Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have thousands of charities in the USA and I'm sure many have been originated by Republicans. I doubt that anybody keeps a list as it would be quite extensive.
This is true. Faith does not require a formal church.
Faith does not require logic, facts, reason, an accurate premise, et cetera. One of the reasons why faith-based systems haven't proven to be such a great idea. No amount of logic or reason can budge a faith consciously or unconsciously based on a fallacy or a faulty premise.
We have thousands of charities in the USA and I'm sure many have been originated by Republicans. I doubt that anybody keeps a list as it would be quite extensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCbaxter How about this; we hold ourselves to a higher standard and don't use the lowest examples of human behavior as our model
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
I read a lot of things into this statement.
It is great to hold yourself to a high standard, but when you see yourself as much better you come to view everybody else as beneath you which invites lack of tolerance and superiority complex. It may even invite the mindset of those not like you being subhuman or see other as children needing guidance which leads to tyranny. Hitler had a high standard for himself and his German people. It invites the mindset it is justifiable that some decided acceptable things might be done for the greater good.
Hard to have conversation or consider one as a peer when the one talking to you has decided they are so right that questioning themself is not n the table for consideration or that everyone else is decidedly beneath them unless they agree.
It would be interesting to see your list of who exactly you consider lower examples of human behavior because I have always believed that narcissism is a lower trait.
This list here of narcissistic traits certainly doesn't only pertain to liberals but does explain why liberals often believe they are more advanced, more educated, more better people, more enlightened and needed by others to guide all those unknowing other people with their rules, regulation, bans and belittling of those they don't agree with while they often exclude themselves from their own rules, sounds a lot like organized religion doesn't it the thing that liberals love to belittle the most?. I think the word I am looking for to describe it in one word is tyrant.
Because analyzing Bono is easy. Analyzing an ideology requires thought and shouldn't be easy. Beyond that, what does Bono have to do with most liberals? Nothing, in case you contest that. Bono represents himself. He may be a liberal (again, I don't know or even really care becasue he doesn't matter), but that means nothing to other people who are also liberal.
To analyze an ideology you have to dig deeper in to the ethical and philosophical reasoning behind liberalism. This probably requires having a thorough understanding of classical liberalism and what changes have been seen. For example, modern conservatives have more in common with classical liberalism, but Libertarians are even more closely related. Liberals held on to certain principles, like equality and liberty, but have amended it some to put restrictions on otherwise free citizens who have amassed the resources to put others at a disadvantage.
Just to get to it, John Rawls essentially defines what modern liberals believe. That's why I brought him up. He believes in free market capitalism, but creating a social welfare system to help those who got the bad end of inequality. In other words, government can help citizens who are disadvantaged. To contrast that with a more conservative view that says they, the disadvantaged, should do that themselves.
My point being that to look to things Bono has done or said is not a good criticism of an entire ideology. This is because any source that actually reports on what Bono does, unless he starts running for office or commits some kind of hideous crime, is probably fluff. If you want to actually create a criticism of liberalism, you have to have a thorough understanding of it, which requires more than easy remarks about Bono and rather delving into works of political theory on the ideology or at the very least policy that liberal politicians have been known to support. Of course no single individual will perfectly represent every liberal. That's an unrealistic standard. But do a little better than Bono. I'm asking you to think and understand, not read some celebrity gossip piece with the intellectual capacity of a potato.
Just to get to it, John Rawls essentially defines what modern liberals believe. That's why I brought him up. He believes in free market capitalism, but creating a social welfare system to help those who got the bad end of inequality. In other words, government can help citizens who are disadvantaged. To contrast that with a more conservative view that says they, the disadvantaged, should do that themselves.
Not true at all. You are posting about something that you don't understand.
What kind of idiot would think that a person with no legs and arms should just help themselves?
Not true at all. You are posting about something that you don't understand.
What kind of idiot would think that a person with no legs and arms should just help themselves?
Exactly.
Rawls does inspire sympathy for the disadvantaged by asking people to participate in a "thought experiment" in which they are to create the ideal society for themselves, but in which they have no guarantee that they will be born well off or with other advantages in that society.
That's all very interesting, but if I think Bono's a phony liberal jerk, I will say so.
And if The Dusty wants to compare my intellect to that of a potato for saying so, I would say that The Dusty is the potato, and that we should make potato salad.
Not true at all. You are posting about something that you don't understand.
What kind of idiot would think that a person with no legs and arms should just help themselves?
How did all of what was said before that not lead you to the obvious definition of disadvantaged I was referring to was in regards to economic disadvantage? Not a physical disability.
And that point wasn't meant to be an overall critique of conservatism, since this is not the place for that. It was a general statement meant to be taken as a general statement representing the fact that conservatives, as a whole, reject social welfare in all or most cases. It contradicts their belief that individuals are responsible for themselves and that the state should not be involved in people's lives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
