The Political Discussion Thread

[Goose]

Except Sean penn.

Oh yeah, how could I forget the mighty Penn?

[Naonak]

moral relativism says.....if it floats your boat do it...

That's a ludicrously gross oversimplification at best. "Moral relativism" isn't even a singular ethical position, for a start.

[Ukko]

Oh yeah, how could I forget the mighty Penn?

Its ok. We cant all be as perfect as the mighty Penn.

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh137/experimentx/turtleface.png

That's a ludicrously gross oversimplification. "Moral relativism" isn't even one singular ethical position, for a start.

[DigiFluid]

Putting the fallacity of the "no true Scotsman" aside, my objection was that the USSR wasn't "true Communism" because it wasn't bad enough to measure up. Joseph Stalin was too sane to actually attempt to follow the Communist manifesto to the letter.

That really is no valid comparison at all. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy stems from a lack of uniform definition--hence why the fallacious statement "no true Scotsman" can be uttered and the logical fallacy revealed.

Communism does not suffer from any of that. As the invention of one man, and published in a single document, Communism has a uniform definition. It has dictated structure, and dictated historical necessity before it can, supposedly, happen.

When men like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and Mao came along, they modified Marxism into something that would fit their peculiar circumstances. This is not the same as people disagreeing on a meaning, this is people adapting a given philosophy into their circumstances when said philosophy says right in its manifesto text that 'these are the circumstances under which Communism will happen.'

Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, pick your flavour. None of them were Communist and never were. Socialist, most assuredly. But never Communist.

That, too, is a common one. The world wasn't ready, you see, for Marx's one true vision. Communism can be worldwide or not at all; wouldn't it immediately suggest that Communism isn't viable enough to survive any kind of competition?

No, that would be an incorrect interpretation of the document.

Marx pointed to specific circumstances that he thought would be in place, and emerging from those circumstances would be the eventual emergence of Communism as the end result. It's not a tool of political parties or activists, no matter how much its supposed adherents would like to claim it. Essentially, it's an economic prediction of the future with some ideas thrown in on how to make it work, and written too verbosely.

It is. But I wasn't reckless enough to say it out loud.

Perhaps a poor choice of wording on my part. I didn't mean to suggest you had done anything unprofessional. Rather that the professor in question had conducted his/herself so.

That's a view as self-serving as it is false. You're assuming- in complete contradiction to the obvious- that one cannot arrive to conservative views by expanding one's knowledge and understanding.

Pointing out the definition of words and the obvious cognitive dissonance, more like.

Conservatism is by definition conservative. Judicious. Preservationist. To go into an institution which is designed around the expansion of ideas and expansion of mindset, with that as one's default setting, makes it disingenuous to cry foul when confronted with the reality of the university environment. Stepping out one's front door at noon and acting shocked that the sun is high in the sky.

This is not to say that education and conservatism are diametrically opposed. Certainly not--engaging in sound economic governance (to pose an example of traditional conservatism) requires an understanding of economics and an adeptness at interpreting market trends, which is a talent learned rather than innate.

But whatever the end result and process, one should not pretend at surprise that the very nature of academia all but requires a broadness (liberalism, if you will) of ideas which doesn't often function as well outside of academia.

The truth is that academic Marxism is somewhat hereditory. The Marxist professors of today were trained and appointed to their teaching positions by the Marxist professors of yesteryear. The "intellectual elite" is a rather closed society which demands conformity from its members.

Now that is a fascinating line of thought.

I suspect you're absolutely correct. Many of the professors that I had, had their formative years most particularly in the '60s; while "Communism" was in vogue with the counterculture. Interesting and quite possibly quite correct observation that those defining years would continue to define education for many decades to come.

[Goose]

I suspect you're absolutely correct. Many of the professors that I had, had their formative years most particularly in the '60s; while "Communism" was in vogue with the counterculture. Interesting and quite possibly quite correct observation that those defining years would continue to define education for many decades to come.

I hope that that isn't true. In my personal experience, the older professors I had definitely held Marxism in high regard, but thankfully the younger professors and lecturers I had didn't. Which is good, because Marxism is a load of bull...

[mad_gater]

What do you mean by that? The problem of abortion is the question of whether an embryo or foetus can be considered a person. The issue of personhood is more the area of philosophy than science. Should a bottlenose dolphin be considered a person? If your answer is no simply because they are not human, then you cannot claim that your belief is based on scientific understanding or common sense.



What does this have to do with abortion and reproductive rights? If your religious beliefs lead you to the conclusion that abortion is wrong, don't get an abortion.. I don't see how free exercise of religion is being prohibited.

simply because of the fact that the unborn baby has a distinct genetic code that is different from both mother and father....if the unborn child were a mere "appendage" of the mother as some pro-abortionists like to suggest then the unborn child would have the exact same genetic code as the mother.....just as my appendages have the exact same genetic code as the rest of me.....however it does not....the baby has his own unique genetic code from the first moment he is created inside his mother's womb

and that is the simple reality of the nature of human procreation.....that the moment the sperm hits the egg a growing and developing child is created

[KEK]

I suspect you're absolutely correct. Many of the professors that I had, had their formative years most particularly in the '60s; while "Communism" was in vogue with the counterculture. Interesting and quite possibly quite correct observation that those defining years would continue to define education for many decades to come.

It's possible I suppose, and it would be extremely convenient for the right, but I suspect unlikely. If there is a disproportionate number of liberals and left wingers in professions which call for the pursuit of truth and knowledge (scientists, journalists, historians, philosophers), then why ignore the obvious explanation?

[Goose]

People! People! Why has no one discussed the latest, and possibly one of the greatest, threats to American family values?!?

The Girl Scouts!

[Rudy Pena]

People! People! Why has no one discussed the latest, and possibly one of the greatest, threats to American family values?!?

The Girl Scouts!

Lol wow

[DigiFluid]

The latest and greatest threat to "traditional American values" is......parental responsibility?

[lordofseas]

simply because of the fact that the unborn baby has a distinct genetic code that is different from both mother and father....if the unborn child were a mere "appendage" of the mother as some pro-abortionists like to suggest then the unborn child would have the exact same genetic code as the mother.....just as my appendages have the exact same genetic code as the rest of me.....however it does not....the baby has his own unique genetic code from the first moment he is created inside his mother's womb

and that is the simple reality of the nature of human procreation.....that the moment the sperm hits the egg a growing and developing child is created

Tapeworms are "mere appendages", parasitical, in fact.

[Graybrew1]

my bad
how can I make amends & save face?

Virtual hugs work just fine. You want real brownie points, come hang in Cantina sometime.

[AlexanderD]

so me stating that I could've found a better way to express s sincerely held viewpoint is called "backpeddling" now.....boy you libs sure do love to redefine things don'cha?

that is the natural inclination of liberals....when they cannot refute with facts redefine the debate

because I'm never backpeddling from my main premise....which is that by simple observation of history one can deduce that relativistic societies always collapse on themselves whereas societies governed by objective moral standards flourish

relativism would have you surrender reason and be governed by the transient nature of our whims and desires.....one need only look at societies like Nazi Germany to see the gross moral evils that result from such a system of governance

this is because as I said societies built upon the premise of moral relativism are bereft of the objective moral standards by which individual members of a society can peacefully coexist

whereas societies built upon the foundation of moral clarity contain these objective standards which help to maintain a certain peace and harmony amongst society's individual members

the natural fruit of a morally relativistic society is a collectivist system of government in which the individual is no longer sacred but is nothing more than a mere cog in some great "machine"

the natural fruit of a society founded upon objective moral standards is a fair and just society where individual civil liberties reign supreme

moral clarity is rational, moral relativism is rationalization.....big difference

Stow your complex for a moment. You're assuming I'm liberal because I refuse to consign your argument, or the weak attempt to explain it away. You're still amusing me though!

[Womble]

It's possible I suppose, and it would be extremely convenient for the right, but I suspect unlikely. If there is a disproportionate number of liberals and left wingers in professions which call for the pursuit of truth and knowledge (scientists, journalists, historians, philosophers), then why ignore the obvious explanation?

Not ALL professions of this kind, that's the thing, but mainly those that boil down to narrative construction. There is no disproportionate number of liberals and left wingers in math, physics or biology. It's invariably literature, history, philosophy and arts.

[Gatefan1976]

Not ALL professions of this kind, that's the thing, but mainly those that boil down to narrative construction. There is no disproportionate number of liberals and left wingers in math, physics or biology. It's invariably literature, history, philosophy and arts.

I agree with Womble.
"liberalism" as I understand it in US terms, is the domain of feilds that have no standardised "truths", whereas "absolute subjects" such as the sciences more attract a "conservative" viewpoint.