Ghost of Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 web I didn't say all of the people I've known that were left-of-center were dumb as rocks. I said that the most shallow and most ignorant people I've known(and the most bitter and hate-filled) are of the left. And no, it's not because they disagree with me. Sheesh. I may disagree with Christopher Hitchens on some issues, but I'm not going to call him stupid(he'd proceed to tear me up anyway!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost Who Talks Another thing--from my personal experience the absolute dumbest rocks I have ever known have been either 1) apolitical--politics "bores them" doncha know? or 2) Democrats(or worse) Worse than DEMOCRATS? The horror! I think this article encapsulates several problems with the modern left. It smacks of elitism and an utter lack of critical analysis. The argument--"Bush is bad and people who disagree are stupid"--is just laughable. Imagine that message getting out. The backlash against it would be tremendous. For decades, leftist thinking has dominated the media. People accept "received wisdom" that was the culmination of centuries of reasoned thinking and argument building upon argument. That's why people are so ready to talk about "social justice," "public issues," and "government money and responsibilities" (eg, the "duty of care") when such concepts aren't immediately obvious. Now, in my view all these concepts are based on sound philosophy. But the philosophy is so far behind us that we've stopped thinking about it. Thus, when rational conservatives mount an attack on the left, the majority of leftists are helpless to defend themselves. They understand what they believe, but they cannot explain why they believe it. A true renewal of the left does not rest in the hands of someone like Dean; it rests in political philosophers and idealists that can rebuild the left from the ground up. In the end, the left will remain consistent from the outside, insofar as the principles it supports. But at its core it will be far stronger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Good post Ancal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted January 12, 2004 Author Share Posted January 12, 2004 Originally posted by luckydevil Simply absurd. I often find it, those who scream the loudest about the conditions of the poor, the oppressed, and the weak are the ones least willing to sacrifice. It is easy to be "altruistic" when you are spending other's people money. "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." Why is it absurd Lucky? And level with me here, did I say anything about spending other peoples money? The initial response posts to this article were, in my opinion, reflective and based on knowledge and experience and they clearly refuted the article on some logical grounds. Some of the later posts validated the article by saying that there are a lot of ignorant people in the world. Others went further to say that it's the democrats and liberals (primarily) that are stupid. End result, THERE ARE IGNORANT PEOPLE IN AMERICA and that's who we're trying to appeal to because their votes determine who the leader will be and NOT YOURS - you'll always vote republican until you are motivated not to do so. Read, you're a lifer until their policies negatively impact you. There's nothing wrong with this and I applaud you and everyone who takes the time to determine what is best for themselves. The article was not addressed to people like you. Yes, there are a bunch of stupid liberals and there are a bunch of people who vote democrat for reasons OTHER than their best interests. I will concede that these people are NOT making an informed decision; but it's their vote. The same is true for the other side, conservatives want to keep their money and they do not feel like paying for programs that they will never use. I suggest that this is NOT in their best interest because the health of the country is completely dependent upon the health of it's citizens. A healthy country is better for EVERYONE in America and a healthy America is better for almost everyone on the planet. But you are free to vote as you please based on what you feel. But why would the GOP and Bush even mention that they are attempting to liberate the people of Iraq? Is that, as you say, a false front for the urge to rule? Please tell me the subtle differences between this and my notion that liberals try to force altruistic changes? Ghost - forget liberals, you know the most hate filled person on this thread today is you. You quiver at the very suggestion that George and the GOP may not be doing a good job and then you bring color into it in such a way as to suggest that you are better than anyone of color who votes democrat. You can see how that is really weak right? And to enter that into this discourse as your well educated and thought-out opinion is, as the author said, letting "morons become the norm". You've got me wrong ghost, I don't think you've ever known me or been open to any of my "leftist" ideas. Right? Label and ignore, label and ignore. Your actions prove Starkman's thesis. Do yourself a favor and try to ingest what AncalagonTB or Art says. Their statement of the facts as they see them are really easy to accept because they represent WHAT Americans can do with their brains. Yours, well, is what American's SHOULDN'T do BUT DO TOO OFTEN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Why is it absurd Lucky? This is what you said "Liberals force change that is altruistic" Forcing change( the keyword being force) is not exactly an act of selflessness. Therefore the statement is a contradiction. It is really simple with me; I do not believe in enforcing my views, values, or morality on to other people. All I ask in return is to not violate my rights. I believe in persurasion not force. I suggest that this is NOT in their best interest because the health of the country is completely dependent upon the health of it's citizens. A healthy country is better for EVERYONE in America and a healthy America is better for almost everyone on the planet My problem is that many who happen to share the same opinions as you do have already decided what the best interests of this country are(i.e. the welfare state). And they have done so through force. Make no mistake about it, conservatives are part of the problem. This is why I made the statement "spending other people's money" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black Thus, when rational conservatives mount an attack on the left, the majority of leftists are helpless to defend themselves. They understand what they believe, but they cannot explain why they believe it. The eminent physicist Richard Feynman was known to put forth the idea that if you couldn't explain a concept, you didn't really understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Originally posted by luckydevil Forcing change( the keyword being force) is not exactly an act of selflessness. Therefore the statement is a contradiction. Are you saying that the use of force (of any kind) excludes an altruistic motive? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dchogs Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 oh, btw, thank god the founding father forsaw this problem and insulated the election process from the ignorant masses by creating the electoral college. we don't elect anyone. the EC does. ask gore (if you believe his numbers that is...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Although this thread has meandered over several topics, I'm surprised there isn't more acknowledgement that this a seriously boneheaded (not to mention offensive) article, regardless of anyone's political persuasion. Essentially what the author is theorizing is: a) Bush is popular. I don't like Bush. Therefore: c) Bush can't be popular for the right reasons. d) There must be stupid reasons people like Bush. e) People who like Bush are stupid. I mean, I couldn't pass the freaking LSAT with that kind of logic. :shot: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Are you saying that the use of force (of any kind) excludes an altruistic motive? Really? Force involves inforcing one's( or a group) will/agenda. So I guess I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Soliloquy, Use of force to foment change, even if that change is for the good, almost eliminates any pure altruistic motive since you must know that you are going to damage someone's welfare and altruism requires concern for the welfare of others. Unless, of course, that someone you hurt is yourself, and ONLY yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 If you read this thread carefully, you will see that webnarc is a conflicted fascist in denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 "Conflicted Fascist in Denial" would be a great title for a rock album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Originally posted by Makhpiya-Luta Soliloquy, Use of force to foment change, even if that change is for the good, almost eliminates any pure altruistic motive since you must know that you are going to damage someone's welfare and altruism requires concern for the welfare of others. Yes, but short-term damage can lead to long term success. Altruism includes looking at the big picture, not simply whether any one individual has a job (or a better "position") today or tomorrow. The use of force has absolutely nothing to do with altruism. Altruism is a motive, force is a means. Edit: I would like to say that "pure" altruism is unlikely to exist. "Dirty" altruism may occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted January 13, 2004 Author Share Posted January 13, 2004 Originally posted by CrankyTodd If you read this thread carefully, you will see that webnarc is a conflicted fascist in denial. I never denied it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted January 13, 2004 Author Share Posted January 13, 2004 Originally posted by luckydevil Forcing change( the keyword being force) is not exactly an act of selflessness. Therefore the statement is a contradiction. Forcing change when one group of American's is not afforded the same rights as another group of Americans is selfless. Heck, any father or mother would likely tell you that they force their selflessness on their children every time they get the kids to do their homework. It is really simple with me; I do not believe in enforcing my views, values, or morality on to other people. All I ask in return is to not violate my rights. I believe in persurasion not force. Arab American's are Americans and there have been ZERO attacks on American soil by Arab American's; they are not the problem. The problem is that 19 terrorist were able to get into America, board planes and do the most evil. The only American Arabs who died where victims on the plane or on the ground, but in response to the actions of foreign terrorists, the Patriot Act is create which IS taking away your rights. If you're going to college or university now, the governments owns your record and can look at it at will without your knowledge, not a big deal, not yet, but with a name like Lucky Devil you may be deemed a Satanist and detained indefinitely . My problem is that many who happen to share the same opinions as you do have already decided what the best interests of this country are(i.e. the welfare state). And they have done so through force. Make no mistake about it, conservatives are part of the problem. This is why I made the statement "spending other people's money" . This is very well put, it's politics and it works both ways. Countries are liberated by force, freedoms are won through sacrifice. Someone died for your right to not have the government know all your business because they died for what America is. If one allows their rights to be compromised in a war against terrorism, they have effectively agreed that lives of these fallen solders were taken in vain. The apathetic and unknowing acceptance of the Patriot Act is such a step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Short term damage is STILL damage and according to any unmodified definition of the term would preclude its use in describing such action that implement arbitrary force (read government). There is no certainty that the individual will be in a 'better' position than he/she was. Who is to say his/her position is 'better', anyway? Does a select group which may not even include the individual, get to arbitrarily decide? I will agree that an individual can act with a spirit of altruism as part of his/her motive. Would not such a person wish to limit that damage of change while maximizing the possibility that good change can be discovered and implemented? Would such a person assume that he/she is always smarter than everybody else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Originally posted by webnarc Fake economic boom, that's priceless :laugh:. All those silly people working fake jobs getting paid fake money. And that internet thing and the explosion of IT, what a load of crap they were too. Why the fax machine is nothing but a whaffle iron with a phone attached. Kilmer, just so I know for sure, is this real economic boom or a fake one? And how do you tell them apart. You don't get out much, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Arab American's are Americans and there have been ZERO attacks on American soil by Arab American's; they are not the problem. The problem is that 19 terrorist were able to get into America, board planes and do the most evil. The only American Arabs who died where victims on the plane or on the ground, but in response to the actions of foreign terrorists, the Patriot Act is create which IS taking away your rights. I do not support the Patriot Act Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.