From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Sep 19 2005 - 00:39:33 BST
Hey C.L.
> I simply don't believe labels are descriptive enough or really very
> useful without clear and limited definitions attached. Honestly, I
> don't know what you mean when you call someone a leftist or a Marxist.
> Not really. I might have some vague sense but the first thing that
> registers is that you have identified them as wrong, as a member of an
> opposing team and I wonder at the point of that. Neither do I believe
> humanity can be sorted into left/right categories. Life is too rich to be
> collapsed or fixed on a continuum with caps on either end. I'll bet that
> you find many on this forum who don't hold both conservative and liberal
> views. As I see it, that's the way the world is going. The old left/right
> lines aren't holding up. Lines only hold up in an SOM paradigm, anyway and
> I thought we were past all that here.
Like everything else, the labels liberal and conservative have to do with
values, the labels being a shorthand way of expressing a number of values
subscribed to by certain individuals. For example, liberals place a high
value on the following:
Affirmative action
Kyoto treaty
National health insurance
Gun control
Social security status quo
Minimum wage
Gay marriage
Abortion rights
Laws against hate speech
Darwinian evolution
Moral relativity
Redistribution of income
Secularism
Legalized marijuana
Diversity
Right to welfare
Liberals place a low value on:
Republican tax cuts
School vouchers
Death penalty
Evangelical Christians
Capitalism
Multi-national corporations
War in Iraq
Nationalism
Military force
Profits
Patriot act
George Bush
So instead of listing all those high and low values every time I want to
identify someone on the left, I use the label "liberal." It saves a lot of
time.
> Maybe if you post less and thought a little more you won't
> need to reach for the bat so often.
Thanks for the personal insult.
Platt
> > Do you not agree that compared to socialism, capitalism is dynamic?. And
> > what about intellect having no provision for morals? Instead of just
> > making wild assertions, maybe you could try to persuade us why Pirsig is
> > incorrect.
C.L.
> I don't see dynamism as restricted to a particular "ism"
Pirsig says capitalism is more dynamic than socialism.
> DQ is
> bigger than any of them. It is quality's animating force. There's
> quality in the other "isms". Perfect, absolute Quality? Everything
> is inside of that.
Where is the quality in Communism? Nazism? Fascism? Terrorism?
> Besides, I have yet to see any clear explanation that the individual
> intellect is separate (not influenced or driven by) from that
> individuals biology. Too high a percentage of what mankind
> accomplishes on a single day is driven almost exclusively by
> biological needs/desires, especially its capitalistically motivated
> ones. Just today one of our members unsubscribed citing the
> "addictive" nature of this forum. Can you prove this forum is not
> "addictive"?
No. Can you prove it is addictive?
> And show me where the line between the idea and the
> mental masturbation is drawn?
Define "idea" and "mental masturbation." and I'll take a crack at showing
you the line.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 19 2005 - 00:39:31 BST