Defining the noun "Liberal"

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bowser, Nov 18, 2016.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    So you are once again blaming "liberalism" for all of your transgressions. Word games....seriously? All one need do is tune into Fox (i.e. Faux News) or any other right wing entertainment sources to see so called "conservatives play "word games". The rise of "fake news" is largely a right wing and Russian phenomena. The question you should be asking yourself is why is it you and those like you are so dependent upon deception.

    You have no evidence liberalism confuses the "concept of rights" and entitlements. The irony here is that the biggest advocates for entitlements are those so called "conservatives", i.e. older white people, as they are heavily dependent upon those entitlements.

    Well, here is the thing; the right to own and bear arms and the right to abortion are both constitutionally protected rights. The right to abortion is also a constitutionally protected right whither you like it or not. Women do have the right to control their bodies just as men do. Now that may go against your fascist grain, but I won't shed any tears over it. Just because women have different body parts, that doesn't disqualify those parts from protection under the law as you and your so called conservative cohorts would do.

    Government aren't used and cannot be legally used to fund abortions. It's the law, thus the defunding of Planned Parenthood would have no impact on abortions. But it would defund all the many other healthcare services Planned Parenthood provides to women. The only thing the defunding of Planned Parenthood would do is make basic healthcare more unavailable and more expensive for women.

    Except as previously noted, the funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't fund abortions. Planned Parenthood isn't an "abortion charity". It's a charity which provides healthcare to women. Folks like you think that's a bad idea.

    Many "liberals", i.e. anyone who isn't a mindless right wing dittohead, have legitimate fears of a Trump presidency. Trump has advocated for the use of torture and an interrogation tool. He has repeatedly attacked the Constitution, e.g. the First Amendment, the Eight Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the separation of powers - all core tenets of our democracy. And as president Trump will be charged with protecting the Constitution. That should be a concern for every American. Trump has tried to suppress free speech and has advocated measures to suppress free speech. He has stated he would use torture as an interrogation tool. Republicans should be asking themselves why it is they support a man who doesn't value and honor the Constitution. But they don't; they just blindly follow like lemmings over a cliff.

    Last edited: Nov 30, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Learn the logic of such arguments. Again, even current reality is, for general philosophy, only a particular example. As I have explained, as relevant as any invented extremal case.

    Of course, if the principles would be really in conflict this this single particular example, real or invented would not even matter, this would be sufficient as a counterargument for a general principle. But they are not. Your claims do not show any such conflict.

    Just to clarify it again: One known weak point of the general principle of land ownership is that the problem of the use of land simply for travelling through. This is a minor short time use of land, and it can be used in this way by many people without conflict, and this type of use becomes too complicate in a world with only single owner land ownership. This is a real problem of land ownership, and solutions are known. One solution are lanes and streets - thin pieces of land open to everybody for travel. Another are special rights to travel through the land owned by another person for those who live in some enclave as well as their visitors.

    (Some of the usual "you don't know" BS disposed)
    As long as the other people are protected in a similar way, no problem. (Except for the diffuse "threat", which is often misused using invented or exaggerated threats. The original philosophy justifies counteractions against some actions, not against possibly only imagined "threats".)
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    In this case, a counterexample.
    In the logic of such arguments, that is known as "disproof". Your argument has been disproven, and the theory that depended upon it has been invalidated.
    So it's time to amend your theory, to account for the physical facts with which it conflicts.
    No, it isn't. It's a major and long term use of land. Human beings often and essentially make journeys of long duration over known routes to significant destinations, and many kinds of route and destination are in limited supply (roads, rivers, passes, ports, mineral deposits, markets, wells, etc). Also travel was just one, just the beginning, of the conflicts involved.
    You just acceded to the entire Civil Rights movement in the US - "no problem".

    Meanwhile, back in the "how do the Republicans define "liberal" these days" thread topic:

    Just put a red hat on the guy in the last panel.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Would have been disproven, if it would have been a valid argument. It is not. But fine that you have at least recognized now that the question if that claimed counterexample was history or reality is completely irrelevant.
    You also mentioned other wishful thinking about owning other resources, but such wishful thinking is irrelevant. This is the very point of ownership - that there is a single owner, and the remaining mankind has nothing to decide about his property. Then, yes, there exist conflicts about ownership of property. The point being?

    Then, you have simply misunderstood my point. Of course, some land - streets and so on - is used for travel a lot and all the time. The point was that a single person does not use that particular piece of land for travel a lot of time. So. a lot of travel is the result of many people travelling.
    The point being? I have no problem with the Civil Rights movement of the past. As long as it was about equal rights for all people.

    Irrelevant propaganda BS which presents the political enemy as extremely stupid disposed.
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You continue to deny physical reality, in defense of your theory. It should work the other way - your theory should be adjusted to the facts. You mentioned logic - apply it.
    Once again, reality check for your theoretical speculations: No, in real life many individual people do a lot of traveling for long times and distances. They drive trucks, for example, over the road - that's a reasonably well-paid blue collar job that black people could not hold in the days and regions of sundown towns in the US. It was and is the single largest source of decently paid work for less educated people in many areas of the US - denying it, just that one job, to black people, was significant harm. Just that one specific example - multiply it by an entire population, economy, and continent sized landscape.

    And no, the fact that many people are abused by gated racist town restrictions, 10 - 20% of the population denied the rights and liberties and freedoms common to others on the landscape, does not make it better, or spread out and thereby dilute the harm. A lot of prevented travel is a lot of people prevented from traveling, and denied the freedoms and liberties that depend on travel - and restricted travel is only the beginning of the harms.

    No liberal government can allow - for example - racially restricted white communities, in a country like the US. They do too much harm to the citizens who are despised by the more wealthy race, deny them too many liberties and freedoms, in fact.
  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    No. I corrected your trivial misunderstanding about the nature of general principles and of counterexamples. It does not matter if a counterexample is realized in some reality, a hypothetical counterexample would also do the job.

    The problem is that your counterargument fails. So, you even start to fallback to joepistole "facts", without caring about my arguments.
    So what? How is this related with the conceptual point that it is not a single person who uses a given street for travel but many, so that a single person ownership of the street, with everybody else forbidden to use it as trespass, would be stupid?
    A gated community forbids travel to non-residents in general, with exceptions for visitors. And gated communities are usually of a size that preventing non-residents from travelling is not an important restriction at all. A typical gated community consists of a blind lane with a single entry, which is anyway not used for travel except by the residents themselves and their visitors. Of course, some may be created along streets, closing above ends of the street and therefore forbidding travel which was possible before. But in this case, these are usually byways with a greater street nearby remaining open for travel.
    They do not want to allow. But this is not about some impossibility. It is because of the US liberal ideology.

    Civilized ways to create gated communities without harming travel exist. First of all, building new ones would not restrict any travel at all. Because there is no travel yet. Then, blind lanes could be privatized without any harm to the public based on a 100% vote of all residents of this lane. Creating greater gated communities out of existing towns and villages can be more problematic, but so what - even if to create only a very small gated community is possible without harming people, your joepistole fact is shown to be invalid.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You are not paying attention: the counterexample is the physical reality of the racism in the US, as a legacy of slavery. Combined with the two dimensional nature of the geography, typical of planets in this universe, and the physical circumstances of human beings and their economic resources, which are the same in the US as elsewhere, your contention that free allowance of racially restricted communities is always possible without oppression and denial of civil liberties to the despised race is false. Geographically false. Economically false. Physically false. Since your theory depends on it being true, your theory must be amended or discarded.
    Not white racist communities in the US. Get it through your head: the landscape in the US is two dimensional; the distribution of water, fertile soil, and other necessary resources economic and otherwise is uneven and limited, and human beings are of a certain size and physical nature.
    None of this is true, over large regions and entire landscapes, for racist white communities in the US. None of your "usually" is even possible on the scale required, let alone common or typical, for racist white communities if they were allowed in the US. (They wouldn't have gates, in the sense you describe, for example. If gates were needed, they would be at the exits of the black areas. Likewise signage - unmarked desirable areas would be white only, by presumption, and signs posted in places where strangers might be confused. How do we know? Because that's what we had, in the US. Most of the racial segregation in the US was "voluntary" on the part of the whites, and that's how it worked).

    Facts are not made invalid. Arguments are. Your contention, necessary for your argument, is not that a single, small, voluntary, racist community can be created, in theory, somewhere, without bothering other people. Nobody is denying that. Your contention is that it is always possible to create as many such communities as anyone would want, in the sizes they would want, on any landscape and among any population, without violence and oppression, without involuntary denial of ordinary civil liberties and human rights to people of the despised race.

    That contention is false, by counterexample (as well as argument, but you are deaf to argument): the white racists of the US cannot create such communities freely across the US landscape without significant degradation and even outright denial of the ordinary civil liberties the white racists enjoy to the black people they exclude, across that entire landscape. The specific civil liberty presented was the liberty to travel given the resultant landscape restrictions, and the specific harm presented was economic: black people would be excluded from desirable jobs open to white people, such as long distance truck driver.

    So the liberal principles that require the US government to forbid the creation of that situation are basic ones, common to all liberal ideology: defense of ordinary civil liberties, for all equally.
  11. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    No. I do not accept that this reality is a counterexample. Because, as usual, your argument is nothing but your boring "you know nothing". But this does not count. You have to explain why this is a counterexample.

    Any arguments, or nothing but joepistole facts cries?

    And, by the way, you have distorted my arguments, because I was not talking about free allowance, but allowance if this does not seriously restrict existing possibilities to travel.

    My claim "Civilized ways to create gated communities without harming travel exist" is answered with
    Sounds like in your opinion white racists are some subhumans, which makes you simply an anti-white racist. Moreover, given that you don't want to allow them to live alone, without being confronted all the time by your hate, you seem to be a quite sadistic anti-white racist. At least this is what such claims suggest.
    Nonsense. If one wants to live separately from anti-white racists like you, and what is legally possible would allow only such small gated communities, such small gated communities would be created. Or are, in your opinion, white racists so stupid that they prefer to live in the same house with blacks white-haters if they are not allowed to get the whole town, instead of creating small legal gated communities?
    Strange logic. You don't like a scenario which has nothing to do with gated communities (where it is not allowed to enter the community without permission) but would be more accurately described as concentration camps or reservations (where the inhabitants are not allowed to leave the camp). And you use this to justify to make gated communities illegal.
    Oh, fine. You decide now what I claim. Time for me to leave the discussion between you and your strawman?

    My contention is that once small voluntary racist communities can be created, without bothering other people, then they should be allowed to do this. You object. If you don't object, I have misunderstood you, sorry.
    My contention is that if some people want to separate into some gated community, they should be allowed to do this. It is their problem to buy a large enough piece of land for their community, or to obtain it in another, non-violent way. A gated community is something which topologically does not have any enclaves inside, it is completely owned by this community, so that there is no need to travel through it. A territory where previously was some road, used by many people, to forbid those people to use this road would be, according to libertarian theory, a violation of customary rights of these people. Thus, it would be forbidden by libertarian theory.

    So, according to libertarian theory the liberty to travel on public roads remains, and no liberty to travel on private property exists anyway.

    Then, you are confused about the relation between rights and economic harm. If I buy the last cheap piece of whatever in a shop, and you have to buy something more expensive, I have harmed you economically, but this harm is completely irrelevant for libertarian theory. And there exists no right, even in principle, to get some desirable jobs. If you want a job, you have to find somebody who voluntarily agrees to give you the job. So there can be no such right even in principle.

    These are, by the way, all quite typical differences between classical liberalism and that American "liberalism", which likes to sell economic harm as a violation of some "economic rights".
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Which is exactly where the US government had to step in - preventing the white racists from creating anything other than such small and uncontroversial communities, limiting them to a scale at which they could cuddle up with each other without abusing anyone or doing violence to their neighbors. The town scale is too big for that.
    No, I'm not. I am observing that denial of rights leads to many kinds of harm, including economic.
    In this case, we have a denial of rights that prevents both the offer and the acceptance of a job - both the potential employer and the potential employee are harmed.
    Exactly. And my observation was that in many common circumstances - such as the US with its large and economically dominant post-slavery population of white racists - such communities cannot be created by very many of those who want to without "bothering" other people (to put it in your misleading language). So the great majority of such desired communities must be forbidden, prevented, by government, and only those that do not in fact "bother" other people can be allowed.

    So in the US the civil right of voluntarily forming a racist community must be denied to most white racists, on the liberal principle that the civil liberties of all must be protected equally, and the liberal ideological principle that such defense of liberty is a proper function of government. And since what is denied to most at that fundamental level must be denied to all, by those same principles, the conclusion follows.

    Notice that many non-liberal solutions exist for this problem. The government could, for example, determine and impose the same restrictions on white people that a landscape covered with white racist gated towns imposes on black people - that they be unable to buy gasoline for their cars after sundown, or stay overnight in roadside motels, that kind of thing.
    And since it would (did, in fact) not remain, for the despised race in the situation described (the US, with its white racism and legacy of slavery), your "libertarian" theory needs to be improved or discarded.
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2016
  13. birch Valued Senior Member


    The anti-transgender bathroom law with provisions in north carolina is an example of conservatives being right versus the extreme right and an example of liberals being stupid.

    If a man dresses and identifies as a woman, its understandable it can get confusing which restroom to use as the lines are getting blurred but there are unconsidered issues with this that the left does not or hasnt considered where it can be exploited.

    There was an issue at a homeless shelter where a man was a heterosexual but just liked to dress as a woman and insisted he use the women's communal showers. The women were understandably up in arms over that because it can just be a ruse to be a peeping tom. He is a male period and anyone can create pretense. He called himself a lesbian as in a male that dresses as a woman but is interested in only women. Ha! Anyone with common sense and sanity should be aware how these situations can be manipulated.

    Still, there was a few extreme leftists who thought this was rude or curbing his freedom or rights. Lol. Why? Because they are naive? Stupid? Havent thought it out? Mindlessly on the political correctness bandwagon without considering what is the issue and implications?

    Likewise, there was a female who dressed and identified as males yet they did not have issues with having to use female restrooms and showers.

    If you actually get sex re-assignment surgery, then there is no question you are legit, otherwise my stance, which i agree with conservatives on this issue, is you need to use the restroom of the actual sex you are, otherwise sthu about your rights as your rights better not infringe on mine either.
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2016
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    And yet conservatives would want a male, with male genitals and a beard, to use the women's shower, because his birth certificate says "F."

    Would you use a shower with someone like that already in there?
  15. birch Valued Senior Member

    Well as i said extreme right and left end up meeting full circle to be the same and dead wrong.

    If you have sex reassignment surgery, you obviously are no longer your original sex for all practical purposes. Your new gender should apply.
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    How do you know that?
    Why do you call such people "extreme leftists"?
    And what does this have to do with the noun "liberal"?

    What does any of this nonsense have to do with "left" or "right"?

    The reason I ask is because of the title and topic of the thread you just posted in.
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    I agree; extremists on both sides tend to be wrong most of the time.
    It should - but the extreme right disagrees. Hence HB 2.
  18. birch Valued Senior Member

    Because its an example of extreme leftist or liberal stupidity or those who identify as liberals. Of course, liberals do have legitimate points too.
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    What "sides" are you talking about here? Neither the Left or the Right has any inherent position, extreme or otherwise, on public restroom rules.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    It isn't leftist at all. You could argue somehow that it's a "liberal" issue, but I'm not sure what an "extreme liberal" is. And I don't think you have verified that any of the stupid people involved are being stupidly liberal. They seem to be just being stupid, if in fact any such people exist (if you are getting your incident from a Fox-type source, the assumption would be that the facts are wrong).
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    The left and the right.
  22. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Of course, if there are people from the wrong race in such a town, transforming it into a gated community would be impractical without violence.

    If the gated community is private property, there is no denial of any rights if some people are not allowed to enter it.

    Blame yourself for the misleading language, I have in #108 only copypasted your own "without bothering other people" from #107.

    Then, fine that we have found agreement that my claim
    is ok, not? You seem to have replaced your "necessarily" by some "great majority", but for the conceptual discussion the difference between great majority and even a small minority is anyway irrelevant.
    But this has already nothing to do with classical liberalism. Instead of leaving the solution of the problem how to create such a gated community without violence against other people (which would be the liberal solution - to forbid violence), you want to deny this right to people (the totalitarian solution - to restrict their freedom to do something without violence).

    A nice trick to split the justification for forbidding things which do no harm to anybody:

    First, one observes that some people will be unable to do the non-harmful thing.

    Then, this is distorted into "this must be denied to some people". Which is not the same. This must not be denied to anybody. It is difficult, expensive, and, because of the costs, many people decide for themselves that it is not worth. This is the free market solution for distributing rare goods. If a gated community is a rare good, so what, only the most rabid racists will use them. No need to deny the right to do this.

    And, then, once you already "deny" to some people, let's "deny" this to all, equal rights or so, on some "fundamental level".

    Who cares, once there is no problem? The problem is if one takes away from people rights they own. This is violence. If the right to travel remains, no right is taken away, thus, no problem.
    Libertarian theory is not about the actual possibilities you have. It is about rights. You have the right to travel to Mars or Venus. Nobody cares if you have a spaceship to do this. Once you have the right to travel, libertarian theory does not care at all if you have a car or gasoline or nice places to spend your night.
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    And if there are people from the wrong race living on the landscape, covering it with sundown towns would be "impractical" without violence. Impossible, actually, if imposing hardship counts as violence.
    There is no way to cover the US landscape with such communities without violence. Forbidding violence in the US means forbidding anyone from covering the landscape with such communities. That is why the US government invoked liberal principles and forbade them.
    Racist white exclusive communities are not expensive, difficult, or otherwise prevented by market forces from covering the US landscape. They will (they did, in fact) cover the US landscape if not forbidden. And in doing so, they will deprive black people of many civil liberties enjoyed by white people.
    Example: Somebody requires you to enter a cell (because everywhere else within a day's travel is racist gated territory, and you are the wrong race), locks the door (the door is their property, they can lock their own doors surely), and leaves you with the right to travel. Do you see a problem with that?
    Not mine. Mine deals with actual liberty. Your libertarian theory, maybe - when convenient. Which would be one of its glaring weaknesses, and a common reason libertarians have the reputation of being really rather stupid.

Share This Page