Ever Wonder Why Good, Smart Libs Choose Evil?

[Spellbound454]

The only time you would get an "absolute".... is if you were to accept the ideals of only one person.

If there are two people in the mix.... it instantly becomes grey.

Totalitarianism exists at either end of the political spectrum and it is the abhorrence of the free thinking individual.

Those in a Democracy should rationalise, keep an open mind..... then go with the feelings of the majority.
Intelligent people do not blindly accept things...they question and analyse before forming opinions.

However, that's not to say that an individual/society cannot have strong feelings on particular subjects.....
Some issues are more black and white than others....with a majority reaching the same conclusion.

[Deleted]

Aug 7, 2012 6:32:55 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

The only time you would get an "absolute".... is if you were to accept the ideals of only one person.

If there are two people in the mix.... it instantly becomes grey.

Totalitarianism exists at either end of the political spectrum and it is the abhorrence of the free thinking individual.

Those in a Democracy should rationalise, keep an open mind..... then go with the feelings of the majority.
Intelligent people do not blindly accept things...they question and analyse before forming opinions.

However, that's not to say that an individual/society cannot have strong feelings on particular subjects.....
Some issues are more black and white than others....with a majority reaching the same conclusion.

As people grow, they tend to set their moral compass with certain "absolutes"

For some it is faith and love

For others it is ambition and success

For even others it is a combination of many things

I am very black & white on so many issues....stubbornly so...as my wife would tell you

But i also have changed my views on other items...because she made me see things a different way

Some of us continue to evolve and change....for the good? who knows.....maybe for some there is no middle ground on certain subjects....and we just have to agree to disagree

[trevorw2539]

Aug 6, 2012 19:57:19 GMT -5 Opti said:

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.

You cannot use examples from different cultures/ages to prove one thing wrong against another.
At the age of 13 Jesus was not a teenager. He was an adult Jewish male.
Mary was not a teenager. When she became able to produce children she became an adult Jewish woman.
This was the accepted culture of the time throughout the ancient east.

Only in our modern eyes do 'teenage' years exist. And rightly so for our modern standards.

[Opti]

Aug 7, 2012 9:59:24 GMT -5 trevorw2539 said:

Aug 6, 2012 19:57:19 GMT -5 Opti said:

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.

You cannot use examples from different cultures/ages to prove one thing wrong against another.
At the age of 13 Jesus was not a teenager. He was an adult Jewish male.
Mary was not a teenager. When she became able to produce children she became an adult Jewish woman.
This was the accepted culture of the time throughout the ancient east.

Only in our modern eyes do 'teenage' years exist. And rightly so for our modern standards.

Can not, or should not?
I would argue I can and did.

It may be your opinion I should not equate the two but I disagree.
Back in those biblical times per the bible people lived even longer than they do now, i.e. the lists of those living to ages north of 100.
My point stands. If you disagree with teenage sex now, you should explain why it was OK then when people could live to greater ages than now when those hitting 100 years old are becoming one of the largest demographic groups.

[Deleted]

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

;D Yes.

Perhaps Liberalism takes a number of different shapes for a number of related reasons:

1) Differing interpretations of its tenets among individuals; their meaning, their significance etc, selective application of the doctrine.

2) Accompanying doctrines which the individual may adhere to; the tenets of Liberalism might be jostling for position among the tenets of other doctrines s/he subscribes too -wittingly or not.

3) The peculiarities of the social setting in which the Liberal finds her/himself; in some locations there may be certain pressures for Liberals to deal with which aren't so pressing elsewhere, thus prompting Liberalism in that location to grow in a different way.

There may be others but these 3 begin to account for the variety in the Liberal contingent and I think they point towards the futility of trying to generalise with too heavy a hand. The Liberalism we seem often to hear about from select Conservatives here is kind of an idealised amalgamation of the many different shades existent throughout the population.

[trevorw2539]

I apologise. 'Should not'.

You are comparing a society where having a large family was uppermost. It was accepted that mortality was higher and the more children the more likelihood of the family name surviving. For most families 'carrying' non-productive (foodwise) family members for longer than necessary was not an option.
Taking a few names/ages from the Bible does not reflect reality. Various reasons for 'long lives' exist, including numbering systems, calenders etc. Most people did not live that long. Disease and violence took many lives in a vicious society of nation against nation, city state against city state, nomadic tribe against nomadic tribe.
Cultures are different. The role of 'children' is different. Education was not available except in places like Egypt, and then for the 'upper classes'. Young people learnt by experience gained from their elders.
Marriages were arranged early to secure the future of children and families. A 'child' of 1500BC was more 'wise' in real life that her counterpart of 2000AD. She lived at home, often slept in the same room or tent as her parents and took part in the 'household' chores.

What you and I do is look back with 21st Century eyes and judge people on our standards. With all you have and know, and all the trappings of modern living can you really know their lives and hardships. Could you live in that age

We don't have the urgency to survive that some of them had. And I don't mean just to live.
The more children who survived, the more help for the parents in their old age, if they reached it. No pensions then.

In other words, life was completely different.

[Reckless Roselia]

Aug 6, 2012 22:39:16 GMT -5 Jaguar said:

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

Me too. ;D

[Opti]

Yes life was different. However, human biology was about the same.

[Reckless Roselia]

Just a thought -

Ever Wonder Why Good, Smart Conservatives Choose Evil?



But then again where does one draw the line with 'Evil'?

[trevorw2539]

Aug 7, 2012 11:22:21 GMT -5 Opti said:

Yes life was different. However, human biology was about the same.

Sorry. What has biology got to do with it. We are talking culture and necessity.

If you don't agree that's fair enough. I'm not prepared to 'fall out' over it.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 7, 2012 9:37:52 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

Aug 7, 2012 6:32:55 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

The only time you would get an "absolute".... is if you were to accept the ideals of only one person.

If there are two people in the mix.... it instantly becomes grey.

Totalitarianism exists at either end of the political spectrum and it is the abhorrence of the free thinking individual.

Those in a Democracy should rationalise, keep an open mind..... then go with the feelings of the majority.
Intelligent people do not blindly accept things...they question and analyse before forming opinions.

However, that's not to say that an individual/society cannot have strong feelings on particular subjects.....
Some issues are more black and white than others....with a majority reaching the same conclusion.

As people grow, they tend to set their moral compass with certain "absolutes"

For some it is faith and love

For others it is ambition and success

For even others it is a combination of many things

I am very black & white on so many issues....stubbornly so...as my wife would tell you

But i also have changed my views on other items...because she made me see things a different way

Some of us continue to evolve and change....for the good? who knows.....maybe for some there is no middle ground on certain subjects....and we just have to agree to disagree

Do you G, or anyone, think that there could be a balance between faith, love, ambition, and success?

[Don Perignon]

May 12, 2012 10:56:48 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I've always struggled with the fact that I get along very well with liberals personally

WHY?!? How is it possible?!?

Why am I evil in their eyes?!?

Liberals must feel obligated to tolerate you.

As for "why are you evil"?...

Well, it has to be either "nature" or "nurture"... or both, together.
Bio-chemical imbalance may be part of the equation...

[egginbonce]

not very sure whats meant by 'evil'..............................is it an objective quantity, or just a matter of opinion as to what is evil?.........................andd.....................by the same token, what is meant by 'good'?

I would suggest that these are subjective, and have no bearing on 'truth'(whatever THAT is......)

[egginbonce]

Aug 7, 2012 12:15:36 GMT -5 trevorw2539 said:

Aug 7, 2012 11:22:21 GMT -5 Opti said:

Yes life was different. However, human biology was about the same.

Sorry. What has biology got to do with it. We are talking culture and necessity.

If you don't agree that's fair enough. I'm not prepared to 'fall out' over it.

Hi Trev..nice to find you here, hobnobbing with the intelligentsia...............its all a bit over my head,here...............everyone knows everything......................

[jackthelad]

Oct 7, 2012 11:18:16 GMT -5 egginbonce said:

Sorry. What has biology got to do with it. We are talking culture and necessity.

If you don't agree that's fair enough. I'm not prepared to 'fall out' over it.

Hi Trev..nice to find you here, hobnobbing with the intelligentsia...............its all a bit over my head,here...............everyone knows everything...................... [/quote]


I know some, but not everthing, it's the wife that knows everthing, and she doesn't come on here.

[egginbonce]

Hi Jack....................'set of encyclopaedias for sale...............no further need for them, due to recent marriage'...that sort of thing...............

[Jaguar]

Oct 7, 2012 12:18:58 GMT -5 egginbonce said:

Hi Jack....................'set of encyclopaedias for sale...............no further need for them, due to recent marriage'...that sort of thing...............

Really, I don't think so, but then you are a hopeless flirt.

[egginbonce]

Oct 8, 2012 13:46:18 GMT -5 Jaguar said:

Oct 7, 2012 12:18:58 GMT -5 egginbonce said:

Hi Jack....................'set of encyclopaedias for sale...............no further need for them, due to recent marriage'...that sort of thing...............

Really, I don't think so, but then you are a hopeless flirt.

ahh thats the marriage connection................you were after a proposal,Sugi?

[Jaguar]

Oct 9, 2012 6:30:46 GMT -5 egginbonce said:

Really, I don't think so, but then you are a hopeless flirt.

ahh thats the marriage connection................you were after a proposal,Sugi?

[/quote]


Geez is this a marriage proposal ? >

[Deleted]

Aug 18, 2012 0:04:35 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Aug 7, 2012 9:37:52 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

As people grow, they tend to set their moral compass with certain "absolutes"

For some it is faith and love

For others it is ambition and success

For even others it is a combination of many things

I am very black & white on so many issues....stubbornly so...as my wife would tell you

But i also have changed my views on other items...because she made me see things a different way

Some of us continue to evolve and change....for the good? who knows.....maybe for some there is no middle ground on certain subjects....and we just have to agree to disagree

Do you G, or anyone, think that there could be a balance between faith, love, ambition, and success?

Great question

Depends on what your definition of success is i guess

And that each individual will have to answer for themselves

Ambition is a driving force, and sometimes it gets in the way of the idyllic family life

I remember my first ten years while i was still worried about getting up the rungs of the ladder....it was brutal. My ex basically raised our three kids on her own....as i was working 80+ hours every week.

It isnt easy to have it all.....which is what a lot of women have been saying forever

Balance is wonderful....but easier to have once you actually get a few steps up the proverbial ladder

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Thanks! Great points.

If I understand you right, you're saying as long as you don't let money become everything in your life you can get there if you put the work in. I have to say I find that right now. My wife and I share the work duties, we like it this way. We make sure we look after our cash and just try to enjoy the rest. Having kids is the hardest job there is, I know you know that one.. ;D

[egginbonce]

its trite, but perhaps moneys not inportant if you have some................ambition...built into everyone;I even knew someone whose stated (and later realised!) ambition was to be a junkie.The only people that I can think of who have none, are depressives,and if its that bad, they dint even have the ambition to get out of their depression.
Some ambitions are better in the planning than the realising,an that mite be why people who win a lot of money go offthe rails, as it wont make a haporth of difference to the stuff that matters,but u have to actually have the dosh,to see that.......................

[egginbonce]

So.................why do people have kids?,...............it doesnt make sense;theyre noisy,smelly,take your time up,worry you,interfere with your social life and interests,and expensive.Love can be found easily elsewhere(love is given , not taken, so u dont need kids for that);it matters not a jot if ur genes go on,and the planet is overpopulated................you knwo it makes sense....

[Spellbound454]

why do people have kids

Something ancient and primeval I guess egg

We are born, we reproduce... and we die...........thats it.

Most of our behaviour is about attraction...... and finding a mate with the objective that our genes should mix.

...and when the baby arrives....You'll love and protect that child with an extremely powerful instinct.
You'll die for it...You'll kill for it.....................and you'll feel like that about no other person.

[shelby]

"That's actually what I thought was most interesting about this talk. I'm often exasperated by liberal ideas, thoughts, behaviors, and in particular policies that seem to have no other explanation than that liberals are stupid, ignorant, evil, or some combination thereof precisely because I know it's NOT true. Liberals are NOT stupid people, and they're not ignorant, and they're certainly not evil, so how do they keep coming up with this shit?"

Such anger and hatred in your heart no God lives there. Words alone do not bring you closer to God and words are all you have.