"Conservatives only use hate & fear while Liberals use logic & reason."

[Whaleboy]

Especially when you define 'intellectual' as those people that chose more 'liberal' professions, such as teaching

Teaching is a specifically liberal profession? I would say many/most of my teachers in my life were conservative, at least in terms of neo-con or moral-con. I never defined intellectual.. you could say, members of the intelligentsia, academics, philosophy or social sciences people, writers, intelligent artists, university types etc even some economists. I feel uncomfortable defining it solidly, so you can be a little flexible with that.

Neither do most intelligent liberals, as far as I'm aware

Show me one working class liberal jk kinda. Nonetheless, it would seem that intellectual liberals pretty much define the movement, as we're not very popular usually .

[Kuciwalker]

You are DEFINING intelligent people as those who are liberal. You dismiss those intelligent people who are conservative as untintelligent because they're conservative.

[Whaleboy]

You are DEFINING intelligent people as those who are liberal. You dismiss those intelligent people who are conservative as untintelligent because they're conservative.

Thats precisely what I'm not doing. I'm defining those who are intellectual (and you can be highly intelligent and not at all intellectual) as more likely to be liberal.

That latter point of yours is a strawman. Have I not explained that you can have very highly intelligent conservatives? Thats is a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of my position . Read my posts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Teaching is a specifically liberal profession?

Usually, yes. After all, liberals are more interested in the social good. What is the one of the most 'good' things that one can do? Educate the masses.

Show me one working class liberal

Depends on your definition of 'liberal'.

[Verto]

I'm still curious about how you define 'intellectual' and 'intelligent'. Are these one and the same, or different terms?

By intellectual, do you mean these idiotic philosophers who live in a fantasy world about how things should be?

[Kuciwalker]

Show me one working class liberal

Well, considering the majority of Democrats' constituents are lower-income, female, minorities, or some combination thereof...

[Whaleboy]

Usually, yes. After all, liberals are more interested in the social good. What is the one of the most 'good' things that one can do? Educate the masses.

Ah fair enough, I can sorta agree with that. I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with that though. However, one feels in Britain that teachers don't do it for ideological reasons, only because they cant do whatever it was they wanted to when they were being taught. Those that can't, teach and all that.

Depends on your definition of 'liberal'.

We'd be here for a while if we did. Lets just say liberal vs neo-con in terms of foreign policy and view of other cultures/moral positions in this case.

[Imran Siddiqui]

However, one feels in Britain that teachers don't do it for ideological reasons, only because they cant do whatever it was they wanted to when they were being taught.

Partly that may be the case. But then those people who can't do what they wanted aren't the 'intellectual' class, now are they?

The ones that are believe it is good to teach. Conservative intellectuals would rather make some cash .

We'd be here for a while if we did. Lets just say liberal vs neo-con in terms of foreign policy and view of other cultures/moral positions in this case.

Well, the reason I say is because in the US parlance, someone like Tom Daschle or the late Paul Wellstone would be a liberal.

If you mean Classical Liberal, that is the ideal I aspire to, but I don't think that all intellectuals tend towards that ideal.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
In one of Boddington's recent threads Tinkai contended that no soldier was ever spit on, harrased, or attacked by any by any anti-war protester during the Vietnam period. I called BS and sighted several cases of where these vary things did occur and asked Tinkai what he was basing his claims upon.

I will have to admit, this is untrue. I know of at least one march where vets were violently atttacked by the marchers. The vets were Vietnam Vets Against the War and they were attacked by a "We Support Our Troops" march. The footage was shown in the movie Hearts and Minds. In fact, the single largest and most important block of the Vietnam antiwar movement were Vietnam vets.

The big lie to watch out for is people who say that they were called baby killer and spat upon after they got off the plane retuning home from Vietnam. As Barry Romo, former national coordinator mentioned in a speech over ten years ago, no solider got off the plane from Vietnam at a civilian airport, but rather disembarked at the military base in San Diego, where no protestors would have been able to meet him. This isn't to say a soldier wearing his uniform in public might not have faced harrassment.

[Whaleboy]

But then those people who can't do what they wanted aren't the 'intellectual' class, now are they?

Three years ago, I wanted to be an astrophysicist!! . In general, I agree, but that distinction is too oblique to be used here.

The ones that are believe it is good to teach. Conservative intellectuals would rather make some cash

Thus not be intellectuals (that taking too much time, and time is money!... elijah...prophet...profit). You must understand that we intellectuals cannot by definition be rich! jk

If you mean Classical Liberal, that is the ideal I aspire to, but I don't think that all intellectuals tend towards that ideal.

True, but there are certain aspects of liberalism that strands have in common... the use of relativism to various degrees being one of the most important. Again, I'm talking about moral and cultural, cognetive only comes in with more extreme positions, such as an extension of mine, but lets not get into that. Thats where the philosophy gets really heated , as its easier to attack that position.

[Kuciwalker]

Elijah - intellectual != intelligent.

[Whaleboy]

Che:

Marry me Chegitz Guevara!!!

[Whaleboy]

Elijah - intellectual != intelligent

Why thankyou!

Intellectuals need not be more intelligent than anyone else, although obviously they have a higher frequency of intelligent people among their ranks than, say, erotic film making.

Intellectuals < Intelligent
Intelligent > intellectual

Its a simple case of necessary and sufficient conditions.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Odin
Libertarian Communism? Isn't that an oxymoron?

It's just a fancy way of saying anarchist.

[Whaleboy]

I'm still curious about how you define 'intellectual' and 'intelligent'. Are these one and the same, or different terms?

Intelligent is necessary for intellectual, for the most part, intelligent does not mean intellectual. That is of course flawed because you can get some mighty dumb intellectuals!

By intellectual, do you mean these idiotic philosophers who live in a fantasy world about how things should be?

Yes! We rule!

[Whaleboy]

It's just a fancy way of saying anarchist.

As I explained above, it may appear that way, indeed, simplistically its true, but that definition is insufficient. The fact that I believe in a free market destroys many notions of anarchism, so I resort to its cute little sister, libertarian communism

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by elijah
Che:

Marry me Chegitz Guevara!!!

Are you cute?

[Whaleboy]

Are you cute?

In a delightfully rugged way!

Thus the burning question must be asked - Is any "intellectual" truly stupid enough to use this as an avatar? It will take me months of intense calculations to come up with that one, I tell you!

My post count is about 80/90 off the needed 500 . All the others are military

[chequita guevara]

I would point out that the original libertarians were in fact, communists. This meaning of the term predates it current usage by at least 100 years. To further perplex folks, the first English language paper to print Marx was called The Red Republican.

So, I am communist, a libertarian, a republican, a democrat, a socialist, a social democrat, and even an anarchist, depending on when and where the term is from.

[Whaleboy]

The Red Republican

Che can have my babies for that!

Its just proof that the political "coordinates" are far more complex than simplistic 1/2 dimensions would have us believe.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by elijah




Che can have my babies for that!

By that I hope you mean I can take them once you explain to your future baby's momma, since I'm not built for such things you know.

[Whaleboy]

I'm not built for such things you know

Love is a powerful force!

[GePap]

Looks like zylka is vacation hunting.

[Whaleboy]

I was going to say....

[Whaleboy]

Did anyone else understand any of that?

[Ben Kenobi]

but enough so to be inherently pacifist.

Elijah:

So where do I fall, am I conservative or am I a liberal?

Remember, I am a pacifist. Pacifism has nothing to do with moral relativism, and everything to do with believing that restraint outweighs violence.

[Whaleboy]

Remember, I am a pacifist. Pacifism has nothing to do with moral relativism, and everything to do with believing that restraint outweighs violence.

For me, its much to do with cultural relativism, as well as a general distaste for violence. That latter position fuels the subsequent logic.

I'd need more info about you to decide for myself, but going on that, if you consider peace/restraint to be more important than imposing your will on others, then I'd side with liberal.

When you say restraint, you could interpret that to mean that you have distaste, but will not cross a line of assaulting that man/nation. You will probably influence and critique him though. This influence and passive impedence, while not actively impeding is part of the means of moral/cultural relativism, so its not really separate. Is that interpretation fair?

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
Looks like zylka is vacation hunting.

Yep... all taken care of.

[Ben Kenobi]

By restraint, I mean that I will discuss with someone what I believe, though I will never use violence to promote my position. I don't think the protests that I do fall under the category of passive, since we do go out in public.

The problem with moral relativism is how do you come out with the presupposition that violence is wrong? That's what I'm not getting. If all points of view are equally valid, why should we restrain the violent? That's why I believe pacifism cannot work under moral relativism.

[GePap]

I am not convinced that moral relativism means all view points are equal: I say this becuase you can still devide viewpoints by things such as whether they are rational extensions of given suppositions, or whether they rationally lead to the desired ends which one supposes to be their desired aims.