Modern Liberalism =- Authoritarianism

dahermit

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
1,916
So, to conclude, you see no problem with a government funded museum displaying the bust of Stalin to honor his contribution to defeating Germany?
No, you fool. Can you not read? I said "the soviet people", not Stalin. Stalin was a poor leader and general. The huge resource of soviet soldiers and their tenacity was the element that aided the ailed effort in WWII. If you did not have your head up your @@@ you would know that 80% of the Nazi war effort was in the East.
 
Werbung:

dogtowner

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
17,848
Location
Wandering around
No, you fool. Can you not read? I said "the soviet people", not Stalin. Stalin was a poor leader and general. The huge resource of soviet soldiers and their tenacity was the element that aided the ailed effort in WWII. If you did not have your head up your @@@ you would know that 80% of the Nazi war effort was in the East.


The Russian Army fought well because they feared what was behind them less than what was before them.
 

Gipper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
6,077
Location
Winter Wonderland
No, you fool. Can you not read? I said "the soviet people", not Stalin. Stalin was a poor leader and general. The huge resource of soviet soldiers and their tenacity was the element that aided the ailed effort in WWII. If you did not have your head up your @@@ you would know that 80% of the Nazi war effort was in the East.

Is there anyone monitoring the broad to stop this horrendous and profane commentary? I guess not. If there are no rules, please let me know so I can defend myself against this gutter discourse.

And Ludington Geezer, the statue is of Stalin...not the Soviet people. Do you understand that the museum was honoring Stalin by displaying his likeness? Honoring the world's greatest murderer (who just so happens to be a Commie ie. leftist who many left wing Americans adored) is not something MOST Americans with any knowledge of history would find appropriate. Apparently some leftists do though.
 

orogenicman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
734
Back to the original post, I find it very interesting how often those who seem to talk the most about "liberalism" are most frequently the ones who know the least about the topic. But I suppose it gives them much confort to make those they disagree with the boogeyman of the day. My advice? A snickers bar is probably more effective calming those nerves. :)
 

GenSeneca

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
6,245
Location
={CaLiCo}= HQ
Back to the original post, I find it very interesting how often those who seem to talk the most about "liberalism" are most frequently the ones who know the least about the topic.

Feel free to explain how modern liberalism will lead to something other than authoritarianism.
 

Gipper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
6,077
Location
Winter Wonderland
If you'd rather not do that, then simply explain where Pale was incorrect in his OP.

Can't be done. That is why no libs have taken you up on your offer.

It is a good exercise for libs though. If all would do it, they might realize how truly tyrannical liberalism is and become "enlightened."

After all, many conservatives were former liberals, but they were intelligent enough to overcome their "mental illness."

So, libs, its not too late for you. You can be cured of your dreadful disease. Ask for help. I and others are more than willing to save you.
 

orogenicman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
734
Autonomy of the individual? It is impossible to have this while also trying to enforce government-run healthcare, social security, medicaid, welfare, etc. Taking half of what people earn is hardly conducive to the "autonomy of the individual".

And I believe that palerider asked a very good question: progress towards what? What is the ultimate goal?

You make it seem as if healthcare, social security, medicaid, etc, were law enforcement issues that somehow takes away the autonomy of individuals. In what alternate universe does this happen? I find it interesting that conservatives apparently have such a hard time dealing with issues that promote the welfare of the people, but have no problem at all with the 650 billion dollar welfare program doled out each year for the military, or all that corporate welfare we see being handed out. Or when individual privacy rights are degraded for the sake of minimal (at best) increase in national security. Why is promoting the welfare of the individual is such a dire problem for conservtives? So I hope you can understand why I chuckle when a conservative starts complaining about the "autonomy of the individual". ;)
 

GenSeneca

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
6,245
Location
={CaLiCo}= HQ
I find it interesting that conservatives apparently have such a hard time dealing with issues that promote the welfare of the people
Since you chose to respond to a poster who hasn't been around for a couple of years, rather than attempt a rebuttal of Pales OP, I think you should answer USMC's question...

What is the ultimate goal?
 

Gipper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
6,077
Location
Winter Wonderland
You make it seem as if healthcare, social security, medicaid, etc, were law enforcement issues that somehow takes away the autonomy of individuals. In what alternate universe does this happen? I find it interesting that conservatives apparently have such a hard time dealing with issues that promote the welfare of the people, but have no problem at all with the 650 billion dollar welfare program doled out each year for the military, or all that corporate welfare we see being handed out. Or when individual privacy rights are degraded for the sake of minimal (at best) increase in national security. Why is promoting the welfare of the individual is such a dire problem for conservtives? So I hope you can understand why I chuckle when a conservative starts complaining about the "autonomy of the individual". ;)

Welfare does the exact opposite of promoting the welfare of the people. It enslaves both the recipient and those whose property is stolen from them at the point of gun.

What I find hilarious is silly libs who complain about the high cost of the military, but believe welfare costs must be constantly raised to the heavens...
 

palerider

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
4,624
Back to the original post, I find it very interesting how often those who seem to talk the most about "liberalism" are most frequently the ones who know the least about the topic. But I suppose it gives them much confort to make those they disagree with the boogeyman of the day. My advice? A snickers bar is probably more effective calming those nerves. :)

I believe I "understand" liberalism quite well and if you have any actual on topic discussion to make regarding my original post, I believe you will find that I understand liberalism far better than you do yourself. My bet is that you are liberal because it makes you feel good rather than because of any underlying superior driving philosophy. That "feel good" quality of modern liberalism is precisely why you guys are without question the kings of unintended consequences.
 

Gipper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
6,077
Location
Winter Wonderland
All this recent talk of authoritarianism applying to Conservatives fails the logic test.

Anyone with a brain knows modern liberalism is authoritarian as this great thread proves comprehensively.
 
Werbung:

nobull

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
402
Re: Part 2

In the liberal state, we will not allow sexism, racism,

Are blacks better off today?



We don't believe in moral absolutes.

What would the conservative version of "every person is as good as every other person and whatever a person likes is good for him" be?

The way we look at it is, "every person is as good as every other person and people should be allowed to be what they are unimpeded."

It appears to me as though we have similar ideas here. It boils down to, "every person ought to be able to do what they like unimpeded." Our major difference lies in whose likes and dislikes we favor. We favor protecting minorities, by allowing them to be what they are without having to deal with hatred and bigotry, which naturally disfavors the opinions of the bigots; you favor protecting the bigots, who are admittedly human beings who deserve to have an opinion, which naturally disfavors the minorities because suddenly they have to deal with totally unrestrained hate.

Just don't pretend that the conservative way is the one hundred percent egalitarian way. I prefer our way and you prefer yours and so long as we're both honest about that, we can move forward towards reaching an understanding.




Once again, I'd like to know more about this "mandatory" sensitivity training.

Punishing criminals more harshly for hate crimes is akin to punishing criminals more harshly for premeditating the murder rather than just sticking some poor bastard in the throat with a knife on a whim. It has to do with motivation. It is easy to be afraid of people who are different, and that fear can translate into violence; as a result, there is a motivation for violence that would not exist otherwise. This motivation could, if left unchecked, be much more prevalent than, say, crimes of passion, as people are much more likely to be fearful of someone they don't understand than they are to get into a committed relationship and then be dramatically betrayed or whatever. The point isn't that a hate crime is worse; the point is that we need to discourage hate crimes more because they're an easier reason for crime.



You're entitled to your opinion. I don't believe that "carrying liberal theory to its logical end" holds much merit. We have a goal, certainly, but the means towards that goal - and the repercussions of those means that you fear so much - change as society changes. If we locked ourselves into one set of means and stayed that way until the goal is met, then yes, all of this would be perfectly justified. However, that is not the case.

"All moral truths are absolute," "Some moral truths are absolute," and "No moral truths are absolute." For the sake of clarity, let me point out a moral absolute so obvious that you can't deny it and expect to be taken seriously. "Skinning alive a random human for pleasure's sake is immoral." I don't think I need to argue to prove that point; it is just something I see and I expect others to see as well. And it is expressed as an absolute without exception: there is no time or place where skinning a human being alive for pleasure is a good thing or even morally neutral. It is simply evil. That is one moral absolute, and I believe there are others. I would put forward, for example, that the Aztec practice of ritual human sacrifice was also evil and that the world is an objectively better place now that that practice has been eliminated around the globe (Of course, it might have been possible to bring such about through means other than those used, but that is a question for another essay).Given the above two examples, it seems clear that there are moral absolutes. The next question is whether or not there are moral non-absolutes. I believe so. Consider the classic example, "Never lie." It seems to be a good rule, generally, but not absolutely. If one is hiding Jews in one's basement in Nazi Germany, it would be a moral error to inform Nazi troops if asked about it directly.


Basically, I believe that it is impossible to construct a society with no moral absolutes at all. I have written elsewhere of a principle of moral minimalism, a principle that states that there is an absolute moral minimum beneath which a society cannot transgress and still retain the privilege of calling itself "civilized." It is within this area that moral absolutes reign. And these absolutes are usually so obvious that to deny them is to give sanction to tyrants and serial-killers, something, I'm sure, most of us do not want to do. But the absolutist makes a mistake when he or she claims that all moral truths are absolute and society as a whole needs to recognize this. Many moral truths are simply general rules with specific exceptions. Other times, moral truths are true but only relative to context, be it time or place, or culture. For example, in Hinduism the cow is a sacred animal and it has a special place in that culture's moral beliefs. In the West, the cow is simply a source of food.
Ultimately, I believe morality is a complicated subject in which absolutism has a place but only a limited one. It certainly is not the whole story. I believe a mixed view of morality is far superior. And any society, if it is to be fair and just, must come to recognize that fact. Moral absolutes provide the foundation of morality; they are the starting point. One cannot build a house without a foundation. Likewise, one cannot build a moral system without moral absolutes...
 
Top