe in equal opportunity based on merit, John Rawls and other liberal political and moral theorists have argued that economic inequality is justifiable only if it serves to benefit society's poorest.

Rooted in individual primacy, toleration is Liberals social ethic. Liberals practice forbearance, meaning that they are willing to accept views and actions which are in disagreement with their own and do not actively seek to silence opposition on the basis of opposition's being inconsistent with liberalism, or liberal values. Freedom of speech, expression, religion, press and petition are indispensable to liberal democratic order and toleration for opposing viewpoints, religions, creeds and ideologies are required by liberalism's commitment to individualism. JSM wrote: "If all of mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing all of mankind."
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:59:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Liberalism, further reading:

John Locke, Treatise of Civil Government
Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
John Stewart Mill, On Liberty
FDR, The Continuing Struggle for Liberalism
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice
Tsar of DDO
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 3:52:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:32:14 PM, YYW wrote:
The overriding theme of liberal political ideology is a commitment to individualism, and the belief that society ought to be ordered in such a way that individuals can satisfy their interests and pursue happiness. Liberals that because people are rational beings, it is only proper that they should enjoy the maximum possible freedom consistent with like freedom for all. While individuals are all equally entitled to consistent freedoms, equitable legal standing and political rights, liberals also believe that people have a right to be rewarded proportionally to their abilities and willingness to work. However, how those ideas have translated into policy and practice has changed over time. Classical liberalism rests on the idea of a minimal state purposed only to ensure negative rights by maintaining social order and providing security for individuals to provide for themselves. Modern liberalism builds on that ideal, but modifies the state's role from one limited to only secure negative rights, but also to provide positive rights. Modern liberals therefore believe that the state can and should help people help themselves.

Like conservatism, liberalism as a coherent political theory did not exist before the 19th century, even though "liberal" ideas had been growing for more than three hundred years prior to the 1800s. Liberalism's ideological roots begin with feudalism's breakdown in Europe and its replacement with capitalism, and the emergence of the earliest form of what we today recognize as a "middle class." At the time, liberals were radicals because they challenged monarchy and aristocracy's political and economic privileges by demanding equality of political and economic rights in a context where previously only kings and aristocrats had the right to own property or rule. Liberals likewise questioned the role of the church in the state, and were among the earliest advocates of a right to religious freedom.

Liberals argues that industrialization and open markets ought to be free from government interference, and businesses ought to be free to develop and trade with one another. Because liberalism became the most dominant ideological force in the western world, it eventually lost its "radical" character with success. However, as classical liberals became increasingly conservative in their defense of their now realized status quo, others advocated for further reform and contended that government had a fundamental responsibility not only to provide that people's lives, liberty and property were secured against violation but also that government ought to ensure that basic human welfare needs were met. To provide healthcare, pensions and education, whether rights or not, became central legislative goals of modern liberals and thus emerged the divergence between classical and modern liberalism. While classical liberalism offered the freedom to starve, modern liberalism offered society both the right to life and the means to live it.

Even though modern liberalism, especially after the 20th century has prioritized the right over the good, liberal society nevertheless seeks to create the kind of conditions in which individuals can pursue the good life as each defines that end for him or her self. In that sense, liberalism exists both as an ideology and a meta-ideology that frames the context for where political and ideological debate may take place. But, that does not mean that liberalism is a philosophy of moral permissiveness; self determination also connotes a particular moral thrust grounded in liberalism's core values which are oriented around individualism and personal autonomy: the individual, freedom, reason, justice and toleration.

In the wake of feudalism's demise, reason's triumph emerged and organic understandings of society yielded to others centralized on individuals. Individuals, then, were regarded as having special value and inherent worth grounded in human dignity and commensurate and equal value of all persons. Organicism yielded to atomism (the idea that society is made up of self interested and self sufficient entities, individuals, rather than social groups and classes), but that required a reframed conception of human nature. Unlike conservatives, liberals were more optimistic about man's inherent qualities and believed that man was at least neutral, neither inherently good nor inherently bad or inherently good.

Individual primacy led to the belief in individual freedom, such that for liberals the supreme political right and unifying ideological principle was liberty which all men were due as a natural right, from natural law. Only when individuals have liberty can they exercise free choice, can they realize their talents and act to self actualize and thereby maximize their own potential for themselves and to society's common benefit. But, liberty is not unlimited. It is rather constrained by others' liberty, such that all are due the maximum degree of liberty consistent with other's enjoying equitable and commensurate rights. On Liberty, Mill wrote that the only just exercise of power was to prevent one individual from abusing another.

Liberal's faith in human reason grounds their value of freedom. If liberalism's central project is to free humans from superstition and ignorance and unleash an age of reason, Enlightenment rationalism reframed conceptions of human nature in a way which posited that individuals themselves, rather than the church or state, are capable and ought to define for themselves what their best interests were and decide how to pursue them.

Liberals conception of justice denotes a specific kind of moral judgment about the distribution of rewards and punishment. While liberals share the Socratic understanding of justice as a state of affairs in which each are given their due, liberal theories of justice attempt to define how goods and services ought to be distributed in society and are typically grounded in equality and fairness. While liberals believe in equal opportunity based on merit, John Rawls and other liberal political and moral theorists have argued that economic inequality is justifiable only if it serves to benefit society's poorest.

Rooted in individual primacy, toleration is Liberals social ethic. Liberals practice forbearance, meaning that they are willing to accept views and actions which are in disagreement with their own and do not actively seek to silence opposition on the basis of opposition's being inconsistent with liberalism, or liberal values. Freedom of speech, expression, religion, press and petition are indispensable to liberal democratic order and toleration for opposing viewpoints, religions, creeds and ideologies are required by liberalism's commitment to individualism. JSM wrote: "If all of mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing all of mankind."

I can explain Liberalism in much simpler language right here, with your permission.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 4:10:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 3:52:06 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
I can explain Liberalism in much simpler language right here, with your permission.

That is pretty simple. You can post whatever you like, so long as it productively contributes to a conversation about liberalism.
Tsar of DDO
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 4:18:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 4:10:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/28/2014 3:52:06 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
I can explain Liberalism in much simpler language right here, with your permission.

That is pretty simple. You can post whatever you like, so long as it productively contributes to a conversation about liberalism.

Left-Wing Ideology believes in the equality of all men, women, and children (and, in some more extreme forms, animals). They believe that greedy and immoral people will always be exploiting others and causing inequality, and thus the Federal Government needs to serve as a safeguard against such exploitation.
To Liberals, a few examples of such exploitative people include 19th century slave owners and today's ultra-wealthy.

Liberals view American Conservatism as a set of beliefs held by religious, wealthy, straight, white males who seek to keep all other groups (gays, women, the poor, atheists, etc.) beneath them. According to this view on conservatives, these wealthy elite brainwash uneducated hillbillies through sources like Fox News and biased private schools and homeschooling, and thus there are middle and lower class people who support their economic policies (which allegedly only benefits the wealthy).

Liberals believe that the United States and other Western Nations have, through imperialism, effectively "exploited" other nations. They believe that to prevent this, all nations should subject themselves to the will of a higher authority (the world community, in the form of the United Nations).

To all liberals: Is this a fairly decent overview of your beliefs?
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 4:29:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 4:18:38 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/28/2014 4:10:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/28/2014 3:52:06 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
I can explain Liberalism in much simpler language right here, with your permission.

That is pretty simple. You can post whatever you like, so long as it productively contributes to a conversation about liberalism.

Left-Wing Ideology believes in the equality of all men, women, and children

Correct.

(and, in some more extreme forms, animals).

So, that's questionable.

They believe that greedy and immoral people will always be exploiting others and causing inequality, and thus the Federal Government needs to serve as a safeguard against such exploitation.

If by "they" your'e referring all those left of center, you're mistaken. But yes, there are some (Marxists) who believe that humans if given the means will always exploit others. Insofar as Liberals believe in the idea of wealth redistribution as a means to various ends, yes, American liberals do believe that the federal government intervention to ensure a minimum standard of living. But, the reasons for that an both be to safeguard against exploitation as much as because of a moral imperative to provide for those least advantaged in society.

To Liberals, a few examples of such exploitative people include 19th century slave owners and today's ultra-wealthy.

Not really. Liberals, firstly, do not have a consensus on what the 19th century meant. Textbook publishers like Pearson, McGraw Hill or Houghton all seem to have a consensus on it... but liberals, generally? Not so much. Rawles would argue, for example, that competition and inequality (to a degree) function in the modern welfare state to benefit those least advantaged -so, it would be hard to argue that leaders of industry are necessarily exploitative.

Liberals view American Conservatism as a set of beliefs held by religious, wealthy, straight, white males who seek to keep all other groups (gays, women, the poor, atheists, etc.) beneath them.

That is not true either.

According to this view on conservatives, these wealthy elite brainwash uneducated hillbillies through sources like Fox News and biased private schools and homeschooling, and thus there are middle and lower class people who support their economic policies (which allegedly only benefits the wealthy).

So, there are instances of this, but realize that this sentence and the one which preceded it are in conflict with one another.

Liberals believe that the United States and other Western Nations have, through imperialism, effectively "exploited" other nations.

That's also not true. There are some leftists who believe that (the postmoderns, anti-Colonialsits, ecologists), but it's hard to put them under the same penumbra as Liberals.

They believe that to prevent this, all nations should subject themselves to the will of a higher authority (the world community, in the form of the United Nations).

That is also not true. Cosmopolitan/internationalist idealist doves believe that. Not all liberals are internationalists/idealists, and some (me) are hawks who believe the exact opposite.

To all liberals: Is this a fairly decent overview of your beliefs?

Not even close...
Tsar of DDO
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 4:34:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 4:29:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/28/2014 4:18:38 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/28/2014 4:10:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/28/2014 3:52:06 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
I can explain Liberalism in much simpler language right here, with your permission.

That is pretty simple. You can post whatever you like, so long as it productively contributes to a conversation about liberalism.

Left-Wing Ideology believes in the equality of all men, women, and children

Correct.

(and, in some more extreme forms, animals).

So, that's questionable.

They believe that greedy and immoral people will always be exploiting others and causing inequality, and thus the Federal Government needs to serve as a safeguard against such exploitation.

If by "they" your'e referring all those left of center, you're mistaken. But yes, there are some (Marxists) who believe that humans if given the means will always exploit others. Insofar as Liberals believe in the idea of wealth redistribution as a means to various ends, yes, American liberals do believe that the federal government intervention to ensure a minimum standard of living. But, the reasons for that an both be to safeguard against exploitation as much as because of a moral imperative to provide for those least advantaged in society.

To Liberals, a few examples of such exploitative people include 19th century slave owners and today's ultra-wealthy.

Not really. Liberals, firstly, do not have a consensus on what the 19th century meant. Textbook publishers like Pearson, McGraw Hill or Houghton all seem to have a consensus on it... but liberals, generally? Not so much. Rawles would argue, for example, that competition and inequality (to a degree) function in the modern welfare state to benefit those least advantaged -so, it would be hard to argue that leaders of industry are necessarily exploitative.

Liberals view American Conservatism as a set of beliefs held by religious, wealthy, straight, white males who seek to keep all other groups (gays, women, the poor, atheists, etc.) beneath them.

That is not true either.

According to this view on conservatives, these wealthy elite brainwash uneducated hillbillies through sources like Fox News and biased private schools and homeschooling, and thus there are middle and lower class people who support their economic policies (which allegedly only benefits the wealthy).

So, there are instances of this, but realize that this sentence and the one which preceded it are in conflict with one another.

Liberals believe that the United States and other Western Nations have, through imperialism, effectively "exploited" other nations.

That's also not true. There are some leftists who believe that (the postmoderns, anti-Colonialsits, ecologists), but it's hard to put them under the same penumbra as Liberals.

They believe that to prevent this, all nations should subject themselves to the will of a higher authority (the world community, in the form of the United Nations).

That is also not true. Cosmopolitan/internationalist idealist doves believe that. Not all liberals are internationalists/idealists, and some (me) are hawks who believe the exact opposite.

To all liberals: Is this a fairly decent overview of your beliefs?

Not even close...

So you're a liberal who doesn't really like the UN? Strange...
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 4:37:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 4:34:13 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
So you're a liberal who doesn't really like the UN? Strange...

It's not that I don't like the UN, so much as I understand the UN for what it is: a useful means to carry out diplomatic objectives with a myriad of limitations that is only viable if everyone plays by the same set of rules with inauspiciously limited enforcement power.

Don't confuse liberals with idealists. Some of us are, others of us are not.
Tsar of DDO
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 4:50:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 4:37:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/28/2014 4:34:13 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
So you're a liberal who doesn't really like the UN? Strange...

It's not that I don't like the UN, so much as I understand the UN for what it is: a useful means to carry out diplomatic objectives with a myriad of limitations that is only viable if everyone plays by the same set of rules with inauspiciously limited enforcement power.

Don't confuse liberals with idealists. Some of us are, others of us are not.

I believe that the day will come when the UN becomes as important to the world as the Federal Government is to the 50 States in America.
I think of it kind of like this:

In America, when this country first gained its independence from Britain, the states were united under the Articles of Confederation, a weak form of governance that allowed states to print their own currencies, make claims to land, and even have their own armies. The Central (Federal) Government was too weak to do much.
This is the stage where the UN is in right now. Countries are running amok and doing whatever they want, evidenced by events like Russia's recent invasion of Crimea.

HOWEVER, I believe that the UN will move out of this stage. Laws will be passed in the UN, gradually giving it more power over its member states. Eventually, the UN will have its own army and when a nation wishes to leave the UN, well, just think the American Civil War, future style.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 6:00:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 4:50:09 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/28/2014 4:37:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/28/2014 4:34:13 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
So you're a liberal who doesn't really like the UN? Strange...

It's not that I don't like the UN, so much as I understand the UN for what it is: a useful means to carry out diplomatic objectives with a myriad of limitations that is only viable if everyone plays by the same set of rules with inauspiciously limited enforcement power.

Don't confuse liberals with idealists. Some of us are, others of us are not.

I believe that the day will come when the UN becomes as important to the world as the Federal Government is to the 50 States in America.

Maybe. I had a political theory professor suggest when I was an undergrad that supra-national economic blocs would eclipse the power of any one state. He argued that NAFTA laid the foundation for a North American union, that the African Union, European Union and the like would be the norm. This was back before Putin's trans-Eurasian union was looking doomed, though. But, that also doesn't account for China, India, Japan, etc.

But, I think the idea that the UN could serve the same role as the federal government ignores the reality that states are reluctant to surrender sovereignty of any kind which is the specific reason why even the UNSC has no enforcement mechanism. Likewise, the viability of the UN lives and dies with American and other major powers participating in it and abiding by its norms. The US would break the UN before international law trumped US law. There will never be an international legislator. There is barely an international criminal court. There would never be an international executive, and the closest thing to an international executive is the American president. That's just the reality of it.
Tsar of DDO
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 9:11:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:32:14 PM, YYW wrote:

Rooted in individual primacy, toleration is Liberals social ethic. Liberals practice forbearance, meaning that they are willing to accept views and actions which are in disagreement with their own and do not actively seek to silence opposition on the basis of opposition's being inconsistent with liberalism, or liberal values.

LOL, that s bullcrap. Liberals tolerate everyone, unless they happen to not be liberal. Especially if you happen to disagree with abortion (you hate women!), oppose gun control (you love mass murder!), support the death penalty (you love death!), oppose government-run health care (you want poor people to die!), oppose gay marriage (you hate gay people!), oppose affirmative action (you hate black people!), oppose open borders (you hate latinos!), support Israel (you hate Muslims!) , oppose higher taxes (you are greedy!) or support capitalism (you want McDonalds to run the government!)

Freedom of speech, expression, religion, press and petition are indispensable to liberal democratic order and toleration for opposing viewpoints, religions, creeds and ideologies are required by liberalism's commitment to individualism. JSM wrote: "If all of mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing all of mankind."

Of course, your speech cannot be 'hate speech'. Because then free speech is bad.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 9:46:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:32:14 PM, YYW wrote:
Explain liberalism vs. socialism.

Even though I'd think they are both different, maybe even radically so, I often see the two paired together.
Nolite Timere
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 9:51:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 9:46:09 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:32:14 PM, YYW wrote:
Explain liberalism vs. socialism.

Even though I'd think they are both different, maybe even radically so, I often see the two paired together.

Next week I'll type up an explanation of socialism, and probably feminism too. A lot of people talk about both of those "isms" and it would probably be nice if we knew what they mean.
Tsar of DDO
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 9:52:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 9:51:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/29/2014 9:46:09 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:32:14 PM, YYW wrote:
Explain liberalism vs. socialism.

Even though I'd think they are both different, maybe even radically so, I often see the two paired together.

Next week I'll type up an explanation of socialism, and probably feminism too. A lot of people talk about both of those "isms" and it would probably be nice if we knew what they mean.

Are liberalism and socialism very closely related?
Nolite Timere
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 9:54:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 9:11:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:32:14 PM, YYW wrote:

Rooted in individual primacy, toleration is Liberals social ethic. Liberals practice forbearance, meaning that they are willing to accept views and actions which are in disagreement with their own and do not actively seek to silence opposition on the basis of opposition's being inconsistent with liberalism, or liberal values.

LOL, that s bullcrap.

I'm so delighted that you took the time to opine on this. But, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to take a moment and reflect on how you come across to me and others reading this thread when you make a comment like "this is bullcrap."

Liberals tolerate everyone, unless they happen to not be liberal.

What do you think "tolerance" is? I ask, because before I explain why you're wrong, I want to be very sure that you understand why.

Especially if you happen to disagree with abortion (you hate women!), oppose gun control (you love mass murder!), support the death penalty (you love death!), oppose government-run health care (you want poor people to die!), oppose gay marriage (you hate gay people!), oppose affirmative action (you hate black people!), oppose open borders (you hate latinos!), support Israel (you hate Muslims!) , oppose higher taxes (you are greedy!) or support capitalism (you want McDonalds to run the government!)

Why do you think that?

Freedom of speech, expression, religion, press and petition are indispensable to liberal democratic order and toleration for opposing viewpoints, religions, creeds and ideologies are required by liberalism's commitment to individualism. JSM wrote: "If all of mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing all of mankind."

Of course, your speech cannot be 'hate speech'. Because then free speech is bad.

Once more, I'm going to give you the opportunity to explain what you mean because I don't think you've sufficiently articulated your point.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 9:55:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 9:52:42 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 3/29/2014 9:51:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/29/2014 9:46:09 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:32:14 PM, YYW wrote:
Explain liberalism vs. socialism.

Even though I'd think they are both different, maybe even radically so, I often see the two paired together.

Next week I'll type up an explanation of socialism, and probably feminism too. A lot of people talk about both of those "isms" and it would probably be nice if we knew what they mean.

Are liberalism and socialism very closely related?

Classical liberalism is diametrically opposed to socialism, but there is some functional overlap in how modern liberals and socialists believe resources should be allocated. But, liberalism is not socialism and socialism is not liberalism in the same way that conservatism is not fascism and fascism is not conservatism, despite the fact that there is a similar degree of overlap.
Tsar of DDO
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 10:01:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 9:55:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/29/2014 9:52:42 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 3/29/2014 9:51:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/29/2014 9:46:09 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:32:14 PM, YYW wrote:
Explain liberalism vs. socialism.

Even though I'd think they are both different, maybe even radically so, I often see the two paired together.

Next week I'll type up an explanation of socialism, and probably feminism too. A lot of people talk about both of those "isms" and it would probably be nice if we knew what they mean.

Are liberalism and socialism very closely related?

Classical liberalism is diametrically opposed to socialism, but there is some functional overlap in how modern liberals and socialists believe resources should be allocated. But, liberalism is not socialism and socialism is not liberalism in the same way that conservatism is not fascism and fascism is not conservatism, despite the fact that there is a similar degree of overlap.

Ah, thank you. Good answer. It would be cool to hear you talk more about how the two overlap.
Nolite Timere
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 10:06:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 10:01:00 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 3/29/2014 9:55:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/29/2014 9:52:42 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 3/29/2014 9:51:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/29/2014 9:46:09 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:32:14 PM, YYW wrote:
Explain liberalism vs. socialism.

Even though I'd think they are both different, maybe even radically so, I often see the two paired together.

Next week I'll type up an explanation of socialism, and probably feminism too. A lot of people talk about both of those "isms" and it would probably be nice if we knew what they mean.

Are liberalism and socialism very closely related?

Classical liberalism is diametrically opposed to socialism, but there is some functional overlap in how modern liberals and socialists believe resources should be allocated. But, liberalism is not socialism and socialism is not liberalism in the same way that conservatism is not fascism and fascism is not conservatism, despite the fact that there is a similar degree of overlap.

Ah, thank you. Good answer. It would be cool to hear you talk more about how the two overlap.

Sure, but I think it'l be prudent to overview socialism first so that everyone's on the same page.
Tsar of DDO
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 10:50:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let's call liberalism, as it is practiced today, by its real name. Socialism. Liberalism has also been determined to be a mental disorder. They should have no say in how our country is run. They poison everything they touch.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 11:10:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 9:54:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/29/2014 9:11:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:32:14 PM, YYW wrote:

Rooted in individual primacy, toleration is Liberals social ethic. Liberals practice forbearance, meaning that they are willing to accept views and actions which are in disagreement with their own and do not actively seek to silence opposition on the basis of opposition's being inconsistent with liberalism, or liberal values.

LOL, that s bullcrap.

I'm so delighted that you took the time to opine on this. But, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to take a moment and reflect on how you come across to me and others reading this thread when you make a comment like "this is bullcrap."

You have it in your sig. If you don't want people posting here maybe you should remove it.

Liberals tolerate everyone, unless they happen to not be liberal.

What do you think "tolerance" is? I ask, because before I explain why you're wrong, I want to be very sure that you understand why.

"A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."

Especially if you happen to disagree with abortion (you hate women!), oppose gun control (you love mass murder!), support the death penalty (you love death!), oppose government-run health care (you want poor people to die!), oppose gay marriage (you hate gay people!), oppose affirmative action (you hate black people!), oppose open borders (you hate latinos!), support Israel (you hate Muslims!) , oppose higher taxes (you are greedy!) or support capitalism (you want McDonalds to run the government!)

Why do you think that?

Experience with liberals. Examination of their leaders.

Case in point: Pat McCrory, Republican governor of my state, signed new abortion restrictions into law. Protesters decided to protest at his house and, instead of ignoring or reming them, he came out and brought them cookies and told them 'God bless you'. That seems pretty tolerant.

Compare to Dan Savage, liberal icon, who wished all Republicans would die, said Christian conservatives have the same agenda as Osama bin Laden, and bullied Christian students who silently left a conference he was speaking at when he began vulgarly denigrating their beliefs. Hardly a paragon of tolerance.

Freedom of speech, expression, religion, press and petition are indispensable to liberal democratic order and toleration for opposing viewpoints, religions, creeds and ideologies are required by liberalism's commitment to individualism. JSM wrote: "If all of mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing all of mankind."

Of course, your speech cannot be 'hate speech'. Because then free speech is bad.

Once more, I'm going to give you the opportunity to explain what you mean because I don't think you've sufficiently articulated your point.

Liberal democracies throughout the world have banned 'hate speech', but only speech they don't like. For example, questioning the Holocaust? Illegal. Calling homosexuality a sin? Illegal. Saying something racist? Illegal. Mocking Islam? Totally legal. (http://www.slate.com...)
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:18:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 11:10:35 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/29/2014 9:54:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/29/2014 9:11:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:32:14 PM, YYW wrote:

Rooted in individual primacy, toleration is Liberals social ethic. Liberals practice forbearance, meaning that they are willing to accept views and actions which are in disagreement with their own and do not actively seek to silence opposition on the basis of opposition's being inconsistent with liberalism, or liberal values.

LOL, that s bullcrap.

I'm so delighted that you took the time to opine on this. But, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to take a moment and reflect on how you come across to me and others reading this thread when you make a comment like "this is bullcrap."

You have it in your sig. If you don't want people posting here maybe you should remove it.

The issue isn't people posting here. It's people posting things that don't contribute to a productive conversation. So, in case that wasn't explicitly clear, I'll say it another way... posting in this thread is totally fine to the extent that you productively contribute to the discussion. Making statements like "this is bullcrap" does not have that impact.

Liberals tolerate everyone, unless they happen to not be liberal.

What do you think "tolerance" is? I ask, because before I explain why you're wrong, I want to be very sure that you understand why.

"A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."

Tolerance is no more than not actively resisting or taking measures to curtail certain viewpoints. That's what it practically means.

Especially if you happen to disagree with abortion (you hate women!), oppose gun control (you love mass murder!), support the death penalty (you love death!), oppose government-run health care (you want poor people to die!), oppose gay marriage (you hate gay people!), oppose affirmative action (you hate black people!), oppose open borders (you hate latinos!), support Israel (you hate Muslims!) , oppose higher taxes (you are greedy!) or support capitalism (you want McDonalds to run the government!)

Why do you think that?

Experience with liberals. Examination of their leaders.

Your experience with liberalism is in no way sufficient to ground a conceptual understanding of liberalism as an ideology, it can only show you how some liberals support specific policies.

Case in point: Pat McCrory, Republican governor of my state, signed new abortion restrictions into law. Protesters decided to protest at his house and, instead of ignoring or reming them, he came out and brought them cookies and told them 'God bless you'. That seems pretty tolerant.

Protesting a law that restrict women's rights is not intolerant. It's political activism.

Compare to Dan Savage, liberal icon, who wished all Republicans would die, said Christian conservatives have the same agenda as Osama bin Laden, and bullied Christian students who silently left a conference he was speaking at when he began vulgarly denigrating their beliefs. Hardly a paragon of tolerance.

Dan Savage's actions/rhetoric are not representative of liberalism, generally. But, one way or another. You're abstracting trends from individual cases that, truly, you've probably misunderstood/overstated.


Freedom of speech, expression, religion, press and petition are indispensable to liberal democratic order and toleration for opposing viewpoints, religions, creeds and ideologies are required by liberalism's commitment to individualism. JSM wrote: "If all of mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing all of mankind."

Of course, your speech cannot be 'hate speech'. Because then free speech is bad.

Once more, I'm going to give you the opportunity to explain what you mean because I don't think you've sufficiently articulated your point.

Liberal democracies throughout the world have banned 'hate speech', but only speech they don't like.

I don't think you understand what hate speech is. Would you like me to explain it to you?
Tsar of DDO
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 2:48:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 12:18:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/30/2014 11:10:35 AM, TN05 wrote:
You have it in your sig. If you don't want people posting here maybe you should remove it.

The issue isn't people posting here. It's people posting things that don't contribute to a productive conversation. So, in case that wasn't explicitly clear, I'll say it another way... posting in this thread is totally fine to the extent that you productively contribute to the discussion. Making statements like "this is bullcrap" does not have that impact.

I didn't just say 'this is bullcrap', but if I think something is wrong I'm going to note it.

"A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."

Tolerance is no more than not actively resisting or taking measures to curtail certain viewpoints. That's what it practically means.

Not sure where you pulled that definition from. My definition is from a dictionary - where is yours from? Tolerance is more than just supporting the legality of someone's opinion.

Experience with liberals. Examination of their leaders.

Your experience with liberalism is in no way sufficient to ground a conceptual understanding of liberalism as an ideology, it can only show you how some liberals support specific policies.

Correct. But it certainly is going to contribute to my opinion on your definition.

Case in point: Pat McCrory, Republican governor of my state, signed new abortion restrictions into law. Protesters decided to protest at his house and, instead of ignoring or reming them, he came out and brought them cookies and told them 'God bless you'. That seems pretty tolerant.

Protesting a law that restrict women's rights is not intolerant. It's political activism.

When did I say the protesters were intolerant? My point was McCrory was being tolerant by respecting their right to an opinion, not infringing on it, and being nice to the protesters.

Compare to Dan Savage, liberal icon, who wished all Republicans would die, said Christian conservatives have the same agenda as Osama bin Laden, and bullied Christian students who silently left a conference he was speaking at when he began vulgarly denigrating their beliefs. Hardly a paragon of tolerance.

Dan Savage's actions/rhetoric are not representative of liberalism, generally. But, one way or another. You're abstracting trends from individual cases that, truly, you've probably misunderstood/overstated.

That's an interesting viewpoint. You claim Savage isn't really representing liberalism, and that I am probably misunderstood or overrated Savage's issues - without any proof, of course. I misunderstood or overrated nothing - Savage did indeed wish all Republicans would die (on national TV no less), and had to apologize. He did indeed say conservatives march "in lock-step" with Osama bin laden. He did indeed bully Christian students at an anti-bullying conference, for which he had to apologize. And as far as his beliefs in comparison to the liberal establishment, where does he vary from the liberal norm?

Liberal democracies throughout the world have banned 'hate speech', but only speech they don't like.

I don't think you understand what hate speech is. Would you like me to explain it to you?

Nice way not quoting my entire comment.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 4:04:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 2:48:07 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 12:18:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/30/2014 11:10:35 AM, TN05 wrote:
You have it in your sig. If you don't want people posting here maybe you should remove it.

The issue isn't people posting here. It's people posting things that don't contribute to a productive conversation. So, in case that wasn't explicitly clear, I'll say it another way... posting in this thread is totally fine to the extent that you productively contribute to the discussion. Making statements like "this is bullcrap" does not have that impact.

I didn't just say 'this is bullcrap', but if I think something is wrong I'm going to note it.

No, you didn't. You also didn't substantiate what you were saying, you're drawing conclusions about an ideology from a position of ignorance and summarily dismissing something on the basis of your -now manifestly demonstrated- incomprehension. I'm happy to talk to you about "liberals" but your abstracting a conception of "liberalism" as a whole from a single aspect or "part" is incoherent because (1) the part is not the whole, and (2) even those who are parts do not necessarily fit perfectly within a broader framework of liberalism. Said more clearly, a person can be both "liberal" in thinking and not "buy in" to every aspect of what constitutes liberalism as an ideology.

"A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."

Tolerance is no more than not actively resisting or taking measures to curtail certain viewpoints. That's what it practically means.

Not sure where you pulled that definition from. My definition is from a dictionary - where is yours from? Tolerance is more than just supporting the legality of someone's opinion.

Your definition of tolerance is fine. I wasn't offering a definition. I was explaining "how" tolerance works: if a person is tolerant, they do not actively resist something that they do not necessarily agree with. It's a state of being able to agree to disagree.

Experience with liberals. Examination of their leaders.

Your experience with liberalism is in no way sufficient to ground a conceptual understanding of liberalism as an ideology, it can only show you how some liberals support specific policies.

Correct. But it certainly is going to contribute to my opinion on your definition.

lol

You're free to think anything you like about liberalism, and be as wrong/incoherent as you so choose. I can't make you accept that liberalism, as an ideology, is something you don't really understand especially when you're -at least ostensibly- perfectly convinced that you know what you're talking about. But, that's where any hope at a productive or meaningful conversation starts to break down: in the moment that you think you know something you don't, I can't really do anything other than agree with you or be dismissed by you. Make sense?

I'd also challenge you to read. Read, even if you're just reading what "the other side" has to say to better understand how to refute them -because right now, you're in absolutely no position (intellectually) to do that, which you've demonstrated repeatedly based on your responses to what I've written. Granted, my few paragraphs above don't perfectly summarize everything there is to say about liberalism -but in order to talk about what liberalism is, you've got to look at the voluminous lineage of writing about liberalism, as a political theory/ideology and not only look at a particular dude who you don't like -which seems at least right now to be the beginning and end of your experience with liberalism.

Case in point: Pat McCrory, Republican governor of my state, signed new abortion restrictions into law. Protesters decided to protest at his house and, instead of ignoring or reming them, he came out and brought them cookies and told them 'God bless you'. That seems pretty tolerant.

Protesting a law that restrict women's rights is not intolerant. It's political activism.

When did I say the protesters were intolerant? My point was McCrory was being tolerant by respecting their right to an opinion, not infringing on it, and being nice to the protesters.

That's fine, but that doesn't mean that liberals are intolerant.

Compare to Dan Savage, liberal icon, who wished all Republicans would die, said Christian conservatives have the same agenda as Osama bin Laden, and bullied Christian students who silently left a conference he was speaking at when he began vulgarly denigrating their beliefs. Hardly a paragon of tolerance.

Dan Savage's actions/rhetoric are not representative of liberalism, generally. But, one way or another. You're abstracting trends from individual cases that, truly, you've probably misunderstood/overstated.

That's an interesting viewpoint. You claim Savage isn't really representing liberalism, and that I am probably misunderstood or overrated Savage's issues - without any proof, of course.

That's a neat rhetorical trick... right? "You don't have any proof!" therefore "I don't believe what you're saying!" I'd suggest here at this point, that you don't have a scintilla of proof either -which is what I was pointing out in a more polite way than to just say "your series of claims is entirely lacking in evidentiary substantiation and therefore all of what you've said must be dismissed accordingly." But, I'm a nice guy, so I wouldn't have said that... lol

I misunderstood or overrated nothing - Savage did indeed wish all Republicans would die (on national TV no less), and had to apologize. He did indeed say conservatives march "in lock-step" with Osama bin laden. He did indeed bully Christian students at an anti-bullying conference, for which he had to apologize. And as far as his beliefs in comparison to the liberal establishment, where does he vary from the liberal norm?

I want to suggest at this point, as I have previously, that you grasp the difference between "liberals" and "liberalism." You're talking about one guy who may or may not be more or less "liberal," and you're basing your abstractions about "liberalism" on that isolated case. Logically, we call that a "parts to whole" or "genetic" fallacy. So, take some time and do some reading. I know it's a bold thing to accept that you, as a 19 year old, don't know everything that there is to know about liberalism (or conservatism, for that matter), but that's just the reality of the matter at this time. The purpose of this thread was to lay a foundation for people -like you- who don't know a whole lot about liberalism or any of the other ideologies I've listed in my signature to become more familiar with it. But, I can't make you accept that. Being humble enough to learn is something you're going to have to do for yourself.
Tsar of DDO
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 6:21:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 4:04:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/30/2014 2:48:07 PM, TN05 wrote:
I didn't just say 'this is bullcrap', but if I think something is wrong I'm going to note it.

No, you didn't. You also didn't substantiate what you were saying, you're drawing conclusions about an ideology from a position of ignorance and summarily dismissing something on the basis of your -now manifestly demonstrated- incomprehension. I'm happy to talk to you about "liberals" but your abstracting a conception of "liberalism" as a whole from a single aspect or "part" is incoherent because (1) the part is not the whole, and (2) even those who are parts do not necessarily fit perfectly within a broader framework of liberalism. Said more clearly, a person can be both "liberal" in thinking and not "buy in" to every aspect of what constitutes liberalism as an ideology.

I did substantiate it, you just weren't satisfied with it.

Not sure where you pulled that definition from. My definition is from a dictionary - where is yours from? Tolerance is more than just supporting the legality of someone's opinion.

Your definition of tolerance is fine. I wasn't offering a definition. I was explaining "how" tolerance works: if a person is tolerant, they do not actively resist something that they do not necessarily agree with. It's a state of being able to agree to disagree.

Agreed. However, it seemed like you were contesting my definition - if you were fine with it, why not just say that?

Correct. But it certainly is going to contribute to my opinion on your definition.

lol

You're free to think anything you like about liberalism, and be as wrong/incoherent as you so choose. I can't make you accept that liberalism, as an ideology, is something you don't really understand especially when you're -at least ostensibly- perfectly convinced that you know what you're talking about. But, that's where any hope at a productive or meaningful conversation starts to break down: in the moment that you think you know something you don't, I can't really do anything other than agree with you or be dismissed by you. Make sense?

I haven't seen a coherent response from you explaining why 'hate crime' laws are tolerant or even how liberalism, as a whole, is tolerant. I've at least given examples - you have given your opinion, not backed up by anything. You can disagree with them if you think otherwise, but I haven't seen any actual reason to believe you over my own experience and my own research.

I'd also challenge you to read. Read, even if you're just reading what "the other side" has to say to better understand how to refute them -because right now, you're in absolutely no position (intellectually) to do that, which you've demonstrated repeatedly based on your responses to what I've written. Granted, my few paragraphs above don't perfectly summarize everything there is to say about liberalism -but in order to talk about what liberalism is, you've got to look at the voluminous lineage of writing about liberalism, as a political theory/ideology and not only look at a particular dude who you don't like -which seems at least right now to be the beginning and end of your experience with liberalism.

I do read from the other side; what makes you assume I don't? My political site of choice is RealClearPolitics, and if I see an interesting headline I'll read it. Doesn't matter if if is liberal or conservative. You know that website I cited, Slate? Pretty liberal source. I also enjoy reading the polling analysis from Nate Silver (a gay, liberal Democrat). What websites on the right do you visit?

Once again - you've not factually established tolerance as the main social ethic of liberalism. You can say whatever you want, but I've at least given examples.

When did I say the protesters were intolerant? My point was McCrory was being tolerant by respecting their right to an opinion, not infringing on it, and being nice to the protesters.

That's fine, but that doesn't mean that liberals are intolerant.

I wasn't explaining how liberals are intolerant there - I gave an example of tolerance. I was explaining how McCrory was tolerant in this case - nothing more.

That's an interesting viewpoint. You claim Savage isn't really representing liberalism, and that I am probably misunderstood or overrated Savage's issues - without any proof, of course.

That's a neat rhetorical trick... right? "You don't have any proof!" therefore "I don't believe what you're saying!" I'd suggest here at this point, that you don't have a scintilla of proof either -which is what I was pointing out in a more polite way than to just say "your series of claims is entirely lacking in evidentiary substantiation and therefore all of what you've said must be dismissed accordingly." But, I'm a nice guy, so I wouldn't have said that... lol

My 'you don't have proof' was in response to you claiming I either misunderstood or overrated incidents.

I misunderstood or overrated nothing - Savage did indeed wish all Republicans would die (on national TV no less), and had to apologize. He did indeed say conservatives march "in lock-step" with Osama bin laden. He did indeed bully Christian students at an anti-bullying conference, for which he had to apologize. And as far as his beliefs in comparison to the liberal establishment, where does he vary from the liberal norm?

I want to suggest at this point, as I have previously, that you grasp the difference between "liberals" and "liberalism." You're talking about one guy who may or may not be more or less "liberal," and you're basing your abstractions about "liberalism" on that isolated case. Logically, we call that a "parts to whole" or "genetic" fallacy. So, take some time and do some reading. I know it's a bold thing to accept that you, as a 19 year old, don't know everything that there is to know about liberalism (or conservatism, for that matter), but that's just the reality of the matter at this time. The purpose of this thread was to lay a foundation for people -like you- who don't know a whole lot about liberalism or any of the other ideologies I've listed in my signature to become more familiar with it. But, I can't make you accept that. Being humble enough to learn is something you're going to have to do for yourself.

I do grasp the difference, but I reject the idea that the views of individuals who ascribe to an ideology are vastly different than the ideology itself. The views of individuals and leaders in any movement have a vast impact on the movement itself - if it didn't ideologies would never change. In this case, if liberals and most prominent people ascribing to liberalism are not being tolerant, we can hardly call liberalism tolerant. If you really think you know more on this, go ahead and challenge me to debate the premise that "Toleration is Liberals social ethic".
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 7:12:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
When I taught undergraduates, one of the most amazing phenomenons I witnessed, and perhaps that I was guilty of myself when I was 17 or 18, was the extent to which some are so perfectly convinced that they already know all there is to know about a given subject. Words like "liberal" and "conservative" get tossed around so much these days -and the meaning implied in modern usage more often than not ignores the intellectual history behind a particular term. It's even more amazing to see people who think they understand something talk about a given subject, when they really don't even understand the concept behind the idea they're talking about. It's disheartening, to see it. Truly, it is. If there is any real value to a liberal arts education, it's (as David Foster Wallace suggested) getting people to think about the world outside their particular experience of it. It's getting people to understand how truly little they know about what they think they understand. Even a very basic, rudimentary introduction to contemporary political thought should have that effect.

This thread should have the impact upon it's reader something to the effect of "wow, that's interesting. I never knew [liberalism, conservatism, fascism, anarchism, etc.] worked like that... I think this is something I should try to understand more before I make bold, idiotic statements that showcase my own ignorance." But, I guess getting to that point requires a degree of maturity that extends beyond the levels reached by a few of the commenters here. The morally self righteous aspect of this liberal, however, is having a truly great deal of difficulty resisting the temptation to point out the fact that 'only' liberalism in this series has had the misfortune of coming under fire from its 'conservative' opponents. It's a sad reflection of young conservatives today that they'd rather whine about something they think they understand but do not, than actually try to understand the other side. I think it's also probably no coincidence that those lot likely have no idea who Goldwater, Irving Krystol, Oakshott, etc. even are.
Tsar of DDO
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 8:47:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 6:56:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/30/2014 6:21:26 PM, TN05 wrote:

You're just not getting it, dude. w/e

Great rebuttal.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 8:56:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 7:12:02 PM, YYW wrote:
When I taught undergraduates, one of the most amazing phenomenons I witnessed, and perhaps that I was guilty of myself when I was 17 or 18, was the extent to which some are so perfectly convinced that they already know all there is to know about a given subject. Words like "liberal" and "conservative" get tossed around so much these days -and the meaning implied in modern usage more often than not ignores the intellectual history behind a particular term. It's even more amazing to see people who think they understand something talk about a given subject, when they really don't even understand the concept behind the idea they're talking about. It's disheartening, to see it. Truly, it is. If there is any real value to a liberal arts education, it's (as David Foster Wallace suggested) getting people to think about the world outside their particular experience of it. It's getting people to understand how truly little they know about what they think they understand. Even a very basic, rudimentary introduction to contemporary political thought should have that effect.

This thread should have the impact upon it's reader something to the effect of "wow, that's interesting. I never knew [liberalism, conservatism, fascism, anarchism, etc.] worked like that... I think this is something I should try to understand more before I make bold, idiotic statements that showcase my own ignorance." But, I guess getting to that point requires a degree of maturity that extends beyond the levels reached by a few of the commenters here. The morally self righteous aspect of this liberal, however, is having a truly great deal of difficulty resisting the temptation to point out the fact that 'only' liberalism in this series has had the misfortune of coming under fire from its 'conservative' opponents. It's a sad reflection of young conservatives today that they'd rather whine about something they think they understand but do not, than actually try to understand the other side. I think it's also probably no coincidence that those lot likely have no idea who Goldwater, Irving Krystol, Oakshott, etc. even are.

You won't rebut my argument, but instead yell at others about how stupid I am? Truly you are a paragon of tolerance and respect.

If you think you are clearly superior on this topic, go ahead and debate me on the resolution 'Tolerance is the social ethic of liberals', per your OP here. If not, I'll assume you don't have the guts to back up your claim and are more interested in trying to lecture me than debate me.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 10:44:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 8:47:38 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 6:56:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/30/2014 6:21:26 PM, TN05 wrote:

You're just not getting it, dude. w/e

Great rebuttal.

It's not about rebutting, dude. That's not the point of this.
Tsar of DDO
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 10:55:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 10:44:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/30/2014 8:47:38 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 6:56:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/30/2014 6:21:26 PM, TN05 wrote:

You're just not getting it, dude. w/e

Great rebuttal.

It's not about rebutting, dude. That's not the point of this.

So the point was to lecture, not debate or discuss.