Ever Wonder Why Good, Smart Libs Choose Evil?

[Virgil Showlion]

A fair summary of the speaker's position is that your Reply #58 codifies the belief of all large-L Liberals. More specifically, he claims that Liberal thinking is dominated by your statement "My world, however, is not that black and white, and I don't wish it to be so."

I'm glad to see you're strictly against infanticide. As you're likely aware, many board patrons aren't.

Thanks for your prompt reply.

[mmhmm]

No, Virgil, I'm not aware that "many board patrons aren't" against infanticide. I don't recall posts giving that impression. I don't read every post, so could have missed something.

With regard to the speaker's position, he would gain, I think, by realizing it's not only Liberals who eschew the idea of purely black and white thinking.

[Deleted]

Aug 5, 2012 22:53:11 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

The liberal, however, may not accept that particular absolute but may well hold others.

Yeh, I agree with this. I couldn't speak on behalf of modern liberalism either but I think a distinction should be made between the concerns of 1) whether or not 'absolute right' can exist, and 2) whether or not a person has the ability to reason a particular absolute in a given scenario.

[Virgil Showlion]

No, Virgil, I'm not aware that "many board patrons aren't" against infanticide. I don't recall posts giving that impression. I don't read every post, so could have missed something.

Billis and Robert not Bobby, among others, have argued rather fervently that infanticide should be a parental right.

1) whether or not 'absolute right' can exist, and 2) whether or not a person has the ability to reason a particular absolute in a given scenario.

It's a valid distinction, Astronaut, but the speaker's view (which I share) is that a individual's behaviour is the same regardless of whether he/she disbelieves 1), 2), or both. In other words, disbelief in 1) is equivalent to disbelief in 2) in terms of how views affect our behaviour.

With regard to the speaker's position, he would gain, I think, by realizing it's not only Liberals who eschew the idea of purely black and white thinking.

He doesn't claim that they are. He claims Liberals are the group for which an abhorrence for black and white thinking is the prime motivation for any stance taken on a political issue. A 'Liberal' is an individual who believes not only in the existence of "gray areas" but who actively pushes society to conform, both by "blackening the white" (pulling down what is good, sacred and upright) and by "whitening the black" (tolerating, promoting, and even engaging in that which is destructive and immoral). He posits that the ultimate goal is to force the world into a "shades of gray" pseudo-utopia wherein no moral absolutes exist and no man has the right to criticize another.

The statement "My world, however, is not that black and white, and I don't wish it to be so." is, in a nutshell, what he claims defines Liberal thinking.

Supposing that absolute right and wrong do exist (and of course most [large C] Conservatives hold this supposition to be true), any action taken by Liberal interests in concert with "[not wishing] it to be so" is necessarily in opposition to the established order of things. This, he claims, is why intelligent, good, well-meaning people can so often defend policies with horrific consequences.

For me, I have no idea if this supposition about Liberal motives is true. The examples he gives vis a vis 9/11 immediately seem to undermine his argument. Right now I'm just trying to determine how accurate his characterization of 'Liberals' actually is. Assuming Reply #58 genuinely reflects your views, and assuming that self-identified small-L liberals on the board more or less agree with you, I would say it's spot on.

[Deleted]

Aug 6, 2012 13:15:09 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It's a valid distinction, Astronaut, but the speaker's view (which I share) is that a individual's behaviour is the same regardless of whether he/she disbelieves 1), 2), or both. In other words, disbelief in 1) is equivalent to disbelief in 2) in terms of how views affect our behaviour.

Hi Virgil. Yes -disbelief in #1 is equivalent to disbelief in #2, but disbelief in #2 does not necessarily imply disbelief in #1.

A refusal to accept absolutism period means a refusal to accept absolutism on a given issue, indeed, but it is rather brusque to conclude that the rejection of absolutism on a given issue equates to a rejection of absolutism period.

To those enamoured with relativism - the 'liberals' presumably being referred to - #1 is fairly straight forward. In #2, though, the door is left open for the proponent to justify his/her absolutism on this or that issue; it implies the possibility of the 'liberal' rescinding his/her relativistic dogma.

[Virgil Showlion]

In #2, though, the door is left open for the proponent to justify his/her absolutism on this or that issue; it implies the possibility of the 'liberal' rescinding his/her relativistic dogma.

Fair enough.

[Jaguar]

Aug 6, 2012 12:04:35 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

There is an old saying

"You can please some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time."

There are some people on this planet that will forever hate us, for being us....and in my opinion, there is NOTHING we can do to change that

The idea that a utopian society could exist where everyone gets along with everyone else, is very unrealistic point of view

My wife thinks it is possible...she is wrong. Maybe in a thousand years, as the human race progresses there is that possibility....but today? NFW

SO FREAKING ~

[Deleted]

Aug 6, 2012 14:52:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Fair enough.

Well, I think there is an example of this to be found in Paul's earlier post:

That liberalism's highest value is a utopian world free of all conflict, and the way to avoid all conflict is for us to abandon all rationality

It's not necessarily to abandon rationality, rather to understand that not every absolutist decree is a product of rational thought. Some, for instance, are derived from faith, which isn't always an easy thing to rationalise. The idea that one is abandoning 'all rationality' by rejecting moral imperatives that are supported largely by faith is quite a curious facet of the claim.

For example -one person makes some absolutist decree on a given matter. By the standards set forth in Paul's posts, the onus is upon the proponent to rationalise it. If they cannot rationalise it then they give no reason for others to accept it. This is not the fault of those who reject the decree, this is the fault of the one who proposed it. To continue with the belief after it has withered under the scrutiny of reason is to invite, if not accusations of 'evil', certainly a few raised eyebrows.

[Virgil Showlion]

I don't completely get the speaker's reference to "abandoning rationality" either.

What I think he means by it is that Liberals will take the "make it gray" doctrine to the extent that they support irrational policies. For example, if conservative America was moved to follow the Biblical injunction against eating pork (i.e. unclean meat), the speaker believes Liberals would eventually undertake an aggressive campaign to promote pork as a normal, delicious, healthy, choice food, for no reason other than pork was being called "unclean". Billions of research dollars would go into discovering every conceivable benefit of eating pork, and research contradicting its benefits would be systematically driven out of peer-reviewed literature.

The fact that such a dynamic exists, the speaker posits, is proof of irrationality. Or to put it another way: the goodness of pork is a rather arbitrary issue, and the fact that calling it "unclean" would provoke Liberals to construct a billion-dollar movement with the predetermined view that "it must not be unclean" is evidence of irrationality.

Of course, I'm guessing that Liberals will claim they would support no such pro-pork movement. And the fact of the matter is that we'll never know. The speaker's hypothesis, which he is very direct with, is that this (irrational) reactionary impulse explains why intelligent Liberals consistently fall on the wrong side of any issue.

[mmhmm]

I agree, ISA. While there are absolutes, they cannot be defined by one individual, or one group, necessarily. To Christians, Jesus Christ is an absolute ... the Son of God. To Jews, this is not the case. Does that make the Jewish folk evil? I don't think so. It's wrong to kill people. That's an absolute. Yet, if someone breaks into my home intent on harming my family, I can guarantee you I'll kill that person if I must, and can. Does that make me evil? I don't think so.

Frankly, what some dude I've never heard of propounds means absolutely nothing to me. I evaluate based on my own thinking, my own logic, and my own evaluation of the rationality of a concept. I refuse to give credence to any postulation that anyone who sees the greys in life as often as the blacks and whites is automatically shoved into a box labeled Liberal, any more than I give credence to the postulation that anyone who sees only the blacks and whites has their own box in which to fit, labeled Conservative. I've seen too many changes in my lifetime to buy that. People just don't fit into neat little boxes, and I'm very glad they don't. If they did, we'd never innovate, never grow, never learn, and never quest.

[mmhmm]

Virgil, I don't think those who don't think in black and white want to MAKE things grey. I think they simply recognize some things ARE grey.

[Opti]

Aug 6, 2012 19:07:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I don't completely get the speaker's reference to "abandoning rationality" either.

What I think he means by it is that Liberals will take the "make it gray" doctrine to the extent that they support irrational policies. For example, if conservative America was moved to follow the Biblical injunction against eating pork (i.e. unclean meat), the speaker believes Liberals would eventually undertake an aggressive campaign to promote pork as a normal, delicious, healthy, choice food, for no reason other than pork was being called "unclean". Billions of research dollars would go into discovering every conceivable benefit of eating pork, and research contradicting its benefits would be systematically driven out of peer-reviewed literature.

The fact that such a dynamic exists, the speaker posits, is proof of irrationality. Or to put it another way: the goodness of pork is a rather arbitrary issue, and the fact that calling it "unclean" would provoke Liberals to construct a billion-dollar movement with the predetermined view that "it must not be unclean" is evidence of irrationality.

Of course, I'm guessing that Liberals will claim they would support no such pro-pork movement. And the fact of the matter is that we'll never know. The speaker's hypothesis, which he is very direct with, is that this (irrational) reactionary impulse explains why intelligent Liberals consistently fall on the wrong side of any issue.

I think what you are describing in your pork example is leftist contrarians not liberals. They are reflected and equal to the rightist
contrarians IMO who need to have everyone adopt their beliefs because of faith, the bible, our judeo-christian heritage, etc.

What the author and Paul likes to call modern liberalism is neither modern nor liberalism. It is the far left which shares alot of stubbornness with the far right.

I agree with Mmhmm, that most centrists, real liberals, etc. recognize that between white and black there are many shades of gray. Now you had a whole laundry list of things you said "liberals" sanction which I thought at best was an odd choice of words. There is a difference between approval, encouraging(sanction), and dealing with inevitability. Teen sex is one of those that whether you like or not will happen in society just like murder whether you want it to or not. A black and white proponent would spend all their effort on trying to eradicate teen sex, forgetting of course that's exactly what Jesus's parents had after he was born. Those of us who see the shades of gray might work on a two pronged approach. Try to discourage teen sex and put things in place to limit teen pregnancy and STDs. I know some black&whiters prefer to see some of the health programs for teen sex as promoting it, i.e. free or easily available condoms, but that's mostly because they can't IMO think clearly and objectively about the issue. The scariest thing to me about black and whiters as they tend to see their favorite issues from a strong emotional standpoint as opposed to a rational, thinking one.

[Virgil Showlion]

I agree with Mmhmm, that most centrists, real liberals, etc. recognize that between white and black there are many shades of gray.

The spectrum we're talking about is between black/white on one end, and shades of gray on the other. I realize it's not a particularly intuitive spectrum, but all the same...

A 'centrist', as the speaker defines it, is a person who is black/white on some issues, and "shades of gray" on others. I would consider both you and mmhmm to be quite far over on the 'shades of gray' side, not the least reason of which is because of your shared, repeated assertions that "there are many shades of gray".

This is the speaker's definition of (large 'L') Liberal. As in, institutionalized liberalism.

I know some black&whiters prefer to see some of the health programs for teen sex as promoting it, i.e. free or easily available condoms, but that's mostly because they can't IMO think clearly and objectively about the issue.

Perhaps some simply perceive how society has changed for every bright new 'rational' theory put into practice.

Virgil, I don't think those who don't think in black and white want to MAKE things grey. I think they simply recognize some things ARE grey.

That's the great unknown. Is the Liberal prime mover the desire to make things gray? The speaker posits 'yes'.

[mmhmm]

In my case, Virgil, your consideration would be dead wrong. I've got just about as many black/white stances as I do shades of grey stances. It depends on the issue. The fact that there are, indeed, many shades of grey doesn't mean there are no, or fewer, blacks and whites. One doesn't follow the other.

I don't know whether hard-line Liberals want to make everything shades of grey. Not being one, I'm not going to claim I do know. My crystal ball hasn't worked for years ... ever since I grew up enough to realize I didn't know anywhere near as much as I thought I knew.

[Virgil Showlion]

I've got just about as many black/white stances as I do shades of grey stances.

That was what I was hoping to elicit from Reply #57. Excepting murder and rape, what are some contentious moral issues you see in black and white?

[Opti]

Aug 6, 2012 22:20:17 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I agree with Mmhmm, that most centrists, real liberals, etc. recognize that between white and black there are many shades of gray.

The spectrum we're talking about is between black/white on one end, and shades of gray on the other. I realize it's not a particularly intuitive spectrum, but all the same...

A 'centrist', as the speaker defines it, is a person who is black/white on some issues, and "shades of gray" on others. I would consider both you and mmhmm to be quite far over on the 'shades of gray' side, not the least reason of which is because of your shared, repeated assertions that "there are many shades of gray".

This is the speaker's definition of (large 'L') Liberal. As in, institutionalized liberalism.

Perhaps some simply perceive how society has changed for every bright new 'rational' theory put into practice.

Virgil, I don't think those who don't think in black and white want to MAKE things grey. I think they simply recognize some things ARE grey.

That's the great unknown. Is the Liberal prime mover the desire to make things gray? The speaker posits 'yes'.

I am not at all like what the speaker believes a modern liberal is nor am I all shades of gray. I don't need to argue or do yeah that on pieces of white or black I agree with. The fact that I speak up mostly or possibly 99% of the time on behalf of shades of gray does not preclude my belief in any white or black.

The problem is as I see it those like you who have a black and white moral code especially if it is derived from faith of whatever religion cannot or choose not to distinguish between those who only see shades of gray and those who see the whole spectrum. We however know who we are and have a pretty good idea of those who share our views on this board.

Many of my favorite posters here on P&M do diverge from my point of view on some things. We don't fit in the easy more extreme boxes of the far right or far left. Just as an FYI, I generally avoid pork. Part of it is because I believe the biblical injunction might still be wise as the parasites in pork are more deadly than the other meats. Also per dietary theories I have read some believe it is not as well tolerated by human beings health wise as other meats. I have usually complex reasons for believing as I do. Rarely even in my lengthy posts am I able to do adequate justice to why I believe as I do.

The fact that you do not see me as a centrist and the old definition of liberal is because you miss what you think I should be posting. Absence of something is not proof. Much like correlation does not equal causation. Mmhmm and I are more central than you realize.
I'm also not into negativity and pitchforks. Hence very little discussion of black by me anywhere on this board. No need for me to pile on. Sorry if that confuses you or others but if you were more observant you wouldn't need that "clue".

[Jaguar]

Aug 6, 2012 22:25:29 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I've got just about as many black/white stances as I do shades of grey stances. It depends on the issue. The fact that there are, indeed, many shades of grey doesn't mean there are no, or fewer, blacks and whites. One doesn't follow the other.

I've got techie color stances . From all the whites to all the blacks and EVERYTHING in between. I'm a bleeping rainbow. ;D

[Opti]

Aug 6, 2012 22:32:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I've got just about as many black/white stances as I do shades of grey stances.

That was what I was hoping to elicit from Reply #57. Excepting murder and rape, what are some contentious moral issues you see in black and white?

People telling you who you are and where you stand especially when they are wrong. No gray on that baby!





Always bad!

[mmhmm]

I was speaking more to the matter of political issues than moral issues, Virgil, but I'll try to address both.

I believe it's wrong to break a promise. If you say you're going to do something, do it.
I believe we're responsible to take care of each other; particularly, our family members. Not to do so is wrong.
I believe the safety and well-being of a child is sacrosanct.
I believe each of us is responsible for the well-being of those unable to provide for themselves.
I believe the law to be the law. If you break the law, you are responsible for the consequences of your action.
I believe in honesty and integrity in dealings with others. Making more money for me isn't a good reason to set those aside. It's wrong.

Sheesh. I guess I could go on and on. Yes, I do have black/white areas. The above are those (right off the top of my very tired head) for which I would find real trouble justifying a reversal, or a grey area unless it was absolutely unavoidable ... like you were dying, or something, and couldn't keep a promise, or care for someone who needed you.

Gotta add one to this list:

I believe it is wrong to be a hypocrite. One should use the same measuring stick for oneself that is used for others.

[mmhmm]

Aug 6, 2012 22:40:12 GMT -5 Opti said:

Aug 6, 2012 22:32:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

That was what I was hoping to elicit from Reply #57. Excepting murder and rape, what are some contentious moral issues you see in black and white?

People telling you who you are and where you stand especially when they are wrong. No gray on that baby!

*chuckle* I'll go along with that, too, optimist. We cannot reach into another's mind and tell them what they think, or believe, or stand for. To do so is, as I see it ... wrong.




Always bad!

[Virgil Showlion]

The fact that you do not see me as a centrist and the old definition of liberal is because you miss what you think I should be posting. Absence of something is not proof. Much like correlation does not equal causation. Mmhmm and I are more central than you realize.

Ms. Optimist, I'm simply referring to what the speaker defines as 'centrist' and 'Liberal', and noting that in any instance where I've debated either you or mmhmm on a topic, you've taken a "shades of gray" position.

This may indeed be as a reaction to my black-and-whiteness, but "promoting grayness as a reaction to black/white" is precisely the speaker's definition of behaviour that characterizes a Liberal.

Yes, this is his personal definition of 'Liberal', and you've made it clear that you do not accept the term.

I believe it's wrong to break a promise. If you say you're going to do something, do it.
I believe we're responsible to take care of each other; particularly, our family members. Not to do so is wrong.
I believe the safety and well-being of a child is sacrosanct.
I believe each of us is responsible for the well-being of those unable to provide for themselves.
I believe the law to be the law. If you break the law, you are responsible for the consequences of your action.
I believe in honesty and integrity in dealings with others. Making more money for me isn't a good reason to set those aside. It's wrong.

That's very encouraging then.

There could be hope for you yet.

[mmhmm]

Aug 6, 2012 22:59:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The fact that you do not see me as a centrist and the old definition of liberal is because you miss what you think I should be posting. Absence of something is not proof. Much like correlation does not equal causation. Mmhmm and I are more central than you realize.

Ms. Optimist, I'm simply referring to what the speaker defines as 'centrist' and 'Liberal', and noting that in any instance where I've debated either you or mmhmm on a topic, you've taken a "shades of gray" position.

This may indeed be as a reaction to my black-and-whiteness, but "promoting grayness as a reaction to black/white" is precisely the speaker's definition of behaviour that characterizes a Liberal.

Yes, this is his personal definition of 'Liberal', and you've made it clear that you do not accept the term.

I believe it's wrong to break a promise. If you say you're going to do something, do it.
I believe we're responsible to take care of each other; particularly, our family members. Not to do so is wrong.
I believe the safety and well-being of a child is sacrosanct.
I believe each of us is responsible for the well-being of those unable to provide for themselves.
I believe the law to be the law. If you break the law, you are responsible for the consequences of your action.
I believe in honesty and integrity in dealings with others. Making more money for me isn't a good reason to set those aside. It's wrong.

That's very encouraging then.

There could be hope for you yet.

I had to chuckle, Virgil. I've bolded the word that brought that need about. While I may discuss any number of matters with as many people, I'm not necessarily promoting anything. I'm giving my take on an issue. Another may have a completely different take on the same issue. While I may give my opinion, that doesn't equate, to me, with promoting that opinion as the "right" answer. It's my right answer. The other person will have to make the determination as to their right answer.

[Deleted]

Virgil, #68, much obliged. I should probably watch the OP's video before commenting further though I've not been able to find the time thus far. First impression of the speaker, from Paul's comments, was that his is a generalisation of 'liberals' so crude as to be worthless. Somewhat ironically, the notion that liberals are grey-scalers is too absolute a rendering.

[mmhmm]

I guess Conservatives have to be careful about falling into the trap of applying their absolute absolutes to everything and everybody, eh, ISA? ;D

[Opti]

Aug 6, 2012 23:38:43 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I guess Conservatives have to be careful about falling into the trap of applying their absolute absolutes to everything and everybody, eh, ISA? ;D

I think by definition the bad ones are incapable of doing anything else. Hence perhaps Virgil's missing the distinction between the speaker misusing the word liberal and the historical and definition found in Wiki that I accept.

Virgil is now happy with you because you gave him some black and white examples. I didn't need them because I don't think I've ever met anyone who didn't have some.

[mmhmm]

We all have black and white issues, I think. Some things demand it, and some people may have more of them. To me, it's not about liberal vs conservative. I'm not a political animal, I suppose. It's more, for me, about your passion. People are my passion ... heck, all living things. That's what matters to me. That which is highly important to me, therefore, will have to do with people ... their needs, their dreams, their hopes, their fears. I don't understand (and I admit it) people who put money before living things. I don't understand people who put inanimate objects before living things. It just doesn't make sense to me. Since people are, by nature, somewhat mutable, I might have fewer black and white stances than someone whose passion lies elsewhere.

[Opti]

Mmhmm, have you watched the movie Company Men?
I'm still thinking about parts of the movie when the head guy was so unwilling to give up his new precious office building that he authorized the layoff of more people. He was not a people person. He didn't get what the Tommy Lee Jones character was trying to tell him but was proud he got $600 mil in the buyout. Oy!

[mmhmm]

I rarely watch movies, Optimist, and haven't seen that one, I'm afraid. Frankly, there are a lot of people who put a great deal of stock in what they have in material goods, rather than in who they are, who they love, and who loves them. For them, perhaps, that's the way it should be done. I just can't go that way, and can't understand that way. I'll take my mutable people ... in whatever shade they present.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 5, 2012 19:26:40 GMT -5 uncle23 said:

I like that Aham.............karma for you...........

Hey Uncle thanks! Back at ya! The cool thing is that there are people like you and ModE here that were around and are old enough to remember just what all these safety nets and ultra liberal movements have done. It's important for us youngins' to be a bit more balanced over the next 30 yrs, JMO.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 7, 2012 1:36:49 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I rarely watch movies, Optimist, and haven't seen that one, I'm afraid. Frankly, there are a lot of people who put a great deal of stock in what they have in material goods, rather than in who they are, who they love, and who loves them. For them, perhaps, that's the way it should be done. I just can't go that way, and can't understand that way. I'll take my mutable people ... in whatever shade they present.

It's all about God and family isn't mmhmm...

I don't mind a decent movie every once and a while though.. For instance, I think I might watch something right now and go to sleep. God bless you mmhhmm!