Thelema would probably be the one I would choose as ability to love ones enemy/opponent/opposition.
Thelema would probably be the one I would choose as ability to love ones enemy/opponent/opposition. It is the ability to not falsely accuse another or wish evil to befall another even though you despise the person's words or behavior and/or what he represents.
I think most conservatives would even throw you a rope if you were drowning ebrown.
The difference between you and me is that I think it is my responsibility to provide the rope and it is my choice whether to throw it to you or not. Your point of view often suggests to me that you think that the government should force me to have the rope and should require that I make sure it is available to you.
In true modern liberal fashion, you're all missing the point here.
The point is that 'real men' don't sit around waiting for somebody to save them. They get busy and get it done. And yes, if you are stranded during an emergency and the children are hungry and there is no food, you do whatever is necessary to get it including breaking into the abandoned supermarket if that is necessary. And yes, if you need to get your family out of harms way you would even hotwire a schoolbus if that was the only way you had to save people.
We aren't talking every day normal circumstances here. We are talking about an extreme situation that could call for extreme measures. There is a huge difference between that and doing illegal activities because you were too lazy or stupid or ignorant to stay in school and prepare yourself to support yourself or just because doing something illegal is easier than doing honorable work.
The point is that some look to the government to be their mommy, daddy, savior, protector, and benefactor.
And some look to the government to produce an environment where we can and should take care of ourselves as much as we can reasonably do that.
That is in no way suggesting that there is no place, purpose, value for the military, regulators, police officers or fire fighters, etc.. Of course we need practical government services to help during the normal difficulties that are part of everyday life and/or prevent as much as possible the violence or misery that some people intentionally heap on others. Conservatives are quite happy to hand over their hard earned money in taxes to support these services. And conservatives are usually pretty big on benevolence that helps the less fortunate--they just think the government shouldn't have the ability to order them to be charitable.
And this does not mean that there won't be anecdotal instances that will be exceptions to the rule.
As many liberals are Christian as are Conservatives. So does that work both ways?
Your contradiction in the immigration issue is that you advocate breaking the law in some cases (i.e. breaking in to stores and hotwiring busses) but not in others (i.e. crossing a border). We have already argued the specifics... I am just pointing out a contradiction in your general philosophy.
You are misstating my "liberal" philosophy completely. If you are suggesting that letting people drown teaches them any sort of useful lesson, I think this idea is cruelly laughable.
In my view, in a civilized society, the goal is to keep people from drowning.
As a society we can spend a little money either building fences around bodies of water... or by (god forbid) providing swimming lessons to youth.
If this isn't enough, banding together as a society (and yes I mean tax dollars controlled by elected officials) to make sure there are ropes to throw when someone falls in the water is a good idea.
Paying taxes to save lives-- and by this making society a more humane place is a good idea. I believe that as a society we should invest the money to intervene sooner since buying a rope is both kinder and cheaper than hypothermia treatment.
Foxfyre wrote:As many liberals are Christian as are Conservatives. So does that work both ways?
Not really. While both parties have politicians who are Christians, only one of them leverages fear as a political tool. One party crosses the line and blurs the separation of church and state.
Since the republican party has been overrun by the religious right, it has behaved in a manner which disrespects the authority of the United States and uses th excuse that they are answering to a higher authority.
This has caused several ethical inconsistancies from the party.
K
O
P.S. - I'm not saying that the Dems don't have their own issues or inconsistancies. Their inconsistancies usually derive from the fact that they represent several interests/groups which may or may not have the same agenda. It's hard for the dems to be a rigid as the republicans because the dems don't want to disinfranchise anybody. It's a plus and a minus; very novel and it's the way things should be, but you can't please everyone.
ebrown_p wrote:Your contradiction in the immigration issue is that you advocate breaking the law in some cases (i.e. breaking in to stores and hotwiring busses) but not in others (i.e. crossing a border). We have already argued the specifics... I am just pointing out a contradiction in your general philosophy.
You are misstating my "liberal" philosophy completely. If you are suggesting that letting people drown teaches them any sort of useful lesson, I think this idea is cruelly laughable.
In my view, in a civilized society, the goal is to keep people from drowning.
As a society we can spend a little money either building fences around bodies of water... or by (god forbid) providing swimming lessons to youth.
If this isn't enough, banding together as a society (and yes I mean tax dollars controlled by elected officials) to make sure there are ropes to throw when someone falls in the water is a good idea.
Paying taxes to save lives-- and by this making society a more humane place is a good idea. I believe that as a society we should invest the money to intervene sooner since buying a rope is both kinder and cheaper than hypothermia treatment.
Again Ebrown, you miss the point. But as I know from considerable experience now that you will continue to do so no matter what I say, I'll just leave it at that. Thank you for playing.
Foxfyre wrote:ebrown_p wrote:Your contradiction in the immigration issue is that you advocate breaking the law in some cases (i.e. breaking in to stores and hotwiring busses) but not in others (i.e. crossing a border). We have already argued the specifics... I am just pointing out a contradiction in your general philosophy.
You are misstating my "liberal" philosophy completely. If you are suggesting that letting people drown teaches them any sort of useful lesson, I think this idea is cruelly laughable.
In my view, in a civilized society, the goal is to keep people from drowning.
As a society we can spend a little money either building fences around bodies of water... or by (god forbid) providing swimming lessons to youth.
If this isn't enough, banding together as a society (and yes I mean tax dollars controlled by elected officials) to make sure there are ropes to throw when someone falls in the water is a good idea.
Paying taxes to save lives-- and by this making society a more humane place is a good idea. I believe that as a society we should invest the money to intervene sooner since buying a rope is both kinder and cheaper than hypothermia treatment.
Again Ebrown, you miss the point. But as I know from considerable experience now that you will continue to do so no matter what I say, I'll just leave it at that. Thank you for playing.
Don't give up so easily Foxy....
Please explain, under what circumstances do you condone breaking the law?
Diest TKO wrote:Foxfyre wrote:As many liberals are Christian as are Conservatives. So does that work both ways?
Not really. While both parties have politicians who are Christians, only one of them leverages fear as a political tool. One party crosses the line and blurs the separation of church and state.
Since the republican party has been overrun by the religious right, it has behaved in a manner which disrespects the authority of the United States and uses the excuse that they are answering to a higher authority.
This has caused several ethical inconsistencies from the party.
K
O
P.S. - I'm not saying that the Dems don't have their own issues or inconsistencies. Their inconsistencies usually derive from the fact that they represent several interests/groups which may or may not have the same agenda. It's hard for the dems to be a rigid as the republicans because the dems don't want to disenfranchise anybody. It's a plus and a minus; very novel and it's the way things should be, but you can't please everyone.
I agree that the extreme Religious Right has done itself no favors either in image or effectiveness in some of the tactics it has employed. Fortunately, even if the anti-religious Left has not opposed them, the mainstream religious did and does resist their objectionable tactics.
Its pretty much the same thing that most liberals do not condone spiking trees or throwing blood on women wearing fur or sabotaging oil drilling platforms or sending threatening packages or letters to people trying to demand passage of their agenda.
We all have our weirdos, fanatics, idiots, and inappropriate activists. I suppose it is the cross that we bear by attempting to be an open tent.
You do understand that there is every bit as much disagreement on various issues among conservatives as there is among liberals don't you?
In my view, in a civilized society, the goal is to keep people from drowning.
As a society we can spend a little money either building fences around bodies of water... or by (god forbid) providing swimming lessons to youth.
If this isn't enough, banding together as a society (and yes I mean tax dollars controlled by elected officials) to make sure there are ropes to throw when someone falls in the water is a good idea.
The rope analogy reminds me of the conservative arguments against social programs.
"Give a man a fish and he'll be fed for a day, teach a man to fish, and he'll be fed for the rest of his life."
The idea is pretty groovy, and rather profound. It inspires us to enable ourselves to be successful. That we are not helpless.
However, while profound, there is a problem. You can teach a man to fish extemely well, but if you control or monopolize the fishing supplies, he's going to be hungry even if he's a bass fishing champion.
Capitolism is a good thing, but make no mistake, the nature of it is based on conflict/competition. Capitolism is meant to allow people to thrive, not to hold dominion over each other.
T
K
O
Once upon a time on a farm there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered quite a few grains of wheat. She called all of her neighbors together and said, 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'
'Not I,' said the cow.
'Not I,' said the duck.
'Not I,' said the pig.
'Not I,' said the goose.
'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen and so she did. The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.
'Who will help me reap my wheat?' asked the little red hen.
'Not I,' said the duck.
'Out of my classification,' said the pig.
'I'd lose my seniority,' said the cow.
'I'd lose my unemployment compensation,' said the goose.
'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did. At last it came time to bake the bread.
'Who will help me bake the bread?' asked the little red hen.
'That would be overtime for me,' said the cow.
'I'd lose my welfare benefits,' said the duck.
'I'm a dropout and never learned how,' said the pig.
'If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination,' said the goose.
'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, 'No, I shall eat all five loaves.'
'Excess profits!' cried the cow.
'Capitalist leech!' screamed the duck.
'I demand equal rights!' yelled the goose.
The pig just grunted in disdain.
And they all painted 'Unfair!' picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.
Then a government agent came. He said to the little red hen, 'You must not be so greedy.'
'But I earned the bread,' said the little red hen.
'Exactly,' said the agent. 'That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.'
And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, 'I am grateful, for now I truly understand.'
But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread, because she joined the 'party' and got her bread free though over time the available bread was sparse, flavorless, and inferior. But all the Bureaucrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established. Individual initiative had died, but it was worth it. Everybody got free bread paid for by the government supported by 'the rich'.
Then rich began to notice that others got their bread free and they finally understood. . .
Foxfyre wrote:Diest TKO wrote:Foxfyre wrote:As many liberals are Christian as are Conservatives. So does that work both ways?
Not really. While both parties have politicians who are Christians, only one of them leverages fear as a political tool. One party crosses the line and blurs the separation of church and state.
Since the republican party has been overrun by the religious right, it has behaved in a manner which disrespects the authority of the United States and uses the excuse that they are answering to a higher authority.
This has caused several ethical inconsistencies from the party.
K
O
P.S. - I'm not saying that the Dems don't have their own issues or inconsistencies. Their inconsistencies usually derive from the fact that they represent several interests/groups which may or may not have the same agenda. It's hard for the dems to be a rigid as the republicans because the dems don't want to disenfranchise anybody. It's a plus and a minus; very novel and it's the way things should be, but you can't please everyone.
I agree that the extreme Religious Right has done itself no favors either in image or effectiveness in some of the tactics it has employed. Fortunately, even if the anti-religious Left has not opposed them, the mainstream religious did and does resist their objectionable tactics.
Its pretty much the same thing that most liberals do not condone spiking trees or throwing blood on women wearing fur or sabotaging oil drilling platforms or sending threatening packages or letters to people trying to demand passage of their agenda.
We all have our weirdos, fanatics, idiots, and inappropriate activists. I suppose it is the cross that we bear by attempting to be an open tent.
You do understand that there is every bit as much disagreement on various issues among conservatives as there is among liberals don't you?
Hmmm... I disagree.
You first told me there are Christians in both parties, and then you referred to the left as being anti-religious. Which is it? What day of the week is it?
You are correct that both parties have their extremists, but republicans elect theirs to office. I may not agree with PETA, or any other organization with identifies with the left, but that doesn't make me a bad democrat. I don't think the republican party can say the same thing about christianity. If Christianity is too general, take just one topic like abortion, and you can quickly become a bad republican.
In the words of the comedian David Cross:
"I don't believe that republicans are evil racist, sexist, homophobic, bigots. They just choose to be represented by them."
If within the republican right their is as much controversy as you claim, I think it would manifest itself in some more dramatic ways. On a positive note, I think that McCain was the best candidate that the republicans could push forward, he does in some ways represent the notion that the party has some perspective beyond it's member's own immediate interests.
T
K
O
As I see it, the liberal concept, however, is that nobody should have to settle for less fish or have to work harder to get fish than anybody else. If policies are put in place to achieve that 'humane' and 'compassionate' goal, however, you also remove the incentive for others to take the risk of trying for better fishing poles and/or a better fish.
As I see it, the liberal concept, however, is that nobody should have to settle for less fish or have to work harder to get fish than anybody else. If policies are put in place to achieve that 'humane' and 'compassionate' goal, however, you also remove the incentive for others to take the risk of trying for better fishing poles and/or a better fish.
You may have seen this little story that has been circulating around on the internet for the last several months:
Over $1 billion in government subsidies have gone into transforming discounter Wal-Mart Stores from a regional discount store operator into the world's largest retailer, according to a report Monday from Good Jobs First, a Washington-based subsidy watchdog group...
