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.
An expert on the topic? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......... and would that expert be you!?!!?
The only reason you know about the Frankfurt Group is due to the links that I provided, otherwise you would not even know who they were and what impact they had on the development of modern liberalism.
Just becuase I have not taken a college level philosophy class does not mean I cannot read.
Here we go, Mr. Master Philisopher- Please post your copies of the books you own about the Frankfurt Group next to todays newspaper. Obviously, you are lying and will not be able to produce the photo. So much for your "expertise". At least you read a few of the links that I provided, so you know SOMETHING now, instead of nothing.
Waiting for that photo of your books and todays paper- Here is a hint- go to the library, check a few out, and then try it. Then we will ask you to open the cover where the library stamp is shown. Lying can be tricky!
The ability to read does not constitute understanding of everything one's eyes roll over, as your reading (or rather misreading) of posts on this threads clearly evidences. This is why a college-level philosophy class might do you some good. Perhaps being around others who are reading the same text might help you understand what you are reading.
See unlike you, I never claimed to be an expert, though clearly I know a lot more than you do about the topic, as does diva360. Your condescension asserted and relied upon your supposed expertise, which you clearly do not have, made all the more evident by your faux surprise that not everyone knows about the Frankfurt School. You don't even realize that the Frankfurt School is neo-Marxist, not Marxist, and that there are differences between the two. Pretty basic stuff. Try reading through the Kellner article that you linked for starters. It's a good introduction, and you MIGHT just learn something. Of course, you'll have to humble yourself in order to recognize that you have learning to do. Perhaps a local priest can share with you the power of humility and the dangers of pride--a lesson from which many who troll on internet forums could benefit.
Last edited by helenejen; 10-29-2009 at 09:09 AM..
While I suppose exposing an issue can be a part of an expository comment, the two are not the same...more useless and unprovoked bashing of irspow for the sake of?...
This opening seems to be just a continuation of unprovoked attacks that only seek to be malicious rather than to seek clarification. See your first attack in this thread which was not only unecessary, but completely vindictive in nature. Why such animosity towards simple statements of peace, freedom, and voluntary cooperation arises is beyond me. Happily, I do not feel such disdain for you.
It is not my fault, I am guilty of no wrong, if you encounter difficulty in applying a basic principle to the wider world around you. Thinking that I have a responsibility to write a comprehensive philosophical text to explain my every statement of belief to you is a rather stringent standard. I know that you have the faculty to form belief, but somehow you deny me this common ability. I do not assume that most people cannot think on their own. If you have a specific question, just ask, I will be happy to try to answer you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
We've been down this road before. You make a statement so broad and undefined that it is virtually meaningless within the context of these conversations. Who is in favor of any person, group, or government using or advocating the initiation of force against any person, group of government?
Words have meanings. Put together they form ideas. Who are unjust initiators of force? Everyone who initiates force.
Initiation of force is unjust.
Retaliatory force is just.
Because that may be difficult to comprehend, here are a few Dick and Jane examples to get one started on firing a few synapses.
Whenever we attack a nation with our military who has not attacked us, that is an unjust initiation of force.
Whenever we create "preventative" laws, often called "regulation", we are punishing hypothetical future criminals who are in fact innocent. That is an unjust initiation of force.
Whenever we create preferential law we are initiating force against those who are not the beneficiaries. That is an unjust initiation of force.
Whenever we create any law which is not applicable to all equally and retaliatory in nature, we are initiating unjust force against some group or another.
Whenever we create law which grants government more power than any individual, it is an unjust initiation of force upon the people as a whole.
Since we are a nation of tyrants, nearly all of our "law" written by tyrants, is an unjust initiation of force. If there is a particular law that you are unclear about simply measure it against my "meaningless" principle:
No just individual, group, or government initiates force against any individual, group, or government.
Any force which compels another to act involuntarily which in not retaliatory is unjust. My position will be clear without the need to ask.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Initiation of force to bodily defend oneself?
If someone is "defending" themselves from bodily attack they are retaliating. They are using retaliatory force. The attacker is initiating force. "Self-defense" is just.
Now if the "defense" is initiating force against an imagined, hypothetical, or assumed "attacker" that would be an initiation of force. Then our would be "self-defense" is unjust. "Presumption of future guilt" is never a justification for initiating force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Initiation of force to insure the free exercise of rights by another person?
Sounds a lot like "presumption of future guilt" is a common theme. "Rights" are natural and should not be limited for any reason other than to punish those who have initiated force to compel others to act involuntarily. "Taking away rights to protect rights" is perhaps the funniest, or saddest depending on viewpoint, idea that tyrants have drilled into our feeble minds.
When it is known that a person has compelled another to act involuntarily a retaliatory force should be used. Until such occurrence however, any infringement upon that person's freedom is unjust. The logic of the planners, regulators, and tyrants is similar to saying that all criminals breathe air, therefore all people who breathe should be punished.
Laws do not, will not, and cannot stop crime. Only the individual who decides to voluntarily comply with the law can do so. "Preventative" law is an illusion of security for the ignorant at best. In reality it is only a tool for manipulation of the masses by the tyrants. Laws, just ones that is, only punish actual criminals, not "future" criminals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Initiation of force to insure compliance with the laws of a civil society?
A "civil" society would not need any laws. However, we know that some fraction of people will always initiate force against others no matter how many laws we write. Criminals are no different than our lawmakers, they wish to impose their will onto others through an initiation of force.
Laws which initiate force are anything but civil. Initiation of force is always unjust, whether by sinner or saint. Only retaliatory law is just. You cannot retaliate against an imagined or future wrong and claim righteouness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
So, you see, stating what you are for or opposed to expressed in the most nebulous manner, makes your statement of principles meaningless.
It is nebulous only when one cannot apply a basic principle to an actual circumstance. I am happy to answer specific questions that you may have regarding my thinking, but accusing me of being vague simply because it is vague to you is unfair. Or am I to know all things that are unclear to you? I am not an omniscient being. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
And what is to be done in the case of un-cooperation?
Un-cooperation? With what? Are we talking of lowly humans who do not conform voluntarily to the personal interests of others? Perhaps we could tax them arbitrarily into complete servitude. Maybe we could promote division and factionalization through a never-ending stream of preferential law making them insignificant and alone against the highly organized and powerful rulers. I don't know what we are to do with people who wish to be free. How dare they? Perhaps a few mass graves can do the trick.
Why do we always come back to the implied assumption that freedom is evil? Why is freedom always somehow equated with anarchy? I do not advocate anarchy in any way whatsoever. I just don't believe that...well no need to state it again, right?
There is virtually no end to the amount of laws that can be written which punish those who have initiated force. I am simply against "preventative" and "preferential" law which initiate force upon currently innocent people.
The truth is, whether we realize it or not, our country is the way that it is because most of us believe that we are superior to our fellow man. We often believe that it is our "right" to force others to obey our personal interests.
People can hate me or the ideas that I hold. That is fine. People should be able to believe anything that they want. What they should not be able to do, and have no "right" to do, is force me to comply with their personal beliefs and interests. I will not force them to be free if they wish to be tools and servants of those in power. That is their choice. It is not a choice that I will make voluntarily. That is my choice.
Is democracy tyranny or is tyranny is the absence of democracy?
"Initiation of force is unjust.
Retaliatory force is just."
Quote:
Whenever we attack a nation with our military who has not attacked us, that is an unjust initiation of force.
By your reasoning there is no justification for one nation going to aid of another nation who has been unjustly attacked? Yes or No.
Quote:
Whenever we create "preventative" laws, often called "regulation", we are punishing hypothetical future criminals who are in fact innocent. That is an unjust initiation of force.
By your reasoning, as an extreme but appropriate example, murder should not be against the law because it punishes a hypothetical future murder? How absurd! And the absurdity isn't diminished even when we look for more benign examples, case in point, all restaurant employees must wash their hands after using the bathroom hands. This punishes who, hypothetically speaking?
Quote:
Whenever we create preferential law we are initiating force against those who are not the beneficiaries.[/quote}
What is a preferential law? Please cite specific examples.
Quote:
Whenever we create any law which is not applicable to all equally and retaliatory in nature, we are initiating unjust force against some group or another.
In principle neither I nor the Constitution has a problem with that, so would you cite a law which is not applicable to all citizens?
Quote:
Since we are a nation of tyrants, nearly all of our "law" written by tyrants, is an unjust initiation of force. If there is a particular law that you are unclear about simply measure it against my "meaningless" principle:
No just individual, group, or government initiates force against any individual, group, or government.
Any force which compels another to act involuntarily which in not retaliatory is unjust. My position will be clear without the need to ask.
Speed limits in school zones is tyranny?
Rules that preclude the dumping of hazardous materials is tyranny?
Require safe food preparation is tyranny?
Compulsory school attendance for children up to a certain age is tyranny?
Sound abatement regulations is tyranny?
Minimum safety standards in the workplace is tyranny.
The rest of this jibberish is so ridiculous that it defies attempting a cogent response.
Quote:
Sounds a lot like "presumption of future guilt" is a common theme. "Rights" are natural and should not be limited for any reason other than to punish those who have initiated force to compel others to act involuntarily.
Without laws which establish limits, there is absolutely no way to make a determination of guilt or innocence after the fact. While it is said that ignorance of the law is no defense, the abject absence of a law certainly is!
[quote}Laws do not, will not, and cannot stop crime. Only the individual who decides to voluntarily comply with the law can do so. "Preventative" law is an illusion of security for the ignorant at best. In reality it is only a tool for manipulation of the masses by the tyrants. Laws, just ones that is, only punish actual criminals, not "future" criminals.
Do you not see the inherent contradiction in your argument? Granted a law in and of itself will not prevent all crime but without the same laws that you deride, what law would it be that could be utilized to punish said offences after the fact??
Quote:
It is nebulous only when one cannot apply a basic principle to an actual circumstance.
Which is why I have been dying for real actual circumstances, even one circumstance!
The only reason you know about the Frankfurt Group is due to the links that I provided, otherwise you would not even know who they were and what impact they had on the development of modern liberalism.
A school that almost nobody has heard of aside from a handful of oddball left-wing academics and their mirror image: right-wing sleuths, is unlikely to have the sort of "impact" you are suggesting. Not impossible, but highly unlikely.
The Fabians actually came close to doing that while flying 'under the radar'. Nobody else has managed to repeat their level of success.
Quote:
Just because I have not taken a college level philosophy class does not mean I cannot read.
And just because you can read a book about the Frankfurt Group does not mean it is worth reading. What you read counts as much as if you read.
I had an acquaintance whose favorite magazine was "Weekly World News" and she believed at least half of it. But hey, she could read!
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
They don't want to hear facts. Change them, quickly, or they might get upset. The Frankfurt Group has them mad enough already.
If this were 1933, you'd be onto something. I'm sure I said somewhere that I would've been a Republican until at least 1960 if I'd been alive at the time.
Gosh, this Frankfurt Group doesn't have me mad at all. But I think they are going to be the new right-wing buzzword, which doesn't bother me. The general voting public has no idea where the city of Frankfurt is, for cripe's sake. Good luck.
Today, and just for today, I'm going to call myself a "lib" because I can't stand how others reduce everybody to a freaking label, usually one meant to convey an insult.
If there was a liberal/conservative choice forced on anyone, I cannot see how choosing the conservative side makes any sense. There is no constant but change and we each are not privy to all the information, so "liberal" makes sense because it allows for change and growth. The conservative ideology is a dead-end one because it wastes its energy fighting the inevitable. It is rooted in fear of such change and it has no ability to tolerate new strategies. It wishes to conserve what must pass away. At least the liberal ideology will try things, new things.
I don't agree with all of what the "right" terms liberal. "Liberal" to them is ANYTHING they don't like. Hell, to them, it's the liberals fault for <insert rage du jour here>. They can't think straight, they can't reason enough, and they gleefully enjoy name-calling and labels (see above) because they can't defend themselves any other way. I consider myself an independent left-leaning individual who leans left because my right leg is slightly longer than the other one!
Well said. IMO the hate sspeech the right uses for anything they don't like is offensive to me; they insult the intelligence of educated Americans.
For example that crude sheriff in florida screaming ..."Barack Hussein Obama"...... and palin (name spelled without capital to reflect contempt).... cheering him on...this is the image I see, and want NO part of.
Is democracy tyranny or is tyranny is the absence of democracy?
Unlimited majority rule, if that is how you define democracy, absolutely is tyranny.
Quote:
By your reasoning there is no justification for one nation going to aid of another nation who has been unjustly attacked? Yes or No.
Not without a formal, written mutual defense pact, which should be very few and far-between. No government has the right to sacrifice its own citizens for the defense of another country.
Unlimited majority rule, if that is how you define democracy, absolutely is tyranny.
Another try at undefined wordsmithing. What the hell is unlimited majority rule? The U.S. has unlimited majority rule which also enacted a bill of rights, so I'm a bit confused.
Quote:
Not without a formal, written mutual defense pact, which should be very few and far-between. No government has the right to sacrifice its own citizens for the defense of another country.
So, if it has a formal, written mutual defense pact, enacted by a the "tyrannical" representatives of the people it's ok, but without one, the same "tyrannical" representatives have no right to approval a declaration of war to defend another country? Am I missing something?
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.
Liberals- read about this group and you will understand that your beliefs are tools that were and are advocated to erode the west and make it more palatable to marxism. Just read for once and open your eyes. You will see all your "beliefs" there. THINK. Your "beliefs" were not established for the purpose of good, but evil.
Catholic Insight : Features : The Frankfurt School: Conspiracy to corrupt (http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_882.shtml - broken link)
You can in fact trace much to their history, ovens and the like.
And would you care to provide us with some of the scintillating research that led you to this conclusion or is this just a peanut gallery comment originating from right-wing propoganda? By your line of "thinking," the Frankfurt School is the foundation of American liberalism, but those who originated this school of thought were, in the words from the Kellner article provided by the OP himself, "[v]ictims of European fascism." So how exactly does your post fit into this? Or do you not really care about facts and logic?
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.
