The Roots of Liberal Morality

[stjames1_53]

Liberals tend to have one or both feet firmly planted in the 1800's...................hardly progressive.

[Chris]

Sigh. Let's do what you always hate most, which is just ignore your evasions, and instead actually discuss your OP. For some reason, you hate discussing your own topic. At least you hate doing so after I show up.

Your OP is basically:

A. Liberals run on feelings.
B. The reason for that is ...

You skipped to B without showing A was true. That's invalid logic. You can't move on to B unless you demonstrate A is true.

So, demonstrate it. What evidence do you have that liberals are more feelings-based than conservatives?

I, of course, assert the opposite. And I offer evidence to back that up, in the form of every conspiracy theory thread on this board, 99% of which come from conservatives. None of their conspiracy theories have any evidence to back them up, but conservatives still _believe_, solely because they _feel_ the conspiracy is true.

Yes, you don't have to back up your premise, but it will be a rather clear validation of my point if you don't, my point being that liberals are the more rational ones, hence all your discussion here is meaningless handwaving, intended to justify your preconceived prejudices.

The OP was a summary not of my thoughts but Rousseau. How'd you miss that?

You say his logic is invalid but you don't explain how, you just say so.

Rousseau gave an argument based on his basic feeling man is good. Therefore whatever man feels is good is so. It's a simple argument. Refute it.

Yes, we know you gave the opposite argument: "The basis of liberal morality is liberty and practicality." But you have not explained your reasoning. We are waiting for your liberal rationality.

[Common]

He does nothing but insult people, and piss them off and flame bait them, and then they get in trouble for interacting with him and telling him what's up. He is not interested in listening to anybody else, he only wants to pretend to extend the invitation to debate to them so that he can put on a show and dance about how they NEVER satisfy his $#@!ing argument standards. He thinks he sets the table around here. He acts like he's presenting some kind of reasonable invitation for debate, but then he doesn't listen, or extend the least bit of effort in understanding his opponents arguments. He pretends they are vapid because that's all he is, $#@!ing VAPID. He's nothing but a $#@!ing troll. So, $#@! him.

Warning

TB'd for personal attacks and insults

If you have questions or concerns about this moderation action, please use the Report button to let us know.

Continuing this behavior will result in further discipline

[Captdon]

I haven't read any of these author or thinkers or whatever they are.

I do not believe man is good by nature. I do not believe man is bad by nature. I don't believe either is totally true. My observations of children lead me to believe that bad is born with you.I don't say evil but bad. Evil is a corruption of morality but that is learned.

I don't know what that makes my beliefs but I hope it isn't wishy-washy.

[Chris]

I haven't read any of these author or thinkers or whatever they are.

I do not believe man is good by nature. I do not believe man is bad by nature. I don't believe either is totally true. My observations of children lead me to believe that bad is born with you.I don't say evil but bad. Evil is a corruption of morality but that is learned.

I don't know what that makes my beliefs but I hope it isn't wishy-washy.

The OP focused on the roots of liberal morality based on its basic founding thinker, and he argued good.

At the OP link, there's also an explication of the traditional conservative thinker Edmund Burke's views who would instead use the term flawed rather than evil. I think that's a better term than evil.

Flawed has important political implications, mainly that if all men are flawed then no one or elite group of men is capable of governing without limiting safeguards in place. Thus, the Constitution and its granting of limited powers and the different branched further constraining each other.

The opposite then of flawed would be perfect. Or, perfectable. The socialist view of man as perfectible involves the individual as a perfect being replacing society altogether. As Polly said to me the other day, the whole idea behind socialism is to remove the ordered hierarchy of society. That would, imaginatively, leave man perfected without need for society. Except you need a dictatorial government to manage all these isolated, anxiety-ridden individual.

[zachroidott]

The OP focused on the roots of liberal morality based on its basic founding thinker, and he argued good.

At the OP link, there's also an explication of the traditional conservative thinker Edmund Burke's views who would instead use the term flawed rather than evil. I think that's a better term than evil.

Flawed has important political implications, mainly that if all men are flawed then no one or elite group of men is capable of governing without limiting safeguards in place. Thus, the Constitution and its granting of limited powers and the different branched further constraining each other.

The opposite then of flawed would be perfect. Or, perfectable. The socialist view of man as perfectible involves the individual as a perfect being replacing society altogether. As Polly said to me the other day, the whole idea behind socialism is to remove the ordered hierarchy of society. That would, imaginatively, leave man perfected without need for society. Except you need a dictatorial government to manage all these isolated, anxiety-ridden individual.

Classical liberal morality? You tend to ramble.

[Chris]

Classical liberal morality? You tend to ramble.

Did you have anything to say?

[Captdon]

The OP focused on the roots of liberal morality based on its basic founding thinker, and he argued good.

At the OP link, there's also an explication of the traditional conservative thinker Edmund Burke's views who would instead use the term flawed rather than evil. I think that's a better term than evil.

Flawed has important political implications, mainly that if all men are flawed then no one or elite group of men is capable of governing without limiting safeguards in place. Thus, the Constitution and its granting of limited powers and the different branched further constraining each other.

The opposite then of flawed would be perfect. Or, perfectable. The socialist view of man as perfectible involves the individual as a perfect being replacing society altogether. As Polly said to me the other day, the whole idea behind socialism is to remove the ordered hierarchy of society. That would, imaginatively, leave man perfected without need for society. Except you need a dictatorial government to manage all these isolated, anxiety-ridden individual.

Flawed is a better word.

[Chris]

Flawed is a better word.

It allows for choosing between good and evil in our actions towards others.

[Common]

He does nothing but insult people, and piss them off and flame bait them, and then they get in trouble for interacting with him and telling him what's up. He is not interested in listening to anybody else, he only wants to pretend to extend the invitation to debate to them so that he can put on a show and dance about how they NEVER satisfy his $#@!ing argument standards. He thinks he sets the table around here. He acts like he's presenting some kind of reasonable invitation for debate, but then he doesn't listen, or extend the least bit of effort in understanding his opponents arguments. He pretends they are vapid because that's all he is, $#@!ing VAPID. He's nothing but a $#@!ing troll. So, $#@! him.

Warning

Infraction for Personal Insults and Bad Faith Posting

If you have questions or concerns about this moderation action, please use the Report button to let us know.