Liberalism

[speed]

No, in fact the terms are, at least in literal meaning, opposites. "Conservative" means to conserve, or to retain a system or ideology (ie, dogma). "Liberal" means to not be limited to orthodox or these dogmas. This doesnt mean that they are mutually exclusive in application or totality. A person could adopt a conservative aproach to one issue (ex: land usage), while looking for alternative methods in others (technology, ethics, etc). It really comes down to context; anyone that conserves to conserve, or changes things for the sake of change is incredibly short sighted.

Lets not argue semantics again. But Justin S, conservatism in most forms today, is the classical liberalism of the past. For example, Barry Goldwater was a true classical liberal; the conservatives today have been a bit bastardized since.

 

[Justin S.]

^ What does "classic liberal" even mean? My point was that all these terms that are time specific are just convenient classification that are often misnomers or labels by opposing parties. The politics of "naming" is amazing. Rather than arguing with token and non-specific terms, its better to argue content. Define what you mean by a term and go from there, but dont simply continue to throw around the same words thinking everyone is in agreement on what they actually mean.

 

[speed]

I totally agree with you Justin on this post. But your previous post attempting to define words such as conservatism just made matters worse.

 

[speed]

Ok well lets start arguing.

I imagine GOD's stance on liberalism is that it has caused the downfall of culture and the environment. Strange thing is, I probably agree with him. My take on it all is:

Why did liberalaism cause such a downfall? Because liberalism mandated equality for all, regardless of intelligence, culture, race, etc. Every individual is thus entitled to a great many things. This new entitlement and thought we are all equal, has led to a sort of mass commercialization or bastardization of everything into very general terms. Hence everything is created for the masses, and thus is of low quality as it appeals to the lowest common denominator. And the worst thing of all is the liberal idea that somehow the poor and disadvantaged should receive special rights.

Of course the problem is, for most of us unless we became priests or monks, this transformation into a middle class culture of equality was a good thing, as our families were never rich nobles etc. The problem is how much further can this trend go on? Clearly in reality equality for all is a absolutely ridiculous notion. And if one is going to toe the equal rights line, special rights and opportunities for the poor granted by government is equally as ridiculous.

My two cents worth.

 

[Kenneth R.]

that is an extreme perspective, while i do see it. in principle it's supposed to be "everyone has an equal chance for success. its not supposed to garauntee support for everyone.

 

[no country for old wainds]

But that implies everyone has equal potential, which is just as ridiculous.

 

[ThePhilosopher]

While I agree with a lot of what Speed has said, I still don't see what's so bad about wanting to assist the less fortunate. Total equality isn't necessary, and the majority of people in poverty are not there by choice. Therefore, why is assisting the poor such a ridiculous idea? I'm quite sure that if you were in their situation, a bit of charity shown to you would raise your spirits, but I doubt you'd be given enough to become "equal" to someone more wealthy or fortunate.

 

[Kenneth R.]

great people are great people. anyone has this potential, not all realize it.

 

[no country for old wainds]

What do you base that on, though? A guy who's born with one leg doesn't have the potential to be the greatest 100m runner in history, to give a more blatant example. Similarly, a guy who's born with various limits mentally doesn't have the potential to acquire greatness in certain areas. Seems like logic to me.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i would agree with that, however, given a guy with 1 leg and a guy with 2 legs, what it really comes down to is willpower and drive to succeed. if the one legged guy works day and night and gets a mechanical leg, he may well be as good a runner as the 2 legged guy if he squanders his time

this is what i meant by equal potential. no matter the initial condition, the equalizer is our unique developing personalities and determination that ultimately determine how successful we will be.

 

[Demiurge]

That's not equal potential. The possibility that a person can fail to reach his innate maximum potential does nothing to defeat the basic concept that people are constrained by what they've got to work with.

There's more to it than "drive to succeed." One needs to tools to be able to do so effectively. Jeez, it's like people have taken to heart when their mothers told them "you can be anything you want to be if you try hard enough." Final verdict: false!

 

[Kenneth R.]

That's not equal potential. The possibility that a person can fail to reach his innate maximum potential does nothing to defeat the basic concept that people are constrained by what they've got to work with.

There's more to it than "drive to succeed." One needs to tools to be able to do so effectively. Jeez, it's like people have taken to heart when their mothers told them "you can be anything you want to be if you try hard enough." Final verdict: false!

its extremely cliche but it's true. you just can't accept it?

 

[Demiurge]

its extremely cliche but it's true. you just can't accept it?

Not only is it not true, it's impossible to make an argument in favor of it, yet elementary to make one against it. I would go so far as to say that no one who ponders the matter honestly actually believes this sayingto be true. Depending on what goal one sets his sights on, even more than cultivated innate potential(at a high degree) is required, a felicitous convergence of external circumstances also might very well be needed. The only thing that this pseudo-maxim has going for it is that it makes people feel better about themselves through refusal to acknowledge reality.

 

[Kenneth R.]

it is that refusal to accept the current state of things that we call progress. or are you suggesting that's counterproductive as well? don't pull out a thesaurus this time to make your words sound smarter than the argument they're making.

 

[Demiurge]

If comprehending my posts requires better reading comprehension than you possess, try a dictionary.

Frankly, it's clear to me that you're terribly confused. I'm not discussing libralism in general, the origins of its values, the status quo, or anything so overreaching right now. When I feel like doing so, I will. As of now, I am disagreeing with your apparent assertion that effort is the great equalizer. On the contrary, effort allows one to realize his innate potential, but it cannot alter the potentiality itself. Try as you might, you can be constrained as such that you cannot achieve a goal. Additionally, many accomplishments require more than cultivated potentiality, the aid of external circumstances also must be on one's side. "Drive to succeed" is without a doubt important, but by no means is it all. It's also not true that you can be anything you want to be if you try hard enough. Your most recent post appears to have little to do with anything I've said.

 

[Kenneth R.]

its clear to me that you try to increase your "intellect" with verbose words that do little to strengthen your quip points.

i am not terribly confused, you are mistaken (and thus likely confused).

my last post has quite a lot to do with what you said, if comprehending my posts requires better reading comprehension than you possess, try common sense.

you're saying that people are born with limits and they will never exceed them. i say limits are not absolute and effort is a tool to affect them. therefore people are not subject to being judged by their peers as inherently inferior or superior. that concept is ludicrous.

 

[Demiurge]

its clear to me that you try to increase your "intellect" with verbose words that do little to strengthen your quip points.

Nope, I am not monosyllabic this shines through in most verbal exchanges. This offends you because you are anti-intellectual. This is borne out of your own insecurity. Ah, what fun to speculate on the motivations of other posters!

i am not terribly confused, you are mistaken (and thus likely confused).

my last post has quite a lot to do with what you said, if comprehending my posts requires better reading comprehension than you possess, try common sense.

What progress? Is what counterproductive--progress? My sometimes ornate language manages to be far easier to comprehend than your cryptic message.

you're saying that people are born with limits and they will never exceed them. i say limits are not absolute and effort is a tool to affect them. therefore people are not subject to being judged by their peers as inherently inferior or superior. that concept is ludicrous.

Let me provide you an obvious example of limitations thrust upon people which cannot be altered(exceeded). A retard cannot become an astrophysicist, regardless of how hard he tries. He has difficulty with arithmetic, nevermind concepts of higher mathematics. Clearly, factors are involved in addition to sheer willpower, or would you say the retard merely needs to try harder? This is a simple demonstration of a basic truth. It shows that you cannot be anything you want to be(or do anything you want to do) simply by trying your darndest. You are constrained by your attributes and the world you live in.

What the hell is the matter with this board? My replies don't go through on my first attempt and I need to just keep trying until they do. It's irritating.

 

[Kenneth R.]

its your "ornate" langauge that i'm ridiculing. granted, i should avoid insults, but i'm having a difficult time with it given how you twist every word i say. this, despite how simplistic and direct my words are, because unlike you, i believe in saying things as i would SAY them, as i think them, and not flower the shit out of them until they sound twice as smart as they actually are. you can use as many big words as you want, but if you have nothing to say, you have nothing to say.

/end rant.


i said those who do not accept the current status of their surroundings seek to change it and that is what we call progress. it is not necessary to "accept reality" and "accept a station in life because you cannot achieve more". that is lunacy and counterproductive. do i need to spell it out for you or look up bigger words?

let me provide you the limitation of your example. perhaps there is a study in astrophysics that the retarded person can grasp in a globally simplistic manner, and deep thinking "intellectuals" just don't see.

the point is, you can't prove anything against what i'm saying, and there is no way for me to prove it either.

if you feel constrained by the attributes of your birth and the world you live in, i pity you.

 

[Justin S.]

Demiurge, while I agree with you on the point of potential and its limitations, your posts can come off as very pretentious and hostile. Neither I, nor Kenneth have a problem with words longer than "x" length... thats silly. The issue is the tone and density of words for a concept that is just not that complex. You could express your ideas much more clearly and effectively; communication is the reason you are here, yes? We see that you have intellegent ideas, no need to impress with prose.

-Kenneth, surely you dont believe something that far removed from reality. I understand the importance of personal motivation and effort, but you must acknowledge different apptitudes, and how in reality (not abstraction land) these make all the difference in the world.
Youre entire argument steams from your religious belief that there are metaphysical properties to man (soul, etc) that can compensate or trump physiology. Proven science destroys this; if i stimulate or remove sections of ones brain i can achieve certain, irreversible effects. For example, If i remove the section that handles "mathematics", you WILL NOT be able to compute and rationalize symbols- how can you refute this? Similar is brain development; if certain parts arent there due to an infintie amount of variables, the parts arent there.

 

[Demiurge]

My friend, get serious. What do you think--a retard will look up at the sky and recognize a pattern no one else has because he's dumber than most others? We already know he's not going to be able to do the numbers crunching required by physics. It's absurd.

There are a million other examples. You want to be an NBA center, your adult height is 5' 7''. You want to be US president, you immigrated to the country at the age of 26. You have an accent and were not born in the country. You want to be a mathematics professor at Harvard, your IQ is 53. You want to set the alltime record in the 40 yard dash, you've suffered an injury which taken away your ability to walk. Everyone is constrained, everyone is limited. It's life, you were thrown into a world you did on create with certain attributes at your disposal. You can shape your life and your world to an extent, but you have complete control over neither.