Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Ask Pudge, Episode 9: Christianity, Conservatism, Liberalism, and War 11 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.

  • It's so easy to knock down straw men. Kinda fun sometimes, too.

    If only I had known that that liberals are driven by "wishful thinking" and and "the notion that we can make life on Earth perfect" and "[maybe] we can all have a Star Trek like existence". Gosh, even though I've never met a single liberal who espouses such a view, clearly you, Pudge, the Champion of Truth and Light, have revealed to me the Way. Never again shall I be so shallow as to believe that differences in core values might lead peopl

    • It's so easy to knock down straw men. Kinda fun sometimes, too.

      Sorry, try again. Actually, YOU are the one with the straw man here.

      If only I had known that that liberals are driven by "wishful thinking" and and "the notion that we can make life on Earth perfect" and "[maybe] we can all have a Star Trek like existence".

      I didn't say that. Listen again. I said it is a core part of the motive of MANY liberals. Not liberals in general.

      Gosh, even though I've never met a single liberal who espouses such a view

      • Agreed that you didn't say "all liberals". My apologies. However, you presented the viewpoint of what describe as "many liberals" and you quite failed to make it clear that this is a minority viewpoint. Instead, you presented a viewpoint that is clearly your own, you mocked it ("Star Trek like existence"?), and used a minority opinion -- one I don't hear -- as a contrast to conservative opinion. You might think it's fair to contrast a minority opinion with what you clearly view as the rational conservat

        • Agreed that you didn't say "all liberals". My apologies. However, you presented the viewpoint of what describe as "many liberals" and you quite failed to make it clear that this is a minority viewpoint.

          Excuse me for not being perfect. I guess my own lack of perfection is part of why I don't believe in the possibility of immanentizing the eschaton. :-) If I had gone deeply into it, I surely would have made that point, but I quickly moved on to another aspect of the topic.

          Also consider the context: I just g

          • So to contrast this, I could make the following statement:

            Many conservatives are racist bastards who feel that non-white people are less intelligent than white people and are genetically predisposed to commit crime. Liberals, quite rightly, reject this notion.

            One problem with that statement is that I've now lumped all liberals in the same category. I doubt that many liberals would agree with the "many conservatives" viewpoint I present, but I'm sure that some do. However, my statement about conservat

            • So to contrast this, I could make the following statement:

              Yes.

              One problem with that statement is that I've now lumped all liberals in the same category. I doubt that many liberals would agree with the "many conservatives" viewpoint I present, but I'm sure that some do.

              Yes, but that is not a problem with the statement I made, I believe. Racism and liberalism are not mutually exclusive (although certainly, liberalism in America tends to reject it). But the possibility of "immanentizing the eschaton" is, I believe, fundamentally opposed to what conservatism is. It'd be like saying that "I'm sure some liberals believe we should not use government to improve the lives of the people." That makes no sense; such a person isn't a liberal.

              However, my statement about conservatives is completely accurate -- depending on how one chooses to define "many".

              Sure.

              That's not the point, though. If I posted that statement to my blog, I'd be ripped to shreds for it

              Not by me, unless you tried to frame it into an attack on conservatives in general, or conservatism itself. If you left your attack -- as I believe I did -- on the racist views themselves, then I would have no problem with it.

              Just because a statement is technically correct does not mean that the connotation matches its literal meaning.

              Yes, and I already said I should have further emphasized the point you made. But I don't retract what I said, because I don't believe it was wrong. I still don't buy your idea that there was anything wrong with the comparison part. The problem was simply in inadvertantly leaving the impression, for some people, that I meant this was a pervasive idea among all or most liberals, when I didn't mean that at all.

              • But why compare non-pervasive ridiculous notions in the first place? Isn’t that an excercise in futility? The fact that someone is liberal or conservative does not make them more or less likely to hold ridiculous views. What changes may be the particular form of crackpottery or the way it it is expressed. But either way, neither conservatives nor liberals (nor anarchists nor people of any other political view) are in any way protected from stupid ideas purely on account of their ideology.

                This is th

                • But why compare non-pervasive ridiculous notions in the first place?

                  I was asked the question of whether liberalism is driven by wishful thinking. I said for some liberals, it is. I didn't come up with the question, and I answered it truthfully.

                  The fact that someone is liberal or conservative does not make them more or less likely to hold ridiculous views.

                  Yes ... and?

                  But either way, neither conservatives nor liberals (nor anarchists nor people of any other political view) are in any way protected from stup

                  • Again, someone asked a question about whether liberalism is driven by wishful thinking. I said, some liberals are, and I, and others who hold to my ideology, disagree with that.

                    Reasonable liberals disgree with that just as much as you and others who hold to your ideology do. Your ideology is irrelevant. Failing to point this out creates the impression that you want to causally relate holding to your ideology to the rejection of wishful thinking.

                    • Reasonable liberals disgree with that just as much as you and others who hold to your ideology do.

                      Yes, and?

                      Your ideology is irrelevant.

                      Of course it's not: I am the one criticizing the belief in question, and doing it from my perspective.

                      Failing to point this out creates the impression that you want to causally relate holding to your ideology to the rejection of wishful thinking.

                      No, it does not. You obviously incorrectly infer that, but that impression was not created by me.

                • But why compare non-pervasive ridiculous notions in the first place?

                  Because that's what the question asked in the first place.

                  --
                  J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.