Why is there so much liberal hate?

Post Reply New Topic

Laws don't determine objective morality. There is no objective morality. Laws are based on normative frames, and those are by definition subjective. Why were laws about criminal justice passed? Because there were people violating a social norm, thereby having different ideas about morality. Criminal law is an extension of social rules, and social rules are not universal. Why is selling your children illegal in most of the world? Because people oppose it, but it does happen. There is no law in nature that makes a clear statement about what's right. If you're reading about physics, you won't suddenly encounter a chapter about slavery. All laws invented by humans are, by definition, artificial and subjective.



You said: "don't mercilessly kill people's children" seems to be pretty much a universally agreed thing." You're wrong about that, and those examples went to show that, in many parts of the world and under plenty of different circumstances, mercilessly killing other people's children is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Your approach on morality is not universal. Approximately three milennia ago, sacrificing children by strangling them, stabbing them in the neck and throwing them into a bog was not only acceptable, but culturally-endorsed in most of Europe. In South America, sacrifice of children was culturally-endorsed until colonists stopped it.

And at the moment, killing children in retaliation or to instill terror in a group of people is not considered morally wrong in parts of Africa (Liberia, Somalia, Sudan), in parts of the Middle East (Syria), and in areas like Myanmar, where government troops have a policy of raping minority women, burning down villages and murdering children to make a political point. Again, your view of morality isn't overwhelmingly common.



Why were we discussing this again? In any case, my point of view is that it wasn't a popular uprising, as it was only a minority of the white population that actively supported it. Most people simply remained quiet and tried to go on with their lives, occasionally ending up being caught between two warring camps and being massacred. It's the same thing that happened in Libya - there was a 'popular' revolt in which a small percentage of Libya's male population fought a fraction of the Libyan army, after which NATO bombed Libya's army to smithereens and started arming the 'people'.



Have you run out of argument fuel already? I can't help but think that's slightly disappointing.
I'd tell to their faces why I understand Breivik's reasoning as I do theirs. It's all the result of Breivik's mental condition combined with his political views.



And then you put the words right into my mouth
Oh -- it must have been while you were losing it

I didn't say everyone who thinks Breivik's actions are inexcusable is a liberal. However, people who word it like that, trying to put words into my mouth so I become a strawman they can punch, are usually liberals. Most liberals I've spoken to until now had the following characteristics: lightweight in argumentation, philosophically poorly-inclined, reliant on crumbling forms of argumentation and emotional rhetoric, but utterly convinced that whatever they believe will work and has worked in the past.

I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that his moral absolutism isn't a universal truth (and is, in fact, a conservative point of view), and that his statement that killing children is universally considered wrong is false because, at this very moment, the governments and occasionally people of several countries would strongly disagree with him on that.



Are you in a desperate emotional state of disbelief, my brother?
Listen - I'd like to argue anything, but I'm usually compared to Hitler before opening my mouth.

As for ethnic differences, there's now an interesting perspective on them. I read a recent article stating one in eight people in Amsterdam are at least slightly mentally ret*d. Then I started reading up on more information, including a report written by researchers and by a Moroccan-Dutch foundation. In Amsterdam, 80% of officially mentally-retarded children are either fully-Moroccan or fully-Turkish in ethnicity, with the other 95% of the population supplying only 20% of the other mentally-retarded children. And they even argued that, due to the culture they grew up in, many more ret*d children wouldn't be reported to authorities or put in special education because their culture would frown upon that.

Morality, ethics and (most of the time) common sense define laws. I see my point flew right over your head. That's okay, I don't expect anything fruitful to come of this discussion at this point. You can wax rhetorical all you want, don't let me stop you.



You are talking about sacrifice that was engaged in for religious reasons. Where did anyone sign up to be part of Breivik's religion? Where are the happy parents knowing their children died to appease the Gods? You are mixing up commonality with acceptability. When you stop doing this we may be able to have a discussion, until then I will enjoy the mental gymnastic show



You are once again missing the point. The reason these retaliatory practices are engaged in is not because they are considered morally acceptable, but because of the opposite. They are showing people that there is no behavior they will not engage in to get their way. You really need to think over what you are saying



Repeating "it was not a popular uprising" and "it was a minority" (both of which are incorrect statements) will not magically add credibility to your argument. 40-50% of the population is not a minority. Why are we discussing this? I don't know, you brought it up. Now that this line of discourse is not going your way, you are trying to get out of it. Not surprised



This hasn't been an argument for me anymore than there is an argument between me and the wasp infestation I occasionally clear out of my yard. Come with something more than anecdote and rhetoric and we might get somewhere

I also sincerely, sincerely doubt you have the balls to go say that to their faces. And what you would get in return for that would be extremely fitting if you did

There is no objective morality. There is no such thing as a moral fact. All morality is opinion and judgment.

Not one moral principle follows from physical laws.

ruveyn

If fighting dirty is wrong, then the chihuahua should be held in contempt as well as the pit bull. This is selective out rage. The chihuahua gets a pass for the same or worse behavior due to its circumstances. I don't give anyone a pass for their behavior, but many liberals do.

Morality isn't universal. Laws in Pakistan differ in an extreme way from laws in Germany.
Not even two people are likely to have the exact same set of morals.

And there is no right or wrong. There's just billions of people with different opinions about what's right or wrong.



These children didn't have a choice.



No - it means there isn't absolute morality. These people don't share your morality, and you're hardly convincing in attempting to prove that there is such a thing as universal morality.



It was a majority of a majority of the white population, but not a majority of the total population by a large margin that was actively involved in the rebellion.
And that's where I draw the line - if 40% of the people is fighting in name of 100% of the people, that's not representative.



You don't know me, my friend.

You must know him pretty well if you consider him a friend.

That is part of the reason why laws are in place. Because there has to be a standard agreed upon, otherwise there is chaos. There are always differences between the legal systems of individual nations but otherwise there are many commonalities, conceptual and logical. Humans are not all that different, even if the way they live their lives can be

We are heavily a product of our biology, which also creates commonalities between disparate groups. You are mistaking the actions of narcissistic, psychotic and delusional people, a demographic that has its moral principles grounded heavily in their biology- their instincts and pure, solipsist self-righteousness- for the actions of a demographic of healthy human beings



http://www.m0ar.org/2906



Once again you are apparently not getting it. It means these groups are willing to engage in behavior that causes fear amongst people, because the commonalities between the ethical standards of groups make brutal behavior something that is usually successful in suppressing dissent or establishing domination. If having their children killed, being raped, seeing family murdered was no big deal to these people, these tactics would not be engaged in in the first place by insurgents and governments.



Not a majority of the actively involved? Are you kidding? There was roughly half a million loyalists versus millions of patriots. The patriots represented an overwhelming majority of those active in the revolution

I thought you didn't draw lines? Anything goes, right?



I think if you actually did go up to one of the survivors and repeat what you're saying about Breivik here they would be more likely to laugh at you than be offended

A few links with content critical of liberalism.
Enjoy.

Liberal progressive Daily Kos writer and blogger banned for questioning Islam. Free speech censored

Why are Liberals Blind to the Evil in the World? - Canada Free Press

The Unstoppable Left? – American Thinker

I think a lot of the division stems from this desire to appear infallible and tolerant of everything as to not offend anyone or appear fascist, when in reality in previous dictatorships and regimes this social practice was used to mentally enslave a populous. Think of anyone being critical of government or any practice being branded a "Thought Criminal" particularly under the newest wave of liberalism.

Quite frankly modern liberalism and conservatism aren't much different from each other any more. While their are differences on social and domestic issues, the end goals of both governments are very much the same. They just go about different means to get to the end.

Canada Free Press "Because without America there is no Free world" /facepalm

Sun Media aka Fox News North, not much better, though that was an interesting video.

Hold it right there. That's completely irrelevant. Is there absolute right or wrong? No. There's relative right and wrong. In some islamic countries, it's advisable for women who have been raped to marry their assailants. To the people who decide on these things, that's morally right. Is it absolutely morally right? No - because there is no universal morality, and thinking yours is absolute is the most arrogant thing there is, and mankind's only common social characteristic.



Thank you for completely and factually debasing my false argu- oh, wait.
Never mind, you're wrong and have taken to random distractions now.



But is it universally morally unacceptable to kill people's children? Clearly, it's not, and that's something you attemped to contradict.
Additionally, you've never heard of ancient Greek society, in which you could ask a boy's father if you could rape him.
Additionally also, you've never heard of the Mayans, Aztecs and some Incas who gladly offered their children for sacrifice.

Morals aren't universal, and your set of morals is just one in an endless sea.



Might be a communication issue. What I said was that those actively involved on the rebels' side constituted a minority of the total population, and were therefore not representative.



Don't criticize the sources. Criticize the material. Why was that article wrong? That's another frustrating thing people do. I spoke to a liberal recently who refused to look up an academic citation because it had been cited in an anti-marijuana pamphlet and was therefore BS according to him.

Just watched the interview. Interesting - and I know what the guy means. I used to be vehemently opposed to conservatism, I used to be in favour of multiculturalism so much that I was against countries, and I thought christians and right-wing atheists were the bad guys, discriminating against the poor muslims. Then it occurred to me only muslims had murdered and sued people for their political beliefs here, and muslims were the only ones who had attacked me, the only ones who had yelled at my mother, and the only ones urging Dutch women to wear headscarves.

Congratulations. Welcome to the real not-so-beautiful world.

Who detonated the last IED or suicide bomb? The odds are 99 to 1 it was a Muslim. Who was the last one who killed a woman over a matter of "honor". The odds are 99 to 1 it was a Muslim.

Even that nasty church group run by evangelicals who disrupt funerals does not go about exploding stuff. They are annoying but rarely fatal.

ruveyn

I have been saying that for a while now.

The fact of the matter is, most Muslims in North America don't fit the description those articles you provided portray them as. I will be the first to admit, there are American and Canadian Muslims who are fanatical and full of hate, but as most are not, it's wrong to paint them all with the same brush.
The fact is, real liberals tend to realize that stereotyping whole peoples is not only morally wrong, but is factually incorrect.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

"Thinking yours is absolute is the most arrogant thing there is" - no kidding. That is the exact mindset of people like Breivik. It is not the only common characteristic of humans. It is a common characteristic of insane people. When you stop thinking of insane people as a legitimate metric for setting morality, you will understand how fallacious every single argument you have presented is



I did, and you came back with a non-reply. Once things start moving, you shift goalpost. I don't have patience for this, and I will treat this behavior with contempt when I see it



If the examples you provide below are the best you have, my argument stands.



You are conflating religious sacrifices thousands or hundreds of years ago with the actions of a lunatic one year ago in a very transparent attempt to justify his action. The only thing that is clear is you can name off some ancient societies and offer a cherry picked and non-contextual description of their activities to try and help your argument that it is okay to go on a killing spree so long as it is "for something"



Those sources are crap. Why should I not criticize them? Sun Media has been busted repeatedly for fraudulent reporting and has retracted statements several times due to their factually challenged nature. Sun, like Fox, is not a news organization. It is an entertainment body, nothing more. I will not take it any more seriously than I take Entertainment Tonight or Perez Hilton's show. In any case, I didn't say anything bad about the Sun video, which I described as "interesting"

Canada Free Press is exactly that- "Canada Free". It is for socially conservative Americans to read and pretend there is a large amount of Canadians who think like them. Even Canadian conservatives criticize that cesspit for the degenerate lunatic asylum that it is

I notice you have completely avoided responding to the biological argument I presented you, probably because you don't know enough about it to think up any more rhetoric and jargon to send my way. There are now three things you have specifically avoided answering: 1) Active participation in American politics has been consistent for hundreds of years, 2) Biological drives also shape morality, and the biological urges of psychologically sick people are not the metric used for determining what is moral or legally right, and 3) That those who engage in brutal and sadistic behavior for political motives are not doing it because it is morally acceptable in their place of origin, but because it is not; they engage in this behavior because it is successful at suppressing those they are opposed to due to its extreme nature