Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

CNN Reports: Radicals v. Extremists

ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 7:04:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 6:56:24 PM, YYW wrote:


Discuss.

Forgive my innocence, but aren't they the same thing?
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 9:06:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Indeed they are. A radical, or an extremist, is someone whose political principles are internally consistent, substantive, and held with integrity.
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 9:08:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
As opposed to a centrist, moderate, or pragmatist; whose "political principles" are some combination of inconsistent, insubstantive, and not held with integrity.
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.
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 10:57:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 9:08:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
As opposed to a centrist, moderate, or pragmatist; whose "political principles" are some combination of inconsistent, insubstantive, and not held with integrity.

I'm reluctant to link "integrity" with being "not in the middle," because to be "fringe" is, then, to have integrity -a proposition which both bastardizes the definition of the word "integrity" and links it to a particular kind of politics which, rather than being defined on the basis of its own "being," is to instead define integrity in reaction to something else.

Even still, "integrity" exists on two levels: (1) the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness and (2) the state of being whole and undivided. A state of being honest and having strong moral principles is not contingent upon one's politics, but, rather, one's politics are and ought to be contingent upon one's principles. Therefore, integrity cannot be said to be had or not had -in any meaningful sense- on the basis of politics -and especially not on the basis of political reaction. The second usage of the word integrity likewise precludes integrity's being linked to politics in the way that you describe, because to be whole and undivided cannot be based on division from something else -which integrity necessarily would be if only those which have integrity are not pragmatists, centrists or moderates.
Tsar of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 11:02:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 10:57:16 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/12/2014 9:08:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
As opposed to a centrist, moderate, or pragmatist; whose "political principles" are some combination of inconsistent, insubstantive, and not held with integrity.

I'm reluctant to link "integrity" with being "not in the middle," because to be "fringe" is, then, to have integrity -a proposition which both bastardizes the definition of the word "integrity" and links it to a particular kind of politics
No, it links it to multiple particular kinds of politics. The kind that are derived, openly and honestly, from a declared goal; and advocate nothing in contradiction to it.

which, rather than being defined on the basis of its own "being," is to instead define integrity in reaction to something else.
Integrity is always about something else. A reactor vessel doesn't have integrity just because it does, it has integrity because no coolant breaches its barrier.


Even still, "integrity" exists on two levels: (1) the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness and (2) the state of being whole and undivided. A state of being honest and having strong moral principles is not contingent upon one's politics
Yes, yes it is. If one is dishonest in politics, one is ipso facto dishonest.

If one is honest in politics, of course, one can still be dishonest in other ways.

(Also, the notion of "Strong moral principles" does not add meaning there and should be deleted, you're making it into a "Feel good word" instead of a descriptor of a particular attribute.)

but, rather, one's politics are and ought to be contingent upon one's principles.
I can logically derive things in many a way, not just the causal chain. And one's principles are the core of one's politics.

because to be whole and undivided cannot be based on division from something else
Absolutely nonsensical. I base the wholeness and undividedness of my reactor vessel-- my plant integrity-- PRECISELY on the fact that it divides, absolutely and without exception, my reactor coolant from that outside which is not reactor coolant.

which integrity necessarily would be if only those which have integrity are not pragmatists, centrists or moderates.
One can have integrity of a particular kind, and yet one's politics can lack integrity, or vice versa. A pragmatist, centrist, or moderate has no integrity to their politics. An extremist could, say, have no business integrity or something. And one can appear to be an extremist without truly taking things to the extreme of consistency.
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.