Inherent contradictions in the liberal philosophy

[George Whorewell]

Science is the answer for everything-- Evolution is a fact and so is global warming. However, scientifically proven differences ( Bell Shape Curve) between the races are incorrect. Also, the scientific differences between men and women don't exist ( they are perpatrated by a malecentric society). Also, planned parenthood wasn't founded by a racist quack scientist who didn't want blacks and Catholics to breed! She was just misunderstood!

Do as I say but not as I do-- Dont burn fossil fuels, dont wear diamonds, dont wear fur or use animal skin or feathers, dont eat meat, dont eat transfats. This mantra is repeated as your hollywood limosine liberal gets off his private jet and hops in his hummer to drive to the jewlery store to buy his wife a diamond ring that was mined in Africa right from the severed arm of a villager-- Chows down on a 70$ Kobe beef burger and later lays his head on his goose down pillows while drowining his sorrows on some healthy non-trans fat marajuana (smoked in a bong made from recycled plastic) with a soy-white whine cocktail. 

Free Tibet-- How many of us have seen these bumper stickers, read about benefit dinners and watched the left thump their chests in support of the Dali Lama? But, should the military ever intervene? NO! How about in Iraq? NO! NO BLOOD FOR OIL! What about Serbia? Hmmmmm Somalia? Well... Darfur? Ummmmmm?







Anyone feel free to add, and if you want-- And to show im a good sport-Put in some right wing contradictions for good measure, we can go back and forth

[headhuntersix]

Afghanistan good war...Iraq bad....AQ is flocking to fight in Iraq...but since Afghanistan is the good war...its ok if AQ flocks there.

[OzmO]

There is hypocrisy everywhere, but those are kind of weak because they are based on what other people support and don't support.

What's hypocritical about a certain liberal ideal? Give any example not factoring in people and their choices or behaviors.

What you've posted there is hypocrisy about liberals.  There's plenty on both sides of the fence.

I think the title of the thread would be more accurate if it read:   "Inherent contradictions in some liberals"

You could start with Michel Moore

[OzmO]

Afghanistan good war...Iraq bad....AQ is flocking to fight in Iraq...but since Afghanistan is the good war...its ok if AQ flocks there.

You've got that way wrong.

We were justified to go into Afghanistan NOT Iraq.

[headhuntersix]

Ah yes but Libs believe that we're causing more terrorists by being in Iran, while its ok if we do the same in Afghanistan

[OzmO]

Ah yes but Libs believe that we're causing more terrorists by being in Iran, while its ok if we do the same in Afghanistan

Was the violence the same in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2007 as it was Iraq?

[TerminalPower]

You've got that way wrong.

We were justified to go into Afghanistan NOT Iraq.

Yea, just ignore UN resolution 1441 (Which i don't care about but Liberals should since the UN is their Daddy)and the 16 other resolutions Saddam violated.  Forget that Saddam agreed to allow weapons inspectors in Iraq to avoid war, before he kicked them out knowing war was a consequence. 

Wake up man! 

[OzmO]

Yea, just ignore UN resolution 1441 (Which i don't care about but Liberals should since the UN is their Daddy)and the 16 other resolutions Saddam violated.  Forget that Saddam agreed to allow weapons inspectors in Iraq to avoid war, before he kicked them out knowing war was a consequence. 

Wake up man! 

Violating UN resolutions warrants invading a country?  the death of American citizens due to irresponsible military doctrine?

AND to top it off, it wasn't even about weapon inspectors....it was about WMD's that were never there.

Take some no-doz.   

[George Whorewell]

Hence, I wrote at the end for any liberals to fire away on any inherent contradictions in the conservative philosophy.


Just some friendly banter Oz. No need to get up at arms. But since you asked for an inherent contradiction that doesn't involve people in their choices or behavior-- What else is there besides that? On a basic level you might say that political philosophy is inherently dictated by people in their personal choices or behavior, otherwise why have political parties? Beliefs run concurrent to peoples behaviors. I guess maybe you might consider the pillars of a certain ideology - (ie- leftist belief of doing good for the benefit of society over the individual) but even that is based on the personal choice of those who subscribe to that way of thinking. I have a lot of examples I can think of, but I'm not sure if you would think they fall outside the personal choice realm.

[tu_holmes]

Yea, just ignore UN resolution 1441 (Which i don't care about but Liberals should since the UN is their Daddy)and the 16 other resolutions Saddam violated.  Forget that Saddam agreed to allow weapons inspectors in Iraq to avoid war, before he kicked them out knowing war was a consequence. 

Wake up man! 

I'm not disagreeing, but then that should have been a UN issue, not the US declaring war right?

My problem is just that I can't stand the idea of going to give some other group freedoms... Screw them.

[George Whorewell]

Tu- How about the civil war?

[tu_holmes]

Tu- How about the civil war?

What about it?

[George Whorewell]

You said you cant stand the idea of going to war to give another group freedom. I asked if you feel that way about the civil war.

[tu_holmes]

You said you cant stand the idea of going to war to give another group freedom. I asked if you feel that way about the civil war.

Who's civil War? The US?

The US Civil war wasn't about giving any other group freedom, so I don't see your point.

It was about States' rights and how much power the federal government should have over those states.

[OzmO]

Hence, I wrote at the end for any liberals to fire away on any inherent contradictions in the conservative philosophy.


Just some friendly banter Oz. No need to get up at arms. But since you asked for an inherent contradiction that doesn't involve people in their choices or behavior-- What else is there besides that? On a basic level you might say that political philosophy is inherently dictated by people in their personal choices or behavior, otherwise why have political parties? Beliefs run concurrent to peoples behaviors. I guess maybe you might consider the pillars of a certain ideology - (ie- leftist belief of doing good for the benefit of society over the individual) but even that is based on the personal choice of those who subscribe to that way of thinking. I have a lot of examples I can think of, but I'm not sure if you would think they fall outside the personal choice realm.

I wasn't trying to start a fight George.  You've got a great thread here.  My point is that the title of your thread is inaccurate.  What Liberal Philosophy is hypocritical?  The title should be liberal or conservative hypocritical actions or people.  NOT philosophies.

Philosophies aren't dictated by people.  They remain constant.  People either choose to live by them or choose not to.

For example a liberal philosophy might be: An obligation feeding the hungry.   What's hypocritical about that?   However, Al Gore might preach and politic about feeding the hungry but never himself donate to charities that feed the hungry.  That's hypocritical. 

The hypocrites are the people not the philosophies. 

[OzmO]

Who's civil War? The US?

The US Civil war wasn't about giving any other group freedom, so I don't see your point.

It was about States' rights and how much power the federal government should have over those states.

and taxation.   

slavery was an ideal used to justify it on the union's side.

[marcus]

I think it was Coach who made a good point about libs wanting to save the environment etc but approve of abortions. Don't know how it was phrased.

[tu_holmes]

I think it was Coach who made a good point about libs wanting to save the environment etc but approve of abortions. Don't know how it was phrased.

Couldn't you easily say the same thing about how conservatives want to save babies, but love capital punishment?

[OzmO]

I think it was Coach who made a good point about libs wanting to save the environment etc but approve of abortions. Don't know how it was phrased.

How do abortions hurt the environment?

[240 is Back]

Ah yes but Libs believe that we're causing more terrorists by being in Iran, while its ok if we do the same in Afghanistan

Getting a little ahead of yourself there? 

[OzmO]

besides abortions come down to a belief of when life is life, be it at conception or birth or in between

[George Whorewell]

TU- it was about states rights and the litmus test was whether or not slavery could persist to keep the southern economy going. The inevitable result was the continued enslavement of blacks or blacks being freed. While we can debate why Lincoln went to war, the most significant by-product of the war was the slaves being freed. My question is, do you think fighting the civil war was a good idea?

[George Whorewell]

Oz- a philosophy is created by a human being. A following of a philosophy or viewpoint orginiates in like minded individuals claiming to hold similar values. A collective body of individuals making the same choices/ adhering to the same viewpoint are what dictate a philosophy or political viewpoint. Your example of feeding the hungry also falls into this catagory in my opinion because at its roots an individual is still making the personal choice to perform an action (feed the hungry) or is making a personal choice to hold the action in high esteem (feeding the hungry).

But, if you consider this an independent example, I can think of a few hypocritical value judgements espoused by the left.-- The belief that we should all be selfless and do whats best for the members of society at the expense of our own comfort and safety-- IE sacrafice for the greater good, is tempered by the contradictory view that welfare is a good thing (only non-destitute people need to sacrafice for the greater good, poor people dont have to do anything but get checks) AND military service is a bad thing (risking your life for your country, protecting the people at home and our intersts abroad is dishonorable because_______ insert lame cliched foriegn policy argument). By that same vein and in that same breath however, the left feels we shouldn't intervene with helping the less fortunate abroad with any religious affliliation ( the missions), but we should all support the peace corps.

Another glaring example would be showing respect and defference for different cultures and traditions because everyone is equal, nobody is better than anyone else and everyone is the best at everything.... Unless of course the tradition is white, judeo-christian and of male gender. Then aparently the rule book goes out the window.

[tu_holmes]

TU- it was about states rights and the litmus test was whether or not slavery could persist to keep the southern economy going. The inevitable result was the continued enslavement of blacks or blacks being freed. While we can debate why Lincoln went to war, the most significant by-product of the war was the slaves being freed. My question is, do you think fighting the civil war was a good idea?

I don't really know if it was good or bad to be honest...Had it not occurred, it would have changed the "map" so to speak, but I don't know if it would have been bad or not.

The enslavement issue was not at all what the war was about, so your line of questioning has no real point.

[gcb]

Science is the answer for everything-- Evolution is a fact and so is global warming. However, scientifically proven differences ( Bell Shape Curve) between the races are incorrect. Also, the scientific differences between men and women don't exist ( they are perpatrated by a malecentric society). Also, planned parenthood wasn't founded by a racist quack scientist who didn't want blacks and Catholics to breed! She was just misunderstood!

Do as I say but not as I do-- Dont burn fossil fuels, dont wear diamonds, dont wear fur or use animal skin or feathers, dont eat meat, dont eat transfats. This mantra is repeated as your hollywood limosine liberal gets off his private jet and hops in his hummer to drive to the jewlery store to buy his wife a diamond ring that was mined in Africa right from the severed arm of a villager-- Chows down on a 70$ Kobe beef burger and later lays his head on his goose down pillows while drowining his sorrows on some healthy non-trans fat marajuana (smoked in a bong made from recycled plastic) with a soy-white whine cocktail. 

Free Tibet-- How many of us have seen these bumper stickers, read about benefit dinners and watched the left thump their chests in support of the Dali Lama? But, should the military ever intervene? NO! How about in Iraq? NO! NO BLOOD FOR OIL! What about Serbia? Hmmmmm Somalia? Well... Darfur? Ummmmmm?







Anyone feel free to add, and if you want-- And to show im a good sport-Put in some right wing contradictions for good measure, we can go back and forth

To answer your points one by one:

1) Science is the answer for everything - science is indeed very important but then there is so much we don't know about the natural world it would be foolish to say we can definitely say this or that. As for race differences - well maybe they are there but in the end there will be people of exceptional quality in any race group. Same goes for the sexes - people should be evaluated individually (ie. on their merits). Personally I don't have a strong belief in abortion but I think the option should be there for individuals to make their own choice - it is supposed to be a "free" society. In fact why should people be held back because of their race/sex/sexual orientation in a "free" society?

2) Well I'm not going to say I'm no hypocrite - yeah sometimes I do do the wrong thing where the environment is concerned, that does not mean legislation to protect the environment is a bad thing. A united approach through government could do a hell of a lot more than a bunch of individuals ever could - ban/tax plastic bags at supermarkets, make biodegradable alternatives available and preferable for packaging goods. Reduce the amount of packaging required for goods. Legislate to make cars more fuel efficient, etc, etc. There are plenty of things that could be done that would have negligible affect on people's lifestyle.

3) No one on the left was a big fan of Saddam, but anybody who didn't think their were going to be a hell of a lot of people killed if we went into Iraq is a fool. Personally I don't have so much sympathy for those terrorists who lop peoples heads off in those videos - they're getting exactly what they deserve - it's basically the collateral damage and the innocent victims who get caught in the crossfire. If their were a way of just taking out the terrorists I'd say go for it.