Total topics: 5
#Liberals may not even be aware of what they are doing. We are all guided by #philosophies . Many of which we operate by blissfully unaware. It's worth understanding the underlying #philosophy that would cause a #liberal to support #criminalism .
I also plan to examine an underlying philosophy that #conservatives operate with and I believe more conservatives are aware of this foundational #theory they operate by than their counterparts do. I may be wrong but I will explain both. The more philosophically inclined liberals of course have more self knowledge of their philosophies than conservatives do and this will come as no surprise to them.
# What is not the purpose of this writing
The purpose of this writing is not to prove that the underlying liberal belief is wrong and I will attempt to ignore arguments that I am insinuating the underlying philosophy is wrong. Obviously I think it's incorrect and that may leak through, but my intention is to present the underlying philosophy that causes them to support criminality and contrast it with the underlying conservative philosophy that contradicts it.
# Observations of support of criminals
Before I explain the underlying philosophy behind #liberalism that causes them to support criminality it's worth briefly demonstrating this is true, but you can actually go to the videos on any social media site of the #cops interacting with a #criminal and handling him roughly. The liberals are more inclined to focus on the #police in the video and second guess every decision they make. If a person is defending their home or business from a criminal and using #lethal-force the liberal will claim that the business or home owner should willingly endanger himself and assume the criminals only intent is #theft .
I am sure some more popular cases come to mind. Ahmad Arbury was caught stealing from homes under construction and a good Samaritan held him at gun point until police arrive. Of course Arbury having very little self preservation instincts went for a man's #gun who had him at #gun-point , which resulted in a very predictable outcome. Liberals who viewed the event thought that Arbury was going for a jog despite video evidence of him coming out of construction sites and the extremely restrictive clothing. They thought he was shot in cold blood, despite him obviously going after a gun that was trained on him when anybody with a lick of self preservation in that circumstance would have waited for the police to arrive, and that's whether they are innocent or guilty.
Kyle Rittenhouse was attacked by multiple people for putting out fires. He would be dead had he not had the means to protect himself and the liberal instinct was to defend those attacking him and claim he was acting as some sort of #vigilante, as if self defense qualifies as vigilantism.
This is not to say he isn't an idiot. Obviously he made the mistake of showing up to a riot with good intentions to both keep properties safe and to render medical aid to protestors when he saw one in trouble, which he did multiple times. He was only 17 though and not yet hardened enough by the world to know how evil a mob of people can be under pseudo anonymity and fueled by rage. However we don't blame rape victims even if they walked buck naked around a bad neighborhood.
There's more examples I can think of, but it would take all day. The point is that any time you see a news story of criminals, they will normally side with the criminal. The exception would be if a Republican politician is being charged with something, its at that point they say law and justice should prevail.
The reason I brought up the things I did is also to showcase that besides defending the criminals they have no empathy for law abiding citizens who are often the victims of criminals and we are about to find out why, but first let's look at conservative philosophy.
# Conservative political Philosophy
Just like not every liberal will adhere to the philosophies I assign them not every conservative will adhere to this though even the ones who think they don't have unintentionally intuited the following philosophy. I will also present this philosophy and it's antithesis as fact, even though both are just constructs.
----------------------------
In the beginning it was just man and #nature. Man should be able to do what he wants and so what he is allowed to do is only constrained by natural law. soon other men move close and maybe you don't want to build a house and farm and make your food and chop wood for fires etc. So you exchange your labor for your neighbors and he chops enough wood for both of you and you farm enough for both of you. These sorts of agreements grow exponentially and #societies form. Everyone benefits from these exchanges in #labor so certain unwritten rules start to be written. You have natural rights you do what you want so long as it doesn't hurt me. #Laws are created to maintain this voluntary and mutually beneficial participation in #society . If you harm another person you have violated natural law and deserve to be punished. Robbing your neighbor is bad and you failed society. I want you to remember this a violation of natural law is a a person who takes advantage of or has failed society.
# Liberal Political Philosophy
Same as for conservatives, there are exceptions, but if you are reading this and were offended by my examples earlier than it isn't you.
----------------------------------------------
In the beginning was just man and nature. Eventually more and more people show up, because you are reproducing, your neighbors are reproducing and the area is getting crowded. These close living quarters and large groups need some rules and mutual agreements to function properly otherwise it's just unworkable chaos. So a society is essentially being built up to respond to the tribes growth and the bigger the tribe the more we have to think about what works for most people.However, there's a problem. The societal structure doesn't benefit everyone. In fact it hurts some people. For the good of society some people will fall through the cracks or be harmed just by the nature of rules not being individualistic. The people the rules and societal structure negatively impact didn't have a say in creating the rules. The rules are imposed on them and they may in fact thrive if society was not forced on them. SO while the conservative would say the individual failed society, the liberal would point out that society has failed the criminal who would not be a criminal if not for society being forced upon him with rules and structures that advantage others.
# Conclusion
Discuss if you want but maybe some people will understand each other better after reading the unconscious philosophies the other side has.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Atheists would be best served being liberal.
Undeniably so.
Voting liberal, liberals are without God, right.
Notwithstanding a god that agrees with liberal thinking.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
# intro
Tabula Rasa is Latin for blank slate. It's of course one of the underlying ideologies that make liberalism a terrible philosophy. This doesn't apply to the champagne socialists I cover in the following threads.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/11803-the-liberal-plan-to-screw-workers
Or this one
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/11772-why-old-money-votes-democrat
It's also not to say every liberal believes this, but most of the ones you interact with on this site will. Some of the more intelligent liberals such as whiteflame and Barney I believe will not fall victim to this fallacy for example.
It's also a concept that is so bad it threatens the underpinning of conservative philosophy. Often conservatives will have the same presupposition of Tabula Rasa and just argue how conservatism, despite it, is true.
# What is Tabula Rasa in this context
Conservatives often say that they care about equality under the law, while liberals care about equality of outcome and it perplexed the conservative as to why this should be the case when they know some people are lazy, some are creative and hardworking etc.
However wanting equality of outcome makes sense when you start understanding their underlying philosophy, that many times they themselves are not aware of.
Yes, yes liberals. I know you will criticize the conservative for clinging onto the Horatio Alger myths. That's a philosophy underpinning much of conservatism that is problematic, but we are talking about you right now.
Liberals believe we are all born equal. Once born we all have equal IQs and work ethics and creativity naturally I'm us and the environment is what impacts those traits. This is the flawed Tabula Rasa theory.
As Bestkorea pointed out in this thread. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/11817-equality-cannot-exist-so-why-do-people-want-equality
Bk says the following
"Thinking of entire huge text to say that equality is good is simply like saying "It would be good if everyone had everything he wants" and writing bunch of nonsense to support said claim.
Sure, it would be good if equality existed, but the fact that it cannot possibly ever exist makes it kinda pointless to want."
# How Tabula Rasa works in practice
Since the liberal thinks it is 100% environmental what happens to a person it is natural to look at differences in outcome . If less black people graduate college we need an explanation. It can't be that they are more interested in the trades or are more artistic etc, since we are rabula Rasa that means black people should be just like white people and want to go to college as often as white people do. Since women and men are blank slates when they are born, then if more men are interested in STEM, it's because women are oppressed.
If you point this out to a liberal they may complain. That many conservatives believe that zero percent of life is environmental and everyone can pull themselves up by the bootstrap. This may accurately reflect a logical fallacy on the part of the conservative but most conservatives know that environment plays some impact even if they understate the impact.
It should also be said that conservatives who state that anyone can do anything may also just have a heroic view of the world and trying to motivate somebody to get out of the bucket, while his fellow liberals will act like crabs trying to pull him back in.
# conclusion
Liberalism sees everyone as equal upon birth and as a result have policies that create learned helpless in society and try to address non problems. For example liberals not realizi g that it is okay if more women are interested in nursing and more men in truck driving. It doesn't mean either group is oppressed only that they innately have different characteristics due to genetic and environmental influences and that's okay.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I can't help but to agree with Kamala's latest speech
We are convinced that the restoration to health of our people must start from the restoration to health of the body politic itself, and we are persuaded of the truth that the future of our people, as in the past so now, lies first of all in the American immigrant. If he perishes, our end has come; if he survives, then America will never go under. There lie the strength and the source of our people's life, the source of our renewal. The towns would not exist at all, if the immigrant did not fill them with his blood. The dweller in our countryside may be primitive, but he is healthy.
Our wish is that responsible folk should once more be brought together so that every class and every individual should be given that authority over those below and that responsibility towards those above which are essential if one is to build up the life of a community. We do not want so to educate the nation that it lives for ideas and artificial constructions; we want to test all ideas and constructions to discover how far they are capable of serving the nation's life.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Open Letter On Cancel culture
...censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms.
The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.
A huge list of famous notable liberals in academia and literature signed this open letter. Look at it and see how many of them you recognize.
Obama on Call-Out Culture: ‘That’s Not Activism’
“I do get a sense sometimes now among certain young people, and this is accelerated by social media, there is this sense sometimes of: ‘The way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people,’” he said, “and that’s enough.”
“Like, if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb,” he said, “then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself, cause, ‘Man, you see how woke I was, I called you out.’
“That’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change,” he said. “If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far. That’s easy to do.”
“This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically ‘woke’ and all that stuff,” Mr. Obama said. “You should get over that quickly.”
“Like, if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb,” he said, “then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself, cause, ‘Man, you see how woke I was, I called you out.’
“That’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change,” he said. “If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far. That’s easy to do.”
“This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically ‘woke’ and all that stuff,” Mr. Obama said. “You should get over that quickly.”
(Liberals didn't know what to do with this rebuke from their darling!)
It seems like liberals are getting fed up with liberalism. Antifa is burning down their buildings, demonstrators are surrounding their homes and businesses, they are losing jobs and contracts to cancel culture, and they can't get a cop when they need one. political correctness is out of control and is correcting even liberals. They don't like it.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events