View Full Version : Food for thought, as re: Liberalism in America
I found this column of Joseph Sobran's an apt summation and critique of the continuing Liberal exemplar-Michael Kinsley is a very highly-regarded strategist/pundit/spokesman for liberal ideas and ideals here in America, but in a piece quoted (and parsed) here by Mr. Sobran, he suffers what must be considered (especially for him) an egregious lapse of logic.
I do not offer this in order to confront Liberals, but in a sincere (at least, as sincerely as my fellow members perceive me to be, when discussing liberals and their statements :D ) effort to assay whether I can secure agreement from their quarter about the flaws in Kinsley's statement, at least as far as Mr. Sobran has pointed out?
I'm interested in what y'all think...
More Progress, Anyone?
December 14, 2004
My favorite liberal writer, Michael Kinsley, has made another of the witty arguments that always make me look forward to his columns. Only this time I don’t think his reasoning leads us where he wants it to. He has unwittingly exposed liberalism’s mortal weakness.
Kinsley recalls that in 1989, The New Republic, of which he was then editor, ran a cover article titled “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage,” by Andrew Sullivan. [Andrew Sullivan’s article can be read at www.andrewsullivan.com/homosexuality.php under the title “Here Comes the Groom.” — website ed.] It was intended less as a serious proposal than as a “thought experiment” to provoke reflection. “Gay marriage itself,” says Kinsley, “seemed so far-out and unlikely to happen that whether you were actually for it was beside the point.”
Since then, however, “gay marriage” has become a serious possibility. “Take a moment to consider how amazing this is,” Kinsley writes. “Just 15 years after that New Republic essay, marriage is the defining goal of the gay rights movement.... Gay marriage is on the verge of joining abortion rights on the very short list of litmus tests that any Democratic candidate for national office must support.” And today, “even the most homophobic religious-right demagogue feels obliged to spout — and may well actually believe — bromides about God’s love of gay people.”
Furthermore, “Today’s near-universal and minimally respectable attitude — the rock-bottom, nonnegotiable price of admission to polite society and the political debate — is an acceptance of gay people and of open, unapologetic homosexuality as part of American life that would have shocked, if not offended, great liberals of a few decades ago such as Hubert Humphrey....
“This development is not just amazing, it is inspiring.... It took African American civil rights a century and feminism a half-century to travel the distance gay rights have moved in a decade and a half.”
Then the kicker: “This is also scary, of course, because there is no reason to think that gay rights are the end of the line. And it’s even scarier because these are all revolutions of perception as well as politics. This means that all of us who consider ourselves good-hearted, well-meaning, empathetic Americans — but don’t claim to be great visionaries — are probably staring right now at an injustice that will soon seem obvious — and we just don’t see it. Somewhere in this country a gay black woman, grateful beneficiary of past and present perceptual transformations, has said something today in all innocence that will strike her just a few years from now as unbelievably callous, cruel, and wrong.”
Wow! It’s one thing to celebrate the familiar liberal fads of the past and present, which we can evaluate separately on their merits. It’s another thing to prostrate ourselves before the liberal fads of the future, before we even know what they are. Yet this is just what Kinsley is urging on us. He’s not appealing to any stable standard of right and wrong, just to unspecified “revolutions of perception” and “perceptual transformations.”
And what will these be? That’s anyone’s guess. A less fancy name for them is “political correctness,” the wind whereof bloweth where it listeth, but always in the general direction of more sexual license backed by a more powerful secularist state.
These “revolutions of perception” will seem a lot less random, mysterious, and unpredictable to Christians than they will to liberals like Kinsley, who assumes they are predestined. They’ll surely include, for example, more tolerance for pedophiles. (Why shouldn’t they enjoy the same rights as the rest of us? Iron logic.) And most of these revelations won’t be legislated; they’ll be brought down from Sinai by the judiciary.
Kinsley is offering a sort of mystical liberalism that he thinks transcends politics, when it actually depends on the kind of arbitrary power the courts have been allowed to exercise for nearly three generations. There are signs that this is finally changing, and that liberals won’t be able to enjoy that kind and degree of rule by judicial fiat much longer.
Liberalism’s fatal flaw, as Kinsley’s argument shows, is that it has no permanent norms, only a succession of enthusiasms espoused by minor prophets. Each of these seems like a hot new idea to liberals, but soon goes to irksome and destructive extremes.
Liberalism has no vision of a final, settled social order; it’s always waiting for the next “revolution of perception” to overturn everything. What’s “progressive” today may be embarrassingly “reactionary” tomorrow. Kinsley may find this kaleidoscopic idea of endless and indefinable progress inspiring; the rest of us may find it merely exhausting.
Joseph Sobran
Biggles
12-30-2004, 01:16 AM
Was not something similar espoused by Mr Rumsfeld?
"We know somethings we know we don't know but there are other things that we don't know we don't know" etc., etc., (in best Yule Bryner fashion).
I too find overly enthusiastic poltical correctness tiresome and humourless. Nevertheless, societal norms do change and where once one would have barely turned a hair to, for example, a word like nigger, if used now it creates one of those "hear a pin drop" moments that lets the speaker know he/she has just committed a major faux pax.
There is a sensation that this continual change is like a fairground ride we would like to get off. Although change is constantly pushed as a workplace norm, healthy and all that, I recently discussed the matter with an extremely earnest and eager type (military of course :dry: ) and pointed out that change by definition implies variability - our change is invariably bad. I am, however, neatly pigeon-holed as cranky so we all rub along ok.
However, Romans wrote complaining about the very selfsame thing. There has never been a time when things stood still. That, I believe if you will, is the inherent weakness of conservatism - it has never really existed. :) It is, rather, merely an imaginery brake to try and slow the other stuff down and retain some sort of order - especially for those with a vested interest in the status quo. However, it is remarkable how those vested interests jump ship when the time is right and re-invent themselves in whatever the new is.
Ooooooooh.
That last paragraph is especially provocative (wasn't it? :P ), but nevermind that, for now.
How do you feel about the judicial activism, Big Les?
Do you believe we should always (and blindly) defer to "experts" and "elites", or should the common man have his plebiscite, as was originally intended (indeed, guaranteed) in our Constitution?
Rat Faced
12-30-2004, 10:12 AM
The thing about the constitution is that it is ammended as and when Washington wish it to be. Unless your willing to get rid of all the ammendments, then you dont have anything that was "as intended to be"... :rolleyes:
Wow, such deep, dense writing Joseph Sobran. :ohmy: The words of a true pseudo-intellectual. Heavy use of big words and dense writing that makes no sense. Nice. :frusty: Though I have heard/read worse. :unsure:
clocker
12-30-2004, 11:51 AM
Liberalism’s fatal flaw, as Kinsley’s argument shows, is that it has no permanent norms, only a succession of enthusiasms espoused by minor prophets. Each of these seems like a hot new idea to liberals, but soon goes to irksome and destructive extremes.
And why could this statement not apply equally as well to the current crop of "conservative" Republicans?
I'm sure that Bush's approach to the budget and finance would mystify many of his (presumed) ideological predecessors.
Biggles
12-30-2004, 01:13 PM
Ooooooooh.
That last paragraph is especially provocative (wasn't it? :P ), but nevermind that, for now.
How do you feel about the judicial activism, Big Les?
Do you believe we should always (and blindly) defer to "experts" and "elites", or should the common man have his plebiscite, as was originally intended (indeed, guaranteed) in our Constitution?
:lol:
I thought I would throw a stone at the hive to see what was buzzing.
I am not entirely sure I fully understand the role of the US judiciary. It appears, on face value at least, to be more politicised than the European model. However, it would be fair to say that some of our judges are so detached from politics, current affairs, or even reality, as to be virtually alien. (In some cases this may be an advantage though :blink:)
J'Pol seems to have better grip on the legal side of things and no doubt he may mention in passing if I am wrong :) but I don't think our judiciary participate in the same kind of activism as described in the piece. I am undecided whether this is good or bad - although on the whole I think it is probably good.
A government then, '...of the Courts, by the Courts, and for the Courts...'?
Arm-have you anything to contribute?
OMFG-who am I kidding? :ohmy:
Can't believe I actually asked that question....hmmmm-the EDIT function seems to be on the fritz.....oh, well. :P
And why could this statement not apply equally as well to the current crop of "conservative" Republicans?
I'm sure that Bush's approach to the budget and finance would mystify many of his (presumed) ideological predecessors.
I don't think the supposition was meant to apply to any economic aspect, but you could ask Mr. Sobran himself, as his website is awfully accomodating that way. ;)
vidcc
12-31-2004, 05:30 PM
finally got a chance to read this.
Oh hum
He has unwittingly exposed liberalism’s mortal weakness.
yawn
Liberalism’s fatal flaw, as Kinsley’s argument shows, is that it has no permanent norms, only a succession of enthusiasms espoused by minor prophets. Each of these seems like a hot new idea to liberals, but soon goes to irksome and destructive extremes.
take out the example clocker used so as to not give you a specific and it is true that this could just as well fit any conservative mindset
Liberalism has no vision of a final, settled social order; it’s always waiting for the next “revolution of perception” to overturn everything. What’s “progressive” today may be embarrassingly “reactionary” tomorrow. Kinsley may find this kaleidoscopic idea of endless and indefinable progress inspiring; the rest of us may find it merely exhausting.
i don't want a "final settled social order"....surely that would mean the end of progress....or is that just what conservatives want?
These “revolutions of perception” will seem a lot less random, mysterious, and unpredictable to Christians than they will to liberals like Kinsley, who assumes they are predestined. They’ll surely include, for example, more tolerance for pedophiles. (Why shouldn’t they enjoy the same rights as the rest of us? Iron logic.) And most of these revelations won’t be legislated; they’ll be brought down from Sinai by the judiciary.
just this part where the usual tactic (yawn) of lumping homosexuals with pedophiles as a demonising scare tactic makes me wonder if mr sobran is worthy of any consideration as a rational thinker.
Liberals are not after equal rights for pedophiles, no matter how hard it has been suggested they will be.
To the general subject of the article...homosexual equal rights will happen....just as freedom from slavery and womens rights happened. this will not go away. Justice may be slow coming but no amount of conservative prejudice can prevent it.
Rat Faced
12-31-2004, 05:43 PM
Liberalism has no vision of a final, settled social order; it’s always waiting for the next “revolution of perception” to overturn everything.
Ah, so you'd rather still live in a cave?
Society evolves.. you cannot just sit still and hope it doesnt or, like the Neanderthal, you'll die out.
Thankyou j2K4, for showing us that Liberalism is the "Fittest" way to survive in an ever changing world....
vidcc
12-31-2004, 09:32 PM
Society evolves.. you cannot just sit still and hope it doesnt or, like the Neanderthal, you'll die out.
..
Problem is Rat that some are trying their upmost to not only make sure there is no progress, but are actively working to reverse evolution.. :(
hobbes
12-31-2004, 10:16 PM
I see nothing wrong with society becoming aware that "liberty and justice for all" really does apply to EVERYONE. That is the common logic which runs through the changes in society described above.
The "pedophile" comment shows the breakdown of the authors logic.
J2, do you need me to explain why giving rights to pedophiles is not a logical progression of our changing society?
I think it is fine for judges to decide if a law is fair or if an individuals rights are being violated. That is what they are supposed to be good at, right?
Religious people want to oppose gay marraiges because of their beliefs. In a free society, they should not be allowed to impose their opinion upon others because God does not run our government. A Judge is not there to give an opinion about whether he approves of being gay or not, he is there to determine if the laws we have are fair. That is the problem with letting the common man decide things like this. The common man is not "fair". He doesn't care about "right or wrong", he just echoes what is in his Bible. We are a country founded upon freedom of the individual and we are not a theocracy.
When I was a wee lad, my parents never thought to put me in a seatbelt. In fact, I liked to sit on that little armrest that Oldsmobile98's had in the middle of the backseat. Today, I always wear my seatbelt, as everyone else now does as well.
Is this random societal change? No, we are just more aware today of how dangerous it can be not to wear one.
Awareness- Society, like a waking giant, rouses in stages.
I see nothing wrong with society becoming aware that "liberty and justice for all" really does apply to EVERYONE. That is the common logic which runs through the changes in society described above.
That is not Sobran's point; no thinking person would place himself athwart an argument (which is not an "argument" after all, but the goal) against "liberty and justice for all".
Sobran is merely assaying the degree to which we have succumbed to the elitest view that "experts" in black robes should determine what is good for us absent our input, but nominally guided and informed by a blindly liberal agenda.
For God's sake, you people act as if judicial activism is akin to standing at the airport baggage carousel, only you have to take whatever variety of luggage comes by.
The whole point of the Constitution and it's amendment process is to allow the people-not the judiciary-to set the socio/cultural agenda; the judiciary then decides whether the people's fiat passes constitutional muster.
The "pedophile" comment shows the breakdown of the authors logic.
J2, do you need me to explain why giving rights to pedophiles is not a logical progression of our changing society?
No.
Please parse for me the Court's logic, not in deciding Roe v. Wade as it did, but in taking up the case to begin with, over concerns (rejected out of hand) for State's Rights?
Also the Gay Marriage case, as decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Court?
While you're at it, tell me precisely how any court could manage to reject a pedophile's plea for equality, if the people have no entree to the process?
I think it is fine for judges to decide if a law is fair or if an individuals rights are being violated. That is what they are supposed to be good at, right?
I, too, think that is fine, but then, that is not what is actually happening, is it?
Religious people want to oppose gay marraiges because of their beliefs. In a free society, they should not be allowed to impose their opinion upon others because God does not run our government. A Judge is not there to give an opinion about whether he approves of being gay or not, he is there to determine if the laws we have are fair. That is the problem with letting the common man decide things like this. The common man is not "fair". He doesn't care about "right or wrong", he just echoes what is in his Bible. We are a country founded upon freedom of the individual and we are not a theocracy.
Again, what you describe is not what is happening.
And such contempt for the "common man"!
Freedom of the individual?
Surely...but what is this country but a collection of individual and common men and women?
The collective "common man" is scrupulously fair, Hobbes.
When I was a wee lad, my parents never thought to put me in a seatbelt. In fact, I liked to sit on that little armrest that Oldsmobile98's had in the middle of the backseat. Today, I always wear my seatbelt, as everyone else now does as well.
Is this random societal change? No, we are just more aware today of how dangerous it can be not to wear one.
Awareness- Society, like a waking giant, rouses in stages.
Pffffffffft*
*Not sure about the spelling...
hobbes
01-01-2005, 03:35 PM
Liberalism’s fatal flaw, as Kinsley’s argument shows, is that it has no permanent norms, only a succession of enthusiasms espoused by minor prophets. Each of these seems like a hot new idea to liberals, but soon goes to irksome and destructive extremes.
Liberalism has no vision of a final, settled social order; it’s always waiting for the next “revolution of perception” to overturn everything. What’s “progressive” today may be embarrassingly “reactionary” tomorrow. Kinsley may find this kaleidoscopic idea of endless and indefinable progress inspiring; the rest of us may find it merely exhausting.
Joseph Sobran
The author concludes that liberalism has no point, that it is arbitrary. The changes liberals will demand in the future are things we may now think are quite proper.
I find this completely absurd.
Giving equal rights to blacks and women and allowing gays to have equal marital unions is a recognition that "land of the free" is a meaningless slogan if certain groups of people are in chains (literally in some cases).
I think that if one were to contemplate "freedom" one could readily predict each of these changes. It is not arbitrary, it comes as no surprise and it is definitely not a FAD.
Just sit down and think about what is "fair to all". Sometimes, as certain issues are not things we think about in our daily lives, a new issue is brought to our attention and we see that some people are still getting the shaft.
Is it fair that 2 same sex people cannot get a legal union equal to a traditional marraige? I look at the Constitution and see that all men are equal and are free to chose their path to happiness as they see fit. There is nothing "wrong" with what they are doing at all, as defined by our national charter.
A pedophile is, of course, violating the rights of others to seek his pleasure, which is strictly forbidden.
So in conclusion, liberalism HAS a point, the assurance that all men are treated equally and there is nothing random about societal change in attempting to achieve this goal.
...liberalism HAS a point, the assurance that all men are treated equally and there is nothing random about societal change in attempting to achieve this goal.
Do you posit that conservatism does not aspire to "equality"? :huh:
BTW-societal change, as fomented by the elite liberals you seem so enamored of, is nothing if not scatter-shot and, yes, random.
hobbes
01-01-2005, 04:53 PM
Do you posit that conservatism does not aspire to "equality"? :huh:
BTW-societal change, as fomented by the elite liberals you seem so enamored of, is nothing if not scatter-shot and, yes, random.
I explained what liberalism means to me and why i feel that it is neither pointless nor random.
I couldn't even name an "elite liberal" as I don't do politics. I think for myself and I speak for myself.
The spirit of Liberal thought is to seek change to promote equality.
Conservatism is to keep the "status quo".
In a society that oppresses some while touting freedom for all, I certainly can't support the "status quo".
vidcc
01-01-2005, 05:07 PM
J2 you say that judges are not interpreting the law properly, However i do. They are saying that just because one may find a certain lifestyle distasteful that is no reason to deny them equality that is rightfully theirs as set out in the constitution.
What is happening is that they are not bowing down to the pressure of intollerant discrimination.....the constitution doesn't define marriage as just between man and woman...so the rulings of the court are correct. You don't have to like it, however it is still correct. If it was incorrect why would we need to add an amendment to change it?
If you wish to live in the land of the free, make sure it is free....
Who knows, someday you may find that a right wing extremist is trying to deny YOU freedom..... If that day comes i hope you stand next to the "liberal" that is fighting to stop him
I explained what liberalism means to me and why i feel that it is neither pointless nor random.
Then I propose you do something about those whose understanding of Liberalism is so at odds with your own.
I couldn't even name an "elite liberal" as I don't do politics. I think for myself and I speak for myself.
Michael Kinsley comes to mind...
The spirit of Liberal thought is to seek change to promote equality.
Conservatism is to keep the "status quo".
The first is merely a point of methodology-a conservative would create conditions by means other than judicial fiat in order to create an undeniable brand of equality; liberals believe it can be legislated.
As to your last, Conservatism's motto is more aptly if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
Elite liberals such as Kinsley believe in applying new paint to old, sub-standard surfaces, and ignoring the infrastructure altogether.
In a society that oppresses some while touting freedom for all, I certainly can't support the "status quo".
Well, that's fine, then; when would you like to schedule the referendum?
Do your duty as a liberal, and tell the courts to feck off.
vidcc
01-01-2005, 05:14 PM
liberals believe it can be legislated.
It isn't being legislated into law, The law is already there, they go to court when a law is broken
As to your last, Conservatism's motto is more aptly if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
But if equality is being denied then doesn't that mean it IS broken?
J2 you say that judges are not interpreting the law properly, However i do. They are saying that just because one may find a certain lifestyle distasteful that is no reason to deny them equality that is rightfully theirs as set out in the constitution.
What is happening is that they are not bowing down to the pressure of intollerant discrimination.....the constitution doesn't define marriage as just between man and woman...so the rulings of the court are correct. You don't have to like it, however it is still correct. If it was incorrect why would we need to add an amendment to change it?
If you wish to live in the land of the free, make sure it is free....
Who knows, someday you may find that a right wing extremist is trying to deny YOU freedom..... If that day comes i hope you stand next to the "liberal" that is fighting to stop him
A liberal, fighting?
What a novel thought...
I was under the impression all they could do is march, or carry signs, or some such.
Your garden-variety liberal hasn't a clue about fighting unless he/she is directed (with very precise instruction) by a professional protest organization, such as MoveOn.org, and even then, said liberal "fighter" doesn't know what he's protesting unless he's told.
Hobbes-
While we are not finding common ground on this subject, I respect (as you well know) that you do your own thinking, and, in any case, do not lump you together with liberals of the knee-jerk stripe, like vidcc. :D
It isn't being legislated into law, The law is already there, they go to court when a law is broken
But if equality is being denied then doesn't that mean it IS broken?
It is apparent many who are in the business of determining what does or does not constitute equality have no qualification for that particular activity.
Quickly, vid:
Construct for me a rationale by which pedophiles can plausibly be denied "equality".
hobbes
01-01-2005, 05:28 PM
The courts are there to interpret our laws.
As an example:
Lots of people don't like blacks, but the courts went against popular sentiment to attempt to legislate that they are treated equally. We all know that laws don't change racism and blacks are still not equal, but the courts did what they were supposed to do.
We don't need people with pitchforks and torches deciding that "freedom" is a white mans priviledge. We need a place where people can step out of their skins, to look at the law and determine what IS right or fair, and ignore their personal feelings on the matter.
When people are oppressed or denied rights, explain to me how then things are not broken.
hobbes
01-01-2005, 05:31 PM
It is apparent many who are in the business of determining what does or does not constitute equality have no qualification for that particular activity.
Quickly, vid:
Construct for me a rationale by which pedophiles can plausibly be denied "equality".
Equality in what way? What does that even mean?
Do you mean the right to molest children?
Firstly, that is involving a minor AND a non-consenting or understanding individual.
This is, of course, illegal.
vidcc
01-01-2005, 05:36 PM
A liberal, fighting?
What a novel thought...
I was under the impression all they could do is march, or carry signs, or some such.
Your garden-variety liberal hasn't a clue about fighting unless he/she is directed (with very precise instruction) by a professional protest organization, such as MoveOn.org, and even then, said liberal "fighter" doesn't know what he's protesting unless he's told.
Yawn..... not worthy of any other comment
It is apparent many who are in the business of determining what does or does not constitute equality have no qualification for that particular activity.
oh so unless one is the "common man" one isn't qualified? or do you mean that only those that make rulings by popular conservative ideals instead of the actual word of the law as it exists are qualified?
Quickly, vid:
Construct for me a rationale by which pedophiles can plausibly be denied "equality".
Firstly tell me what liberal is fighting or wishes to fight to make pedophilia legal. this is a tiresome tactic used by "conservatives", it is not a liberal goal... no matter how many times you try to suggest it is
secondly hobbes already pointed out why it wouldn't happen.
A pedophile is, of course, violating the rights of others to seek his pleasure, which is strictly forbidden. why would i need to expand on that...it's very clear
hobbes
01-01-2005, 05:57 PM
I think we need to clarify "liberalism".
I personally don't like the label. I like to judge the merits of a situation and make an individual choice.
I tend to agree with "liberal thought" when it is about something logical.
Group A is denied the same rights as Group B, but both are supposed to have the same rights as dictated by law.
Well, I go with the liberal ideal that the playing field should be leveled, something is broken.
I tend to migrate back to more Conservative thinking when we get into "Carebear" issues.
These are not really arguments in logic, but more personal preferences about how things "ought to be".
At one time I described the mock birthday spanking we got in grade school. One member said that they would sue the school board for laying hands on her child and perhaps causing emotional harm because there was abuse at home.
In this instance, my reaction is to say, "step back", we can't micromanage people's lives. We can't live in fear of possible offense. The case in point was done in "good fun" and was play spanking, just like the roadrunner and coyote are "play". Kids know the difference between attempting to injure and being playful.
I really get irritated when people try to micromanage everything to protect kids from reality. Life is hard. Sometimes you just have to say "Suck it up, Sally". I have a fondness for the expression, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps"
So I see myself more as logical liberal, but a conservative when it comes to carebear issues.
The courts are there to interpret our laws.
As an example:
Lots of people don't like blacks, but the courts went against popular sentiment to attempt to legislate that they are treated equally. We all know that laws don't change racism and blacks are still not equal, but the courts did what they were supposed to do.
If racism still exists (no argument there) and blacks are still not equal, then precisely what good has all of this hand-wringing accomplished?
The courts properly "deleted" any constitutional/legal language stipulating that blacks were anything other than equal to, or undifferentiated from, whites.
Subsequent "social codes" (quotas, etc.) are of questionable worth, but boy, they sure make the libs feel good, which is important, I guess.
We don't need people with pitchforks and torches deciding that "freedom" is a white mans priviledge. We need a place where people can step out of their skins, to look at the law and determine what IS right or fair, and ignore their personal feelings on the matter.
I haven't seen a crowd wielding pitchforks or torches since my last Frankenstein movie, and I think you do your felow citizens a slur by referring to them as such, and the courts are not where the people go to step "out of their skins" in order to chart the course of the society they would choose, rather it is the polling place.
Hear this:
The courts are not empowered to MAKE law, merely to determine the propriety of such laws as the people and/or their representatives make.
THAT is what the constitution says.
When people are oppressed or denied rights, explain to me how then things are not broken.
The rights being well-and-truly denied are those abrogated by the courts.
Firstly tell me what liberal is fighting or wishes to fight to make pedophilia legal. this is a tiresome tactic used by "conservatives", it is not a liberal goal... no matter how many times you try to suggest it is
Last I looked, the ACLU (who is doing a whole LOT of the trench-work for NAMBLA) was viewed as an integral tool in the liberal fight for expanded "rights".
I believe you regard the ACLU as somewhat beyond reproach?
In any case, I was serious:
Tell me why YOU think pedophiles should be denied equality.
Call it an exercise.
I must adjourn for the nonce; I am informed a Chinese cook wishes to titilate my palate with some savory recipes.
vidcc
01-01-2005, 06:25 PM
The rights being well-and-truly denied are those abrogated by the courts.
Who are you refering to?
Hear this:
The courts are not empowered to MAKE law, merely to determine the propriety of such laws as the people and/or their representatives make.
THAT is what the constitution says.
And that is just what they are doing....you just don't like it so you think they are not.
In the case of gay marriage they made the ruling because the constitution doesn't stipulate marriage as between just men and women.
if the biggots get their way and amend it so that it does stipulate it then the courts will rule thusly
hobbes
01-01-2005, 06:29 PM
The rights being well-and-truly denied are those abrogated by the courts.
If racism still exists (no argument there) and blacks are still not equal, then precisely what good has all of this hand-wringing accomplished?
Are you saying that this should not have been done? And using the term "hand wringing" as if racial equality is a trivial matter ruminated over by tittering old ladies. Please use logic, not tactics.
It has done a hell of a lot of good, but that is not important. What is important is that it was the RIGHT thing to do.
My point was that the courts should do what is right, not what is popular. Just because you make a ruling does not mean that people are going to like black people. Like a said before, society is a rousing giant which wakes in stages.
Certainly, huge strides have been made, but that is not really the point.
Did you know that at one point "blacks" were not considered humans. They were felt to be more akin to animals than man. It is amazing what people can believe when they are ignorant.
What law did they make that you think is "wrong". If it is "wrong", why is it wrong?
vidcc
01-01-2005, 06:53 PM
Last I looked, the ACLU (who is doing a whole LOT of the trench-work for NAMBLA) was viewed as an integral tool in the liberal fight for expanded "rights".
first i have heard of this
I believe you regard the ACLU as somewhat beyond reproach?
again "yawn".......... you believe incorrectly
In any case, I was serious:
Tell me why YOU think pedophiles should be denied equality.
Call it an exercise.
Because it is non consentual involving minors...not consenting adults....tell me what equality they could be equal to?
To allow pedophilia would be to allow preferential treatment...not equality.
You are purely trying to connect a case for pedophiles to liberal ideals because of your propoganda led opionion of what a liberal is. And a liberal is not the devil worshipping or immoral person you suggest he is
Also remeber that it is you that has decided i am liberal, personally that doesn't bother me one bit, by your standards i may well be..however i am a free thinker...just as every other "liberal" or even "conservative" is.. If you put 2 "liberals" in a room i doubt they would agree on everything...just so with 2 "conservatives"
Rat Faced
01-01-2005, 08:01 PM
What do you mean by Liberals dont fight for what they believe in J2?
I seem to remember certain things happening in the 60's, 70's etc that were far from peaceful... hell even last year and the year before, how many demonstrators were arrested by the FBI for objecting to a war?
But even a peaceful march is standing up for what you believe in.
I think they do exactly the same things as the "Conservative" protesters.. I may be wrong, as those ones do tend to be more violent. However as you pointed out earlier, they are less evolved... :rolleyes:
clocker
01-02-2005, 07:25 PM
Please parse for me the Court's logic, not in deciding Roe v. Wade as it did, but in taking up the case to begin with, over concerns (rejected out of hand) for State's Rights?
j2,
Why is it that your outrage over Roe v. Wade ( a decision that you bring up repeatedly as an example of the Supremes overstepping their bounds and thus trampling "State's Rights") does not bleed over into the Court stepping in and deciding the 2000 Presidential election?
Were State's rights not also in play there?
Furthermore, you appear guilty of using the same overlarge brush to tar "Liberals" that you accuse your adversaries of using to deface "conservatives". The ACLU+pedophiles+liberals is hardly a match made as commonly as you would indicate.
From personal acquaintence with active ACLU members (employees, actually), they try to be as objective and dispassionate in pursuit of their goals as a good conservative could hope for.
Unfortunately, "good conservatives" are a trifle thin on the ground these days, the term having been hijacked by religious fundamentalists and political reactionaries, IMO.
vidcc
01-02-2005, 09:51 PM
Unfortunately, "good conservatives" are a trifle thin on the ground these days, the term having been hijacked by religious fundamentalists and political reactionaries, IMO.
This is my opinion as well, however i have refrained from stating it as i feel the "tarring with the same oversized brush" has been already overused by "conservatives" when they make their "the problem with liberals" arguements.
The original article in this thread made a seperation between liberals and christians...as if a christian cannot be a liberal
The terms "liberal" and "conservative" used today are very often at odds with the definition.
It kind of reminds me of the use of the word pizza to describe those things dominos make...... far from the true version of a real pizza
hobbes
01-02-2005, 10:55 PM
The original article suggested that liberalism was both pointless and arbitrary.
I have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is about the belief in true freedom and that it's goals are quite logical.
I have shown that the Constitution has no conflict with homosexual union and that the concept that Pedophiles would be protected is a totally incorrect.
No human that abuses another has any "rights".
People don't seem to understand that it is not freedom "as Christians see it", but real freedom.
My questions is this:
Was the author of the article so stupid as to think that pedophiles would be granted the freedom to abuse children, or knowledgable of his own logical flaw, but not caring, simply to carry forth his religious agenda.
So many ****ing liars for the cause, they should be shot. :angry:
I agree that people should be free, just not those fags. :dry:
The original article suggested that liberalism was both pointless and arbitrary.
I have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is about the belief in true freedom and that it's goals are quite logical.
Proven?
I beg to differ-it may be, in one of it's incarnations, just as you say; it does, however (and this, too, beyond that selfsame "shadow of doubt") find itself-due to it's overweening obsequiousness to minorities of any race/creed/behavior/sexual preference or peccadilloe-at odds with the core principles of the Constitution.
I have shown that the Constitution has no conflict with homosexual union and that the concept that Pedophiles would be protected is a totally
incorrect.
No you haven't; the Constitution doesn't mention what the Founders would have no doubt referred to as aberrant behavior, but, in any case, let us remain "in the daylight", so to speak, and forego any discussion of aberrance, rather, and better, to forego any argument that the omission of any such reference can be parlayed into "no conflict".
Plainly put, the issue is not addressed, and cannot therefore be pronounced upon "constitutionally".
No human that abuses another has any "rights".
People don't seem to understand that it is not freedom "as Christians see it", but real freedom.
My questions is this:
Was the author of the article so stupid as to think that pedophiles would be granted the freedom to abuse children, or knowledgable of his own logical flaw, but not caring, simply to carry forth his religious agenda.
No, I believe he is curious, as am I (and so should you be), as to why and how such as NAMBLA (with the aid of the ACLU) can even be allowed their "day in court" without being done the courtesy of being informed, in no uncertain terms, by all sides, that they are pissing into the wind, and to go home?
The liberals could accomplish this pretty easily, but will not, owing to their ill-administered and indiscriminate plank of "inclusion".
They are accomodating and advocating a tremendous waste of time and resources.
So many ****ing liars for the cause, they should be shot. :angry:
I agree that people should be free, just not those fags. :dry:
To me, a "fag" is a small bundle of sticks, and also a British colloquialism referring to a tobacco-filled cylindrical object which is placed into one's oral orifice and then burnt.
Nothing more.
manker
01-03-2005, 10:18 PM
To me, a "fag" is a small bundle of sticks, and also a British colloquialism referring to a tobacco-filled cylindrical object which is placed into one's oral orifice and then burnt.
Nothing more.I've also seen it used, in literature, as a term to describe a personal servant of the head boy - or a prefect - in English private schools.
It may have been in a Dickens novel, I'm not sure.
j2,
Why is it that your outrage over Roe v. Wade ( a decision that you bring up repeatedly as an example of the Supremes overstepping their bounds and thus trampling "State's Rights") does not bleed over into the Court stepping in and deciding the 2000 Presidential election?
Were State's rights not also in play there?
Roe v. Wade is merely the first thing that springs to mind for me, and insofar is the board is concerned, the mention of it serves in an odd way as a sort of shorthand reference to judicial activism.
When I say Roe v. Wade, I'm sure you are able to skip a few lines of my blather immediately, yes?
Anent Florida in 2000:
The Federal Court saw the Florida Court as having flouted it's own law, in fact saw the lower Court as having acted willfully in the vein you see the Federal Court guilty of.
The Federal Court demonstrated it's lack of rooting interest in the decision sufficiently to have forestalled any Congressional action which it would quite rightly have feared.
The Dems may not be in the majority anymore, but they can raise hell with the judiciary, as recently with Bush's appointments.
It may have been in a Dickens novel, I'm not sure.
See Fagin. :)
vidcc
01-03-2005, 11:33 PM
I've also seen it used, in literature, as a term to describe a personal servant of the head boy - or a prefect - in English private schools.
It may have been in a Dickens novel, I'm not sure.
tom browns school days would be a more likely candidate
hobbes
01-03-2005, 11:40 PM
So J2, the essence is that all people should be given freedom to act as they see fit as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others and the participants are consenting adults.
NAMBLA will probably argue that they have a right to exist because there is nothing illegal about talking about man/boy fantasies. I think they should be placed on a national database and monitered. Is that a breach of personal freedom? I think not, as their fantasies are about illegal acts and puts them into the category of "reasonable cause for search and seizure".
We tolerate them as we tolerate the KKK, which would be killing off the black people if given a choice. They are not allowed to kill or incite people to violence, by law, and have be content with their discourse of white supremacy.
Certainly, I see NAMBLA as nothing more a front to arrange inappropriate and illegal man/child porn and sex. And it's members should be jailed for any such offense, either within the US or abroad.
What really bothers me is not that NAMBLA may exist, it is the fact that people have a desire to join. Destroy NAMBLA and they are still out there, prowling.
I think the ACLU members have to put nose-pins on to go to work some days, but I think they are really just taking this quote to heart.
‘The Nazis did not come first for the Jews, as Peter Novick explains in his brilliant and provocative new book, The Holocaust in American Life, "First they came for the Communists" - a circumstance acknowledged by Niemöller, who continued, "but I was not a Communist - so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat - so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew - so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left who could stand up for me."
What is truly arbitrary is when we ban a group or practice, but cannot give any logic for it. Why do we want to ban gay unions, there is no logical explanation. Where do we stop. Hell, the fine people would outlaw mixed marraiges if they could. Why, it offends them. Maybe they could use States rights to make this a state issue?
Great, how devisive would that be. Being a person who supports freedom of the individual to pursue his own path to personal happiness takes a lot of tolerance at times.
As to my point about liberalism. It is neither random nor pointless. As to your response- yes, they stick up for the little guy. I'm glad you finally understand that it is both logical and worthwhile, even if certain issues (NAMBLA) test the limits of what we can tolerate.
So J2, the essence is that all people should be given freedom to act as they see fit as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others and the participants are consenting adults.
NAMBLA will probably argue that they have a right to exist because there is nothing illegal about talking about man/boy fantasies. I think they should be placed on a national database and monitered. Is that a breach of personal freedom? I think not, as their fantasies are about illegal acts and puts them into the category of "reasonable cause for search and seizure".
We tolerate them as we tolerate the KKK, which would be killing off the black people if given a choice. They are not allowed to kill or incite people to violence, by law, and have be content with their discourse of white supremacy.
Certainly, I see NAMBLA as nothing more a front to arrange inappropriate and illegal man/child porn and sex. And it's members should be jailed for any such offense, either within the US or abroad.
What really bothers me is not that NAMBLA may exist, it is the fact that people have a desire to join. Destroy NAMBLA and they are still out there, prowling.
I think the ACLU members have to put nose-pins on to go to work some days, but I think they are really just taking this quote to heart.
What is truly arbitrary is when we ban a group or practice, but cannot give any logic for it. Why do we want to ban gay unions, there is no logical explanation. Where do we stop. Hell, the fine people would outlaw mixed marraiges if they could. Why, it offends them. Maybe they could use States rights to make this a state issue?
Great, how devisive would that be. Being a person who supports freedom of the individual to pursue his own path to personal happiness takes a lot of tolerance at times.
As to my point about liberalism. It is neither random nor pointless. As to your response- yes, they stick up for the little guy. I'm glad you finally understand that it is both logical and worthwhile, even if certain issues (NAMBLA) test the limits of what we can tolerate.
Great post.
Two things:
1. My understanding of liberalism, such as it is, is in no way final.
I sincerely hope it is at some middle point in it's evolution.
2. I will never cease to be amazed that, between the two philosophies (as defined, discussed, and advocated on this board), no quantifiable agreement on any point, nor in any area, may be discerned, yet we get along rather well, in the main.
I am not lonely, for all of it. :)
Rat Faced
01-04-2005, 12:13 AM
lmao... thats coz we cant agree on the definitions.
I dont class myself as a Liberal under your definitions, however by your standards im way out on the LEFT...
I am a Liberal in the UK political spectrum... but only because they, for me, are now the closest to my beliefs. In the UK, they are "Middle of the Road"... or should be :P
hobbes
01-04-2005, 12:42 AM
lmao... thats coz we cant agree on the definitions.
I dont class myself as a Liberal under your definitions, however by your standards im way out on the LEFT...
I am a Liberal in the UK political spectrum... but only because they, for me, are now the closest to my beliefs. In the UK, they are "Middle of the Road"... or should be :P
Maybe we could make on of those "manual things" that other forum sections have. It defines precisely what words mean when used in this forum.
And when people misuse the terms we could all say:http://www.system-tek.com/nwinter/phpbb2/images/smiles/rtfm.png
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.