# One step closer to understanding the disease called Progressivism.



## PredFan (Dec 27, 2014)

I discovered this important fact about those people who are in the throes of Progressivism when I was arguing a few minutes ago on FaceBook.

A certain scientist who happens to be an outspoken atheist, had said something about Christmas that irritated Christians.

I realized that progressives compensate for thier lack of knowledge, critical thinking skills, and common sense by idol worshipping people with degrees. Apparently they feel that by liking, sharing, and quoting the opinions and beliefs of people with a college education makes them appear smart.

Interesting. Perhaps by understanding the people suffering from progressivism, we get closer to a cure.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Dec 27, 2014)

PredFan said:


> I discovered this important fact about those people who are in the throes of Progressivism when I was arguing a few minutes ago on FaceBook.
> 
> A certain scientist who happens to be an outspoken atheist, had said something about Christmas that irritated Christians.
> 
> ...


as opposed to the religious people praying to a statue .....at least the one with a degree is real and can answer a question....just sayin....


----------



## TheOldSchool (Dec 27, 2014)

Jesus is the only scientist I'll ever need!


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 27, 2014)

There are beliefs Progressives hold that are sensible and there are beliefs they hold that are bat shit crazy.  In other words, they aren't any difference than conservatives.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 27, 2014)

Harry Dresden said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > I discovered this important fact about those people who are in the throes of Progressivism when I was arguing a few minutes ago on FaceBook.
> ...



You completely miss the point.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 27, 2014)

Dang people! Get some coffee, drink it and read again. You all are asleep today.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Dec 27, 2014)

PredFan said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


the point i see is you putting down those on the left....because....they listen to science over religion....if im wrong, tell me what your point is....


----------



## PredFan (Dec 27, 2014)

Harry Dresden said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



I'm hypothesizing that the reason so many ignorant lefties like scientists is because they think if they quote them, post items from them, or generally worship them, it makes them look smart.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Dec 27, 2014)

PredFan said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


ok i hear ya.....some dont even understand the science they are quoting.....but at the same time many righties will use bible quotes to make it seem like they are religious, when they only go to a church when there is a wedding or funeral or only pray when something bad happens....but i get what you are saying....


----------



## Mindlight (Dec 27, 2014)

PredFan said:


> I discovered this important fact about those people who are in the throes of Progressivism when I was arguing a few minutes ago on FaceBook.
> 
> A certain scientist who happens to be an outspoken atheist, had said something about Christmas that irritated Christians.
> 
> ...



I would define liberal Progressivism in terms of the movement for Equality between people with different outlooks and lifestyles and genders. Its historical roots are not that bad and indeed many Christians sided with them in the fight for freedom of worship, female and racial equality and the liberation of slaves and ending of child labour practices for instance. However modern Liberal Progressives having achieved many of their more worthwhile goals have gone badly wrong. In place of freedom of worship they seek to impose a secular idea of the equality of religions, in place of the liberation of women they have added an extremist feminist agenda that includes abortion as choice and employment quotas regardless of merit and they have added equality of sexuality and transgender rights to their list of to dos.

But I do not think it is fair to say that they are uneducated. Indeed academia , government and the media is mainly captivated by their ideology which is increasingly enshrined in law. So a great many of them have degrees and many people who have degrees are increasingly vulnerable to their agenda.

In practice there are a series of very powerful lobby groups that have been targeting the government and media for decades and in France and the UK for instance have mainly succeeded in taking over and which have thrived under Obamas administration also. The gay lobby and Muslims come up as the most prominent and powerful of these groups. They have succeeded in getting a great many people terrified of losing their jobs or even of being imprisoned if they do not tow the line when it comes to the tenets of Liberal Philosophy. It will take decades to unravel the damage they have done in fact much of which is now law.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 27, 2014)

What brought this to my attention was in arguing with the progressives on FB it was clear how ignorant they were. I've seen that here where the major problem with progressives is that they lack reading comprehension skills at even a rudimentary level. Of course rational thinking tells us that not all Progressives are ignorant, but that's because those who are smart AND Progressive are therefor evil bastards.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 29, 2014)

PredFan said:


> I discovered this important fact about those people who are in the throes of Progressivism when I was arguing a few minutes ago on FaceBook.
> 
> A certain scientist who happens to be an outspoken atheist, had said something about Christmas that irritated Christians.
> 
> ...



I was not aware Nosebook was around a hundred years ago.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 29, 2014)

PredFan said:


> What brought this to my attention was in arguing with the progressives on FB it was clear how ignorant they were. I've seen that here where the major problem with progressives is that they lack reading comprehension skills at even a rudimentary level. Of course rational thinking tells us that not all Progressives are ignorant, but that's because those who are smart AND Progressive are therefor evil bastards.



After doing a completely unscientific and unscholarly analysis of this, I have come to the conclusion that Progressives are neither uneducated nor ignorant when it comes to complex or academic context.  Many are competent, even exemplary, in their chosen professions and avocations.

The problem with Progressivism, as it is understood in modern day America, is that people afflicted with this condition are missing the ability to comprehend, articulate, or utilize certain concepts that are crystal clear to those we understand to be conservative/libertarian (little "L") in modern day America.  They are incapable of honestly characterizing the statements or expressed opinions of non-Progressives and incapable of accurately expressing the views of conservatives/libertarians.  And, though there is an occasional exception, when they pretend to do so, they will most often use aspersions, red herrings, straw men, and non sequitur instead of honest debate.

The issue is not intelligence or education.  The issue is the inability to see and understand.

Wait for it. . . . .


----------



## PredFan (Dec 30, 2014)

Pogo said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > I discovered this important fact about those people who are in the throes of Progressivism when I was arguing a few minutes ago on FaceBook.
> ...



There is a whole lot you aren't aware of. I imagine though, and I could be wrong because I'm trying to understand your progressive "mind", that you somehow think I implied that Facebook is the tool that Progressives use to communicate, and have for 100 years.

Work on your reading comprehension.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 30, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > What brought this to my attention was in arguing with the progressives on FB it was clear how ignorant they were. I've seen that here where the major problem with progressives is that they lack reading comprehension skills at even a rudimentary level. Of course rational thinking tells us that not all Progressives are ignorant, but that's because those who are smart AND Progressive are therefor evil bastards.
> ...



You are correct, and I wasn't trying to imply that my discovery encompassed all that is wrong with Progressives. It's just one aspect. Yours is another. I will say that a great deal of the progressives on Facebook ARE uneducated. They latch on to some educated progressive but cannot actually articulate the persons point. When challenged, they only cut and paste quotes, and ask why I hate science.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 30, 2014)

PredFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



LOL.  Yes, there is the cut and paste method of participating on message boards and I will admit that it does seem to be much more often progressives who couldn't explain what they are posting when they do that if their lives depended on it.  And as you have observed, if we who identify ourselves as other than progressives do not embrace the content they post, then we do 'hate science' or some version of that.  Or, instead of considering an observation that I make, they are screaming for links.  

My observation, however, was along the lines of being dysfunctional.  I believe it was Ronald Reagan who said:   "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."  

I am not arguing against your thesis so much as I am proposing a different reason other than ignorance and lack of education for the phenomenon.  They have the information.  They are simply unable or unwilling to process it as it is, but are compelled to deny or accuse it or somehow twist it into the progressive doctrine.

For instance, I don't know how many times I've heard or seen progressives post that most of the Founders were deists.  The evidence flies in the face of that, but it is the only way they can dismiss the fact that the Founders, even the very few who rejected the divinity of Jesus, embraced a Christian ethic and that guided the foundations of the nation they created.  Even the unitarians did not fully embrace Deism as they did not reject the importance of a nation who obeyed the laws of God or the pure Christian ethic as necessary for the Constitution to work.  The Progressives seem compelled to dismiss that same Christian ethic as missing in the process rather than to consider how it factored into the Declaration of Independence and the concepts and principles that went into the Constitution they adopted.

And maybe that is a form of ignorance or lack of proper education.  I rather think however, it is entrenched in a flawed mindset of their own unique concept of right and wrong, good and evil, etc.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 30, 2014)

The most effective way to defeat a Prog is to keep them on task. Don't allow them to smoke screen or deflect. If you dismiss their attempts at dragging the argument off point, they cannot win.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 30, 2014)

What in the wide world of fuck are you talking about?


----------



## PredFan (Dec 31, 2014)

Pogo said:


> What in the wide world of fuck are you talking about?



And there we go!


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 31, 2014)

PredFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > What in the wide world of fuck are you talking about?
> ...



And used wrongly too.  


PredFan said:


> The most effective way to defeat a Prog is to keep them on task. Don't allow them to smoke screen or deflect. If you dismiss their attempts at dragging the argument off point, they cannot win.



No they can't win if required to argue the concept instead of focusing on their opponent in the debate, but that has been almost impossible to achieve on a message board.  On my "A New and Improved Constitution" thread, it has remained mostly cordial, but despite my best efforts to keep the discussion on point, the progressives simply can't help themselves.  They simply HAVE to point to 'eeeeeeevul' Republicans or Tea Party extremism or greedy, hateful conservatism as the reason that everything is screwed up and if everybody just embraced progressivism, the world would be a much better place.   They simply are unable to argue any concept offered at face value but will almost 100% consistently drag the ad hominem element into it.

Why?  Because I believe they most often operate on pure emotionalism, judgmentalism, and delusions of righteousness and are incapable of arguing a rationale for a policy or point of view apart from that ad hominem mindset.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 31, 2014)

The OP will never understand why this thread fails as a straw man fallacy, however.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 31, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The OP will never understand why this thread fails as a straw man fallacy, however.



Not until he tries to explain WTF he's talking about.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 31, 2014)

PredFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



You did exactly that.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 31, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



How does calling out a strawman become "ad hominem"?
Who said anything about "eeeeeeevul" or "Republicans"?  Besides the OP who won't explain his terms?

How is it OK to post a thread referring to "the disease called progressivism", which is "called" but never "defined" ---- yet it somehow becomes "ad hominem" to refer to a strawman, which IS defined?

Hm?


----------



## peach174 (Dec 31, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Progressivism defined
The Progressives were reformers in the late 19th and early 20th century who believed that in order to address modern problems, America needed to abandon the old ideas of the Founding in favor of a new expansive conception of the role of government. Progressives paved the way for modern liberalism and politics, and their core ideas are still the mainstay of today’s liberalism.


----------



## R.D. (Dec 31, 2014)

PredFan said:


> Dang people! Get some coffee, drink it and read again. You all are asleep today.





It's like a disease without any cure ...


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 31, 2014)

Yup.  We see the usual 'progressive' tactics of accusing the OP, of accusing those discussing the topic, demanding links, going ad hominem, hollering 'straw man' or some other such phrase that they can't explain how it applies (and usually can't define), but absolutely unwilling to offer their own rationale for why the premise of the OP is wrong or why somebody's observation is incorrect or whatever.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 31, 2014)

Progressives are also mind-altered. They've been trained to believe certain things and nothing can convince them otherwise. They believe the government IS the economy, that mankind is altering the climate and that redistribution will actually succeed as an economic theory -- this time, for sure!


----------



## PredFan (Dec 31, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The OP will never understand why this thread fails as a straw man fallacy, however.



You say that about every thread by any conservative. I don't think it means what YOU think it means and anyway, no one cares.


----------



## HenryBHough (Dec 31, 2014)

Seems like it's a philosophy rooted in the belief that the harder one works the more should be taken from you to "redistribute" to others unwilling to work.

Progressively producing more who won't bestir themselves.

Now back to my well deserved nap.  And, Oh, thank you for working so as to make that possible.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 31, 2014)

Pogo said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The OP will never understand why this thread fails as a straw man fallacy, however.
> ...



It's pretty obvious to most anyone. You however, won't understand it. Just move on.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 31, 2014)

Pogo said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


----------



## PredFan (Dec 31, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Nice cut and paste job.

The fact of the matter is that like every other political affiliation, progressivism has changed since it's beginning. My thread is not about the ideas of progressivism, but the ignorance of its followers.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 31, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Progressives are also mind-altered. They've been trained to believe certain things and nothing can convince them otherwise. They believe the government IS the economy, that mankind is altering the climate and that redistribution will actually succeed as an economic theory -- this time, for sure!



While I agree that is generally the doctrine most progressives preach, I don't know if I would use the term 'mind-altered' though you could be right. 

I once thought progressives were just narrow minded, self righteous, self serving bullies who dare not, with impunity, allow anybody off the plantation they have forged out of their own wierd way of looking at the world.  I no longer see most progressives that way because I know a number of them--both here at USMB and elsewhere on line and in real life too--who are loving, caring, capable people.  And I don't believe their point of view to be a character flaw so much as some kind of dysfunction that makes them incapable of seeing the unintended negative consequences wrought by the policies and practices they embrace.

How do they get that way?  And why do so many of us exposed to the same stuff reject  progressivism purely because we can see and understand the negative consequences it produces?  Why didn't we succumb to that 'religion' too?

I honestly don't know.


----------



## R.D. (Dec 31, 2014)

PredFan said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Or (my favorite quote from 2014) the stupidity of the American  voters.  He so clearly was addressing the progs and their followers


----------



## gipper (Dec 31, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Progressives are also mind-altered. They've been trained to believe certain things and nothing can convince them otherwise. They believe the government IS the economy, that mankind is altering the climate and that redistribution will actually succeed as an economic theory -- this time, for sure!



They also believe a big unlimited government run by a small group of elites, is a good thing.  Thus proving they have learned absolutely nothing from history.


----------



## R.D. (Dec 31, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Progressives are also mind-altered. They've been trained to believe certain things and nothing can convince them otherwise. They believe the government IS the economy, that mankind is altering the climate and that redistribution will actually succeed as an economic theory -- this time, for sure!
> ...


One trait those with that character flaw mostly all have is a  lack of self awareness.   It's very frustrating


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 31, 2014)

PredFan said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Okay I need to defend Peach a bit here.  Her definition of progressivism posted far more supports your thesis than I think you're giving it credit for.

Is it not ignorance or at least flawed and unsupportable thinking that the Founders' ideas were unsustainable?  Is it not ignorance or at least faulty thinking to think that broad expansion of government is of greater benefit than liberty?  Is it not those 'progressive' ideas of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that produced the flawed ideology that we call 'liberalism' or 'progressivism' in modern day American?


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 31, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Explain please.  How is an ideology that is based on pure rose colored glasses, emotionalism, and 'sensitivity to feelings' a 'lack of self awareness'?


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 31, 2014)

gipper said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Progressives are also mind-altered. They've been trained to believe certain things and nothing can convince them otherwise. They believe the government IS the economy, that mankind is altering the climate and that redistribution will actually succeed as an economic theory -- this time, for sure!
> ...



This is the one thing I have never been able to get anybody from the progressive camp to explain to me.  How is it that 'we the people' are too greedy, too selfish, too unreliable, too self centered to entrust with the liberty to live our lives as we choose--we will invariably do it wrong without uniform rules and regulations to control everybody--but. . . .

. . .somehow all that greed, selfishness, unreliability, and self-centeredness magically disappears if we elect those same people to federal office and give them power over the rest of us and we can trust them to do it as it should be done?


----------



## peach174 (Dec 31, 2014)

PredFan said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Pogo asked for a definition of progressivism so I put it up.
Plain and simple


----------



## R.D. (Dec 31, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Well, I goofed.   You said it wasn't a character flaw 

Those rose colored glasses are phony, the emotions are shallow and the sensitivity to feelings are one sided.   For example there is a constant barrage of homophobic accusations from the left to the right here, but those very same wonderfully caring liberals constantly use gay and homo slurs and accusations as a put down.   The accusation we on the right are racist is so embedded in their conversation, yet they don't refrain from calling people Uncle Tom, house ****** etc-as well as embracing those who do as long as they are liberals.   The list goes on and on

Totally unaware of their hypocrisy.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 31, 2014)

R.D. said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


Without a doubt.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 31, 2014)

peach174 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



My apologies.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 31, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...



Yeah, we're arguing the same side of the fence here, but just with a slight difference in perception.  Is a lie a lie if the person believes they are telling the truth?  Is it hypocrisy when each believes the other to be an idiot but only one of the two is?  So yes, the rose colored glasses are phony, the emotionalism is real but misguided, and the sensitivity is highly selective and only the right kind of people are entitled to be beneficiary of it, but I honestly believe they mostly can't see or understand that.  There is something missing in the psychological makeup of most of those who embrace progressivism that makes them incapable of seeing or understanding anything other than the way they want things to be.


----------



## R.D. (Dec 31, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> Yeah, we're arguing the same side of the fence here, but just with a slight difference in perception.  Is a lie a lie if the person believes they are telling the truth?


Yes.  But a progressive I know once actually told me it doesn't matter, as long as it "could" be true.  She was being honest in her foolishness and she spoke for a great many progressives



> Is it hypocrisy when each believes the other to be an idiot but only one of the two is?



Lol, not sure on that one.  Idiots don't usually see it in the self, but will go on the defensive when pointed out.  You know..."I know you are, but what am I?"


> So yes, the rose colored glasses are phony, the emotionalism is real but misguided, and the sensitivity is highly selective and only the right kind of people are entitled to be beneficiary of it, but I honestly believe they mostly can't see or understand that.  *There is something missing in the psychological makeup of most of those who embrace progressivism that makes them incapable of seeing or understanding anything other than the way they want things to be*.


That's why it's frustrating


----------



## gipper (Dec 31, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Agreed.  Many on the left fail to recognize or understand the dangers of unlimited government.  They foolishly see government as a FORCE for good...when any fool can see it is far from good, but it is all about force.

This is a great quote.  If only those on the left could understand its meaning.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 31, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, we're arguing the same side of the fence here, but just with a slight difference in perception.  Is a lie a lie if the person believes they are telling the truth?
> ...



Well yes.  It has long been obvious to a lot of us that through the progressive's eyes,  'right intentions' justify ANYTHING while unintended bad consequences can be ignored.  And if they are convinced that any 'wrong intentions or characteristics' are involved, it doesn't matter if something is of great benefit.  It is wrong and it must be squashed.


----------



## peach174 (Dec 31, 2014)

They don't think that there are actual facts.
That Facts are just opinions and that is why it is so hard to have a rational conversation with them.
It's that "could be true" and looking at the world as everything is grey and that there is no black and white.
Looking at anything at all in black and white is wrong by them.
When they look at everything in grey all the time it makes their world much more difficult and complicated by over analyzing and micro managing everything.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 31, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



You didn't identify how it was a straw man.  You just called it that.  And I was referring to another thread with my comment about 'eeeeevul Republicans' which you completely ignored in your comments.  (Such reading comprehension problems lend credibility to the OP's charges by the way.)

Why is it not okay to post a thread referring to 'the disease called progressivism' which did not make an effort to define the term but rather made the charge that those who identify themselves as progressive are uneducated and ignorant and must appeal to authority (ie. 'those who have college degrees') in order to have anything to argue at all.

I immediately challenged the emphasis of the OP, for which I have yet to receive any credit. 

And not a single progressive posting on this thread thus far has offerred a rationale or argument for why the OP is wrong.  Instead we have ad hominem aspersions cast on the OP or others, complaints that the thread exists at all, demands for definitions, accusations of straw man (used incorrectly) yadda yadda.  All of which supports my opinion that most progressives are incapable of analyzing and discussing a concept and compensate for that with ad hominem, personal insults, and deflections from the topic.

So what do you think?  Does that reinforce the OP's charge that progressives are uneducated and ignorant and invariably appeal to authority rather than making their own arguments?


----------



## Pogo (Dec 31, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Hence my reference to Nosebook being around a hundred years ago.  Funny that the OP couldn't define his own term.  Wonder if he agrees with it.  Guess we'll never know.

Thanks Peach -- is there a link to whose definition this is, or is it yours?


----------



## Pogo (Dec 31, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> Yup.  We see the usual 'progressive' tactics of accusing the OP, of accusing those discussing the topic, demanding links, going ad hominem, hollering 'straw man' or some other such phrase that they can't explain how it applies (and usually can't define), but absolutely unwilling to offer their own rationale for why the premise of the OP is wrong or why somebody's observation is incorrect or whatever.



Strange then that you can't identify where this ad hom is.  Much like the OP can't define his own term.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 31, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Seems like it's a philosophy rooted in the belief that the harder one works the more should be taken from you to "redistribute" to others unwilling to work.
> 
> Progressively producing more who won't bestir themselves.
> 
> Now back to my well deserved nap.  And, Oh, thank you for working so as to make that possible.



This would be the second definition, again neither of which comes from the OP.

Maybe once they're all in y'all could vote for one.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 31, 2014)

PredFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



-- See what I mean?

Why are you so deathly afraid to define your own term?  Because you can't do it?
If your term has no definition, then what's your point? 

That reminds me, we need to understand the disease called Greeblingism.   So we can stamp it out.  You with me or what?


----------



## Pogo (Dec 31, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You know exactly what it means -- you refer directly to it in your very next paragraph here.



Foxfyre said:


> And I was referring to another thread with my comment about 'eeeeevul Republicans' which you completely ignored in your comments.  (Such reading comprehension problems lend credibility to the OP's charges by the way.)



I'm not a mindreader; I wouldn't have any idea what other thread -- which I may never have even seen- you might have had in mind.  I'm reminded of the occasional time in the radio studio we'd get a call that would go something like...
"Uh... I heard a song, maybe a couple of months ago... can you tell me what it was?  I think it had a guitar in it..."  

If being outside of some inside joke is what you call 'reading comprehension problems' you just might need a new definition. 



Foxfyre said:


> Why is it not okay to post a thread referring to 'the disease called progressivism' which did not make an effort to define the term but rather made the charge that those who identify themselves as progressive are uneducated and ignorant and must appeal to authority (ie. 'those who have college degrees') in order to have anything to argue at all.
> 
> I immediately challenged the emphasis of the OP, for which I have yet to receive any credit.



Didn't see that, I'll go back and look 'er up.  I addressed the OP, as it seemed he's the one who needed to essplain hisself (and still does).

[EDIT] - as promised I went back to the beginning to re-read.  I still don't see it.  



Foxfyre said:


> And not a single progressive posting on this thread thus far has offerred a rationale or argument for why the OP is wrong.  Instead we have ad hominem aspersions cast on the OP or others, complaints that the thread exists at all, demands for definitions, accusations of straw man (used incorrectly) yadda yadda.  All of which supports my opinion that most progressives are incapable of analyzing and discussing a concept and compensate for that with ad hominem, personal insults, and deflections from the topic.



Is CrusaderFrank a "Progressive" then?  Or RD?  I'm looking for clues here, you mentioned ad hom... 

I will concede that "straw man" was used incorrectly.  A straw man requires that some point is made that is purported to emanate from another party.  In this case no point was made since the OP refuses to define what he's talking about..  That's what we're still waiting on.



Foxfyre said:


> So what do you think?  Does that reinforce the OP's charge that progressives are uneducated and ignorant and invariably appeal to authority rather than making their own arguments?



Nothing supports or refutes anything, so long as terms aren't defined.  On my planet you can't pass judgment on something before you divulge what it is you're talking about in the first place.  We're in the Linear Time Zone.

Just give me this clue:  when you talk about "Progressives", is the P supposed to be upper or lower case?  It kinda matters.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 1, 2015)

For the purpose of this discussion, I believe the author of the OP and others who have been participating in that discussion will agree that Progressives--and I don't CARE whether the word is capitalized or not--are defined as those who describe themselves as such.  I think it is probably safe to say that those who have been arguing ad hominem and are doing their dangdest to change the subject or divert from the thesis of the OP and who are refusing to discuss it probably all fall within that definition.


----------



## gipper (Jan 1, 2015)

There is much about progressives that is not based in truth or facts.  Truth is not a value many progressives hold dear.  Personally attacking anyone who disagrees with them, is a standard procedure.  

Dennis Prager outlined this psychosis recently related to the campus rape bogus issue, with this:
_First, truth is a not a left-wing value (though, of course, some individuals on the left have great integrity). If you don’t know that, you cannot understand the left. Truth is a conservative value (though, of course, some individuals on the right lie). From the Bolsiheviks to today’s left-wing, lying is normal. Not one left-wing comment or article (except for the HuffingtonPost reference to the MIT report) even dealt with the issue of the truth of the claim that one out of every five female college students is sexually assaulted/raped, or the truth of the charge that our universities are a “culture of rape.”

Second, mockery, indeed cruel mockery, is the norm on the left. I urge readers to visit any of the liberal websites cited and read the comments after the articles. No significant American group hates like the left does. If you differ with them — from global warming, to race relations, to same-sex marriage, to the extent of rape on college campuses — they will humiliate, defame, libel and try to economically crush you._


----------



## PredFan (Jan 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I doesn't need definition numbskull. Maybe to YOU it does but you are a progressive and no one gives a shit about your opinions here.


----------



## peach174 (Jan 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



The only possible reason you would want that information is so that you can attack.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Jan 1, 2015)

The United States became the greatest country in the world, because it progressed versus going backwards.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 1, 2015)

kiwiman127 said:


> The United States became the greatest country in the world, because it progressed versus going backwards.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Jan 1, 2015)

PredFan said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > The United States became the greatest country in the world, because it progressed versus going backwards.



Went over your head, didn't it?


----------



## peach174 (Jan 1, 2015)

kiwiman127 said:


> The United States became the greatest country in the world, because it progressed versus going backwards.




But thanks to the progressives in both parties we are regressing not progressing.
We have so many laws and regulations that they are staring to contradict each other.
It's gotten so bad that no matter what you do now you are breaking some law or regulation, that is not freedom.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 1, 2015)

kiwiman127 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



No, it's just stupid.


----------



## Pogo (Jan 2, 2015)

peach174 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Attack WHAT, Peach??  OP refuses to say what he's talking about.  If there's nothing there, what's to "attack"?

You want my reason?  Here it is: I object to intellectual sloth.  You don't get to speak in riddles and vague insinuations, dance around ever having to define your terms, and then claim you think you made some kind of point.  THAT is what my reason is.

HERE is exactly what I'm talking about:


PredFan said:


> *I doesn't need definition numbskull. *Maybe to YOU it does but you are a progressive and no one gives a shit about your opinions here.



According to Foxfyre's guideline above, PF has just identified himself as a "progressive" by virtue of ad hominem.

But that still doesn't tell us what it means.  He's also declared me "a progressive" while in the same post making abundantly clear he doesn't intend to define what the hell that means.

And that is absolute rhetorical bullshit.


----------



## rdean (Jan 2, 2015)

PredFan said:


> I discovered this important fact about those people who are in the throes of Progressivism when I was arguing a few minutes ago on FaceBook.
> 
> A certain scientist who happens to be an outspoken atheist, had said something about Christmas that irritated Christians.
> 
> ...


Conservatives want nothing to change.  It's insane to try to keep change from happening. Change is a part of this world and change is the only thing that doesn't change.


----------



## Pogo (Jan 2, 2015)

Foxfyre said:


> For the purpose of this discussion, I believe the author of the OP and others who have been participating in that discussion will agree that Progressives--and I don't CARE whether the word is capitalized or not--are defined as those who describe themselves as such.  I think it is probably safe to say that those who have been arguing ad hominem and are doing their dangdest to change the subject or divert from the thesis of the OP and who are refusing to discuss it probably all fall within that definition.



Here's why the upper or lower case P matters....

"Progressives" (proper noun) refers to the proponents of a political trend of approximately a hundred years ago, as articulated by Peach in post 25.  That's a different thing from "progress_ive_" (small p), which is an _adjective_, meaning "of, relating to, or characterized by progress" -- a state of improvement or gradual growth.

Now these people no one can identify call themselves... what?  "Progress*ives*"?  or  "progress*ive*" (people)?



I would have thought, Foxy, that one discerning enough to habitually make the distinction between_ Democratic/democratic_ and _Libertarian/libertarian_ would have grasped this concept right away.  That's why I brought it up.


Far as any rational point making is concerned, until what it's talking about is defined this thread has yet to move past post one, because it has yet to articulate its opening thought.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 2, 2015)

rdean said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > I discovered this important fact about those people who are in the throes of Progressivism when I was arguing a few minutes ago on FaceBook.
> ...



Totally wrong. Thanks for coming here are supplying another fine example of progressive stupidity. Got any more?


----------



## peach174 (Jan 2, 2015)

rdean said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > I discovered this important fact about those people who are in the throes of Progressivism when I was arguing a few minutes ago on FaceBook.
> ...



Sure they do.
Conservatives want this country to prosper by continuing to have advances in everything from technology to good education.
Liberals want nothing to change. They refuse to accept the fact the government is too big and needs to be scaled down so that we can pay off our debt, not just bring down the deficit.
Just because Conservatives want to keep our freedom and wants congress to obey our Constitution, does not mean they don't want change, which is called progress.


----------



## peach174 (Jan 2, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > For the purpose of this discussion, I believe the author of the OP and others who have been participating in that discussion will agree that Progressives--and I don't CARE whether the word is capitalized or not--are defined as those who describe themselves as such.  I think it is probably safe to say that those who have been arguing ad hominem and are doing their dangdest to change the subject or divert from the thesis of the OP and who are refusing to discuss it probably all fall within that definition.
> ...




You are right about the proper spelling of Progressives but that is what the Liberals are starting to call themselves again. Even they don't know the real difference of the original Progressives verses the Liberals of today.
Progressives from 100 years ago still had traditional morals. The Liberals of today do not, they believe in self expression, especially sexual liberation and they are obsessed with equality done by government.

We are not in a classroom Pogo, we are on a political message board and when they use the word Progressives or progressives they are talking about the ideology of the Democrats.
I understand where you are coming from, to make that distinction in order to make it absolutely clear though.
Most Americans want this country to have progress but we can't do that until we start to pay down out Debt, not just our Deficit.
Todays Democrats no longer has representation for Moderates or Conservatives.
Conservative Dem's know that all to well because they fought them for over 20 years to get more Conservative Democrat representation. They gave up and left the party.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 2, 2015)

peach174 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Yep.  I simply won't get into a battle of semantics or definitions or what capitalization does or does not mean.  Those who want to nitpick and split hairs and make THAT the important thing should start threads and hash that out as a separate topic.  But it is a favorite ploy of some progressive types to use that to deflect from the topic or concept being discussed.  Which of course has already been discussed in this thread.  

I differentiate between libertarianism (little "L") and Libertarianism (capital "L") because these are two very different animals in modern day America.  One represents the values of liberty or classical liberalism as promoted and understood by the Founders and others with whom they shared a particular point of view.  The other represents a political party with an agenda that I cannot fully embrace.

Progressives (capital "P") and progressivm with or without capitalizations are understood as one and the same in modern day vernacular.  There is no Progressive party.

When I debate on these issues of policy and ideology and, in this case, why and how  'progressives' and 'progressivism' are doing more harm than good, I am using the term with or without captalization based on how the term is defined, understood, and used in modern day vernacular in America, I make no distinction between Progressives or progressivism.  If I capitalize Progressive I am identifying a particular group of Americans who embrace progressivism sometimes also referred to as leftists or liberals or statists or political class as those terms are understood and used in modern day America.   Those who don't like the terms I use to express my point of view certainly don't have to use them, but I will use them because they ARE the modern day vernacular.


----------



## Pogo (Jan 2, 2015)

PredFan said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...




Once again.... QED.  ^^


----------



## Pogo (Jan 2, 2015)

peach174 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Indeed.  And the adjective that describes the state of "progress" is.... _*progress*ive_.

So we are still left in the definitional Void.


----------



## Pogo (Jan 2, 2015)

peach174 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



So does all this mean the word "Progressive" means "Democrat"?  If so, why not just say "Democrat"?  After all "Progressive" has already been used a century ago and at the time applied to both Democrats and Republicans.  Kinda confusing using a term to mean opposite and conflicting things, doncha think?

I still don't know who calls him/herself "progressive" (or as a noun requiring an article, "a Progressive") but this is the reason I bring it up: I suspect where one does, they're using the _adjective_, to articulate a contrast from *re*gressive, implying nothing more than "your way takes us backward, I wanna go forward".  Not invoking some kind of imaginary Movement of some sort.

I submit, again, that the reason the OP cannot define his term is that he doesn't know what it means.  It becomes nothing more than rhetorical poo, like "communist", "fascist" or "retard".  Facile ad homs available for flinging without the responsibility of definition.  And that's not discourse.

I submit that "progressive" (the adjective) is naught but a synonym for "forward-thinking".  The only "Progressives" (the noun) that weren't with us a century ago are these folks:


----------



## Pogo (Jan 2, 2015)

Foxfyre said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



There is no topic established where terms have not been defined.  Nothing has been discussed here.

Which reminds me I'm still on the crusade to stamp out Greeblings and Meezledorfs.  Are you with us or against us?
See how that works?



Foxfyre said:


> I differentiate between libertarianism (little "L") and Libertarianism (capital "L") because these are two very different animals in modern day America.  One represents the values of liberty or classical liberalism as promoted and understood by the Founders and others with whom they shared a particular point of view.  The other represents a political party with an agenda that I cannot fully embrace.
> 
> Progressives (capital "P") and progressivm with or without capitalizations are understood as one and the same in modern day vernacular.  There is no Progressive party.



Indeed there isn't, nor is there such a movement just because you (or Glenn Beck) makes one up.  If it exists, it can be defined.  If not, not.  This one doesn't seem definable.  Peach above says it means "Democrats" but from what you have here it means the historical sense.  Those don't agree with each other.  So we still have nothing.



Foxfyre said:


> When I debate on these issues of policy and ideology and, in this case, why and how  'progressives' and 'progressivism' are doing more harm than good, I am using the term with or without captalization based on how the term is defined, understood, and used in modern day vernacular in America, I make no distinction between Progressives or progressivism.  If I capitalize Progressive I am identifying a particular group of Americans who embrace progressivism sometimes also referred to as leftists or liberals or statists or political class as those terms are understood and used in modern day America.   Those who don't like the terms I use to express my point of view certainly don't have to use them, but I will use them because they ARE the modern day vernacular.



-- that has apparently no definition, and therefore does not exist.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 2, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



You will understand if I take the position that just because you don't understand a term and therefore say it does not exist, despite how many definitions have been furnished to you over the months, and because you refuse to look it up yourself, I am under no obligation to accept that your opinion about it has any validity whatsoever?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 2, 2015)

Pogo said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Sorry, but I just can't be as anal as you seem to be re capitalization.  I accept that such seems to make you happy and keeps you busy however.

And no, Progressive or progressive does not mean Democrat or democrat.  In modern American vernacular as it is understood by those who have educated themselves on the subject, it is synonymous with leftist, statist, liberal, political class.  Many if not most Democrats are progressive however.


----------



## Pogo (Jan 2, 2015)

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Whether I understand it is irrelevant.  Whether those who actually use the term --- which isn't me -- can understand it, is crucial.  Because if you don't  -- you can't.


----------



## Pogo (Jan 2, 2015)

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Once again weasel words.  Your synonyms aren't even synonymous with each other.

Just a simple definition, that's all we need.  Something that can identify person A is a "Progressive", person B is not.  Something with a little more substance than "most Democrats are progressive but I can't say what that means' .


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 2, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I understand it quite well.  You apparently can't, but don't feel badly.  Most of those in the progressive camp can't.  Numerous definitions have now been provided you and a least a dozen links to scholarly discussions on the subject.  Not all on this thread of course, but over the course of the past months as these discussions come up.

I simply have no power to help you understand because you refuse to even consider, much less discuss those definitions or discussions.  The closest you have come is with severely abridged dictionary defintiions whiile refusing to comment on encyclopedia defintiions or scholarly definitions that expand on those and put them into historical context.

Such willful ignorance--referring back to the OP--is simply too large an obstacle to overcome in order to have a reasoned discussion on something.

One does wonder, however, how one can be so sure that the terms themselves are being misused and at the same time insist they have not been defined and therefore nobody knows what they are talking about.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 2, 2015)

Cracks me up that I start a thread wherein, among other things, I point out the stupidity of Progressives, and Progressives come here and add more stupidity. "I don't get it there for it is wrong!" and "Progressive has the word "progress' in it so it means Progressives ARE progress!"

The comedy writes itself.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 2, 2015)

peach174 said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > The United States became the greatest country in the world, because it progressed versus going backwards.
> ...



I think it was day before yesterday morning, I was half watching a news cast when somebody said that the Obama administration has signed off on something over 75,000!!!! new regulations in 2014 alone.  If that was right, and I would lay odds it probably is given the size and scope of the federal government, how could any business no matter how big, let alone any individual, possibly learn and apply all of the new stuff from just last year, plus all the stuff initiated for years and decades before that?  Chances are that each and every one of us is violating some federal regulation each and every day and not even knowing it.

In his book _Extortion_, Peter Schweizer cited this phenomenon as one way the federal government exerts power and keeps difficult people and entities in line.  By threatening to enact or withhold some piece of legislation or a regulation that would affect somebody or by suggesting that they might or might not look the other way re that little 'infraction', they can pretty well get anybody to agree to anything plus cough up big sums of money to leadership pacs, political parties, and campaign coffers.

Do the progressives want to know this?  Do they care?  Or is their support and worship of big government as the solution to all major human problems so fervent that they just don't want to see or hear about any downside?


----------



## Pogo (Jan 2, 2015)

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Very simple.  Using labels one cannot define IS misusing them.  Misuse isn't limited to treating a known and agreed definition in a variant way.

So we're still where we started -- an OP that purports to "understand a disease" yet cannot even define what disease it's talking about.  That pretty well precludes any sort of "understanding" wouldn't you say?  

What about those Greeblings and Meezeldorfs?  No comment?


----------



## Pogo (Jan 2, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Cracks me up that I start a thread wherein, among other things, I point out the stupidity of Progressives, and Progressives come here and add more stupidity. "I don't get it there for it is wrong!" and "Progressive has the word "progress' in it so it means Progressives ARE progress!"
> 
> The comedy writes itself.



In contrast to your OP which can't _define _itself...


----------

