Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Liberal Mind - Be Respectful

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by texasnavy05 View Post
    OK, I'll bite. What is the common denominator?
    Sorry I meant to say "reoccurring denominators" such as the below to name a few.

    *No father figure
    *Didn't fit in with anyone growing up
    *No love or attention from the parents growing up
    *gay

    etc

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by jerp View Post
      I started this as a quick reply and it got a little long - my apologies

      I have come to believe that the fundamental starting point for understanding liberal vs. conservative views is the difference in their understanding of human nature. Simplistically speaking there are two basic views – human nature is either fixed or it is malleable/changeable.
      Conservatives, libertarians (and “classical liberals”) believe that human nature is fixed, with tendencies toward both good and evil. Progressives, (liberals, socialists, etc) think human nature is malleable – it can be changed through law and social pressure/influence.

      Conservatives believe that as a result of either biology/culture, or supernatural forces (GOD) human nature has some permanent and universal features that do not change. Humans are naturally neither good or evil. Our dual nature makes us equally capable of both, so we require social influences (family, religion, community) to provide moral guidance. Conservatives prefer these three sources of influence over coercive government. Those on the right also value liberty and believe the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights and liberties because those basic rights and liberties pre-exist the state. Conservatives also recognize there are differences in people when it comes to talent, skills interests and ambition. This is expressed in the desire for equality of opportunity vs equality of outcomes.

      Liberals/Progressives – in general – believe humans are “born good” then are corrupted by an unjust society. That's why they are more likely to attribute criminal/destructive behavior to some form of oppression instead of poorly-used power of free will. They are far more willing to use state power to remake society through laws and social engineering. “ If we just get the smart people to pass and enforce the right laws, humanity will someday march through the sunny fields of utopia with no one left behind.

      For you fellow political philosophy geeks, I’ve heard it boiled down to this – political vision can be boiled down to Locke vs. Rousseau.* The Lockean vision holds that man is the captain of his soul, his rights come from God, the individual is sovereign and that the government exists because men of free will cede certain powers to it in order to protect life and property.

      The Rousseauian vision says the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group (not God) and the needs, aims and goals of the group come before those of the individual.

      *I'm paraphrasing the Locke/Rousseau part from a book I just read - not my original idea
      Yes!

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Tomkat70 View Post
        Be respectful? Why they aren't? They will be the down fall of OUR state and nation.
        I meant, be respectful on this forum so it doesn't get pulled down. I resent liberal/Socialist policy as much as any breathing man but here, we have to conform to have dialogue.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by jerp View Post
          I started this as a quick reply and it got a little long - my apologies

          I have come to believe that the fundamental starting point for understanding liberal vs. conservative views is the difference in their understanding of human nature. Simplistically speaking there are two basic views – human nature is either fixed or it is malleable/changeable.
          Conservatives, libertarians (and “classical liberals”) believe that human nature is fixed, with tendencies toward both good and evil. Progressives, (liberals, socialists, etc) think human nature is malleable – it can be changed through law and social pressure/influence.

          Conservatives believe that as a result of either biology/culture, or supernatural forces (GOD) human nature has some permanent and universal features that do not change. Humans are naturally neither good or evil. Our dual nature makes us equally capable of both, so we require social influences (family, religion, community) to provide moral guidance. Conservatives prefer these three sources of influence over coercive government. Those on the right also value liberty and believe the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights and liberties because they pre-exist the state. Conservatives also recognize there are differences in people when it comes to talent, skills interests and ambition. This is expressed in the desire for equality of opportunity vs equality of outcomes.

          Liberals/Progressives – in general – believe humans are “born good” then are corrupted by an unjust society. That's why they are more likely to attribute criminal/destructive behavior to some form of oppression instead of poorly-used power of free will. They are far more willing to use state power to remake society through laws and social engineering. “ If we just get the smart people to pass and enforce the right laws, humanity will someday march through the sunny fields of utopia with no one left behind.

          For you fellow political philosophy geeks, I’ve heard it boiled down to this – political vision can be boiled down to Locke vs. Rousseau.* The Lockean vision holds that man is the captain of his soul, his rights come from God, the individual is sovereign and that the government exists because men of free will cede certain powers to it in order to protect life and property.

          The Rousseauian vision says the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group (not God) and the needs, aims and goals of the group come before those of the individual.

          *I'm paraphrasing the Locke/Rousseau part from a book I just read
          Jerp's analysis is spot-on. I would add that the ideologies -- broadly expressed as communism and socialism -- espoused by Marx depended on the denial of immutable human nature. Read: we need new, better men for his system to work. Marx's changes also required the denial of all lessons in human history preceding his writing. One can look all the way back to Plato and Aristotle regarding mankind having a spiritual element to his nature, and that there is a Higher Good, which is beyond temporal history. This thought is even recognized in the Higher Law Tradition of our own Supreme Court.

          The Progressive belief that perfection of Man -- and, in turn, Society -- can be achieved in historical time -- the Here and Now -- is rightly characterized as Utopian -- meaning "nowhere." Perfection only exists in the Beyond; although, we have a spiritual nature, along with religion, family and community to guide us in seeking our best nature.

          Comment


            #20
            Becoming a liberal is evidence of a weak mind in that person

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by jerp View Post
              I started this as a quick reply and it got a little long - my apologies

              I have come to believe that the fundamental starting point for understanding liberal vs. conservative views is the difference in their understanding of human nature. Simplistically speaking there are two basic views – human nature is either fixed or it is malleable/changeable.
              Conservatives, libertarians (and “classical liberals”) believe that human nature is fixed, with tendencies toward both good and evil. Progressives, (liberals, socialists, etc) think human nature is malleable – it can be changed through law and social pressure/influence.

              Conservatives believe that as a result of either biology/culture, or supernatural forces (GOD) human nature has some permanent and universal features that do not change. Humans are naturally neither good or evil. Our dual nature makes us equally capable of both, so we require social influences (family, religion, community) to provide moral guidance. Conservatives prefer these three sources of influence over coercive government. Those on the right also value liberty and believe the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights and liberties because those basic rights and liberties pre-exist the state. Conservatives also recognize there are differences in people when it comes to talent, skills interests and ambition. This is expressed in the desire for equality of opportunity vs equality of outcomes.

              Liberals/Progressives – in general – believe humans are “born good” then are corrupted by an unjust society. That's why they are more likely to attribute criminal/destructive behavior to some form of oppression instead of poorly-used power of free will. They are far more willing to use state power to remake society through laws and social engineering. “ If we just get the smart people to pass and enforce the right laws, humanity will someday march through the sunny fields of utopia with no one left behind.

              For you fellow political philosophy geeks, I’ve heard it boiled down to this – political vision can be boiled down to Locke vs. Rousseau.* The Lockean vision holds that man is the captain of his soul, his rights come from God, the individual is sovereign and that the government exists because men of free will cede certain powers to it in order to protect life and property.

              The Rousseauian vision says the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group (not God) and the needs, aims and goals of the group come before those of the individual.

              *I'm paraphrasing the Locke/Rousseau part from a book I just read - not my original idea
              CLOSE THE THREAD... John NAILED IT...

              Only thing I can add is that whem most liberals are confronted with a REAL decision as to whether to let someone (gubment or other entity) take away what they have worked for, they suddenly become "conservative"... and are not willing to give up what they feel is rightfully theirs.

              Comment


                #22
                The Liberal"Mind"

                Originally posted by Livin'2hunt View Post
                I meant, be respectful on this forum so it doesn't get pulled down. I resent liberal/Socialist policy as much as any breathing man but here, we have to conform to have dialogue.
                I was just being sarcastic

                Comment


                  #23
                  Well stated, Jerp. I would disagree on few points but I like your premise. We can disagree over who loves the downtrodden less or more but I contend, when a liberal's emotions storm to the front of their brain, they are willing to set sail fact and will argue for it until the World looks level. There is something inherently wrong with a mind that can do that or, worse yet, force others at the point of a gun to do it.

                  Liberals preach tolerance and love but when they are empowered or find influence, they are the first to kick those "ideals" to the curb and punitively force us all to conform to their modus operandi. I do not believe that power corrupts all. Also, there are liberals on every side. This is not a Republican vs Democrat point.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by jerp View Post
                    I started this as a quick reply and it got a little long - my apologies

                    I have come to believe that the fundamental starting point for understanding liberal vs. conservative views is the difference in their understanding of human nature. Simplistically speaking there are two basic views – human nature is either fixed or it is malleable/changeable.
                    Conservatives, libertarians (and “classical liberals”) believe that human nature is fixed, with tendencies toward both good and evil. Progressives, (liberals, socialists, etc) think human nature is malleable – it can be changed through law and social pressure/influence.

                    Conservatives believe that as a result of either biology/culture, or supernatural forces (GOD) human nature has some permanent and universal features that do not change. Humans are naturally neither good or evil. Our dual nature makes us equally capable of both, so we require social influences (family, religion, community) to provide moral guidance. Conservatives prefer these three sources of influence over coercive government. Those on the right also value liberty and believe the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights and liberties because those basic rights and liberties pre-exist the state. Conservatives also recognize there are differences in people when it comes to talent, skills interests and ambition. This is expressed in the desire for equality of opportunity vs equality of outcomes.

                    Liberals/Progressives – in general – believe humans are “born good” then are corrupted by an unjust society. That's why they are more likely to attribute criminal/destructive behavior to some form of oppression instead of poorly-used power of free will. They are far more willing to use state power to remake society through laws and social engineering. “ If we just get the smart people to pass and enforce the right laws, humanity will someday march through the sunny fields of utopia with no one left behind.

                    For you fellow political philosophy geeks, I’ve heard it boiled down to this – political vision can be boiled down to Locke vs. Rousseau.* The Lockean vision holds that man is the captain of his soul, his rights come from God, the individual is sovereign and that the government exists because men of free will cede certain powers to it in order to protect life and property.

                    The Rousseauian vision says the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group (not God) and the needs, aims and goals of the group come before those of the individual.

                    *I'm paraphrasing the Locke/Rousseau part from a book I just read - not my original idea
                    Well said, and I would add this...

                    Strict adherence to any "ism" is likely to result in a breakdown of rational thought and decision making at some point. Even when faced new evidence, its rare to see anyone with an opinion they hold as incontrovertibly true change their mind.

                    The reality is that there is a lot of grey area between the two poles of the political spectrum, but people don't like grey areas. Political machines, bureaucrats, corporations, media salesmen, etc. like grey areas even less than individuals.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Of course we cant lump them all together. They dont all think the same, or for the same reason. I think the "thinking liberal" generally is just as Jerp described. But many, I do believe, do have a mental disorder, particularly the far left. But I believe the majority that now inhabit the USA are unthinking, selfish, greedy, and short sighted people. Deeply flawed individuals that have no problem voting in leaders specifically to steal one persons money and property, for the sole purpose of distributing it to themselves. These are the ones I truly despise. The bleeding heart liberal is just a weak person, with a flawed thought process. The new liberal we have created is truly a bad person. A thief. A drain on society, and in the end, will lead to the death of liberty.
                      Last edited by miket; 08-08-2017, 02:45 PM.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by texasnavy05 View Post
                        honestly, your brother-in-law probably thinks the same way about you. every human is biased. and every human is subject to confirmation bias. i (and others im sure) try to minimize this as much as possible but i dont think it can be avoided completely. we generally surround ourselves with people that share our values and interests which leads to perpetuation of those values and interests. a good example is posting this thread on this forum. most of this forum aligns politically (not all) so you arent likely to get a broad perspective. to counter, if you posted this in the pace section of an animal rights forum you would get a completely different reaction. but we dont go to that forum looking for answers...perpetuation.

                        so, to answer your question, i think "liberals" (not a fan of that term) believe in their minds that they are rooted in fact just as you do. we all tend to believe info that confirms our bias. and, i dont think that one political party is more susceptible to this than the other.

                        Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
                        No, both ex brothers-in-law believe I am an unevolved dolt. They both contend that to be dignified and refined, one must be a "compassionate" person (i.e. liberal/progressive). As for the idealistic echo chamber, I understand you and I don't know each other but I assure you, I can parse out all the bravo sierra and get straight down to facts.

                        Facts are not debatable. That was my point. Whether my B-I-Ls believe they are in the right matters not. I am talking about hardened facts that are irrefutable. That is what the erudite liberal will argue to their last breath. You can cite their favorite lecturer or author that refutes their claim but they still hold true.

                        We may have gotten in the weeds here but this isn't a matter of feelings or emotion. I was asking a clinical question about that "thing" that makes a logical mind scratch their head about liberal "reasoning".

                        Why don't you like the term liberal? The one that irks me is Progressive. Personally, I favor Socialist or Marxist. It is more apt.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by Livin'2hunt View Post

                          Why don't you like the term liberal? The one that irks me is Progressive. Personally, I favor Socialist or Marxist. It is more apt.
                          i guess i dont mind "liberal" i just think that it gets thrown around interchangeably with democrat.

                          just curious, what facts did your BILs dispute?

                          Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by Livin'2hunt View Post
                            No, both ex brothers-in-law believe I am an unevolved dolt. They both contend that to be dignified and refined, one must be a "compassionate" person (i.e. liberal/progressive). As for the idealistic echo chamber, I understand you and I don't know each other but I assure you, I can parse out all the bravo sierra and get straight down to facts.

                            Facts are not debatable. That was my point. Whether my B-I-Ls believe they are in the right matters not. I am talking about hardened facts that are irrefutable. That is what the erudite liberal will argue to their last breath. You can cite their favorite lecturer or author that refutes their claim but they still hold true.

                            We may have gotten in the weeds here but this isn't a matter of feelings or emotion. I was asking a clinical question about that "thing" that makes a logical mind scratch their head about liberal "reasoning".

                            Why don't you like the term liberal? The one that irks me is Progressive. Personally, I favor Socialist or Marxist. It is more apt.
                            Because it has been used over and over incorrectly. A liberal is someone who adheres to the idea of liberalism, i.e. democrats and republicans. Thats just my opinion on it, progressive is a much better term.

                            "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another."

                            Comment


                              #29
                              I don't believe it is a metal disorder or being misguided. I lean more towards indoctrination.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by texasnavy05 View Post
                                i guess i dont mind "liberal" i just think that it gets thrown around interchangeably with democrat.

                                just curious, what facts did your BILs dispute?

                                Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
                                As for the term "liberal", I actually respect those like Bernie Sanders who will stand on stage and proclaim their ideology for all to hear. I will nail a the liberal moniker to forehead of a Republican faster than I will a Democrat.

                                One example that erupted over dinner was while discussing the true reason for the U.S. Civil War. The engineer/lawyer became so enraged when I told him slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War, he stood up, threw his napkin on his plate and said, "I cannot believe I am dining with neanderthals. You can't be helped." Then, he stomped out. Prior to that, I was calm and tried to reason with him and cite every source I could recall. He wasn't having it.

                                There are many more instances such as:

                                -taxes
                                -single payer
                                -communism
                                -war

                                All caused heated disagreements. When we discussing taxes, the surgeon got booty hurt big time. He told me I was heartless because I didn't want to "pay my fair share". My thought was, whatever but he prodded. I asked him, "What percentage is my appropriate share." Of course, he would not commit so, right then, the debate was over but he continued to get more boisterous in trying to insult me. Finally, I asked him if he writes off ANYTHING on his taxes. He asked what I meant (stalling for time). I said, kid, house, car, maid, landscaper, nanny, etc.? He said "Yes, of course." I said, "You know, you are cheating someone on welfare out of THEIR fair share...." He became so aghast, he went in his room and pouted for two full days. We had all rented a house for a vacation. It turned out to be a nice trip.
                                Last edited by Livin'2hunt; 08-08-2017, 03:56 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X