Liberalism & Logic? »
Posted By pacodecabra 2 months, 3 weeks ago in Political OpinionMichael Savage maintains that liberalism is a psychological defect. Some consider Savage's characterization judgmental and harsh. And while liberals may not be afflicted with a mental malady, they are certainly lacking when it comes to the application of logic.
Read Full Story at bpnews.net »
312 Views Share Story 54 Comments Report
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 54 (view all)
-
DuckBiscuitComment removed: Hard Banned29 Replies
-
93%
Justice4All2 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem with people like Savage is they don't know what a liberal or conservative is. First of all people didn't vote for Obama because he's liberal. It was because there was no other choice. There is no conservative party anymore unless you count the Libertarians. Bus and the neocons are not conservative.
Reply
Fox news pretends to be conservative but because true conservatives believe in applying a consistent and fair foreign policy they are shunned by Fox which is foreign owned and neocon controlled.-
100%
noahjw122 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Modern Western-style democracy has provided the best societies the world has ever seen - the freest, safest and most well to do. A big reason why is the balance we have struck between conservative and liberal thought. Conservative thought says stay with tradition, maintain the rules that exist, fight to maintain what is ours. That has worked out great in such instances as World War II when the western democracies stood firm against dictators.
Reply
But liberal thought, from the 19-th century on, has said fight for equality, for rationality and science over traditional religious thought and over traditional priveleges. It is the reason that aristocracy ended and the abilities of common people were allowed to shine, the reason that medical science was allowed to rise, that the common man and then woman were allowed to vote (usually against the will of the conservative elites, including the Church). In our century, segregation in the Southern U.S ended not because conservative thought prevailed, but because liberal ideals of equality and progress did.
We need balance. At its extreme, liberal thought can slide into either communism or anarchy. At conservativism's extreme, you have Iran, with religious police and a disregard for human equality. The article written here seeks to destroy liberal thought with some very tired arguments - believe me, it would not be difficult to point out conservative hypocracies as well.
But I wouldn't want to get rid of conservative thought - because the sane, debate (not shrill shouting match, but debate) between conservative and liberal ideals is what keeps us from being either N. Korea on one side or Iran on the other.
-
-
-
78%
djn3nunez32 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
American politics have corrupted the terms and blurred the line between liberal and conservative. I think Cato says it best
Reply
Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution--individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law--call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism--the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known--as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.
"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" connotes a backward-looking philosophy.
Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals.
The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.
The market-liberal vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, they recognize that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is--or used to be--the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.
Market liberals have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We reject the bashing of gays, China, rich people, and immigrants that contemporary liberals and conservatives seem to think addresses society's problems. We applaud the liberation of blacks and women from the statist restrictions that for so long kept them out of the economic mainstream. Our greatest challenge today is to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.
http://www.cato.org/about.php -
-
89%
mesodude2 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I couldn't find much info on this guy--other than that he is an anti-gay "Christian" conservative who is married with four home-schooled kids but I think even that much about Boggs is very revealing. More ironic is that I could find little information on *his* educational background--which brings me to my initial reaction to this article: Who is this guy, what are his educational credentials and why should we care what a bigoted far right wing extremist ideologue thinks qualifies as sound logic?
Reply
Like many far right wing ideologues, he criticizes the logic and reasoning of others as if his own education and thought processes are impeccable and sound. This guy isn't Christian and it's obvious from the way he writes that he's not remarkably educated. We don't have any indication that he's a scholar and we have every reason to believe he's an irrational hate monger who gets aroused by antagonizing others.
Anyone can cherry pick two ideas or concepts here and there they consider to be at odds with each other and claim that their opponent uses flawed logic. But this guy fails spectacularly at even doing that. Where did he go to school? What scholarly peer reviewed articles has he written? According to a source I found using the Google, Boggs once had a now defunct blog site called "BoggsBlog" 'wherein he offers what he calls, "Stream of consciousness thoughts, observations, and insights on popular culture.' Huh? "stream of consciousness"? What does that have to do with logic? I could spend all day ripping this guy to shreds but for now I'll just address one of his gems:
"The left advocates providing for the poor via the government at taxpayer expense. However, studies have revealed that liberals are quite stingy when it comes to personal, direct giving to charities that help the disadvantaged."
--I get angry when I read things like this but, frankly, I can't help but feeling more sad--for cons. That these people are so morally bankrupt and poorly educated that they think charity is about how much *money* you give (yeah, just throw money at those poor people and you'll go to heaven, right cons) speaks volumes about extremist neocons. Wow.
the blog reference is here
http://communique.portland.or.us/04/02/who_is_kell... -
91%
Frank_James2 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If the author wants to use logic to paint a picture of liberals then she better use logic that is not flawed. Anyone who has taken a course in logic should easily identify her arguments as the classic straw man and red herring fallacies.
Reply -
-
JustTrollKingComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
29%
lloydm652 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What rips me is the hypocrisy of liberals,they pretend about everything.They have no standers, they live for the moment.They weep for the poor,but wouldn't reach into their own pocket for a dime,but go off on hard working to help by taking food from their families.
Reply-
70%
mesodude2 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"What rips me is the hypocrisy of liberals,they pretend about everything.They have no standers, they live for the moment."
Reply
--How can you sit there and accuse others of lacking "standers"? How dare you? ;-x
"They weep for the poor,but wouldn't reach into their own pocket for a dime,but go off on hard working to help by taking food from their families."
--More crappy con logic. So *what* if they don't reach into their pockets? Where the hell did you learn that the only meaningful way to be charitable is by giving money? You people always bleat about how it's not a good idea to just give money to poor people. Yet, it always seems to slip your tiny minds that those on the left give more of their TIME than cons do. If I give away my time, clothing, or used car or tools or whatever instead of cash, what's it to you? Seriously...Why should you care? You're not putting cash into anyone's hands are you? Exactly...So what difference does it make if I simply donate my used car to a charity and you give cash to a charity which then uses the money to buy a used car for some poor family? It makes no difference. This is why cons should not be writing articles like this. You're too poorly educated to realize how poorly educated you are. ;-(
-
-
-
-
60%
Tcaros2 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've thought about the Right Wing mind. In fact, it's pretty simple to understand.
Reply
Imagine that a bank is being robbed. The criminal holding bags of loot is coming out of the bank. A right wing supporter is walking up to the bank, hears the alarm. The criminal thinks he's been made, quickly he chooses to speak and says to the CON walking in "Hey there's a robbery, the guy inside is going to get away." The CON, ignoring the obvious, believes the man since he's wearing a flag pin. He say's "Yes, sir I'll call the police- I've got it from here.
Moral of the story; stupid CONs will believe anything, even an obvious criminal. -
100%
sinophil492 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This fella Kelly Boggs obviously has no idea what the Theory of evolution really means. It is NOT a theory in the sense of someone thinking up something hypothetical or imaginary and trying to justify or prove it by cherry-picking data or observations.
Reply
It is the exact opposite. The facts and data, fossil evidence, morphological comparisons, DNA studies, biologic and physiologic studies, behavioral studies have all been gathered, studied, and recorded. The theory of evolution now is a unifying set of ideas to make a coherent explanation to make sense of all those DATA, OBSERVATIONS, AND FACTS that have already been collected. Charles Darwin was simply the first to write a book about evolution.
Also the canard about Liberals contributing less than Conservatives to charitable organizations has been made before. When studying the data, conservatives tend to donate more to museums, symphonies, universities, religious groups, political groups or movements (like to the passing of Prop 8 in California), and civic groups (like those that seek to preserve historical sites and buildings, promote besutification, etc) .
Liberals tend to donate more to social groups, charitable organizations that deal with poverty, discrimination, illnesses, refugees, etc.
Remember how conservatives ridiculed Obama for being a community organizer? How many of those cons do you think would donate to organizations that try to improve inner cities and decrease gang violence or help drug addicts?
So all you conservative posters here, please do not perpetuate that myth. It's a lie.-
100%
Natureboy2 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's fairly common in flat-earther circles -
Reply
Uh, evolution, that's just a THEORY, not a fact!"
It belies a total ignorance of scientific method. I mean ignorance on a level that would be embarrassing for a high school student.
You don't hear "uh, gravity, that's just a THEORY, not a fact."
-
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.