[Autumnleaf]

IMO, we espouse post-modernism since our observations of the world show no absolutes. this furor over gay marriage and related issues has made me think. those who advocate gay marriage often use absolutist rhetoric to support their case. this rhetoric also involves a lot of socially liberal thinking.

But isn't social liberalism largely a product of its time? In the 18th or 19th centuries, given their sensibilities and general world knowledge, what else could people of that era have conceived? One reason religion is waning in human affairs is that it can no longer be used to explain natural phenomenon. Science certainly existed in that period, it essentially is the maturing stage of modern scientific progress. People such as Darwin have been elevated to god-like status. Since he announced his theory, creationism has fallen out of favor.

Due to this absolutist tendency within social liberalism, are those who push for the retention of such attitudes beholden to cite the nature of these absolutes, and why these values should hold in all cases?

[Ghostwheel]

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Due to this absolutist tendency within social liberalism, are those who push for the retention of such attitudes beholden to cite the nature of these absolutes, and why these values should hold in all cases?

I'll need your position unpacked and explicated upon before I can answer you. Before I can even understand you, for that matter. For example:

1. What, exactly, do you take to be social liberalism?
   
   
2. What, exactly, do you take to be absolutism?
   
   
3. How does the former subscribe to the latter?

If you can fill these in, I may begin to be able to follow your thoughts on this matter.

[Causa Mortis]

The logical extension of the Jeffersonian and Voltarian rhetoric you're referring to is for government to remove itself from all but enforcing the contractual portions of the ordeal. The more sacred implications were never the providence of government to begin with.

[Autumnleaf]

	Originally Posted by Ghostwheel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'll need your position unpacked and explicated upon before I can answer you. Before I can even understand you, for that matter. For example: What, exactly, do you take to be social liberalism? What, exactly, do you take to be absolutism? How does the former subscribe to the latter? If you can fill these in, I may begin to be able to follow your thoughts on this matter.

1. Social liberalism is the systematic dismantling of traditional morality as it relates to lifestyle choices, without regard for the social and economic consequences of doing it.

2. Absolutism is the view that you are right and people who disagree with you are wrong. There is no middle ground. No room for compromise. Hence, such positions appear to be self evident to those who hold them to the point that they often refuse to rationally defend their position. They prefer to ridicule and engage in name calling with those who disagree with them.

3. It defines the sacred cow of ideas they irrationally defend.

[Causa Mortis]

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	1. Social liberalism is the systematic dismantling of traditional morality as it relates to lifestyle choices, without regard for the social and economic consequences of doing it.

Traditional morality has traditional rewards. It works for most people in most situations. It doesn't work for everyone. I have no idea why we use government to impose traditional morality - valuable though it may be for most - on everyone when it doesn't work for everyone, particularly for something as innocuous as whom one chooses as their permanent roommate.

Additionally, if I am only engaging in traditional morality because it is the law and I'm not free to do otherwise, am I really moral, or just subservient?

Peccadilloes aside, I have very traditional values, and intend to have a family some day. That these values work for me does not imply that I feel they are "right" or that I have any business in imposing them on a neighbor.

[Typhon]

Are we talking about modern American "liberalism" or actual liberalism?

[Causa Mortis]

	Originally Posted by Typhon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Are we talking about modern American "liberalism" or actual liberalism?

The modern American left has very much carried the banner of expanding personal freedoms associated with classical liberalism. He's confusing and not confusing the terms at the same time.

[Tocsin]

Chasing Bogeymen is always such fun...

"I can no longer sit back and allow Communist Liberal Socialist infiltration, Communist Liberal Socialist indoctrination, Communist Liberal Socialist subversion and the international Communist Liberal Socialist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

[Typhon]

	Originally Posted by Causa Mortis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The modern American left has very much carried the banner of expanding personal freedoms associated with classical liberalism. He's confusing and not confusing the terms at the same time.

Well in some ways, sure. But the modern left certainly steps on the individual in other ways. Their meddling with gun laws and stifling the free market, for examples, leave much to be desired for an individual's freedom. They also seem to have no problem in using the State as their vehicle of coercion against others, so I'm less than convinced with their claim to the title of Liberalism.

[Verdeverde]

I will focus on today's SL variety. I view today's Social Liberalism mostly as an exercise in group think, a fashion led ideology replete with 'feel goodisms' --devices, so-called philosophies and platforms--isolated from any hard-tested, reasoned framework. It is a powerful tool of manipulation by power brokers made up of short term confections, sloppy empiricals, starry-eyed visions. Many tenets of so-called morality are seen as inhibiting, mean-spirited, judgemental by SLs. But morality is not a spontaneous bolt from the head of a Victorian as a means to control. Morality is an evolved system that aided in the sustained co-operative survival and propagation of the species from the first crude social units. Granted, "morality" has also been a tool of control by social and religious influencers/leaders-- but at its core, morality is a required grid that keeps our diverse human family from imploding (a tenuous proposition nowadays). Standards and rules. Today's SL herd mentality is blind to sustainable systems (Nature, harsh and beautiful, adaptive, iterative, but rule-based-- is the omnipresent lab that reminds us). But SLs first and foremost are emotionally driven and rewarded by an artificial sense of hyper altruism ( though usually undemonstrated as many are self absorbed, but this doesn't matter to a social liberal, as they are fed in the 'now' on words and feelings) SL's are often wrapped in an aura of self-perceived elevated enlightenment. This perceived enlightened view lustily takes a hammer to the glass to demonstrate a passionate 'truth to power' in shattering the status quo. Consequences of such actions are not proactively considered as the emotional force of casting off the shackles of the system is so intoxicating. SL is NEVER objectively held to account against essential conditions. As such, it is a fertile garden for political manipulation. In many ways, since it is often embraced without the filtered rigor of reason, social liberalism is 'ala mode' fairy stories that eventually pop like soap bubbles.

[thod]

	Traditional morality has traditional rewards. It works for most people in most situations. It doesn't work for everyone.

That is understood and acceptable. The objective is to find the optimal solution. It reminds me of curve fitting to a set of points. You want most people to gain without placing too heavy a burden on outliers.

Think of medians and means. A few extreme outliers does not change the median but moves the mean away from the bulk of the data points. Those data points would seek to eliminate the outliers so as to bring the mean back to themselves.

[zibber]

Originally Posted by Verdeverde To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I will focus on today's SL variety. I view today's Social Liberalism mostly as an exercise in group think, a fashion led ideology replete with 'feel goodisms' --devices, so-called philosophies and platforms--isolated from any hard-tested, reasoned framework. It is a powerful tool of manipulation by power brokers made up of short term confections, sloppy empiricals, starry-eyed visions. Many tenets of so-called morality are seen as inhibiting, mean-spirited, judgemental by SLs. But morality is not a spontaneous bolt from the head of a Victorian as a means to control. Morality is an evolved system that aided in the sustained co-operative survival and propagation of the species from the first crude social units. Granted, "morality" has also been a tool of control by social and religious influencers/leaders-- but at its core, morality is a required grid that keeps our diverse human family from imploding (a tenuous proposition nowadays). Standards and rules. Today's SL herd mentality is blind to sustainable systems (Nature, harsh and beautiful, adaptive, iterative, but rule-based-- is the omnipresent lab that reminds us). But SLs first and foremost are emotionally driven and rewarded by an artificial sense of hyper altruism ( though usually undemonstrated as many are self absorbed, but this doesn't matter to a social liberal, as they are fed in the 'now' on words and feelings) SL's are often wrapped in an aura of self-perceived elevated enlightenment. This perceived enlightened view lustily takes a hammer to the glass to demonstrate a passionate 'truth to power' in shattering the status quo. Consequences of such actions are not proactively considered as the emotional force of casting off the shackles of the system is so intoxicating. SL is NEVER objectively held to account against essential conditions. As such, it is a fertile garden for political manipulation. In many ways, since it is often embraced without the filtered rigor of reason, social liberalism is 'ala mode' fairy stories that eventually pop like soap bubbles.

Some people are so goddam far off, I wonder how they even got there.

[Doggzilla]

	Originally Posted by Typhon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well in some ways, sure. But the modern left certainly steps on the individual in other ways. Their meddling with gun laws and stifling the free market, for examples, leave much to be desired for an individual's freedom. They also seem to have no problem in using the State as their vehicle of coercion against others, so I'm less than convinced with their claim to the title of Liberalism.

Well, statistically their choices have much more positive effects. Violence is down 65% since 1994, and every industry which has been deregulated has had a crash which has then spread to the rest of the country. If you look up a list of recessions, you'll note that more than 75% are during the presidency of a republican, and that all of them are caused by a lack of regulations.

I'd like someone to point out some regulations which they feel are unwarranted, since most regulations keep people from being killed or prevent corruption on a wide scale. I'd also like to see statistics related to how these regulations increase costs, and actually prove that the money disappears and does not create new jobs making exactly the same income as the money which is spent on the regulation. In other words, prove the money disappears, and that it is any different from any other service job, except with meaning.

[scorpiomover]

Originally Posted by Doggzilla To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, statistically their choices have much more positive effects. Violence is down 65% since 1994, and every industry which has been deregulated has had a crash which has then spread to the rest of the country. If you look up a list of recessions, you'll note that more than 75% are during the presidency of a republican, and that all of them are caused by a lack of regulations. I'd like someone to point out some regulations which they feel are unwarranted, since most regulations keep people from being killed or prevent corruption on a wide scale. I'd also like to see statistics related to how these regulations increase costs, and actually prove that the money disappears and does not create new jobs making exactly the same income as the money which is spent on the regulation. In other words, prove the money disappears, and that it is any different from any other service job, except with meaning.

I think the concern is that people in general have been promised that things would be better than they used to, and yet this is not people's experience, certainly not in countries that embraced a lot of social liberalism, like the UK. But it is even apparent that countries like the USA, that have embraced only a bit of SL, are also heading the same way.

Like someone promises to all in a non-union industry, that if everyone joins a union, that everyone will be much better off, and everyone does, and it seems on the balance sheets that everyone is better paid, and should be better off. But after tax, paying the union dues, and all the rest, that what is left in your pocket, can buy you far, far less than the little bit your father earned. One starts to wonder if the figures are being added up properly.

[Verdeverde]

Thank you for demonstrating with breathtaking precision the well known SL autopilot response of never approaching the substance of the argument head on, idea by idea-- but rather, tantrum-style, insulting the one presenting it.

Silly.

[sunitaishot]

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	1. Social liberalism is the systematic dismantling of traditional morality as it relates to lifestyle choices, without regard for the social and economic consequences of doing it.

Social conservatism pronounces a best practice of how society should function. what evidence is there for this best practice?

	2. Absolutism is the view that you are right and people who disagree with you are wrong. There is no middle ground. No room for compromise. Hence, such positions appear to be self evident to those who hold them to the point that they often refuse to rationally defend their position. They prefer to ridicule and engage in name calling with those who disagree with them.

Social conservatives are the ones who cite the absolute nature of their beliefs, by simply affirming "it was that way long ago, so it should be now".

	3. It defines the sacred cow of ideas they irrationally defend.

How is the fact that everybody has his or her own goals in life irrational.

[thod]

	Social conservatism pronounces a best practice of how society should function. what evidence is there for this best practice?

The idea that societies are competing and the ones that survive are fittest and therefore better than other models.

	Social conservatives are the ones who cite the absolute nature of their beliefs, by simply affirming "it was that way long ago, so it should be now".

As above, we have found a winning formula. Something we know works pretty well for most people. There may exist something better but there are tremendous costs if wrong.

[LaoTzu]

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	One reason religion is waning in human affairs is that it can no longer be used to explain natural phenomenon. Science certainly existed in that period, it essentially is the maturing stage of modern scientific progress. People such as Darwin have been elevated to god-like status. Since he announced his theory, creationism has fallen out of favor.

I don't know of anyone who worships Darwinism, any more than I know of people who worship Banting or Salk...

People change. Attitudes change.


As far as the major problem with liberalism? It's the absolutist mindset of the deep conservative that warps liberalism. Warning of tyranny with bizarre leaps of logic, and outright lies.

[sunitaishot]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The idea that societies are competing and the ones that survive are fittest and therefore better than other models. As above, we have found a winning formula. Something we know works pretty well for most people. There may exist something better but there are tremendous costs if wrong.

Where is this winning formula? I think basically it's a reflection of how people thought and valued centuries ago and it worked for them. What else could people in the 18th century know? Again, where is the best practice proven? Social liberalism is not necessarily inherently better, but it is a more practicable value system, based on current needs of society.

---------- Post added 07-02-2012 at 11:15 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1. Social liberalism is the systematic dismantling of traditional morality as it relates to lifestyle choices, without regard for the social and economic consequences of doing it. 2. Absolutism is the view that you are right and people who disagree with you are wrong. There is no middle ground. No room for compromise. Hence, such positions appear to be self evident to those who hold them to the point that they often refuse to rationally defend their position. They prefer to ridicule and engage in name calling with those who disagree with them. 3. It defines the sacred cow of ideas they irrationally defend.

How do people worship Darwin?

The modern world is rooted on scientific principle, in most areas. Even those who believe in creationism, I'd imagine, would readily accept numerous scientific principles. Few doubt the validity of geology, meteorology or physics.

[thod]

	What else could people in the 18th century know?

Aye, Thomas Jefferson was a simpleton.

	Again, where is the best practice proven?

I am not arguing that it is best practice. Only that is good practice. That it survived whilst other systems failed is my proof. If you have climbed high in a tree, you may be able to climb a bit higher, but at the risk of falling to the ground. It is a question of if the risk is worth the reward.

	based on current needs of society.

The needs of society are the same as they have ever been. Prove that these needs have somehow changed.

[Vagrant]

	Originally Posted by Verdeverde To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Thank you for demonstrating with breathtaking precision the well known SL autopilot response of never approaching the substance of the argument head on, idea by idea-- but rather, tantrum-style, insulting the one presenting it. Silly.

It's difficult to read your original post without seeing a rant about "stereotypical" liberals as described by conservative networks in America. Your original post describes liberals much like a conservative figurehead like Glenn Beck might. But most people know Glenn Beck is a con man, who makes his money by selling falsehoods.

The reality is, modern American liberals want more personal freedoms, restrictions on LARGE corporations (to protect ordinary people), and equal rights for all. Ideally everybody would have equal opportunities as well.

This is hardly a "touchy-feely" idea either. It's pretty much
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
-- more practical usage of resources and less waste.

@Autumnleaf -- I think you're mistaking the conservatives' absolute statements ("God hates faggots!" "Abortions are WRONG!") for liberal relative statements ("I think certain things are ok for certain people."). To call liberals absolutist in this country is laughable.

[Tristan]

	Originally Posted by Doggzilla To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, statistically their choices have much more positive effects. Violence is down 65% since 1994, and every industry which has been deregulated has had a crash which has then spread to the rest of the country. If you look up a list of recessions, you'll note that more than 75% are during the presidency of a republican, and that all of them are caused by a lack of regulations.

Trivial information. Crashes are by definition an upset in regular conduct. Crashes are also expected in immature markets where the products are not widely-understood. This was the case with stocks and real estate, at one point. Now it is the case with derivatives. It's amusing to see congress debating on how to regulate derivatives, because the lawmakers themselves have to be briefed on exactly what they must say for their party. No one but derivatives traders has a clue what derivatives are. Why else would your party, i.e., the regulators, and the regulatory bodies themselves be so loaded-up with Goldman Sachs alumni?

Also, only two recessions out of the twelve since World War II occurred under a Republican House: the 1949 "Fair Deal" recession and the 2000 Dotcom Bust. The other recessions, including the most recent, had a Democrat congress. The House controls economic policy and the federal government's regulatory apparatus.

[Typhon]

Originally Posted by Doggzilla To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, statistically their choices have much more positive effects. Violence is down 65% since 1994, and every industry which has been deregulated has had a crash which has then spread to the rest of the country. If you look up a list of recessions, you'll note that more than 75% are during the presidency of a republican, and that all of them are caused by a lack of regulations. I'd like someone to point out some regulations which they feel are unwarranted, since most regulations keep people from being killed or prevent corruption on a wide scale. I'd also like to see statistics related to how these regulations increase costs, and actually prove that the money disappears and does not create new jobs making exactly the same income as the money which is spent on the regulation. In other words, prove the money disappears, and that it is any different from any other service job, except with meaning.

So what you're arguing is that "well they may not always protect an individual's rights, but gosh darn it the government just knows best for us." Seriously? Does that sound even remotely close to Classical Liberalism?

[Istalri]

As a very liberal person, I don't really see how you can call people like me "absolutist". I'm simply a practically minded person who finds contradictions and a massive pile of unfairness in our current system and I've come do an informed conclusion on the best way to solve this issue. My ideology (and that of basically every other liberal person I know) is revolved around expanding the rights of others. Basically we just want everyone treated with the basic respect every human deserves and for everyone to not treated poorly because of something about them.
Personally, I just go by "do whatever the hell you want as long as you don't hurt anyone in doing so". This "hurting" should be decided upon the basis of facts. For example: "a person being gay around my child will encourage them to be gay" is not really based in facts or reality, therefore it is an invalid argument against the rights of the GLBTQ community.

I'm just sick of society treating my like I'm less of a person than others because of certain traits. I'm sure many people feel the same. I don't think ensuring the rights of everyone and making sure they can do as they please is really absolutist. I would say that "you are gay, therefore you cannot ever get these rights" is far more absolutist.

[stasis]

Liberalism in the States is committing suicide by cupcake. Today we have lifestyle liberals who'd rather powder their hair with commodified concern packets and conscientious internet initiatives about polar bears and the forest than follow the ethics of freedom with the rhetorical force it deserves. They do not fight. Their boomer idiot forebears have convinced them that queued up positivity, passivity, and demonstrations of love are the way to oust the national theocrat radicals who've recently crushed American conservatism beneath an iron age contraption.

In a reality untinged by latte and pot smoke, love is fucking useless.

And now there are virtually no empowered conservatives left.

We're screwed.