How do you self-indentify in terms of ideology?

@Foofie,

I'm not acting superior, you're acting dumb.

Actually I don't think it's an act, but if it is, it's a bloody good one.

@izzythepush,

No, not most americans thought so. Or at least many not.

@ossobuco,

Finally?

Surely it's happened in the past on more than one occassion, but I get it: the need to draw the distinction irrespective of how accurate it might be.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
If Utilitariansim can be defined simply as maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering (which is not to say you would agree with this definition), does it require a short term or immediate view or does it allow for a longer term view, which considers that wide spread suffering tomorrow might be avoided by acts that produce a narrow degree of suffering today?

Yes, utilitarianism allows for tradeoffs between present happiness and future happiness. For example, most utilitarians support present action to prevent runaway global warning a century down the road. Generally speaking, they think that future costs and benefits should be discounted against present ones at the long-term real interest rate. Currently that's between two and three percent, so a $100 benefit 30 years out would justify a cost of roughly $50 today (in constant dollars).

So, at least conceivably, the suffering of a relative few today is acceptable if it leads to the happiness of a greater many tomorrow, and if this is the case then it would seem that knee-jerk negative responses to policies that might immediately increase the suffering of a few, while holding the promise of a better tomorrow, is unsupported by the tenants of Utilitarianism.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Is an authoritarian government necessarily at odds with Utilitarianism?

Only if citizens dislike being pushed around by dictators. For purposes of a political-philosophy seminar, this may not necessarily be the case; in the real world though, it usually is.

Really? There are plenty of "real world" examples of authoritarian regimes generally accepted by the populace. Singapore is but one example.

You seem to have a fairly "conservative" notion that people long for liberty above all else.

In exchange for an acceptable level of "happiness" I think people are quite prepared to sacrifice liberties.

Look at America.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

You've provided us with a list of outcomes you prefer, but not how they are the logical outcome of a liberal ideology.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

What conservatives are criticising Obama for not killing more Americans without dues process? The reality is quite the opposite.

What conservatives are criticizing Obama for not launching more drone strikes?

What conservatives are criticizing Obama for not spying more on the American public?

Your post is a perfect example of a glib, but unsupportable argument.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I'm a social-democrat ("freedom, equality, justice and solidarity"). With some "conservative-green" leanings and a more "liberal" (= libertarian in your language) view in law-related topics.

Nice, but of course we have to understand what you mean by "freedon, equality, justice and solidarity" to understand what you mean by a social-democrat.

I believe in all of all things but I wouldn't consider myself a social-democrat.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

You've never seen anyone, other than David, self describe themselves as Progressive?

Tough to buy that one.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Nice, but of course we have to understand what you mean by "freedon, equality, justice and solidarity" to understand what you mean by a social-democrat.

I believe in all of all things but I wouldn't consider myself a social-democrat.

That makes the difference between us: I know what a Social-Democrat is (it's in Germany a member of a party founded in 1863). Obviously, you must have some ideas about that, too, otherwise you wouldn't consider not be one of 'us'.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

No, I have a pretty good idea of what you favor and if you're a social-democrat than I know I'm not...assuming you really know what it means to be a social-democrat. I'm giving you credit that you do. Perhaps this is a mistake on my part.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

I've not checked the figures for a bit, and opinions have changed, but I'm sure it was over 50% just before the outbreak of war.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I won't disbelieve you on that, but trust me, large numbers of us, sentient, didn't buy it.

Don't just toss me off with the americans say this stuff, I will get aggravated.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Most means over 50%, it doesn't mean 100%. This was said in response to Foofie's ridiculous claim that Americans are more likely to think for themselves than Europeans, based on nothing but his own prejudices.

I've not claimed that we are better than you at thinking for ourselves, I've just pointed out the folly of claiming that there is some sort of virtue in being of a particular nationality.

Fluff, like BillRM, tries to wrap himself in the American flag whenever he gets an opportunity. He may be a tedious little tit with no mates, but at least he's an American tedious little tit with no mates.

49.99% of Americans is still a "large number."

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You've never seen anyone, other than David,
self describe themselves as Progressive?

Find Abuzz:
I implore u to take particular notice
that I described myself as exhorting Progress toward Individualistic liberty,
at the expense of governmental jurisdiction; that is very anti-authoritarian,
whereas the common Roosevelt-Kennedyites are heavily authoritarian collectivist.

My point is that I promote progress in the OPPOSITE direction
than that of the common self-described "progressives".

Ideologically, I am an Orthodox, Original American (like the Sons of Liberty),
whereas thay are distortionist, liberally progressing toward tyrannical hell.

I begrudge them and I refuse them, a monopoly
on the characterization of: "progressive"
as if the definition of "progress" were un-disputed.
In an effort to embarrass the self-described "progressives",
I have pointed out that as the 2Oth Century progressed thru time,
the Weimar Republic progressed into the hell of nazism,
and therefore nazism was more progressive than were supporters of the Weimar Republic.

The idea is: u better be careful qua the destination
of where your "progress" is going.

David

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You've never seen anyone, other than David, self describe themselves as Progressive?

correct

it is not a term used on its own to describe any Canadian political position

the closest was the former Progressive Conservative party (in Canada, PC has traditionally stood for Progressive Conservative - always funny to see it have such a different meaning in the US)

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I don't know about that, he'd used chemical weapons on his own people
prior to the invasion of Kuwait, and there was very little in condemnation from the west.

U r saying that by silence,
we violated a duty?? R u?
In the face of the egregious atrocity that the English perpetrated upon Tony Martin,
I dont believe that the US Government officially complained.
Did u object to its silence??
A few of us sounded off in alarm, but not much.
Did we have a DUTY to yell louder? Is that what u claim ?

izzythepush wrote:

The fact remains he had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11,
and was no more of a threat after 9/11 than he was before.

I already posted my point and my supportive reasoning about that.
I 'm too lazy to be redundant about it.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

My point is that I promote progress in the OPPOSITE direction

Then, by definition, you promote regress. That's what 'progress in the opposite direction' is.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

My point is that I promote progress in the OPPOSITE direction

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Then, by definition, you promote regress.
That's what 'progress in the opposite direction' is.

No. I dispute that movement in the rong direction, the liberal direction, is progress
(except in the same sense that the Weimar Republic made TEMPORAL progress toward nazi hell).

Movement toward authoritarianism is regress from liberty.

I exhort progress toward personal freedom.

David

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

..assuming you really know what it means to be a social-democrat. I'm giving you credit that you do.

Indeed. I do.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Tony Martin got off lightly, he had murder in mind.

You can't seriously compare his lenient treatment with the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein.

0 Replies

How do you self-indentify in terms of ideology?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know