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.
Ovcatto is more consistent than you are on this point--not more correct, but more consistent. In order to make a case from self-defense you have to have clean hands. A politician can't paint himself and his country into a corner with bellicose rhetoric, and when he ends up getting us hit as he expected, shriek with self-righteous horror about how we are only defending ourselves. That's the story of Mexico, Spain, Cuba, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
Sorry, you lost me with this. Did we initiate force against Japan? If we did I will change my position on our entry into WWII. If I am wrong about who initiated force I am wrong. But being wrong on who initiated force does not make me inconsistent on my stance that initiation of force is unjust, just wrong about the initial aggressor.
Just to clarify once again my position regarding the use of military force. I do not approve of the use of the military unless it is used as a retaliatory force against direct attacks upon our nation.
Sorry, you lost me with this. Did we initiate force against Japan? If we did I will change my position on our entry into WWII. If I am wrong about who initiated force I am wrong. But being wrong on who initiated force does not make me inconsistent on my stance that initiation of force is unjust, just wrong about the initial aggressor.
You are not right just because your enemy is wrong. That's not a libertarian principle per se, but it's an epistemological principle that, until you grasp it, will make mush of all your principles.
Schoolyard bullies and conniving politicians love the tactic of maneuvering someone else into throwing the first punch. That doesn't mean they are "just defending themselves" in anything they do subsequently. It simply means there are two guilty parties instead of one.
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,661,590 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla
Hawkeye2009 is one of the few on these boards, all conservatives, that seem to get it done better than myself and I consider that a compliment.
There is little I could add to improve upon his comments in this very good thread in whcih liberals are demonstrated to be eletists, resorting to the tactics of correcting spelling, providing links ad nauseum (plagiarising in the absense of thinking for themselves)and calling for proof "that indeed" the sky is blue and the grass is green.
All the while quoting Philosophy 101 or some other artsy fartsy curriculum model that after making a c+ became latent experts and strive constantly to synthesize it with Newsweek or some MSNBC news report. It gets so boring.
Hawkeye on the other hand is inspiring, mostly because, he and Gringo, Sanrene, Silas777, and several others, reassure me that I am not living in an intellectual desert and there may be some hope for humanity.
In the midst of the greatest challenge and assault to our sovereignty, intellectual freedom, social freedom, economic freedom, and most importantly, entitlement to the pursuit of happiness, -in the history of the nation, I find these voices reassuring.
I have been a registered independent since I registered at the age of 18 after having been in the U.S. Navy for half a year. It has been a long journey to right thinking. Under no circumstances would I ever vote for a democrat today because of the devolution that has infested the left as taught in the public school system and perpetrated by the political left.
The idealogues among us woke up after Carter and I wil maintain faith that they will wake up after a year or two of his political kindred Obama.
People generally are not as stupid as they are easily beguiled by the ideological toothe fairies. When they check under their pillow often enough they will start to believe again that the answer is within themselves.
On the other hand the only way out of the bottomless pit of collectivism is experience and maturity. Some never make it and that becomes their personal hell.
I am accused of not being a very nice person. Actually, I am thoughtful, kind, considerate, generous,polite, lots of good stuff. I simply have no tolerance for ideologues, hell bent on our destruction, cumbayah junkies wanting some sort of vaporous feel good fix to salve their personal unhappiness.
Get a job, work hard every day and start making some money, that will make you feel good about yourself.
Actually, atilla, the reason I fist started posting on this thread is because the OP entitled it "Libs: Why are you Libs." Given that title, you shouldn't be surprised that some "libs" post here. And I just wanted to let you know that your last sentence is faintly insulting. I do have a job--one that I love--and I do make money. My life is pretty good because I get paid to do things I would do for free. So please don't assume that I am an unemployed, depressed person.
That was very kind. Obviously, you have falsely presented your "credentials" and have been caught in a lie. That is what I would expect of a liberal, so it is okay.
One who is unwilling to examine his or her views via challenge and introspection has very shallow foundations of support. You claim to be well versed in philosophy- I doubt it. Otherwise, you would be familiar with the elenchos and the role of the interlocutor. Had you actually read what you had claimed (which obviously, you did not), the Socratic method would have aided you in coming to a correct conclusion. However, the process does not work when dealing with idiots, so it is not applicable in all situations.
PS- I never claimed expertise in philosophy- you did (and obviously lied about it). I can only claim that I can read and reason based on the available information. I brought up factual information that you have had a very hard time dealing with. As a result of your inability to reconcile these facts with your "core beliefs", you have chosen a path of supporting a false initial premise (type 1 logic error). Again, if you knew ANYTHING about philosopy (which obviously you do not), you would recognize that such a logic error does not withstand the Socratic method of inquiry and that the elenchos is impossible in this situtaion. I am sorry that you have been duped by Stalinists, but perhaps you can learn, grow, and move on.
Last edited by hawkeye2009; 10-30-2009 at 08:06 PM..
Hawkeye2009 is one of the few on these boards, all conservatives, that seem to get it done better than myself and I consider that a compliment.
To get what done? Regurgitate propaganda from articles written by people who admit they are new to a topic? Pretty low bar set there, but have at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla
There is little I could add to improve upon his comments in this very good thread in whcih liberals are demonstrated to be eletists, resorting to the tactics of correcting spelling, providing links ad nauseum (plagiarising in the absense of thinking for themselves)and calling for proof "that indeed" the sky is blue and the grass is green.
So the OP brings up the Frankfurt School and people who critique his reading are the elitists? And perhaps you missed the fact that the OP has provided numerous links on this thread. Are you asserting that Hawkeye2009 can't think for himself then? See this kind of logic, or rather lack of logic, is your problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla
All the while quoting Philosophy 101 or some other artsy fartsy curriculum model that after making a c+ became latent experts and strive constantly to synthesize it with Newsweek or some MSNBC news report. It gets so boring.
Perhaps you missed the fact that it was the OP who brought up the philosophy being discussed on this thread and used his high school philosophy course to assert his expertise. I know that you and others like you would prefer that everyone accept your singular view on the world, but sorry it doesn't work that way. If you don't have a fundamental understanding of a topic and use it to make a bogus argument, guess what--you're going to be called on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla
Hawkeye on the other hand is inspiring, mostly because, he and Gringo, Sanrene, Silas777, and several others, reassure me that I am not living in an intellectual desert and there may be some hope for humanity.In the midst of the greatest challenge and assault to our sovereignty, intellectual freedom, social freedom, economic freedom, and most importantly, entitlement to the pursuit of happiness, -in the history of the nation, I find these voices reassuring.
Because they think like you do, not because they are automatically correct on every topic. You already agree with their conclusions, so as long as the argument ends with that already agreed upon conclusion, you think that the claims were well supported. Doesn't work like that. Why can you not see this pretty basic point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla
I have been a registered independent since I registered at the age of 18 after having been in the U.S. Navy for half a year. It has been a long journey to right thinking. Under no circumstances would I ever vote for a democrat today because of the devolution that has infested the left as taught in the public school system and perpetrated by the political left. The idealogues among us woke up after Carter and I wil maintain faith that they will wake up after a year or two of his political kindred Obama.
So you are equating ideologues with liberals, while asserting your own conservative ideology, and yet you are not an ideologue. *LOL*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla
People generally are not as stupid as they are easily beguiled by the ideological toothe fairies. When they check under their pillow often enough they will start to believe again that the answer is within themselves.
You mean within themselves through the ideology of the right, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla
On the other hand the only way out of the bottomless pit of collectivism is experience and maturity. Some never make it and that becomes their personal hell.
Once again, making spurious claims to support your own ideology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla
I am accused of not being a very nice person. Actually, I am thoughtful, kind, considerate, generous,polite, lots of good stuff.
I must have missed a post. Who said that you weren't nice? Hardly substance on this post to judge such a thing. The only thing that people can judge is your ability to make an argument on this thread, and there you failed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla
I simply have no tolerance for ideologues, hell bent on our destruction, cumbayah junkies wanting some sort of vaporous feel good fix to salve their personal unhappiness.
Except for those ideological junkies that think just like you, right? You know the ones whose voices reassure you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla
Get a job, work hard every day and start making some money, that will make you feel good about yourself.
Once again, you are making claims that you have zero support for. Stick with the arguments at hand and stop trying to make yourself feel better by making claims against others that say a lot more about you than about the fictional audience you have in the myopic mindset that you display on this thread.
That was very kind. Obviously, you have falsely presented your "credentials" and have been caught in a lie. That is what I would expect of a liberal, so it is okay.
You think that I'm going to spend my time lining up my books and taking a picture of them in order to demonstrate my knowledge to someone who obviously just read an article in Catholic Insight, liked it because it reaffirmed the views that you already had, did a Wikipedia search to provide background on the Frankfurt School, and threw in an article from newtotalitarians.com. Laughable and pathetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
One who is unwilling to examine his or her views via challenge and introspection has very shallow foundations of support.
Like you and Atilla? Please. You have yet to speak to any of the critiques that have been offered on the thread. And the reason that you have failed to do so is because you can't. If your little high school story is true, and that's a big if, then certainly the reading that you have done since that time would allow you to engage with these critiques. The fact is is that you can't and haven't. Go and argue what you want in terms of liberals, but don't try and support your claims with ideas that you so obviously know very little about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
You claim to be well versed in philosophy- I doubt it.
Can you provide the quote where I said that? I simply asserted that I knew more than you, based on what you have written. And it wouldn't take someone being well versed to know more than you on the topic of the Frankfurt School.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Otherwise, you would be familiar with the elenchos and the role of the interlocutor. Had you actually read what you had claimed (which obviously, you did not), the Socratic method would have aided you in coming to a correct conclusion. However, the process does not work when dealing with idiots, so it is not applicable in all situations.
*LOL* Oh, this is truly pathetic. Google Book search? You have no idea what you are talking about in terms of the Frankfurt School. Can't support it and when asked about what you've read, you say that your high school class was too long ago. So you did a technical degree and didn't have time for philosophy courses, but somehow you had time to read the works of Plato? Give me a break. And if you knew anything about Plato and the Socratic method, you'd know that he (and Socrates) would think that we both don't know what we are talking about because it is only the philosopher that knows TRUTH. See the Socratic process is meant to help idiots see the failings in their arguments. Try reading Phaedrus for a relatively easy example. But don't let the three speeches on the lover/non-lover issue in the beginning throw you. The real issue is how people come to learn, the best way to do so, and the dangers of writing to the learning process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
PS- I never claimed expertise in philosophy- you did (and obviously lied about it). I can only claim that I can read and reason based on the available information. I brought up factual information that you have had a very hard time dealing with. As a result of your inability to reconcile these facts with your "core beliefs", you have chosen a path of supporting a false initial premise (type 1 logic error). Again, if you knew ANYTHING about philosopy (which obviously you do not), you would recognize that such a logic error does not withstand the Socratic method of inquiry and that the elenchos is impossible in this situtaion. I am sorry that you have been duped by Stalinists, but perhaps you can learn, grow, and move on.
You claimed expertise with these statements:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Reading on this forum, I am a little suprised that many of the marxists/leftists do not even know the origins of liberalism in America and why they promote and advocate positions that often seem very strange and self destructive to the rest of us. I was taught about the Frankfort School even in high school, so I had assumed it was common knowledge. This was in a class taught by a retired Notre Dame prof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Again, I thought that every educated person knew about the Frankfurt Group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Let's do some education here, as it appears it is needed.
If you deem knowledge of the Frankfurt School as common knowledge, while at the same time faining surprise that others don't know about the school, then you have just relegated your position to that of an expert in relation to others. (It's cute how you like to play teacher, while knowing nothing about what you aim to teach. Five copy/pasted links in full quote from which the lost comment of yours was pulled. Atila thinks that people who do that can't think for themselves, and I have to agree with him in this particular case.) It's called ethos. Go read Aristotle's Rhetoric for how that works in argument-building.
Last edited by helenejen; 10-30-2009 at 08:28 PM..
You think that I'm going to spend my time lining up my books and taking a picture of them in order to demonstrate my knowledge to someone who obviously just read an article in Catholic Insight, liked it because it reaffirmed the views that you already had, did a Wikipedia search to provide background on the Frankfurt School, and threw in an article from newtotalitarians.com. Laughable and pathetic.
Like you and Atilla? Please. You have yet to speak to any of the critiques that have been offered on the thread. And the reason that you have failed to do so is because you can't. If your little high school story is true, and that's a big if, then certainly the reading that you have done since that time would allow you to engage with these critiques. The fact is is that you can't and haven't. Go and argue what you want in terms of liberals, but don't try and support your claims with ideas that you so obviously know very little about.
Can you provide the quote where I said that? I simply asserted that I knew more than you, based on what you have written. And it wouldn't take someone being well versed to know more than you on the topic of the Frankfurt School.
*LOL* Oh, this is truly pathetic. Google Book search? You have no idea what you are talking about in terms of the Frankfurt School. Can't support it and when asked about what you've read, you say that your high school class was too long ago. So you did a technical degree and didn't have time for philosophy courses, but somehow you had time to read the works of Plato? Give me a break. And if you knew anything about Plato and the Socratic method, you'd know that he (and Socrates) would think that we both don't know what we are talking about because it is only the philosopher that knows TRUTH. See the Socratic process is meant to help idiots see the failings in their arguments. Try reading Phaedrus for a relatively easy example. But don't let the three speeches on the lover/non-lover issue in the beginning throw you. The real issue is how people come to learn, the best way to do so, and the dangers of writing to the learning process.
You claimed expertise with these statements:
If you deem knowledge of the Frankfurt School as common knowledge, while at the same time faining surprise that others don't know about the school, then you have just relegated your position to that of an expert in relation to others. (It's cute how you like to play teacher, while knowing nothing about what you aim to teach. Five copy/pasted links in full quote from which the lost comment of yours was pulled. Atila thinks that people who do that can't think for themselves, and I have to agree with him in this particular case.) It's called ethos. Go read Aristotle's Rhetoric for how that works in argument-building.
Well, here you go
10-28-2009, 10:27 AM [SIZE=5]helenejen[/SIZE]
Senior Member befriend
Join Date: Oct 2007
2,712 posts, read 778,958 times
Reputation: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 I love liberals.
Chronic generalizations are a sign of a myopic mind that is unable to grasp complexity. Thankfully not all conservatives are like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 They are always more concerned with grammatical errors than content. I have secretaries do that crap for me. Are you a secretary?
It's called ethos. You might want to read up on that as well. If you cannot even refer to this school of thought in the commonly accepted and expected way, you only illustrate your lack of the most basic knowledge on the Frankfurt School. In short, you illustrate complete ignorance on the topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 And for the millionth time, I guess you just cannot handle the facts are are embarrassed by your ideological origins. I am not embarrassed at all by Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, yet the Frankfurt Group seems to really raise your hackles, as you cannot accept the fact that your views were born of evil. Tough up- face it.
*L* I don't think you'd know a fact if it hit you over the head. But I am embarrassed, embarrassed by the willingness of someone who so obviously has no knowledge of a topic to continue to spew ignorance and propaganda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 What book did our insturctor use about the Frankfurt Group over 30 years ago? How the hell should I know! It was over 30 years! What books specificailly, claiming to be an expert in this area, do you have on the Franfurt Group?
Ok, then what author did you read? What key concepts from the school did you discuss then or since? One would think that if it made such an impression on you and that if you assumed that the Frankfurt School is common knowledge, then you must have retained something from your instruction.
And I'd be happy to start a dm discussion with you about the work of Marcuse and Adorno to start with. The Kellner article that you linked to yesterday cited "Social Implications of Technology," which is pretty seminal, maybe we could start there. And then after that and whatever else we'd like to re-read, we can move on to a discussion of cultural studies and whether or not Hall, Grossberg, and others have been successful, modern-day torchbearers of the Frankfurt School. Maybe diva360 would like to join us?
I claimed only pedestrian common knowledge from high school. I spent my college time in chemical engineering and post grad in medicine and subequent residency. We did not have philosophy classes in med school- I am sorry if you find my academic curriculum deficient in that regard. I think my instructors were concerned with topics other than marxism.
As above, you claim to be some philosophical expert. Obviously, if this were indeed true, you would not be lying about your academic credentials and would be able to pose a coherent rebuttal based upon the facts, rather than stamping your feet like an angry child. Again, try reflection and self examination of your position and perhaps your will arrive at a better understanding of yourself.
10-28-2009, 10:27 AM [SIZE=5]helenejen[/SIZE]
Senior Member befriend
Join Date: Oct 2007
2,712 posts, read 778,958 times
Reputation: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 I love liberals.
Chronic generalizations are a sign of a myopic mind that is unable to grasp complexity. Thankfully not all conservatives are like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 They are always more concerned with grammatical errors than content. I have secretaries do that crap for me. Are you a secretary?
It's called ethos. You might want to read up on that as well. If you cannot even refer to this school of thought in the commonly accepted and expected way, you only illustrate your lack of the most basic knowledge on the Frankfurt School. In short, you illustrate complete ignorance on the topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 And for the millionth time, I guess you just cannot handle the facts are are embarrassed by your ideological origins. I am not embarrassed at all by Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, yet the Frankfurt Group seems to really raise your hackles, as you cannot accept the fact that your views were born of evil. Tough up- face it.
*L* I don't think you'd know a fact if it hit you over the head. But I am embarrassed, embarrassed by the willingness of someone who so obviously has no knowledge of a topic to continue to spew ignorance and propaganda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 What book did our insturctor use about the Frankfurt Group over 30 years ago? How the hell should I know! It was over 30 years! What books specificailly, claiming to be an expert in this area, do you have on the Franfurt Group?
Ok, then what author did you read? What key concepts from the school did you discuss then or since? One would think that if it made such an impression on you and that if you assumed that the Frankfurt School is common knowledge, then you must have retained something from your instruction.
And I'd be happy to start a dm discussion with you about the work of Marcuse and Adorno to start with. The Kellner article that you linked to yesterday cited "Social Implications of Technology," which is pretty seminal, maybe we could start there. And then after that and whatever else we'd like to re-read, we can move on to a discussion of cultural studies and whether or not Hall, Grossberg, and others have been successful, modern-day torchbearers of the Frankfurt School. Maybe diva360 would like to join us?
I claimed only pedestrian common knowledge from high school. I spent my college time in chemical engineering and post grad in medicine and subequent residency. We did not have philosophy classes in med school- I am sorry if you find my academic curriculum deficient in that regard. I think my instructors were concerned with topics other than marxism.
As above, you claim to be some philosophical expert. Obviously, if this were indeed true, you would not be lying about your academic credentials and would be able to pose a coherent rebuttal based upon the facts, rather than stamping your feet like an angry child. Again, try reflection and self examination of your position and perhaps your will arrive at a better understanding of yourself.
Fail again, Hawkeye2009. I never talked about my academic credentials. Why do you make things up? And see your chronic need to cite your formal credentials is done because you can't support your arguments on this thread in any other way.
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,661,590 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy
This entire thread had degraded to ridiculousness.
Never heard of the Frankfort Group or any such nonsense.... and libs aren't "liberal" because of it!
Please keep saying this, tristansmommy. Those two won't stop attacking helenejen, and I know she knows what she's talking about. We made friends through the site. I think these two keep harping on the FG b/c they've read on a website that the FG was somehow the origin of liberalism.
In the spirit of the stated intent of this thread, why don't you and I start a conversation about how we came to our political beliefs? I noticed yours the other day, and I thought it was pretty insightful. I pretty much came to mine the same way. When I was 18, I voted in a presidential election because I had the intuitive sense that I was a dem. Over the years and after gaining experience--you describe a similar experience--I figured out why I was a liberal in a more rational way.
I guess my core belief is that there are some things that we as a society need that are collective. Infrastructure--roads. Imagine the chaos if everyone would build their own roads. Talk about a traffic nightmare. Well, that means that someone has to pay for and build those roads in a somewhat planned out way. I think government is the best thing to do this because it is ideally accountable to the people and its records should be transparent. I think liberals and conservatives agree on this--that's our common ground. The things we disagree about are how many and what things the government should fund. Libertarians I think tend to argue that very few things should be federally funded or managed. I find their ideas about social freedom to be pretty cool, but I don't think a country as large and diverse as the U.S. can realistically be managed without a fair bit of federal oversight.
One lived experience factor that figures into that philosophy is my experience living in the NJ part of the NYC metroplex. All the towns and cities in suburban NJ are connected to each other, and their populations range in size from about 5000 people to 100,000 people. But each town must have its own chief of police and chief firefighter and so on. When I moved here, I was like, isn't that really wasteful and redundant? Why not make divisions of a more reasonable number of people? Divide the area up into regions of maybe 100,000 people? People who've lived here longer said, "yeah, I know, but every time someone tries to do something like that, people go crazy." It's an example of people resisting change. Arguments for localizing things unnecessarily therefore don't go far with me, as every day I see the waste that comes from duplicating services.
What's your story, TM?
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.
