Economic Left/Right: -3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31
Economic Left/Right: -3.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.69 (from 11/28/2005, a coincidental 2 years ago).
11/26/07
Bit of advice for those who might be too naive and confident
Never get into a debate with objectivists and subjectivists about the basis of your morality, because they'll never accept your answer, repeating the same questions over and over: "how do you know your basis is valid?" "Why is your morality better than someone elses?" "Why aren't good and evil simply subjective constructs?" "How can man create a system with which to judge himself when not everyone will agree to it?" "If mob rule is tyranny of the majority, isn't mob morality the same thing?""Who designs the safegaurds against this?" Etc.
While those might not be particularly good examples of the kinds of questions they'll ask, it's not far from there methodology. Objectivists/subjectivists aren't all amoral, they just don't seem to know what morality to follow, as in they can't define it by any external doctrines, and claiming it comes from within makes it virtually worthless for all but for the person in which it exists.
The simple answer is to tell them to bug off or you'll amorally beat them.
While those might not be particularly good examples of the kinds of questions they'll ask, it's not far from there methodology. Objectivists/subjectivists aren't all amoral, they just don't seem to know what morality to follow, as in they can't define it by any external doctrines, and claiming it comes from within makes it virtually worthless for all but for the person in which it exists.
The simple answer is to tell them to bug off or you'll amorally beat them.
11/25/07
Two opposing idea.
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas
in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.
F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Crack-Up" (1936)US novelist (1896 - 1940)
That's one of my favorite quotes, and follows closely to part of my perspective on intellectual honesty, which can be put this way: "The test of a high-rate honest intelligence is the willingness to challenge others' arguments even when you agree with the conclusions they form from them."
This matters to me because I can't find comfort in bad anti Iraq war arguments; bad pro gun arguments, etc.
How anyone could, I don't know.
11/13/07
Iniquities in Paltalk Social Issues
This is a direct address to two types of participants in the Paltalk Social Issues section of the Paltalk chat program.
The first persons I'm addressing are the anti-Jew, Muslim, etc, bigots.
First, being Jewish; of Jewish descent; and having empathy for Jews doesn't automatically make such a person a Zionist, and doesn't mean that person hates Muslims, Arabs, or any other peoples in conflict with Jews or Israel.
Second, not all Jews are evil, and more than likely most aren't evil, for the simple fact that the character of the individual can't be known before the fact of him demonstrating it, or in advance of the discovery of evidence of his character. The use of a person's stated religion, be it Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, etc., as proof of the moral failing of that person and his subsequent guilt in, or support for, some criminal act is also wrong, by virtue of any examples that belie the assumption: How can all Muslims be terrorists when one can find Muslims who reject violence and co-exist with people of other faiths? The simple answer is they can't, because to convict anyone for crimes with no evidence germane to them is to reason from an invalid premise, made so by the fact that the absolutist nature of the assumption is false. Ultimately, people are individuals first.
The second persons I'm addressing are the anti victim political opportunists.
I don't recall any victims, nor there advocates, asking you to obsess over hypocrisies by members of political parties, in and out of government office, and defame them as a whole with generalized accusations that they commit the very crime, sexually based ones, they claim to want to combat, or even to mock them for alleged sexual perversions. To assert that a party is not acting as it promised to on the issue of sex crimes is appropriate, to retard the advancement of legislation to that end with an uncessary focus on supposed inconsistencies not necessarily applicable to all, is asinine.
Both persons are either pitiable or immensely stupid, perhaps evil.
I find them sickening.
The first persons I'm addressing are the anti-Jew, Muslim, etc, bigots.
First, being Jewish; of Jewish descent; and having empathy for Jews doesn't automatically make such a person a Zionist, and doesn't mean that person hates Muslims, Arabs, or any other peoples in conflict with Jews or Israel.
Second, not all Jews are evil, and more than likely most aren't evil, for the simple fact that the character of the individual can't be known before the fact of him demonstrating it, or in advance of the discovery of evidence of his character. The use of a person's stated religion, be it Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, etc., as proof of the moral failing of that person and his subsequent guilt in, or support for, some criminal act is also wrong, by virtue of any examples that belie the assumption: How can all Muslims be terrorists when one can find Muslims who reject violence and co-exist with people of other faiths? The simple answer is they can't, because to convict anyone for crimes with no evidence germane to them is to reason from an invalid premise, made so by the fact that the absolutist nature of the assumption is false. Ultimately, people are individuals first.
The second persons I'm addressing are the anti victim political opportunists.
I don't recall any victims, nor there advocates, asking you to obsess over hypocrisies by members of political parties, in and out of government office, and defame them as a whole with generalized accusations that they commit the very crime, sexually based ones, they claim to want to combat, or even to mock them for alleged sexual perversions. To assert that a party is not acting as it promised to on the issue of sex crimes is appropriate, to retard the advancement of legislation to that end with an uncessary focus on supposed inconsistencies not necessarily applicable to all, is asinine.
Both persons are either pitiable or immensely stupid, perhaps evil.
I find them sickening.
11/8/07
On Isms and Liberalism
The suffix "ism" refers to one or more descriptive words for any given ideological, philosophical and religious beliefs, whether they are conservatism, liberalism, Mormonism, etc; other suffixes apply as well. When trying to define these terms, we have the following, and likely more, to consider: What is the root definition of the descriptive word intended to encompass the broadest possible definition of the belief system in question; what was the intention of its founder(s); what are its most accepted tenets; what are its most consistently espoused tenets? Answering those questions is crucial for determining not only if we want to be associated with a particular belief system, but for knowing if we both understand and deserve to claim an association with it.
It is not that an erroneous claim of being part of a belief system is bad, it is that claiming an association with a belief system as a cover for failure is cowardly, even when compared to the offensiveness of a mischaracterization of that belief system.
In my experience, the above behavior most often applies to self- described liberals. I will agree that the characterization of liberalism and liberals is sometimes, perhaps often, unfair, and I am not attacking liberalism, but I am criticizing some liberals. What I mean to ask of liberals is that they defend themselves by what they are as they are individually, and not refer back to what others say they have to be by the simple claim of membership in liberalism.
While there might never be widely accepted litmuses to prove or disprove the merits of a claim of membership in any given belief system, my own opinion of liberalism is that it is the greastest of belief systems for its inherent adaptability and apparent primary motivatation of global well-being. To acheive this is to reach saintly worth.
One is not a liberal because he claims to be, but because he is by how he acts.
As a liberal, you are not only free of the constraints of harmful selfishness, but also of equally destructive pride. Intellectual honesty is not a weakness, it is a justification for the pride others should have in you. That is what a liberal is to me, not arrogant but humble, and not certain but inquisitive, and has the final goal of making the world better.
It is not that an erroneous claim of being part of a belief system is bad, it is that claiming an association with a belief system as a cover for failure is cowardly, even when compared to the offensiveness of a mischaracterization of that belief system.
In my experience, the above behavior most often applies to self- described liberals. I will agree that the characterization of liberalism and liberals is sometimes, perhaps often, unfair, and I am not attacking liberalism, but I am criticizing some liberals. What I mean to ask of liberals is that they defend themselves by what they are as they are individually, and not refer back to what others say they have to be by the simple claim of membership in liberalism.
While there might never be widely accepted litmuses to prove or disprove the merits of a claim of membership in any given belief system, my own opinion of liberalism is that it is the greastest of belief systems for its inherent adaptability and apparent primary motivatation of global well-being. To acheive this is to reach saintly worth.
One is not a liberal because he claims to be, but because he is by how he acts.
As a liberal, you are not only free of the constraints of harmful selfishness, but also of equally destructive pride. Intellectual honesty is not a weakness, it is a justification for the pride others should have in you. That is what a liberal is to me, not arrogant but humble, and not certain but inquisitive, and has the final goal of making the world better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)