View Full Version : O'Reilly is chewing on muslims... continues with tonight's show
O.S.O.K.
10-25-2010, 07:04 PM
I'm watching it right now - "The muslim problem is real" = he's citing examples and backing up his statments.
I'm glad that somebody prominant is finally giving this the time it deserves.
Is he broad-brushing all Muslims as usual, or is he singling out the extremists?
blacksheep
10-25-2010, 07:32 PM
Is he broad-brushing all Muslims as usual, or is he singling out the extremists?
Can you tell the difference ?:gruebel::wondering:
El Jefe
10-25-2010, 07:52 PM
Is he broad-brushing all Muslims as usual, or is he singling out the extremists?
Die painfully please.
I thought you were leaving the country before the inquisition? You know we're coming for you first! :moe-getem:
American Rage
10-25-2010, 08:00 PM
Will O'Reilly be fired tomorrow? Or is that just an NPR thing to do?
Rage
Blacksmith
10-25-2010, 08:15 PM
Is he broad-brushing all Muslims as usual, or is he singling out the extremists?
I know you are nothing more than a troll that says stupid shit and avoids any real debates at all cost. but this has already been debated. by all means if you decide to debate rather than just troll, feel free to jump in.
http://www.gunsnet.net/showthread.php?3678-quot-I-m-63-and-I-m-Tired-quot
O.S.O.K.
10-25-2010, 08:19 PM
:pissin-chipmunk:LAGC:pissin-chipmunk2:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4082/4932997750_2f0b60de52_z.jpg
American Rage
10-25-2010, 08:27 PM
I know you are nothing more than a troll that says stupid shit and avoids any real debates at all cost. but this has already been debated. by all means if you decide to debate rather than just troll, feel free to jump in.
http://www.gunsnet.net/showthread.php?3678-quot-I-m-63-and-I-m-Tired-quot
WOOHOO! Others are catching on to his moveon game!
Rage
Nashorn
10-25-2010, 08:39 PM
Is he broad-brushing all Muslims as usual, or is he singling out the extremists?
Wait till they show up in your town and then tell us how"The Religion of Peace" and it's followers embrace you and your's.
Can you tell the difference ?:gruebel::wondering:
As there is over 1.2 billion Muslims in the world and we sure as hell aren't fighting 1.2 billion; there is a difference.
Die painfully please.
I thought you were leaving the country before the inquisition? You know we're coming for you first! :moe-getem:
It is just another stage of the libtard disease where they swear they are leaving but always continue to stay...
In their heart they know what kind of shyte holes await them if they do leave..
O.S.O.K.
10-25-2010, 09:12 PM
Yeah, its not all 1.2 Billion of them... just about 3 or 400 million of them.
Wait till they show up in your town and then tell us how"The Religion of Peace" and it's followers embrace you and your's.
We just had a new Islamic center open up in my town the other week. They're as harmless as most Christian churches are. Sure, when any one religion gains a foot-hold they naturally try to impose their "values" on everyone else, like the local Mormons have banned liquor sales on Sundays and gambling here due to their strong influence on state politics.
The way I see it though, the more religious diversity we have, the less likely any one group will be able to get away with passing laws that encroach on the rest of us. So the more (moderate) Muslims the merrier! It's not like they're in any danger of over-taking Christianity in this country. Religious minorities don't concern me as much as religious majorities, in any given area.
American Rage
10-25-2010, 09:49 PM
We just had a new Islamic center open up in my town the other week. They're as harmless as most Christian churches are. Sure, when any one religion gains a foot-hold they naturally try to impose their "values" on everyone else, like the local Mormons have banned liquor sales on Sundays and gambling here due to their strong influence on state politics.
The way I see it though, the more religious diversity we have, the less likely any one group will be able to get away with passing laws that encroach on the rest of us. So the more (moderate) Muslims the merrier! It's not like they're in any danger of over-taking Christianity in this country. Religious minorities don't concern me as much as religious majorities, in any given area.
Any thing that causes you "concern" must be a good thing. Otherwise, I don't give a damn what you think.
Rage
matshock
10-25-2010, 10:47 PM
Yeah, its not all 1.2 Billion of them... just about 3 or 400 million of them.
And then most of the rest support that 3 or 400 million with money/labor/silence.
Heck, I consider the ones who speak against worldwide jihad to be the extremists.
The tangos are the mainstream.
swampdragon
10-25-2010, 11:47 PM
Yeah, its not all 1.2 Billion of them... just about 3 or 400 million of them.
Oh!
Well hell, that's better!
:lool:
Yeah, its not all 1.2 Billion of them... just about 3 or 400 million of them.
It is less than a half million which proves just how well terrorism works on our minds. Because they strike on a global level the assumption is there must be a lot of them.
Between 2000 and 2007 there was a total of 140 suicide bombing attacks in Israel (link is below). That is only 140 suicide bombers over 8 years; yet, the risk of a act of terror must certainly be on their minds.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Suicide+and+Other+Bombing+Attacks+in+Israel+Since. htm
Oh!
Well hell, that's better!
:lool:
True, when anything has the situational awareness gain cranked to wide open there has just got to be a lot of them.
lol
renegadebuck
10-26-2010, 10:52 AM
It is less than a half million which proves just how well terrorism works on our minds. Because they strike on a global level the assumption is there must be a lot of them.
Between 2000 and 2007 there was a total of 140 suicide bombing attacks in Israel (link is below). That is only 140 suicide bombers over 8 years; yet, the risk of a act of terror must certainly be on their minds.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Suicide+and+Other+Bombing+Attacks+in+Israel+Since. htm
True, when anything has the situational awareness gain cranked to wide open there has just got to be a lot of them.
lol
In most groups, there's only a small percentage that does the fighting. We have how many million citizens? What percent are military? The "non-extremist Muslims" must not only condemn the extreme, but turn them in and stop funding and/or expose the way of funding when they know it so as to stop them. If the entire "non-extreme" population is against the extremist and help in hunting them down and erraticating them, then there will be a difference that should be reconised. As long as the behavior is allowed/ignored, only verbally condemned by the group as a whole, the difference will not be aknowledged. I don't care if they turn them in to some "policing" force, or just disband, correct and and let them fade into the workings of Islam, as long as the "religion" acts to stop the violence.
I'm watching it right now - "The muslim problem is real" = he's citing examples and backing up his statments.
I'm glad that somebody prominant is finally giving this the time it deserves.
Wonderful... a man who is already an asshat oppressing a minority because of something that was committed by the mormons of Islam
In most groups, there's only a small percentage that does the fighting. We have how many million citizens? What percent are military? The "non-extremist Muslims" must not only condemn the extreme, but turn them in and stop funding and/or expose the way of funding when they know it so as to stop them. If the entire "non-extreme" population is against the extremist and help in hunting them down and erraticating them, then there will be a difference that should be reconised. As long as the behavior is allowed/ignored, only verbally condemned by the group as a whole, the difference will not be aknowledged. I don't care if they turn them in to some "policing" force, or just disband, correct and and let them fade into the workings of Islam, as long as the "religion" acts to stop the violence.
You got it 100%.
However, Iraqis and Afghans knew well enough the consequences of not toeing the line.
I had a Muslim from Palestine tell me that when "they" said get out and demonstrate; the people knew to do it or pay the consequences. Not just you; but everyone in your whole family would be beaten. Not just your immediate family but 3rd cousins you never even met.
As I know their religion states lying to infidels is accepted there were still doubts; then I heard of the Iraqi rape rooms. The Taliban forcing people to walk to the soccer stadium to be executed. All of us would say the only thing I'd deliver to the rape room would be bullets and it sure as hell wouldn't be my mother, or sister or wife. So there is fear even when people are armed.
However, that being said IMO, the terrorists, their supporters and contributors would be targeted for assassination. The US called it the Phoenix Program and it was so successful the Israelis modeled a program of their own after it.
The only way to stop the violence is to kill all the perpetrators and as few non-combatants as possible..
El Jefe
10-26-2010, 11:52 AM
Wonderful... a man who is already an asshat oppressing a minority because of something that was committed by the mormons of Islam
WTF? What do you actually know about Mormons? And how can you compare them to Jihadis?
WTF? What do you actually know about Mormons? And how can you compare them to Jihadis?
Mormons in numbers compared to Christendom as a whole. The Jihadists are a tiny minority within the 1.2 billion muslims.
The Mormons are a sect with their own interpretation of the Bible. The Jihadists are also a sect.
swampdragon
10-26-2010, 01:27 PM
Mormons are Christian Scientology followers...lol
Wonderful... a man who is already an asshat oppressing a minority because of something that was committed by the mormons of Islam
Who is oppressing a minority?
Someone commented on radical Islamic fundamentalists and you spin that into everyone is picking on the innocent Muslims.... Are you that dysfunctional mate?
You do realize that here in the States we are quite used to some spinning any disagreement with 0bama into you're a racist..
Other than you have nothing else to support your moon bat crapola views why is the Left so desperate to spin everything?
Someone commented on radical Islamic fundamentalists and you spin that into everyone is picking on the innocent Muslims.... Are you that dysfunctional mate?
I've met some very islamophobic people in my country. I expect there are islamophobes in the USA. After all 4000 people died on 9/11.
Other than you have nothing else to support your moon bat crapola views why is the Left so desperate to spin everything?
I'm a (British meaning of) liberal with strong support for negative liberty.
swampdragon
10-26-2010, 11:49 PM
What's negative liberty?
Oswald Bastable
10-27-2010, 12:21 AM
What's negative liberty?
Meaning he's pro oppression and control.
Hochmeister
10-27-2010, 01:40 AM
This will continue to be a never ending cycle for humanity.. There is always a side to choose, always a made up cause to fight for, but in the end, is it all worth it? Screw all those warmongering fools. It's like being racially intolerant. For example, why should we single people out because of their race? do we truly have a right to 2nd class others? Nobody can answer these questions because their mind is clouded with judgement, and is poisioned by societies fear/warmongering machine (the media) churning out anything and everything they can to turn the people against one another instead of unite and atleast do our best to care for the majority. It's a sad fact of life, but we will always be at war as long as humans exists because there will always be a new generation that has yet to spill blood and is eager to do so until after the deed is done, and they realize how horrible war really is and how badly it affects everyone involved including those who choose to be the aggressors. I'm no tree hugger, but people need to respect life and learn to enjoy it.
Meaning he's pro oppression and control.
No, it's freedom from restriction. So much for taking the words out of my mouth, more like inserting your rhetoric. I accept that you haven't read Isaiah Berlin and couldn't help yourself.
Oswald Bastable
10-27-2010, 03:18 AM
No, it's freedom from restriction. So much for taking the words out of my mouth, more like inserting your rhetoric. I accept that you haven't read Isaiah Berlin and couldn't help yourself.
Must be some more of that double speak then. From Merriam Webster:
liberty noun
1) the power, right, or opportunity to choose
2) the state of being free from the control or power of another
The negative of a thing is its opposite, thus if negative liberty does not mean shackles, oppression and control, it is an oxymoron.
Double speak at its finest.
And what part of "liberty", all on its little own lonesome suggests or implies anything other than freedom from restriction?
Must be some more of that double speak then. From Merriam Webster:
Oh dear. I expected more from the man who lectured me on not using google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
as a contrast to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
swampdragon
10-27-2010, 02:08 PM
Oh dear. I expected more from the man who lectured me on not using google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
as a contrast to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
Thank you for the clarification.
bubagun
10-27-2010, 02:31 PM
Is he broad-brushing all Muslims as usual, or is he singling out the extremists?
Yeah...that's it! He must be a racist.
bubagun
10-27-2010, 02:35 PM
We just had a new Islamic center open up in my town the other week. They're as harmless as most Christian churches are. Sure, when any one religion gains a foot-hold they naturally try to impose their "values" on everyone else, like the local Mormons have banned liquor sales on Sundays and gambling here due to their strong influence on state politics.
The way I see it though, the more religious diversity we have, the less likely any one group will be able to get away with passing laws that encroach on the rest of us. So the more (moderate) Muslims the merrier! It's not like they're in any danger of over-taking Christianity in this country. Religious minorities don't concern me as much as religious majorities, in any given area.
Well...THAT was well thought out. Have you considered seeking mental health care? Or are you still in solitary confinement and thus have not a fucking clue?
bubagun
10-27-2010, 02:39 PM
I've met some very islamophobic people in my country. I expect there are islamophobes in the USA. After all 4000 people died on 9/11.
I'm a (British meaning of) liberal with strong support for negative liberty.
You are good with being a faceless number in the INGSOC machine? What a fucking retard.
bubagun
10-27-2010, 02:44 PM
I accept that you haven't read Isaiah Berlin and couldn't help yourself.
I take it then that you have never read the Declaration of Independence . You must be another pseudo-intellectual who has watched the movie "V"...waaaaay to many times. There is a big world outside of your parents basement. You should get out into it every now and then. The sunlight on your face will do wonders for those nasty zits and pustules.
El Jefe
10-27-2010, 03:18 PM
Meaning he's pro oppression and control.
He has stated in the past he's happy being a Serf. He likes keeping the Royal Family in riches for no apparent reason. He likes the fact that he and those like him can't speak freely and can't even defend their homes from criminals. Yep, Serf.
I take it then that you have never read the Declaration of Independence .
I'm a Brit. As much as I respect Jefferson, there is little relevance to me reading the treaties of the USA.
You must be another pseudo-intellectual who has watched the movie "V"...waaaaay to many times. There is a big world outside of your parents basement. You should get out into it every now and then. The sunlight on your face will do wonders for those nasty zits and pustules.
I've never seen V. My parents don't have a basement and I don't have enough free time being employed to wash dishes at a care home.
He has stated in the past he's happy being a Serf. He likes keeping the Royal Family in riches for no apparent reason. He likes the fact that he and those like him can't speak freely and can't even defend their homes from criminals. Yep, Serf.
Ah, shush Jeff.
The Royals are history. They should be exiled.
Sometimes speech can cause harm and one is not permitted to speak where likely injury or loss of life is caused. John Stuart Mill says that you have the freedom to say anything, you don't have the freedom to enrage a mob against a farmer outside his house. However, British law concerning freedom of speech is abhorrent, I hate it.
Oswald Bastable
10-27-2010, 07:41 PM
Oh dear. I expected more from the man who lectured me on not using google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
as a contrast to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
I see, from a 1958 essay, a clear example of early uses of double speak as 'liberty' has had a clear (and clearly positive) definition for centuries prior. Just because some gomer (regardless of how well regarded he is) decides to try to change the meaning of the word from what it's been previously, it doesn't follow that it's a valid change in meaning. I see that he may have borrowed the terms from Eric Fromm, a Freudian psychoanalyst and humanist (that's two strikes against him...and yes, I've read Fromm too) but to quote Fromm's mentor, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
I do find it interesting that someone who seems to disdain philosophy, would have no problem quoting philosophers and using their concepts in attempting to justify his reasoning. But perhaps intellectual dishonesty is a part and parcel of what you've been taught.
American Rage
10-27-2010, 08:04 PM
Meaning he's pro oppression and control.
Oh, so his a socialist?
I can't help but wonder what type?
National Socialist? (Nazi)
or
International Socialist? (Communist)
Rage
I've met some very islamophobic people in my country. I expect there are islamophobes in the USA. After all 4000 people died on 9/11.
Some people are that way; most of it is just a bunch of talk. The radical Islamic groups have been preaching hate and killing for a long time... Btw, you do realize the difference between your "islamophobe" and a racist is the islamophobe has an honest to golly reason whereas a racist doesn't.
I'm a (British meaning of) liberal with strong support for negative liberty.
As you answered everything except what I asked so yup, you're most definitely a liberal alright.. :D
So whut is negative liberty? It probably blends in right wif thet dose of change we got
I do find it interesting that someone who seems to disdain philosophy, would have no problem quoting philosophers and using their concepts in attempting to justify his reasoning. But perhaps intellectual dishonesty is a part and parcel of what you've been taught.
Oh no, not another Climate-gate in the left's closet..
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
I'm sure they did it to save humanity from what wasn't happening..
American Rage
10-27-2010, 09:00 PM
Mormons in numbers compared to Christendom as a whole. The Jihadists are a tiny minority within the 1.2 billion muslims.
The Mormons are a sect with their own interpretation of the Bible. The Jihadists are also a sect.
Hahahahahaha!
Man, are you ignorant.
Rage
Oswald Bastable
10-27-2010, 09:20 PM
I'm a Brit. As much as I respect Jefferson, there is little relevance to me reading the treaties of the USA.
And here I thought you were fascinated by America. Apparently not so fascinated to read its founding documents though. More intellectual dishonesty designed as legitimate discourse. You're coming apart with your contradictions.
I see, from a 1958 essay, a clear example of early uses of double speak as 'liberty' has had a clear (and clearly positive) definition for centuries prior.
Ozzy, you are clearly missing the point. There are two types of freedom, one leads to the modern libertarian democracy and the other (positive) is a major justification for the french revolution, the american revolution, the 1979 Iranian revolution, the Iraq War, the War on Terror... etc.
And... the 1917 Russian Revolution! Duh, duh, dah!
I do find it interesting that someone who seems to disdain philosophy, would have no problem quoting philosophers and using their concepts in attempting to justify his reasoning. But perhaps intellectual dishonesty is a part and parcel of what you've been taught.
I study philosophy. Didn't consider that did you.
And here I thought you were fascinated by America. Apparently not so fascinated to read its founding documents though. More intellectual dishonesty designed as legitimate discourse. You're coming apart with your contradictions.
If I'm honest, the Declaration of Independence was the most insignificant treaty of that time. I am far more interested in the state-building that took place afterwards involving the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the Reconstruction after the American Civil War.
And who the hell do you think you are to define interest? Action are far more powerful than the written word and I mainly derive my interest from those actions. The Declaration of Independence is merely a rant at George III, with the most spectacular second sentence ever written. I found the rest boring when there is perfectly good explanations of the Revolution written in history books. It's nothing more than a Preface for things to come.
swampdragon
10-28-2010, 02:57 AM
If I'm honest, the Declaration of Independence was the most insignificant treaty of that time. I am far more interested in the state-building that took place afterwards involving the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the Reconstruction after the American Civil War.
Since when did the Declaration of Independence become a treaty?
LOL and then LOL some more.
It's just the opposite.
It was America stating that we are going to handle our own business and England could fuck the fuck right the fuck off.
England wouldn't listen, so we kicked your asses.
"Treaty?"
:roflwithfeetcv2:
A treaty is something that both sides sign in agreement.
We didn't give a flying shit if you agreed or not at all.
I don't see one single British signature on it.
Do you?
"Treaty."
:laughingtohard:
Stick to philosophy Siph.
Because you suck ass at reality and history....lol
Oswald Bastable
10-28-2010, 05:30 AM
Ozzy, you are clearly missing the point. There are two types of freedom, one leads to the modern libertarian democracy and the other (positive) is a major justification for the french revolution, the american revolution, the 1979 Iranian revolution, the Iraq War, the War on Terror... etc.
And... the 1917 Russian Revolution! Duh, duh, dah!
Syphilis, you are clearly missing the point. Just because some bozo appropriates a couple of oxymoronic terms from a head shrinker and tries to turn them into a philosophical connection between various revolutions with little or no connection to each other (and now I see you trying to connect them to the iranian revolution, iraq war, war against the resurgent nazis?...my God, you truly are deluded) does not make it so, no matter how fiercely you wish to argue it. Of all your listed revolutions/wars, the only two for which there is any connection is the French and American revolutions, i.e., the will of the serfs to be free of their oppressive masters, to set up an order in which men can be free without the undue influence of government in their lives. Both succeeded to varying degrees, both have backslid in the years since those revolutions.
Please do not even try to link the bolshevik revolution to these, as we know how that turned out as far as freedom for the common man, or perhaps we don't both know...perhaps you think the russians under Stalin were every bit as free as the colonials under Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc. I'd be interested to hear your analysis of how Stalinist russians were so free, compared to colonial Americans, should you make the misguided attempt to posit correlations. Further, I'd like an explanation of how iranians became more free after the iranian revolution, and how they're so much freer now than prior to that revolution.
I study philosophy. Didn't consider that did you.
Well, well, well, if that isn't one of the most bald faced lies you've told, I don't know what is. If my previous statement in another thread, to wit: "I have read Mill, and Locke, Hume and Bacon; and Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Aristotle, Socrates, Epictetus, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Freud, Jung, Maslow, Erickson, Durkheim, Spencer, Merton, the list goes on."
If that does not indicate a study of philosophy...I'm not sure what does. For you to now state you 'didn't consider' that I'd studied it, not only shows you for the liar you are, but indicates you're so foolish as to think we can't read what's been previously posted, or that we can't remember what's been written from day to day...my personal leaning is to the consideration you're an out and out liar.
If I'm honest, the Declaration of Independence was the most insignificant treaty of that time. I am far more interested in the state-building that took place afterwards involving the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the Reconstruction after the American Civil War.
And who the hell do you think you are to define interest? Action are far more powerful than the written word and I mainly derive my interest from those actions. The Declaration of Independence is merely a rant at George III, with the most spectacular second sentence ever written. I found the rest boring when there is perfectly good explanations of the Revolution written in history books. It's nothing more than a Preface for things to come.
As Swampy already stated, there is nothing treatyesque about the Declaration, and you are a fool if you so designate it. You are the one who claimed such a great interest and fascination with America. I find it strange that someone with such a professed interest would find a document that changed history so unimportant as to relegate it to the dustbin of unimportance. Do you assign the Magna Carta (which I dare say I also know better than you know the Declaration) to that same dustbin of unimportance? I also find it interesting that you suddenly profess to find action more important than words, since to date you've implied an express interest in word over action. Do you not grasp that the formation and signing of the Declaration was the impetus for the action that came after? Can you not grasp that without the many discussions, arguments, the stealth and secrecy in which those discussions and arguments took place, the risk taken by those who formed and signed the Declaration, that those very actions were of historic import? If you can't grasp that, then you have no sense or knowledge of history and its creation whatsoever, and you should resign yourself to being little more than a good serf answerable to your overlords until the day you expire, or the day they decree you expire because you no longer generate enough tax revenue, or you're decreed too useless to live.
Since when did the Declaration of Independence become a treaty?
It was a proposition to King George III. Perhaps you would be more comfortable to accept "failed treaty".
How would you describe it?
Stick to philosophy Siph.
Because you suck ass at reality and history....lol
You need to amend that last sentence: "Because you suck ass at reality and history with American spin. Avoiding spin is impossible. I'm guilty of Britspin.
(and now I see you trying to connect them to the iranian revolution, iraq war, war against the resurgent nazis?...my God, you truly are deluded)
Perhaps it requires more time to massage this idea into your head. It is very subtle and I forgive you mistaking my analysis for delusion.
Positive liberty is the freedom to fulfil ones potential. It is when an oppressed peoples rise up against its masters to pursue a better future. It requires strong-willed leaders and in nearly all cases violence.
This in turn leads the the proliferation of violence and in nearly all cases, tyranny. Positive freedom is the freedom to pursue ideology and it has lead to Nazism, Anarchist, Republicanism, Feminism, Communism, Islamic Government, the American Dream and the NeoCon Dream.
You even hit this on the head in this quote:
Please do not even try to link the bolshevik revolution to these, as we know how that turned out as far as freedom for the common man, or perhaps we don't both know...perhaps you think the russians under Stalin were every bit as free as the colonials under Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc. I'd be interested to hear your analysis of how Stalinist russians were so free, compared to colonial Americans, should you make the misguided attempt to posit correlations. Further, I'd like an explanation of how iranians became more free after the iranian revolution, and how they're so much freer now than prior to that revolution.
Why do you both understand and resist? Positive liberty leads to tyranny, negative liberty leads to the USA. This is what Isaiah Berlin wrote about. You accept it and understand it. Positive liberty is Ideological Tyranny by another name.
Well, well, well, if that isn't one of the most bald faced lies you've told,
You want proof. Do you want to see my certified A grade in the subject? Come on, show me your Philosophy Degree.
Do you assign the Magna Carta (which I dare say I also know better than you know the Declaration) to that same dustbin of unimportance?
Yes, it was merely the passage of power from one tyrant to many.
I also find it interesting that you suddenly profess to find action more important than words, since to date you've implied an express interest in word over action. Do you not grasp that the formation and signing of the Declaration was the impetus for the action that came after?
No, I have a firm grasp about what happened. I just don't particularly care. Each to their own. I find Manifest Destiny, the Louisiana Purchase etc. far more interesting. My fascination pivots around the growth of American Power and the USA was powerless when it declared independence. With the war, you proved you had the fight to remain free and we folded.
O.S.O.K.
10-28-2010, 02:08 PM
I sure like the way the pro-muzzys use terms like "jihadists" and the like. The fact is, "the muslim problem" as O'Reilly is correctly pointing out is the fact that they are all enablers of those among them that are committing the attrocities. They do nothing to stop them and in fact, cheer them on and support them. The best that the "moderate" muzzys seem to be able to do is nothing at all. You can count on one hand the number of muslims that actually speak out against the jihad and muslim expansion. And some of those are just doing it as a way of protecting some pro-muzzy group.
That is the muslim problem.
You can always find the exception and point to him/her and say "see, you are just islamophobic" and other such bullshit arguments.
Try "realist".
It's far past time in this country that we discuss this openly and honestly and work towards a solution.
Not to do so is irresponsible IMHO.
They do nothing to stop them and in fact, cheer them on and support them.
That's a sweeping generalisation. If you have asked a muslim about his or her views on 9/11 you may get closer to the truth.
The best that the "moderate" muzzys seem to be able to do is nothing at all. You can count on one hand the number of muslims that actually speak out against the jihad and muslim expansion. And some of those are just doing it as a way of protecting some pro-muzzy group.
Moderates don't tend to be invited on FOX, if it got out that most muslims didn't want global jihad it would spoil all the BS they have been spouting. Glenn Beck's corcodiule tears would have been for nothing.
swampdragon
10-28-2010, 05:01 PM
It was a proposition to King George III. Perhaps you would be more comfortable to accept "failed treaty".
How would you describe it?
It was a declaration, not a request.
Simple concept really.
That's why it was called a declaration.
O.S.O.K.
10-28-2010, 06:42 PM
That's a sweeping generalisation. If you have asked a muslim about his or her views on 9/11 you may get closer to the truth.
Moderates don't tend to be invited on FOX, if it got out that most muslims didn't want global jihad it would spoil all the BS they have been spouting. Glenn Beck's corcodiule tears would have been for nothing.
Yes, I see that you Brits have it all under control there. Yes, I think we should listen to your opionon on the matter. And you also have things well in hand with crime and gun control. Taxes - yep you've got that nailed too.
Are you a muslim or something or just a bleeding heart apologist liberal marxist?
Oswald Bastable
10-28-2010, 07:13 PM
Perhaps it requires more time to massage this idea into your head. It is very subtle and I forgive you mistaking my analysis for delusion.
Positive liberty is the freedom to fulfil ones potential. It is when an oppressed peoples rise up against its masters to pursue a better future. It requires strong-willed leaders and in nearly all cases violence.
This in turn leads the the proliferation of violence and in nearly all cases, tyranny. Positive freedom is the freedom to pursue ideology and it has lead to Nazism, Anarchist, Republicanism, Feminism, Communism, Islamic Government, the American Dream and the NeoCon Dream.
Positive liberty is redundant, as Mill would have told you, regardless of Berlin's attempt to posthumously shoehorn Mill's philosophy into his own.
Why do you both understand and resist? Positive liberty leads to tyranny, negative liberty leads to the USA. This is what Isaiah Berlin wrote about. You accept it and understand it. Positive liberty is Ideological Tyranny by another name.
And negative liberty is an oxymoron. Your attempts at a poorly thought out, poorly conceived revisionist history interest me even less that the Declaration does you.
You want proof. Do you want to see my certified A grade in the subject? Come on, show me your Philosophy Degree.
Not the lie (though potentially not true) and you know it. The spin is transparent though.
Yes, I see that you Brits have it all under control there. Yes, I think we should listen to your opionon on the matter. And you also have things well in hand with crime and gun control. Taxes - yep you've got that nailed too.
Have I ever said that UK is better than USA? Nope, USA is superior to the UK.
Are you a muslim or something or just a bleeding heart apologist liberal marxist?
I'm an atheist, liberal (as in pro-libertarianism, amorality), capitalist. I'd like to see evidence in any of my recent posts of my supposed-marxism...
Positive liberty is redundant, as Mill would have told you, regardless of Berlin's attempt to posthumously shoehorn Mill's philosophy into his own.
Actually, Mill couldn't make the distinction. He died before the tyrannies of the 20th century that claimed to be "free". Berlin was merely classifying their concept of freedom.
I personally think you are overreacting to this distinction because Berlin was a liberal (not a socialist as his writings show). I personally believe it to be both intelligent and subtle.
And negative liberty is an oxymoron. Your attempts at a poorly thought out, poorly conceived revisionist history interest me even less that the Declaration does you.
Are you a grammar fiend or something? Negative liberty is actually negative (restriction) liberty and positive liberty is positive (potential) liberty. Let me guess, you think that this proves I hate liberty. All liberty has positive effects but not all liberty is positive (potential).
A positive libertarian thinks that it is acceptable to lock someone up/kill them to aid the rise of the proletariat in a certain country.
A negative libertarian thinks that it is unacceptable to do this but believe that the proletariat should rise up in peaceful protest.
The spin is transparent though.
Oh grow up. Everyone spins like a top.
Oswald Bastable
10-29-2010, 04:16 AM
Actually, Mill couldn't make the distinction. He died before the tyrannies of the 20th century that claimed to be "free". Berlin was merely classifying their concept of freedom.
Mill couldn't make the distinction because it would have been as absurd to him as it is to me, and to anyone not intoxicated with revisionist, marxist education.
I personally think you are overreacting to this distinction because Berlin was a liberal (not a socialist as his writings show).
I personally believe you hold to the distinction because you can't believe you've accepted double speak blather as truth, rather than examining it critically in the light of history (real and not revisionist) and philosophical, rational thought throughout the ages.
I personally believe it to be both intelligent and subtle.
Well of course you do, you've been conditioned to it since birth. How could you do otherwise?
Are you a grammar fiend or something? Negative liberty is actually negative (restriction) liberty and positive liberty is positive (potential) liberty. Let me guess, you think that this proves I hate liberty. All liberty has positive effects but not all liberty is positive (potential).
Are you incapable of understanding such simplistic terms as redundancy and oxymoron? Are you saying they're beyond you? Are you saying that because you believe the terms you use are valid, that makes them so? Well aren't you special.
A positive libertarian thinks that it is acceptable to lock someone up/kill them to aid the rise of the proletariat in a certain country.
A negative libertarian thinks that it is unacceptable to do this but believe that the proletariat should rise up in peaceful protest.
Given you're now using both terms in conjunction with marxist terminology, your previous assertion that Berlin was not a socialist, and that you are not a socialist, or more specifically, a marxist, appear to be yet another outright lie on your part.
Oh grow up. Everyone spins like a top.
No, not everyone. Just people of your ilk.
I personally believe you hold to the distinction because you can't believe you've accepted double speak blather as truth, rather than examining it critically in the light of history (real and not revisionist) and philosophical, rational thought throughout the ages.
I congratulate you for your consistency of conservative philosophical dialogue. I think this is one of those situations where we simply make assumptions about each other over the pettiest of issues. Dwelling on the oxymoronic nature of the phrase "negative liberty" when it was made by one of the most respectable political philosophers of the early 20th century, who inspired Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher etc. is simply irrelevant when talking about the distinction of freedom.
Negative liberty has a rich history supported by Hobbes, Locke, Bentham, John Jay, Tibor Machan etc. Why can you not accept that the idea of negative liberty?
Well of course you do, you've been conditioned to it since birth. How could you do otherwise?
This is what I expected. I have no answer for you. The answer would lead to circular rhetoric. I may or may not be conditioned from birth.
I need to move to the USA and experience negative liberty first hand. I hope that someone stops Obama's spending.
Are you incapable of understanding such simplistic terms as redundancy and oxymoron? Are you saying they're beyond you?
Prove to me the distinction is redundant. Just stating it doesn't make it true.
Given you're now using both terms in conjunction with marxist terminology, your previous assertion that Berlin was not a socialist, and that you are not a socialist, or more specifically, a marxist, appear to be yet another outright lie on your part.
You judge me by my illustrations and you judge Berlin by my illustrations. Berlin was fiercely against the USSR as proved in his essay. Again, making claims like "outright lie" when you lack the time to check if Berlin was a socialist makes you as lazy and pathetic as me.
I congratulate you for your consistency of conservative philosophical dialogue. I think this is one of those situations where we simply make assumptions about each other over the pettiest of issues. Dwelling on the oxymoronic nature of the phrase "negative liberty" when it was made by one of the most respectable political philosophers of the early 20th century, who inspired Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher etc. is simply irrelevant when talking about the distinction of freedom.
As it did not influence us and your interpretations of matters are quite different than ours it might be of importance..
However, I do agree negative liberty where I am supposed to achieve less than my potential is greater than merely oxymoronic.
To illustrate what I am saying:
oxymoronic.
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.As you see, to you it is a word; to us it isn't one.
Negative liberty has a rich history supported by Hobbes, Locke, Bentham, John Jay, Tibor Machan etc. Why can you not accept that the idea of negative liberty?
I can't see how limiting one's potential qualifies as a rich history....
Why can't I accept it; well, because it limits my potential?
I may or may not be conditioned from birth.
If you are conditioned to lose; then you will be a product of your conditioning.
You judge me by my illustrations and you judge Berlin by my illustrations. Berlin was fiercely against the USSR as proved in his essay. Again, making claims like "outright lie" when you lack the time to check if Berlin was a socialist makes you as lazy and pathetic as me.
Why would someone waste the time in something which is intended to limit their ability to achieve?
Why would someone adopt such a thing is a better question...
However, I do agree negative liberty where I am supposed to achieve less than my potential is greater than merely oxymoronic.
Ahh. I see. I've been unclear from the start.
Negative liberty is freedom from restriction so that you can achieve whatever you desire providing it doesn't harm others.
Positive liberty is the Marxist idea that that in individual should be support by the state to fulfil ones potential. The French Revolution happened to create a government that would help the poor in Paris reach their full potential.
Oswald Bastable
10-30-2010, 03:44 AM
I congratulate you for your consistency of conservative philosophical dialogue. I think this is one of those situations where we simply make assumptions about each other over the pettiest of issues. Dwelling on the oxymoronic nature of the phrase "negative liberty" when it was made by one of the most respectable political philosophers of the early 20th century, who inspired Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher etc. is simply irrelevant when talking about the distinction of freedom.
I will be the first, as offered in the thread on Brits cutting civil service jobs, to conform to the new rules of discourse I offered. It is up to you whether they will be followed in future.
I grasp that the ideas of negative and positive liberty were first postulated by Berlin in his essay, and I grasp what he was trying to delineate in separating liberty into those two divergent concepts. What I disagree with is that his respect is well deserved or earned, or that his ideas were properly formed.
I disagree that Mill, Hobbes, Locke or Bentham had any concept of a positive or negative liberty. For them, liberty was a positive, period, end of story. Its opposite was tyranny, the squashing of liberty beneath the heel of state. I believe they would have (as I have done) described the ideas of positive and negative liberty as redundant or as an oxymoron (i.e., tyranny). And yes, I grasp that Berlin has reversed those two beliefs in his explanation of his theory, which is why I deem it revisionist and double speak. That Berlin has attempted to shoehorn previous thinkers philosophies into his own is admirable only insofar as he has understood their thinking. That he has tried to subvert them into his thinking in opposite forms than that which they would have agreed with, is despicable...and that is why I challenge his renown.
What you need to understand is that marxist ideals and ideology have as its heart, the subsumption of previous thought into its own ideology, to shoehorn in the thought and philosophy of the past and make it a prerequisite of marxist thought...i.e., revision. Because that has been done, does not make it valid. Critical thought requires many things, one of the most important being the removal of the prevailing political thought from the equation. And while that seems counterintuitive, it is not, given that politics infect much of critical thought throughout the centuries. Remove the politics from the idea formation process, and you're left with ideas that can be examined critically. You may say they cannot be examined without the political climate they were formed in, but I submit that without examining them outside of that climate, they cannot be considered anything other than political ideals, devoid of any philosophical wisdom they may have on their own as applied to the human condition. It's wonderful to say fascism was an isolated political/social philosophy of the mid-twentieth century, but without a complete understanding of fascism as it arises in all thought, methods and philosophy, it's impossible to predict and identify its rise again.
Similarly, without an examination and understanding of socialist thought, methods and goals (outside of the politics), it's impossible to identify how that thought, those methods and goals infect politics. Just as every philosopher/philosophy was a product of his/its own political and social milieu, from the earliest to the latest, it is incumbent upon us to extract the ideas, ideals, precepts out of that milieu and examine them critically (or at least, as critically as possible given we're all doing so from a subjective level within our own milieu)...and that is where logic, reason, deduction come into play.
If we cannot apply conscious logic, reason and deduction to these precepts, ideals, philosophies, then we really have no ability to form future actions and plans based on them, as we're basically just flailing about as (to me at least) has been the case for many years upon this planet. What works is denied based on a philosophy that is deemed better than obvious success. My philosophy is better than yours, doesn't matter it's been implemented for 100 years (or 50 years, or 25, or 10) and failed to deliver the outcome it was said to deliver. That is the fault of political subsumption of philosophical thought. That is the fault of a naive and uneducated populace allowing a political elite to direct and define their education and understanding.
I'm not saying I have any answers, but I am saying I understand the problem. The desire (and teaching) to "score points" in a political debate is one of the problems. It keeps like minds apart, pits them against each other, disallows them from combining their forces against the real enemy...those who would control us, whether you deem them positive or negative libertarians (to use your terms).
Whether you in the UK, or I in the US, live or die tomorrow is of little merit to our respective governments. Neither is whether I am right in my interpretation of philosophers past, nor yours. What is right is that we might have the ability to agree there is such a thing as freedom, and there is such a thing as tyranny, that the one is good, the other bad, regardless of how we specifically define either version.
But understand, obfuscation of terms is at the heart of not only tyranny, but all forms of tyranny, whether they be political, social or religious. I tell you now I'm not against any religion, people or philosophy, unless that religion, people or philosophy wishes me, mine and the freedom of all, harm.
Here's hoping you'll accept this olive branch in the spirit in which it is intended.
I will be the first, as offered in the thread on Brits cutting civil service jobs, to conform to the new rules of discourse I offered. It is up to you whether they will be followed in future.
Agreed.
I grasp that the ideas of negative and positive liberty were first postulated by Berlin in his essay, and I grasp what he was trying to delineate in separating liberty into those two divergent concepts. What I disagree with is that his respect is well deserved or earned, or that his ideas were properly formed.
I disagree that Mill, Hobbes, Locke or Bentham had any concept of a positive or negative liberty. For them, liberty was a positive, period, end of story. Its opposite was tyranny, the squashing of liberty beneath the heel of state. I believe they would have (as I have done) described the ideas of positive and negative liberty as redundant or as an oxymoron (i.e., tyranny). And yes, I grasp that Berlin has reversed those two beliefs in his explanation of his theory, which is why I deem it revisionist and double speak. That Berlin has attempted to shoehorn previous thinkers philosophies into his own is admirable only insofar as he has understood their thinking. That he has tried to subvert them into his thinking in opposite forms than that which they would have agreed with, is despicable...and that is why I challenge his renown.
Liberty from restriction of a government and liberty to achieve one's potential with government aid are often bounded about as a single word "liberty". However, a certain degree of harm can be caused by the later and bringing in the example of Marxism which requires a revolution to enable the poorest people within a society to achieve their potential.
This is not opposite form as one would never equate "enabling at expense" and "freedom to act". They conform to the different ideologues that have formed after Marx. Karl Marx actually thought that communism would free the workers, and even if you wouldn't call communists free.
What you need to understand is that marxist ideals and ideology have as its heart, the subsumption of previous thought into its own ideology, to shoehorn in the thought and philosophy of the past and make it a prerequisite of marxist thought...i.e., revision. Because that has been done, does not make it valid. Critical thought requires many things, one of the most important being the removal of the prevailing political thought from the equation. And while that seems counterintuitive, it is not, given that politics infect much of critical thought throughout the centuries. Remove the politics from the idea formation process, and you're left with ideas that can be examined critically. You may say they cannot be examined without the political climate they were formed in, but I submit that without examining them outside of that climate, they cannot be considered anything other than political ideals, devoid of any philosophical wisdom they may have on their own as applied to the human condition. It's wonderful to say fascism was an isolated political/social philosophy of the mid-twentieth century, but without a complete understanding of fascism as it arises in all thought, methods and philosophy, it's impossible to predict and identify its rise again.
Logic prevails, however, the enemy of logic is ideology and unfortunately it is very pervasive in both of our societies.
Similarly, without an examination and understanding of socialist thought, methods and goals (outside of the politics), it's impossible to identify how that thought, those methods and goals infect politics. Just as every philosopher/philosophy was a product of his/its own political and social milieu, from the earliest to the latest, it is incumbent upon us to extract the ideas, ideals, precepts out of that milieu and examine them critically (or at least, as critically as possible given we're all doing so from a subjective level within our own milieu)...and that is where logic, reason, deduction come into play.
I was educated in a Labour government state school. However, there was a huge amount of political dissidents in the teaching staff. Many of them were disgusted by "political correctness" and the level of taxation. The humanities subject were always taught from a liberal point of view because there were undoubtedly conservative pupils within the class that voiced their opinion. There was never a unanimous vote for the more liberal option but in most cases there was a majority as liberalism is in itself an extension of freedom beyond the moral and social traditions and status quo.
If we cannot apply conscious logic, reason and deduction to these precepts, ideals, philosophies, then we really have no ability to form future actions and plans based on them, as we're basically just flailing about as (to me at least) has been the case for many years upon this planet. What works is denied based on a philosophy that is deemed better than obvious success.
Agreed.
My philosophy is better than yours, doesn't matter it's been implemented for 100 years (or 50 years, or 25, or 10) and failed to deliver the outcome it was said to deliver. That is the fault of political subsumption of philosophical thought. That is the fault of a naive and uneducated populace allowing a political elite to direct and define their education and understanding.
Your experience of philosophy is certainly greater than mine, however, the content of your philosophy isn't infallible and to assume it is infallible means that we reach a stalemate where we must move in our separate ways. I certainly have much to learn and the more I learn, the closer to the truth we both become.
I'm not saying I have any answers, but I am saying I understand the problem. The desire (and teaching) to "score points" in a political debate is one of the problems. It keeps like minds apart, pits them against each other, disallows them from combining their forces against the real enemy...those who would control us, whether you deem them positive or negative libertarians (to use your terms).
The problem is the dishonesty of politicians outright. Hence why political philosophy must continue to define, develop and understand the subtlety of liars.
Whether you in the UK, or I in the US, live or die tomorrow is of little merit to our respective governments. Neither is whether I am right in my interpretation of philosophers past, nor yours. What is right is that we might have the ability to agree there is such a thing as freedom, and there is such a thing as tyranny, that the one is good, the other bad, regardless of how we specifically define either version.
Bringing words like "good" and "bad" dirties the water, so to speak. What we can truly both believe is that (negative) liberty is preferable to (postive) tyranny. Preference is easier to define than "good" or "evil" as it implies that ideas and actions and objects can have moral properties.
Overall, I agree that liberty is preferable to tyranny. However, the subtlety of Berlin's definition lies in the distinction of those who truly want liberty and those who will use (positive) freedom to lead to tyranny.
Hitler promised the Germany would be "free". Rather than saying it was an outright lie, we should identify it as an illusion to win votes and power.
But understand, obfuscation of terms is at the heart of not only tyranny, but all forms of tyranny, whether they be political, social or religious. I tell you now I'm not against any religion, people or philosophy, unless that religion, people or philosophy wishes me, mine and the freedom of all, harm.
Hence, Berlin states positive liberty is true freedom, but will inevitably lead to tyranny. With negative liberty, you do not pay the price of large government and enforcement of "potential", you are simply expected to do what you wish provided it does no harm to others.
Ahh. I see. I've been unclear from the start.
Yup..
Negative liberty is freedom from restriction so that you can achieve whatever you desire providing it doesn't harm others.
As it must be earned; all you get is the opportunity. However, it is in the definition of what constitutes harm where the debate begins. Some interpret harm to be if there is a chance or any potential to harm exists then whatever it is must be banned. I own a gun therefore I have the potential to harm or there is the chance a criminal may steal it; my gun must be banned. However, cars, alcohol, etc are all perfectly fine.
Positive liberty is the Marxist idea that that in individual should be support by the state to fulfil ones potential. The French Revolution happened to create a government that would help the poor in Paris reach their full potential.
As we call it a nanny state we aren't as polite. What did socialism create except another version of the same system? The main difference is the French wanted to "help the poor in Paris reach their full potential" while socialism provides sustenance and keeps them poor..
As it must be earned; all you get is the opportunity. However, it is in the definition of what constitutes harm where the debate begins. Some interpret harm to be if there is a chance or any potential to harm exists then whatever it is must be banned. I own a gun therefore I have the potential to harm or there is the chance a criminal may steal it; my gun must be banned. However, cars, alcohol, etc are all perfectly fine.
Guns are still a touchy issue in my country. Alas, I agree with you completely.
As we call it a nanny state we aren't as polite. What did socialism create except another version of the same system? The main difference is the French wanted to "help the poor in Paris reach their full potential" while socialism provides sustenance and keeps them poor..
It is a nanny state. Thankfully its coming out of the welfare budget. Although, according to the IFS (Institute for Fiscal Studies) the poorest 5% will be hit hardest by the cuts. Are they all lazy beggars? I'm not so sure.
Oswald Bastable
10-31-2010, 06:07 AM
Liberty from restriction of a government and liberty to achieve one's potential with government aid are often bounded about as a single word "liberty". However, a certain degree of harm can be caused by the later and bringing in the example of Marxism which requires a revolution to enable the poorest people within a society to achieve their potential.
You've not sold me on the idea that trying to divide liberty into positive and negative varieties is in any way better, more informative, nor more accurate than the terms 'liberty' and 'tyranny'. Further, you've offered no explanation (or at least none that I can find), on how liberty can be defined as negative and yet still be a preferred variety (i.e., a positive), other than as a means of double speak. Later on, you speak of the terms 'good' and 'evil' as muddying the water, and I suspect that is because they are value judgments. I would point out that so are 'positive' and 'negative', unless used as they are applied in mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc. Once applied to human endeavors, they become every bit as much a value judgment as terms such as 'good', 'evil', 'bad', 'righteous', etc., and if those 'muddy the waters', then so do terms like 'positive' and 'negative' as applied to liberty. But more on that in a bit.
This is not opposite form as one would never equate "enabling at expense" and "freedom to act". They conform to the different ideologues that have formed after Marx. Karl Marx actually thought that communism would free the workers, and even if you wouldn't call communists free.
I understand what marx thought, history has proven that he was wrong, over and over. And "enabling at expense" and "freedom to act", having been formed after marx does not, cannot mean the influence of his thought is not contained therein. All philosophical thought/discussion is in some way influenced by what came before (or at least it is if the thinker/philosopher is worth his salt in terms of learning), but that cannot and does not mean previous thought/philosophy automatically becomes a part and parcel of that latter thinker's postulations. The latter thinker may wish to believe his what he builds upon, does in fact build upon those earlier precepts, but that does not make it so. Critical analysis of his progression is what should give us the ability to either accept or reject his 'house of cards' if you will (and that is what it is until either fully accepted or rejected). In this case you seem to accept it fully (and as it appears to me, based on others say so, rather than your own critical analysis), I reject it utterly (based upon my own critical analysis).
Logic prevails, however, the enemy of logic is ideology and unfortunately it is very pervasive in both of our societies.
I have to agree with this, in principle, but I'd go a bit further (or perhaps more analytic, if you will). Logic, unfortunately does not prevail, as if it did, ideology would be fluid at the behest of logic, rather than the reverse as it seems to be. Ideology is the death of logic, as logic is somewhat fluid (new operands require new analysis, new results) while ideology assumes all operands have been identified and are unchangeable.
I was educated in a Labour government state school. However, there was a huge amount of political dissidents in the teaching staff. Many of them were disgusted by "political correctness" and the level of taxation. The humanities subject were always taught from a liberal point of view because there were undoubtedly conservative pupils within the class that voiced their opinion. There was never a unanimous vote for the more liberal option but in most cases there was a majority as liberalism is in itself an extension of freedom beyond the moral and social traditions and status quo.
I refuse to allow any educational experience, government, thinker, philosopher, teacher, theory or philosophy to define my thought. I will trust to my own understanding of the precepts (not the analyses) of critical thought, of logic, of reason, of deduction, of induction to guide me in my quest for truth. I begin that quest understanding that I am an absolute fool (in the grand scheme of things) and that I will likely end that quest, still an absolute fool (though hopefully less of a fool than when I started).
Your experience of philosophy is certainly greater than mine, however, the content of your philosophy isn't infallible and to assume it is infallible means that we reach a stalemate where we must move in our separate ways. I certainly have much to learn and the more I learn, the closer to the truth we both become.
I would not say greater, but rather more mature. Given I'm probably 30 years older than you are, I've had longer to ruminate on such matters. I'm in no way saying my philosophy is infallible, but rather that I'm less a fool now than I was at your age. Would it surprise you to know I was an avowed liberal in my late teens, early twenties? It would appear you're even less liberal than I was at a similar age, so I would deem you less a fool now than I was then. ;)
The problem is the dishonesty of politicians outright. Hence why political philosophy must continue to define, develop and understand the subtlety of liars.
Dishonesty of politicians has little to do with politics and everything to do with money and power. Remove the money and power from politics (make them the public servants they are supposed to be, limit their power over the lives of others...i.e., make them fully subservient to the same laws they create) and you will remove the deceit from politics.
Bringing words like "good" and "bad" dirties the water, so to speak. What we can truly both believe is that (negative) liberty is preferable to (postive) tyranny. Preference is easier to define than "good" or "evil" as it implies that ideas and actions and objects can have moral properties.
That's two oxymorons in one paragraph. :)
As I started to talk about before, if words like 'good' and 'bad' muddy the water, then so do terms like 'positive' and 'negative', unless applied to the hard sciences. Prior to the introduction of both oxymorons (not by you, but by the concepts), liberty was always considered a positive, tyranny a negative, so can you not see how reversing them would be considered double speak? Ideas and actions can have moral properties, and particularly actions as they take ideas out of the indefinite and into the definite. It is not nearly as simplistic as 2+2=4, it is more like idea+motivation&will=evil act. Just as idea+motivation&will can equal a good act.
Example: A thug breaks into a septugenarian's council flat, beats her to death and steals her pension money...whether for drugs, drink, to boast to his friends, for whatever reason. Idea=take what is not mine. Motivation&will=I will do this thing regardless of who is hurt along the way so I can get what I want. Evil act=the first plus the second and results in death for no reason other than the advancement of purely selfish aims of the perpetrator. That is a definition of evil. Not necessarily a great evil, but an evil nonetheless.
Example 2: Upstairs apartment flatmate hears the break in, fearing for the septugenarian's welfare he rushes downstairs, foils the crime (whether by the simple act of interruption or subduing the perp, chasing him off, even harming him greatly or killing him before he can finish his deed). Idea=lady downstairs is in trouble. Motivation+will=I will do something about it regardless of the consequences to myself. Good act=self-sacrifice to help/save another.
These are simplistic examples, I agree, but to state 'good' and 'evil' muddy the waters is to deny the power of ideas, will and motivation. One can attempt to address them on a statistical level of harm from no harm to greatest harm, but that completely diminishes their effect upon humanity. It dehumanizes harm, makes it a statistical variable as useless (to the human condition) as average, mean or median. That value judgments may or may not apply to the realm of ideas is certainly open to discussion (I submit they are), but once they pass from the realm of ideas, from the indefinite to the definite, it is impossible to discuss them without value judgments...just as it is possible to discuss physics theories without value judgments, but once in practice, values must be assigned in quantification and resolution. In the theoretical, values are not required. In the physical world, it is impossible to quantify without values. Granted, good and evil are not on the order of E=mc2 in terms of definite quantification, but they're far better than 'less to more harm' given that we're talking about the differences between life/death/freedom/oppression/happiness/sorrow...all of which are just as indefinite as good/evil. And if you think I'm mistaken given the life/death examples, just think of the when does life begin (abortion)/when does death occur (brain death, physical expiration) conundrum.
The nature of Good and Evil has been an acceptable discussion in philosophy since philosophy was recognized as a discipline, and indeed before then. Primarily because it deals with the translation of idea and ideal into the definite realm. To attempt to remove it from the discussion arbitrarily is not only specious, but downright dishonest, as it is at the core of humanity as regards translation of idea from the indefinite, through motivation and will into the definite.
Overall, I agree that liberty is preferable to tyranny. However, the subtlety of Berlin's definition lies in the distinction of those who truly want liberty and those who will use (positive) freedom to lead to tyranny.
Subtlety is often another definition of obfuscation. You've not yet convinced me there was ever any reason to a) define liberty in positive or negative attributes (as opposed to liberty being a positive, tyranny a negative), b) doing away with the term tyranny by replacing it with positive liberty, c) how those who misuse liberty to turn it to tyranny are anything more than tyrants (they are certainly not positive libertarians).
Hitler promised the Germany would be "free". Rather than saying it was an outright lie, we should identify it as an illusion to win votes and power.
Votes were the means to his power, so let's dispense with them, they were completely ancillary to what he wanted. Indeed, power was also ancillary to what he wanted, power was a means to effect his ideas (part of the motivation&will of the equation) on humanity. The promises were also part of the motivation&will part of the equation. This leads us to a rather surprising diagram of the equation. Given the previous two examples I gave, it would suggest that motivation&will can be removed from the equation, just as -1 and +1 cancel out. Since both sides of the equation must balance, and since (hopefully) we can both agree the result of Hitler's ideas+motivation&will ended up equaling evil (if you'll entertain my ideas of good and evil being a part and parcel of human experience as applied from ideas)...therefore the ideas must be evil.
My basic premise here is that motivation&will is essentially a universal constant, neither good nor evil. It is the ideas and their consequences, brought about by motivation&will that are either good or evil. Ideas and consequences are the portion of the equation that balance; motivation&will are little more than the mathematics between that show how a=b. They do not really affect a or b (because if a=b then they are the same), but they show the relationship between the two.
Hence, Berlin states positive liberty is true freedom, but will inevitably lead to tyranny. With negative liberty, you do not pay the price of large government and enforcement of "potential", you are simply expected to do what you wish provided it does no harm to others.
Explain how negative liberty is different and more descriptive of Mill's concept of liberty, particularly since he described 'liberty', singular no modifiers, as 'do what you wish provided it does no harm to others'. Where does Berlin's subtlety lie, except as attaching 'negative' to it, thereby reducing its meaning, making it sound like a bad thing...a clear example of double speak?
You do realize Orwell wrote 1984 within the same milieu as these ideas were being bandied about, do you not? And while 1984 was published 9 years before Berlin's essay, do you really think he didn't see the outcome of such ideas as they appeared to him in their infancy (really to my mind, in their middle gestation), given his prescience?
Open your eyes man. Orwell not only foresaw Berlin's redefinitions, he codified them 9 years earlier.
You've not sold me on the idea that trying to divide liberty into positive and negative varieties is in any way better, more informative, nor more accurate than the terms 'liberty' and 'tyranny'.
Perhaps, I'll illustrate positive liberty without tyranny. This is from James Boswell, a famous diarist of the 18th century, writing in his diary entry on the 31 March 1776 about indulging himself with prostitutes in London and feeling immediate regret having betrayed his spouse.
Positive liberty is about what someone can actually do, regardless of the restrictions lifted from him doing so. Boswell didn't have positive liberty because he succumbed to the lower self and raw emotion such as lust. With pleasures of the higher self, Boswell has the positive liberty he lacked.
Further, you've offered no explanation (or at least none that I can find), on how liberty can be defined as negative and yet still be a preferred variety (i.e., a positive), other than as a means of double speak. Later on, you speak of the terms 'good' and 'evil' as muddying the water, and I suspect that is because they are value judgments. I would point out that so are 'positive' and 'negative', unless used as they are applied in mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc. Once applied to human endeavors, they become every bit as much a value judgment as terms such as 'good', 'evil', 'bad', 'righteous', etc., and if those 'muddy the waters', then so do terms like 'positive' and 'negative' as applied to liberty. But more on that in a bit.
I see your point clearly now. They are nothing more than value judgements. However, I would like you to evaluate my illustration above.
Also, would you see a distinction if they were the were called A-Liberty and B-Liberty?
I understand what marx thought, history has proven that he was wrong, over and over. And "enabling at expense" and "freedom to act", having been formed after marx does not, cannot mean the influence of his thought is not contained therein. All philosophical thought/discussion is in some way influenced by what came before (or at least it is if the thinker/philosopher is worth his salt in terms of learning), but that cannot and does not mean previous thought/philosophy automatically becomes a part and parcel of that latter thinker's postulations. The latter thinker may wish to believe his what he builds upon, does in fact build upon those earlier precepts, but that does not make it so. Critical analysis of his progression is what should give us the ability to either accept or reject his 'house of cards' if you will (and that is what it is until either fully accepted or rejected). In this case you seem to accept it fully (and as it appears to me, based on others say so, rather than your own critical analysis), I reject it utterly (based upon my own critical analysis).
Chronology seems to play a more important part than I first considered.
I have to agree with this, in principle, but I'd go a bit further (or perhaps more analytic, if you will). Logic, unfortunately does not prevail, as if it did, ideology would be fluid at the behest of logic, rather than the reverse as it seems to be. Ideology is the death of logic, as logic is somewhat fluid (new operands require new analysis, new results) while ideology assumes all operands have been identified and are unchangeable.
Agreement. My, my.
I refuse to allow any educational experience, government, thinker, philosopher, teacher, theory or philosophy to define my thought. I will trust to my own understanding of the precepts (not the analyses) of critical thought, of logic, of reason, of deduction, of induction to guide me in my quest for truth. I begin that quest understanding that I am an absolute fool (in the grand scheme of things) and that I will likely end that quest, still an absolute fool (though hopefully less of a fool than when I started).
Earlier you stated you were giving me an education. Hence the same rules apply to you.
However, a paradox seems to emerge from this logic, as who teaches the student logic. They can never get logic because they can never trust any primary, secondary or tertiary source. Therefore you assertion isn't universal. Hence you must make an exception for logic. (Simply adding "you cannot trust education of a posteriori knowledge" solves the problem as logic is a priori.)
I would not say greater, but rather more mature. Given I'm probably 30 years older than you are, I've had longer to ruminate on such matters. I'm in no way saying my philosophy is infallible, but rather that I'm less a fool now than I was at your age. Would it surprise you to know I was an avowed liberal in my late teens, early twenties? It would appear you're even less liberal than I was at a similar age, so I would deem you less a fool now than I was then. ;)
As Churchill (supposedly) once said: "If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not Conservative by 40, you have no brain."
Dishonesty of politicians has little to do with politics and everything to do with money and power. Remove the money and power from politics (make them the public servants they are supposed to be, limit their power over the lives of others...i.e., make them fully subservient to the same laws they create) and you will remove the deceit from politics.
Alas, you remove the reforming power of government which must be as small and liberal as possible to get out of individuals ways.
That's two oxymorons in one paragraph. :)
I don't know. Positive and negative could cease to be value judgements in this context.
As I started to talk about before, if words like 'good' and 'bad' muddy the water, then so do terms like 'positive' and 'negative', unless applied to the hard sciences. Prior to the introduction of both oxymorons (not by you, but by the concepts), liberty was always considered a positive, tyranny a negative, so can you not see how reversing them would be considered double speak? Ideas and actions can have moral properties, and particularly actions as they take ideas out of the indefinite and into the definite. It is not nearly as simplistic as 2+2=4, it is more like idea+motivation&will=evil act. Just as idea+motivation&will can equal a good act.
Example: A thug breaks into a septugenarian's council flat, beats her to death and steals her pension money...whether for drugs, drink, to boast to his friends, for whatever reason. Idea=take what is not mine. Motivation&will=I will do this thing regardless of who is hurt along the way so I can get what I want. Evil act=the first plus the second and results in death for no reason other than the advancement of purely selfish aims of the perpetrator. That is a definition of evil. Not necessarily a great evil, but an evil nonetheless.
Example 2: Upstairs apartment flatmate hears the break in, fearing for the septugenarian's welfare he rushes downstairs, foils the crime (whether by the simple act of interruption or subduing the perp, chasing him off, even harming him greatly or killing him before he can finish his deed). Idea=lady downstairs is in trouble. Motivation+will=I will do something about it regardless of the consequences to myself. Good act=self-sacrifice to help/save another.
These are simplistic examples, I agree, but to state 'good' and 'evil' muddy the waters is to deny the power of ideas, will and motivation. One can attempt to address them on a statistical level of harm from no harm to greatest harm, but that completely diminishes their effect upon humanity. It dehumanizes harm, makes it a statistical variable as useless (to the human condition) as average, mean or median. That value judgments may or may not apply to the realm of ideas is certainly open to discussion (I submit they are), but once they pass from the realm of ideas, from the indefinite to the definite, it is impossible to discuss them without value judgments...just as it is possible to discuss physics theories without value judgments, but once in practice, values must be assigned in quantification and resolution. In the theoretical, values are not required. In the physical world, it is impossible to quantify without values. Granted, good and evil are not on the order of E=mc2 in terms of definite quantification, but they're far better than 'less to more harm' given that we're talking about the differences between life/death/freedom/oppression/happiness/sorrow...all of which are just as indefinite as good/evil. And if you think I'm mistaken given the life/death examples, just think of the when does life begin (abortion)/when does death occur (brain death, physical expiration) conundrum.
Spectacular. Replace all value judgements with objective statements such as harm and you have what is pretty close to a flawless argument.
The nature of Good and Evil has been an acceptable discussion in philosophy since philosophy was recognized as a discipline, and indeed before then. Primarily because it deals with the translation of idea and ideal into the definite realm. To attempt to remove it from the discussion arbitrarily is not only specious, but downright dishonest, as it is at the core of humanity as regards translation of idea from the indefinite, through motivation and will into the definite.
Good and evil are subjective. I've read Beyond Good and Evil, and Nietzsche's commands have made me consider morality as a self-serving device of political control (see Master and Slave Morality on wikipedia or my thread in the Religion forum).
Subtlety is often another definition of obfuscation. You've not yet convinced me there was ever any reason to a) define liberty in positive or negative attributes (as opposed to liberty being a positive, tyranny a negative), b) doing away with the term tyranny by replacing it with positive liberty, c) how those who misuse liberty to turn it to tyranny are anything more than tyrants (they are certainly not positive libertarians).
I agree. A weak argument for a moot point.
Votes were the means to his power, so let's dispense with them, they were completely ancillary to what he wanted. Indeed, power was also ancillary to what he wanted, power was a means to effect his ideas (part of the motivation&will of the equation) on humanity. The promises were also part of the motivation&will part of the equation. This leads us to a rather surprising diagram of the equation. Given the previous two examples I gave, it would suggest that motivation&will can be removed from the equation, just as -1 and +1 cancel out. Since both sides of the equation must balance, and since (hopefully) we can both agree the result of Hitler's ideas+motivation&will ended up equaling evil (if you'll entertain my ideas of good and evil being a part and parcel of human experience as applied from ideas)...therefore the ideas must be evil.
I don't understand how they cancel each other out. Can you write it in logic form please?
The only objective judgement we can make of Hitler's action are that they were harmful. Harm is unacceptable as it deprives freedom.
My basic premise here is that motivation&will is essentially a universal constant, neither good nor evil. It is the ideas and their consequences, brought about by motivation&will that are either good or evil. Ideas and consequences are the portion of the equation that balance; motivation&will are little more than the mathematics between that show how a=b. They do not really affect a or b (because if a=b then they are the same), but they show the relationship between the two.
It's an interesting idea. I don't think even ideas or consequences can be "evil" so to speak. The difficultly for me to use the word "evil" stems from my amorality. You can only punish harm, I would say that stealing is harm but not evil. Therefore "evil" is not a sufficient or necessary condition for causing harm.
Explain how negative liberty is different and more descriptive of Mill's concept of liberty, particularly since he described 'liberty', singular no modifiers, as 'do what you wish provided it does no harm to others'. Where does Berlin's subtlety lie, except as attaching 'negative' to it, thereby reducing its meaning, making it sound like a bad thing...a clear example of double speak?
The difference between type of liberty is that one requires the retraction of restriction and the other requires the intervention of an enabler.
Since you cannot enable everyone unless you remove restriction all intervention in the name of an enabler is simply tyranny.
You do realize Orwell wrote 1984 within the same milieu as these ideas were being bandied about, do you not? And while 1984 was published 9 years before Berlin's essay, do you really think he didn't see the outcome of such ideas as they appeared to him in their infancy (really to my mind, in their middle gestation), given his prescience?
Open your eyes man. Orwell not only foresaw Berlin's redefinitions, he codified them 9 years earlier.
I need to read 1984. My eyes are opening.
O.S.O.K.
10-31-2010, 07:17 PM
Syph, I think you're winning as the biggest blabbermouth in this thread. And the other one too. Good God. Keep going and there'll be one post per page....
Oswald, you're taking up second real close I think...
Is this what happens when the chat room is down?
Seriously, do you guys really expect anybody but you to read all that shit?
Did you have anything to do with the writting of the health care bill?
:coffee:
Ok, flame on - I just had to spout off.
JTHunter
11-01-2010, 12:37 AM
Seriously, do you guys really expect anybody but you to read all that shit?
Ok, flame on - I just had to spout off.
+1
LAGC said:
The way I see it though, the more religious diversity we have, the less likely any one group will be able to get away with passing laws that encroach on the rest of us.
He should remember the line "United we stand - - -". As long as people either think like this OR are so cowed to being "P.C.", things won't improve.
Even as close as 60 years ago, people came to this country to BE Americans.
Not Japanese-Americans, not Irish-Americans, not African-Americans, not anything EXCEPT Americans! We have become so "divided", and a lot of people are TRYING to be even MORE divisive, they are breaking us up into all kinds of "splinter" groups because that will make it easier to control us!
Syph, I think you're winning as the biggest blabbermouth in this thread. And the other one too. Good God. Keep going and there'll be one post per page....
O.S.O.K, if you don't want to read it you don't have to.
O.S.O.K.
11-01-2010, 08:07 AM
You're damned right I don't :D
DodgeGTS
11-01-2010, 11:51 AM
Perhaps, I'll illustrate positive liberty without tyranny. This is from James Boswell, a famous diarist of the 18th century, writing in his diary entry on the 31 March 1776 about indulging himself with prostitutes in London and feeling immediate regret having betrayed his spouse.
Positive liberty is about what someone can actually do, regardless of the restrictions lifted from him doing so. Boswell didn't have positive liberty because he succumbed to the lower self and raw emotion such as lust. With pleasures of the higher self, Boswell has the positive liberty he lacked.
Huh? I dun' git it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.