You forgot to mention here, ican the part about how they [neo-cons]believe the ends justify their lying ways..........I'm sure it was a simple oversight on your part.
) on my part. I have thus far not encountered any evidence of their believing their "ends justify their lying ways." I thought only communists believed that!Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Well, how do you see the definition of 'liberal' being consistent with neo-conservative ideas?blatham wrote:Tiny Finn
True enough if one is required to back every statement made in this forum with links to irrefutable evidence, which is, of course, only the case when other posters choose to invoke the requirement rather than attempt an intelligent response.
Finn
This is a simple point of which I know you are cognizant...that anecdotal or hearsay evidence are insufficient for any serious "knowledge" claim. This is so in the courtroom and it is so in the academic sphere.
A2K is neither the courtroom nor a scientific symposium.
In formulating one's opinions, empiricle evidence as well as anecdotal "heresay" from trusted sources constitute a reasonable foundation.
It is, at best, pedantic to invoke The Requirement in an internet forum such as A2K, and, at worst, an intellectual dodge.
How different if I were to put forward that church seminaries are packed with bullies, fascists and child molesters. I know it to be so, though I've personally not attended a seminary, because my friend Jim said it was so.
Vastly different. On the one hand we would have your frivilous claim constructed to make a weak point, and on the other we would have my reliance upon the personal experiences and observations of my three children.
As above.
ditto
It may certainly be possible that the experiences of my children, in three different schools, might be unique and even brought on by some specific behavior of their own, but I would hope that you might, through courtesy, if not trust, assume that I am recounting the truth as my children have related it to me. Yes, I know, I could very honestly be recounting the lies of my children, and it is for this reason I have limited by arguments, based on their accounts, to an internet discussion forum and not attempted to report them as facts in an article in my local newspaper.
There is no desire to slander yourself or your family. You have provided no specifics as to their complaints other than saying it seemed 'bullying' was more of a problem, but 'bullying' was not defined nor any information forwarded for us to evaluate whether bullying had gone on.
But let's say that each of your children had three experiences of the sort you imply. How many experiences/interactions have they had with their professors in total? Do we end up with a ratio of something like 3 to Thousands?
Your point is well taken even if the number of experiences was tripled. Actually, I think I might be quite content to apply Batham's Law of Societal Ratiosto all such topics.
How many experiences/interactions do African-Americans have with their fellow citizens who are White? Certainly the number is vastly greater than that of the interactions between my children and their professors. How many legitimate experiences with racisim does an African American experience in a day, a week, a month? Perhaps we can only guess, but any reasonable guess would result in a ratio of racisit experience to non-racisit experience that would strongly suggest racisim in not an actual problem in 21st Century America.
How many substantive policy decisions are made by the White House every day, month, year? Compare the number influenced by the Religious Right to those without any possible religious context, and your personal opinion that the Religious Right has an undue influence on American policy is, very much called into question.
Toxins are typically measured in parts per million. Academic bullying and racisim are toxins. Perhaps Baltham's Law of Societal Ratios needs further consideration.
I've regretted the fact that we were unable to connect for dinner here in Dallas and have looked forward to the possibility of another shot at it, but now I wonder if my travel wasn't fortuitous. I'm not sure I would have enjoyed dinner conversation that required I unequivically prove every contention I might make.
The regret was/is mutual. The next time you are in your home town, I'm hoping you'll contact me beforehand.
I am here (Dallas) most often. I am in my home town (New York) far less frequently (amazingly enough there is quite a lot of money to be made in red states), however should I find myself in need of travelling to The Big Apple, I will let you know. Similarly, I hope that you will let me know when you are next in The Big D.
Yes, by all means, let's take a poll. That will certainly deliver to us the truth!
You've snuck out of the salient logical point here, replacing it with a strawman.
I'll assume that your business there in Dallas includes board meetings. Let's say we have two groups, the first being the individuals who have actually attended those board meetings, and a second group of Dallas tree-huggers who have not attended any. Who ought we to logically conclude has more or better 'knowledge' regarding what goes on in those meetings?
Now who is contructing strawmen? Surely you must realize that any poll conducted on A2K is woefully unscientific.
Of course we would have to get past the requirement, but that shouldn't be much trouble for you blatham. You need only, in professorial fashion, certify those accounts which comply with your position to be truth and all others as lies.
This is a false choice. Someone who makes a fallacious claim is not necessarily lying.
As regards my point to which you've responded with the 'flat earth' comment (classic strawman rejoinder)... it is a logically and historically valid argument. To the degree that ideas are fixed, considered immutable or eternally true, to that degree learning is inhibited because learning necessarily involves new ideas.
This entire argument, and your original point is an example of your flip flopping between the definitions of liberal and conservative and Liberal and Conservative. As a furenor, you are to be excused your confusion. In the US, at least, Conservatives can be liberal thinkers, while Liberals can be of the conservative lot. It points to either the foolishness of labels or the inaccuracies of those currently employed.
By all means, let us stipulate our definitions.
Webster's definitions (with minimal editing)
liberal: BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
liberalisim: a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.
conservative: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions
conservatism: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
Defining (American) Conservatives and Liberals is a bit tougher.
Sticking with Webster's, I might define a Liberal as
1 : lacking legal or moral restraints; especially : disregarding sexual restraints
2 : marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness
i.e. Licentious
and Conservative as
tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions
Neither, though, are truly satisfying.
Perhaps it boils down to this:
Liberal: Bad
Conservative: Good
Now to Finnian definitions:
Liberal: Someone who is pathologically prone to hyperbole; who is a slave to leftist ideological fashion; who is a sanctimonious elitist, who loves humanity but hates people; who prefers to blame the amorphous, and ultimately irresponsible, society for the failures of the individual rather than the weakness of character in the failed individual; who blames America first; who has absolutely no understanding of human nature.
It is important to note that this is distinquishable from a liberal.
Conservative: Someone who believes that happiness and success are achieved through individual striving rather than bestowed by societal largess; who believes that rules for daily living that have endured for thousands of years are likely more on point than the latest academic theory; who believes that religion is the recognition by humanity of the sublime even though the most profane horrors may be committed by humanity in the name of religion; who believe that individuals coalescing in a community can be trusted to take care of one another.
It is important to not that his is distinquishable from a conservative.
It is also important to note that these are Finnian definitions.Earlier, I suggested we were talking not about economic theory but rather about social issues and values. Perhaps we could redefine.
Perhaps you, as you are supporting the claim that universities are too 'liberal', could define what YOU mean by the term.
On the contrary, my claim is that universities are not liberal enough.
One would expect that "broadminded" encompassed all points on the spectrum, and not just those leaning leftward.
Or, we could turn to David Horowitz's understanding of liberalism, Horowitz being the author of the Academic Bill of Rights and the main contemporary force behind this project with which yourself and foxfyre share some allegiance.
In Oct 2001, on Dr. Laura's radio show, Horowitz said... [quote]"campus leftists hate America more than the terrorists. They are thrilled that the symbols of America were destroyed."
Upper and lower cases on the radio are meaningless. My take on Horowitz it that he very keenly understands the difference between liberals and Liberals, and it is these latter with which he has so much trouble.
As for "leftist," it has no appreciable difference with "Leftist." Surprising, perhaps, but true.
On May 3 of this year at FrontPageMag, in response to the PBS show "The Jesus Factor", he said...Quote:Liberals do have a big problem with decent, law-abiding American Christians, and their problem -- judging from "The Jesus Factor" -- is evidently their religious faith. ... God help liberal bigots who have no faith but themselves and whose prejudice and hatred is reserved for those who defend them.
Amen
In March 2002 at Amhurst, he said...Quote:"He [Clinton] is the most wretched human being who has occupied the White House,"
I'm not enough of a presidential scholar to argue this one, although from what I have read, Harding was pretty wretched. Nevertheless, Clinton was quite wretched, albeit hardly a monster.
At Bucknell University in Dec of the same year, Horowitz said...Quote:"The left is always defending guilty people,"
Now he's guilty of hyperbole, but that's probably because he was once a dyed in the wool Liberal. Old habits are hard to break. Pardon though if I have a problem with the pot calling into question the color of the kettle.
In a column in Salon, he wrote ofQuote:"the moral idiocy of liberalism"
He was sadly mistaken. He would have been correct had he written of the moral (and intellectual) idiocy of Liberalism.
In another column in Salon (danged lefty press) he wrote...Quote:No one is responsible under liberalism. Something called "society" is the root of all evil.
Again, under Liberalism, he is correct.
Elsewhere, in numerous places, he has complained that too many professors are Democrats.
[/color]
Considering the fact that professors are as driven by human nature as the rest of lesser beings, Horowitz is right. If we could rely upon professors to rise above their personal political adherence then it would matter little as to what party they belonged. Of course, we cannot any more than we can rely upon journalists to do so. In classic Liberal fashion, professors join journalists in claiming that they are somehow above the rest of humanity in that they do not allow their personal convictions to color the deployment of their professions. This is, of course, utter nonsense.
In the 1600s, Harvey advanced his empirically derived ideas on the circulatory system, overturning the notions of Greek Galen. One physician at the time liked the old Galen ideas and said "I'd rather be wrong with Galen than right with Harvey."
Perhaps a conservative, but surely an idiot, however, Blatham's Law renders this a meaningless anecdote.
Indeed, however the concept of liberal and conservative have but tenuous connections to those who go by the monikers Conservative and Liberal - again, at least in the USA.
By all means, lay out exactly what term has what meaning. Bring in what historical examples you have to hand, and then proceed to respond regarding the 'dittos' above, which remain unanswered.
The dittos respond to your own strawmen. Conservative philosophy is not, most accurately, represented by the Taliban or Jerry Falwell any more than liberal philosophy is represented by Josef Stalin or Al Sharpton.
New ideas, new intellectual challenges, new conceptions of how we might think and do things, are what push us towards improvement and increasing mastery of the world. American automobiles are better now not because producers held to tradition, but because they were forced to deal with new ideas and technologies developed in Japan. We understand with some incredible scope, the age of this universe not because we held to old notions but because we let them go in the face of challenging, stimulating, and compelling new ideas.
A fine speech, but to what end? Do you really mean to argue that conservatives/Conservatives find all progress an anathema? Here again you are dancing among the definitions in your attempt to revile all that can be considered conservative.
As simple proof of my point, consider the so-called Neo-Cons. Are they not possessed of a truly liberal way of thought?
You use the phrase 'so-called neo-conservatives', but that term was self-applied - they coined or adopted it themselves. It refers quite specifically to the followers of Straussian thought, though there is a lot of academic work which argues the modern version we know of in the US as being inconsistent with some of Strauss' key ideas. Strauss certainly did not consider himself a 'liberal'. I certainly don't consider him one either.
