BS: The 'liberal' paradox

Subject: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 02:14 AM

The "liberal" paradox/dilemma/stumbling-block:

I shall probably bring on myself a whole lot of obloquy & abuse for starting this thread; but let me stress that it is implicitly in the form of questions, not statements. It will probably be recognised which two currently ongoing threads have particularly given rise to these questions at this time; though they are, of course, always present.

I am constantly exercised by the paradox that it is the very people who would shriek in horror at any attempt to make our laws stricter in the interests of the law-abiding majority by the reintroduction of such means as judicial corporal punishment, capital punishment even by such peculiarly disagreeable means as stoning or public beheading, &c

~ who will nevertheless denounce criticisms of the use of such means by countries, with whom we remain in friendly diplomatic contact and treat in every way as equal fellow-members of the international community, such as Saudi Arabia, say, or Northern Nigeria, where such means are commonly employed according to their prevailing Sharia law [even for many offences ···adultery, say, or proselytisation ··· which do not even rate as any sort of crime in most legal systems], but whose populations happen to be of different ethnic origins and differently skin-pigmented from our own majority

~ as — horror-of-horrors — "Racism!".

(By a train of thought, I feel moved to cite here the well-known axiom that a lone maiden could quite safely carry a bag of gold from end to end of Genghis Khan's empire.)

Who agrees with these formulations? Who else recognises this phenomenon? Who else is worried by its implications? What have those of you involved in this dilemma [you know who you are: you all know who I mean] to say in response?

And how long, I wonder, will it be until the first 'Racist!' stone is flung at me for asking?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Darowyn
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 04:17 AM

Since I am, literally, a card carrying Liberal (actually the card indicates my membership of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK) I must say that I don't agree with your analysis.
I am opposed to cruel and unusual punishments-full stop.
That includes the death penalty wherever it is practiced, torture and violence whether practiced by Americans, Afghans, or denizens of the planet Tharg.
I do not accept that either politics, culture or religion are an excuse for torture and repression, whether judicial, state sanctioned, (supposedly) divinely sanctioned, or otherwise.
No dilemma there at all.
I'd just like to remind you that 'Liberal' means generous, and implies a generosity of mind and spirit that gives rise to sympathy for the underdog, and a wish to understand other cultures.
But understanding does not give blanket approval.
I'll call you a racist if you would like that, if you think it would help.
I'm generous that way!
Cheers
Dave

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Penny S.
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 04:24 AM

I agree with Dave. (Barring the card carrying membership bit. Somehow my local Libs forgot to ask me to renew membership a while back, and since I had done nothing to deserve obloquy, I did not chase the matter up.)

Are you sure it is the very same people?

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 04:25 AM

"I'd just like to remind you that 'Liberal' means generous, and implies a generosity of mind and spirit that gives rise to sympathy for the underdog, and a wish to understand other cultures."

Unless you are a USA Politician trying to sabotage that process, and you have managed over decades to smear that word to be synonymous with 'Socialist' 'Communist', 'Pinko', 'Stupid', etc...

Sigh...

Looks I'll have to go back to the Peanut Vendor to get more peanuts to throw at the usual riders, while this merry go round runs again ....

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 04:48 AM

Straw man argument. Gratuitous how about accusations of racism. Doesn't know what "axiom" means. Appears to have difficulty making gluteo- ulnar distinction.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Penny S.
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 04:50 AM

Aren't the right good at that?

Asylum seeker doesn't mean someone trying to escape danger and find a safe place. It means illegal scrounger. Corrupted after it replaced refugee, which had the same original meaning.

I wish the French had set up their government the other way round, so that the people with what we call right-wing views had sat on the left, thus removing the idea that they were correct from the language.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 04:57 AM

It is my understanding that Muslims, as do Christians, come in all colours. I don't have much more to say on that, except that at an individual level, most people are good, decent and caring. Colour, race, religion has little to do with that. It is the attachment to groups and to mob thought and behaviour where it falls down.

Value of every individual has to be taught to every individual. And humane treatment of every individual must be enforced. Civilised nations should neither employ nor condone cruel and unusual punishment. It is counterproductive for a government to say thou shalt not kill and then go on to sanction murder in prisons and wars. Sadly even many so defined "civilised" nations have a long way to go on that point.

Focus should be on care of the individual for the health of the society rather than individuals being expendable slaves to society.

OK... my little naive spew is done.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: kendall
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 07:23 AM

I have friends who believe in capital punishment and other things that I find distasteful. However, if I condemn them and stop talking to them the loss will be mine, not theirs.They have other qualities that I like.
We can not change the world, much as we would like to. If I had my way I would end all torture, rape,murder and I would put all despots out of business. I can't, and we need their oil.
Obama says the USA can not stand back and watch people being killed, so thats why we went into Libya. What about Darfur? Sudan? Ivory Coast?
No, it's about oil, not human rights.
Dave said it better.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 07:49 AM

I find it interesting that liberals tend to be anti-capital punishment yet pro-choice on abortion...

Conversely, the conservative are pro-capital punishment and pro-life???

Strange...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 08:38 AM

I keep it simple. People know when they are being ripped off.
Sure ancient cultural morays hang on and on but mostly victims gets sick and tired of attacks.

Its up to you to decide who you will work for. World wide families?
Or the world wide greedy.

http://usera.imagecave.com/donuel/wish-list.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 09:00 AM

"I find it interesting that liberals tend to be anti-capital punishment yet pro-choice on abortion...

Conversely, the conservative are pro-capital punishment and pro-life???"

I'll translate that more simply put... in language that the USA can cope with ...

'liberals' who incidentally are not all 'Left' types.... are aware that capital punishment has been abused by rushes to ' get the man' and many times it has been found to be the wrong man. They also are happy to let the woman, and any S.O. in her life make the decision. they tend to see the world as more complex, for they think in R-mode' - seeing many possible option.


'conservatives' - who are not all 'right' types .... tend to think in L-mode, and can only see the world in simple binary dichotomous terms - black /white, etc. They love top make sweeping generalizations, and are 'control freaks' who do not like admitting that mistakes happen - - hence the opposite stances on many things (the same as above) they can only see as simple and straightforward.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 09:02 AM

There are no misteaks in my previous post - or this one - which tells you what I really am... :-P

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox -
From: artbrooks
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 09:42 AM

It is always interesting when discussions juxtapose the actual US and UK definitions of words like 'liberal' and 'conservative' with the redefinitions - or should that be misdefinitions - of the words. It gets even more interesting when someone on one side of the pond (or in the Antipodes) attempts to explain how the person on the other side of the pond thinks.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 11:46 AM

The pendulum swings.

There have been many eras of extreme haves and extreme have nots.
Today we are just about at the apex of the extreme right swing between the have everything and the have nothings.

Keeping the 'have nothings' squabbling over this religion or that religion, this value or that value, this conservative or that liberal... will keep the have everythings intact and above the fray able to sell weapons to this side or that side to their profitable hearts content.

I honestly do not see any paradox.

I see intention.

I see the economics of control.

I see divide and conquer in every issue, all seasoned with different religious spices, different nationalist illusions and people either chasing the favor of the current monied Ceasars or those who are factionalized but still trying to knife Ceasar in the gut.

Even if they get one Ceasar, there is another who usurps fallen's fortune and repeats the process.

All attitudes about all social issue of import today like death penalty, gay rights, abortion are changable as Newt Gingrich's viewpoint. As they are taught, they can be untaught. They are only tools of division, not commandments in stone.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 12:03 PM

Once I sorted out what was actually being asked, my first reaction was that the situation/opinion is really not that common among 'liberals'.

My 2nd reaction was that there are huge divides between what might be considered 'moral' and what might be 'convenient' or 'pragmatic'.
*I* personally dislike the idea of capital punishment, yet I see prisons with large numbers of 'expensive to maintain' inmates who will very likely never be allowed back in society, and who are daily problems and genuine dangers to guards & staff & other prisoners. I truly do NOT know how to resolve this quandary, as there ARE occasionally mistakes made in capital punishment.

As to other countries... I'm sure they have similar concerns albeit from different perspectives. I try very hard to apply the same basic, personal standards to all cases.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 12:16 PM

Maybe you've been hanging with the wrong sorts of liberals. MgM. Social justice is social justice, whether it is culturally justified by ancient tomes or not. Cruel and unusual punishment was outlawed here in the US when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were developed in the 18th C. Actual implementation of the principle is still a work in progress, however! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 01:33 PM

The same paradox can be seen in virtually all political groups, MtheGM. Not just among "liberals". Virtually every political group and movement is riddled with unconscious hypocrisy, contradictions, righteous but rather unrealistic posturing, as well as plenty of genuine idealism and good intentions. People like to think they are on the side of truth, freedom, and justice. This was just as true of Nazis, for example, as it was of Communists, and as it is of modern day Neocons and "liberals". They're ALL the good guys in their own eyes, and they are blind to their own violations of their treasured moral codes and their own penchant to frequently lie to themselves.

That's humanity. ;-) Get used to it.

(Note: the above does not indicate "colorless neutrality" on my part. I DO greatly prefer some political movements to others...without a doubt! However, I recognize the very common tendency of many people in all political movements to fool themselves, as well as to unreasonably demonize and stereotype their worthy opponents on the other side of the line. They lose perspective rapidly in the heat of political passion.)

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 01:35 PM

Digression-
Amusing how some attempt to hang everything on "oil." Libya is too small potatoes, to use an old expression, with only 2 percent of reserves at best, and of some importance to Europe, but whose output is easily replaced by other sources (as is happening).
Same with Iraq, whose oil goes mostly to European and Asian markets, and means little to American and UK economies (whose governments started the mess because they thought it would be easy and would bolster their popularity.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 01:36 PM

The dictionary definition of liberal is generous. The corral of "liberal" has been defined
by the wrong people, (the Wrong Wing).

Liberals by in large do not support Saudi Arabia's dictatorship. They believe that a
humanitarian view of the world is better than an authoritarian one. They are less
pessimistic about how mankind behaves.

A liberal believes as does a Libertarian in personal freedom but doesn't see it as
a decision made by an individual to the elimination of government and the public sector.

Ayn Rand is the John Wayne school of social philosophy. Ready, shoot, aim. Or
as Colbert says, "I got mine, Jack!"

A liberal believes that in order to effect social change toward humanitarian values,
we have to work together and protect the interests of those who are being oppressed
by society as in the breaking up of unions that protect working people who are not billionaires.

Liberals like reason, logic and tend to get wonkish because they don't understand that
the arguments of the Wrong Wing are not based on logic or reason, but a cultish philosophy that doesn't allow for idea outside of their ideological prison.

The paradox is defined not by liberals but by others who tend to be Wrong Wingish.

I support Kendall's view of relating to people with different points of view.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 01:41 PM

Unless they belong to the Wrong Wing? ;-)

Was your last sentence intended humorously? It certainly comes off that way.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 02:10 PM

Well sure, LH, but it I think it is descriptive.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: kendall
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 08:16 PM

Donuel, I thought a Moray was a fish?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 08:26 PM

naawww.. Moray was an Earl.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 09:04 PM

Earl Moray ... Oh Ho!

Con tabile ...

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Janie
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 11:55 PM

Here's a novel idea: Paradox is.

Period.

Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 11:59 PM

That's right.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 12:00 AM

Left wing,and right wing are on the same bird!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 12:11 AM

Got that right, buddy. And the damn bird is flyin' blind, droppin' guano all over as it goes, and headin' straight for a brick wall, far as I can see. The question is, who keeps that bird fed? In other words, who are the bird's handlers?

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Janie
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 12:15 AM

Who cares, as long as the guano drops and composts. My spring garden loves it!

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: kendall
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 07:24 AM

Come, fill the cup, and in the fire of spring
The winter garment of repentance fling:
The bird of time has but a little way to fly- and LO!
the bird is on the wing. (Omar Khayyam)

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Brian May
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 07:54 AM

There's a common factor here . . . human beings.

Remove them and the paradox is resolved.

Simples

You've seen I Robot, you know what happens then a human being screws it up - worse still - an actor.

Is nothing sacred?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 09:42 PM

Buying into the whole liberal label = an ideology from Robespierre to Lenin along with ironclad positions on the typical laundry list of issues like racism, death penalty etc, is a Big mistake.
A mistake that conservatives and the oligarchy they represent wants you to make.

He who defines the debate rules so by defining liberal poistions and then turning it inside out to reveal a paradox, is far removed from the big picture.

Ghandi is as human as anyone else and wished certain people dead.
A liberal who lost a loved one to a grisly murder by a serial killer might seek the death penalty while the conservative whose cousin killed their brother might not.

No one issue should represent people. Thats the trouble with single issue politics such as the abortion protestors/terrorists. In the real world there are many other issues that supercedes the single issue politic in which they are embroiled.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 08:05 AM

Of course, in the UK the Liberal Party was created essentially by supporters of the free market - as opposed to the Conservatives, who in general were not.   

It reminds me strongly of an explanation in '1066 and all that' concerning the Irish and Scots:

"The Scots (originally Irish, but by now Scotch) were at
this time inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish
(Picts) out of Scotland; while the Picts (originally
Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets) and vice
versa. It is essential to keep these distinctions clearly
in mind (and verce visa). "

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 11:36 AM

scapegaots vs. the reall= people
old vs young
black vs. white,
this religion vs. that

etc ad infinitum

This dialectic is at the heart of all small p politics of the wealthy ruling egomaniac.

I am not saying that debating these issues does not give people jobs or a reason to be important, I am just saying that the issues are syntethetic man made wedges.

Go ahead and debate them, but know first and foremost, where the issue comes from and why, and then you will be more likely to come to a more realistic and successful conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: kendall
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 12:11 PM

Scotch is a drink, not a person.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 12:27 PM

We have considered that assertion before, Kendall. The great "North British"* writers {Burns, Scott, Stevenson} happily used 'Scotch' of people. I have always suspected that its use also to designate an alcoholic drink caused it to fall out of favour as a personal descriptive as part of Victorian genteel temperance, & the distinction you adumbrate is probably no older than that.

*North Britain for Scotland another Victorian locution, for some reason ~ probably not unconnected!
~Michael~>

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 12:41 PM

LH, I said I support the people, not their views for which I am adamantly opposed.

I have learned that in order to appeal to reason, it's important to separate people from their political and religious ideology and deal with them as sane.

I also recognize that their ideology often trumps their humanity as witnessed by the cults and religious expressions, political institutions that dominate, divisive
tactics and other weapons of mass distraction.

Yes, the Wrong Wing because they don't serve humanity. Their policies violate innate democratic principles and yet some of my friends vote with the G.O.P.

I respect them as people, but not as ideologues and if I can subvert them, I will.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 12:57 PM

TEA PARTY REALITY for the little guy

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 01:30 PM

I commend to you the writings of George Lakoff, the answer to Wrong Wing's Frank Luntz.

A liberal is concerned with:
1. Helping the poor and middle class when they are being beaten down by rich folks.
2. Trade unionism as a protection for these people, teachers, fireman, cops, and all kinds of public employees.
3. Avoiding authoritarian answers to problems such as military autonomy, cultural demogoguery, pulpit pounding, and child abuse through corporal punishment,
and the execution of people by the state.
4. A nourishing and healing view of the world by helping people who need it.
5. A support for those who are ravaged by earthquakes, floods, Katrinas and
opposition to global change deniers who defend their position by advocating financial greed.
6. A single-payer health care bill to protect every citizen.
7. An opposition for the funding of death squads in other countries by American military.
8. An advocacy for equal rights, women's rights, children's rights, the Constitution of the U.S., a peaceful defiance and resistance rather than a military one.
9. A government that answers the needs of the aforementioned
and there's more and nothing paradoxical about it.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 02:23 PM

End of your postulate 3 above, Stringsinger, brings right back to my OP point imo. Corporal & capital punishment are much part of the rules & usages of any Sharia regime like Saudi or N Nigeria. They are denounced by those who subscribe to your above 9. But these are also the very people liable to leap to the defence, if they are attacked, of regimes such as those I have named above. with cries of 'racism', it seems to me.

There is the paradox as I perceive it.

I simply introduced it, and reiterate it, as an observation & an implied question.

It does not appear to me to have been satisfactorily answered.

And don't bother about 'all about oil' ~~ there is none in N Nigeria...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: kendall
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 05:03 PM

Well said stringsinger

MtheGM when I first went to Scotland I was reading up on customs and one thing it said was, "They will forgive you if you call them SCOTCH, but they will not forgive you if you call them English. So, I got into the habit of referring to them as Scots.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 05:13 PM

Oh, yes, Kendall. Scots or Scottish safest, and Scotch should be avoided nowadays as it is liable to cause offence, which of course nobody wants to do. I was simply pointing out that this is a fairly recent, and not entirely rational, development, in which many Scots have allowed themselves to be {over?]-influenced by English usage. Still, as the obvious wisdom has it: you can only start from here.

Best

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 05:31 PM

I see no paradox at all. The world is just a pretty complex place and so you often can't meet all your ideals at the same time. That's true whether you are 'left' or 'right'. It does follow that your need to trade-off the goals against each other is either paradoxical or hypocritical.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 05:32 PM

... Doesn't ... (Sigh)

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: kendall
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 07:37 PM

We are by nature paradoxical.

I go out of my way to act civil and I try to be an ambassador at large when I visit other countries. I don't need nor do I want to insult anyone.
The Ugly American, I'm not.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 05:03 AM

Modern usage: any Scot who loses something is Scottish. Any Scot who wins something is British. Examples:

"The British women's curling team won gold in the 2002 Winter Olympics."

"The Scot Andy Murray once more failed in his Wimbledon bid."

Easy!

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: kendall
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 08:09 AM

Now, there's a real paradox.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 12:03 PM

We're far too sensible to let stuff like that bother us .....we know what we are alright!

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 07:02 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 05:03 AM
Modern usage: any Scot who loses something is Scottish. Any Scot who wins something is British. Examples:
"The British women's curling team won gold in the 2002 Winter Olympics."
"The Scot Andy Murray once more failed in his Wimbledon bid."
Easy!

A little unfair that. While I recognise the scenarion you describe , used by English commentators, the examples you give don't fit.
The 2002 curling team were competeing for "Team GB" and so should be described as British. Andy Murray competes as an individual, and so can be described by any suitable term.

Worse is when Andy Murray is described as British if he wins & Scottish if he doesn't!

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 08:25 AM

I think if you look at the carriage of genes you will see that the maiden in Genghis Khan's empire was not at all safe from Genghis Khan.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'liberal' paradox
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 08:44 AM

Appears to have difficulty making gluteo- ulnar distinction

Oooh, snark!! But brill, in a snarky sorta way. LOL!


A