Every Liberal Cause Is Based On A Lie

[Wry Catcher]

Reactionaries are always headed in the wrong direction, not one of the current crop has been able to come up with examples of reactionaries, aka, conservatives, producing anything of lasting value.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The significance of J. S. Mill's economic masterpiece, Principle of Political Economy, is no different than something Democrats argue for today, he maintained:

• workers should form unions and cooperatives to seek higher wages
• he opposed communism as a threat to individualism
• he believe laws were necessary to protect women and children
• he favored government intervention to remedy injustice
• he wanted taxes on inheritance and rent
• he wanted equal rights and education for women

Unions have run MANY jobs overseas. Whoops.
Wow, protect women and children? How are conservatives going to enslave them in their sweat shops?
Government should enforce the laws? The guy was a genius!
Taxes on inheritance? Why? Who's fucking money is it?
Equal rights for women? That's uniquely liberal?

J. S. Mill invented the philosophy of utilitarianism, with which you could justify virtually anything, even Nazism and putting Jews in gas ovens. As a set of moral principles, Utilitarianism is absolutely useless.

Some genius.

Your ignorance is amazing, maybe even a greater flaw than your arrogance.

"Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory.

"Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good."

Link: The History of Utilitarianism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[bripat9643]

The significance of J. S. Mill's economic masterpiece, Principle of Political Economy, is no different than something Democrats argue for today, he maintained:

• workers should form unions and cooperatives to seek higher wages
• he opposed communism as a threat to individualism
• he believe laws were necessary to protect women and children
• he favored government intervention to remedy injustice
• he wanted taxes on inheritance and rent
• he wanted equal rights and education for women

Unions have run MANY jobs overseas. Whoops.
Wow, protect women and children? How are conservatives going to enslave them in their sweat shops?
Government should enforce the laws? The guy was a genius!
Taxes on inheritance? Why? Who's fucking money is it?
Equal rights for women? That's uniquely liberal?

J. S. Mill invented the philosophy of utilitarianism, with which you could justify virtually anything, even Nazism and putting Jews in gas ovens. As a set of moral principles, Utilitarianism is absolutely useless.

Some genius.

Your ignorance is amazing, maybe even a greater flaw than your arrogance.

"Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory.

"Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good."

Link: The History of Utilitarianism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

That's opinion, not fact. The fact is that even Nazis could use utilitarianism to justify their actions.

 

[Iceweasel]

"Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory.

"Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good."

Link: The History of Utilitarianism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

That's a rather long winded way to state the obvious. Who determines what does the most good and what good is?

 

[bripat9643]

"Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory.

"Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good."

Link: The History of Utilitarianism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

That's a rather long winded way to state the obvious. Who determines what does the most good and what good is?

Therein lies the rub. It's all a matter of opinion. Libs have decided that it's a matter of popular opinion. In other words, a lynch mob is perfectly OK according to Utilitarianism.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The significance of J. S. Mill's economic masterpiece, Principle of Political Economy, is no different than something Democrats argue for today, he maintained:

• workers should form unions and cooperatives to seek higher wages
• he opposed communism as a threat to individualism
• he believe laws were necessary to protect women and children
• he favored government intervention to remedy injustice
• he wanted taxes on inheritance and rent
• he wanted equal rights and education for women

Unions have run MANY jobs overseas. Whoops.
Wow, protect women and children? How are conservatives going to enslave them in their sweat shops?
Government should enforce the laws? The guy was a genius!
Taxes on inheritance? Why? Who's fucking money is it?
Equal rights for women? That's uniquely liberal?

J. S. Mill invented the philosophy of utilitarianism, with which you could justify virtually anything, even Nazism and putting Jews in gas ovens. As a set of moral principles, Utilitarianism is absolutely useless.

Some genius.

Your ignorance is amazing, maybe even a greater flaw than your arrogance.

"Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory.

"Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good."

Link: The History of Utilitarianism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

That's opinion, not fact. The fact is that even Nazis could use utilitarianism to justify their actions.

All despots and all totalitarian regimes claim the high ground, the harm they do to the many, i.e. consequentialism, is evidence that your opinions are, as usual, bullshit framed in ignorance.

 

[rdean]

Joseph Goebbels would be humbled. He was a rank amateur in comparison.

I wouldn't give Coulter that much credit, but her resemblance to Goebbels is unmistakable.

You're just another Coulterphobe that pounds yourself silly thinking about her.

Anne Coulter looks like a girl who really knows how to take a dick.

I thought she already had one of her own.

 

[rdean]

"Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory.

"Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good."

Link: The History of Utilitarianism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

That's a rather long winded way to state the obvious. Who determines what does the most good and what good is?

Therein lies the rub. It's all a matter of opinion. Libs have decided that it's a matter of popular opinion. In other words, a lynch mob is perfectly OK according to Utilitarianism.

Here is the rub, who knows what you are talking about?

 

[rdean]

Open question to supporters of the OP:

What lie was the liberal cause to free the slaves based on?

What lie was the liberal cause to break away from Britain and start our country based on?

Lincoln said many times that he never intended to free the slaves, so that's a lie right there.

Also, 18th century liberals and modern liberals are two separate animals with no relation to each other.

Which is strange since 18th century conservatives and modern conservatives are exactly the same.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't care.

This isn't your AA group, sonny. No one gives a piss about your Internet biography.

You have sons my age? That is just so very special.

I had not realized we had octogenerians posting here much less those with learning disabilities.

 

[bripat9643]

The significance of J. S. Mill's economic masterpiece, Principle of Political Economy, is no different than something Democrats argue for today, he maintained:

• workers should form unions and cooperatives to seek higher wages
• he opposed communism as a threat to individualism
• he believe laws were necessary to protect women and children
• he favored government intervention to remedy injustice
• he wanted taxes on inheritance and rent
• he wanted equal rights and education for women

Unions have run MANY jobs overseas. Whoops.
Wow, protect women and children? How are conservatives going to enslave them in their sweat shops?
Government should enforce the laws? The guy was a genius!
Taxes on inheritance? Why? Who's fucking money is it?
Equal rights for women? That's uniquely liberal?

J. S. Mill invented the philosophy of utilitarianism, with which you could justify virtually anything, even Nazism and putting Jews in gas ovens. As a set of moral principles, Utilitarianism is absolutely useless.

Some genius.

Your ignorance is amazing, maybe even a greater flaw than your arrogance.

"Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory.

"Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good."

Link: The History of Utilitarianism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

That's opinion, not fact. The fact is that even Nazis could use utilitarianism to justify their actions.

All despots and all totalitarian regimes claim the high ground, the harm they do to the many, i.e. consequentialism, is evidence that your opinions are, as usual, bullshit framed in ignorance.

They all use Utilitarian arguments, which proves the Utilitarianism is a useless philosophy that justifies virtually everything. Objectivism, on the other hand, can't.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory.

"Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good."

Link: The History of Utilitarianism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

That's a rather long winded way to state the obvious. Who determines what does the most good and what good is?

Good question. Do you want to know? First, go get the fall class schedule for your local Jr. College (don't worry, they accept everyone). Next, enroll in History of Western Philosophy I and be prepared to put your biases aside and begin to think.

 

[bripat9643]

Open question to supporters of the OP:

What lie was the liberal cause to free the slaves based on?

What lie was the liberal cause to break away from Britain and start our country based on?

Lincoln said many times that he never intended to free the slaves, so that's a lie right there.

Also, 18th century liberals and modern liberals are two separate animals with no relation to each other.

Which is strange since 18th century conservatives and modern conservatives are exactly the same.

Modern conservatives support the monarchy? That's not true even in Britain.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Unions have run MANY jobs overseas. Whoops.
Wow, protect women and children? How are conservatives going to enslave them in their sweat shops?
Government should enforce the laws? The guy was a genius!
Taxes on inheritance? Why? Who's fucking money is it?
Equal rights for women? That's uniquely liberal?

J. S. Mill invented the philosophy of utilitarianism, with which you could justify virtually anything, even Nazism and putting Jews in gas ovens. As a set of moral principles, Utilitarianism is absolutely useless.

Some genius.

Your ignorance is amazing, maybe even a greater flaw than your arrogance.

"Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory.

"Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good."

Link: The History of Utilitarianism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

That's opinion, not fact. The fact is that even Nazis could use utilitarianism to justify their actions.

All despots and all totalitarian regimes claim the high ground, the harm they do to the many, i.e. consequentialism, is evidence that your opinions are, as usual, bullshit framed in ignorance.

They all use Utilitarian arguments, which proves the Utilitarianism is a useless philosophy that justifies virtually everything. Objectivism, on the other hand, can't.

So, "Who is John Galt?" I suppose if we needed to find a living character who personified the fictional character a good choice might be Theodore John Kaczynski, aka, the Unabomber.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Open question to supporters of the OP:

What lie was the liberal cause to free the slaves based on?

What lie was the liberal cause to break away from Britain and start our country based on?

Lincoln said many times that he never intended to free the slaves, so that's a lie right there.

Also, 18th century liberals and modern liberals are two separate animals with no relation to each other.

Which is strange since 18th century conservatives and modern conservatives are exactly the same.

Modern conservatives support the monarchy? That's not true even in Britain.

"Pro-royal feeling is spread remarkably equally among the social classes, and across the regions of England and Wales. It is less marked in Scotland – where 36% say the country would be better off without the Windsors – but even there a solid 50% feel the opposite way. Support is stronger among the older, and especially among Conservative voters, in whose ranks it reaches 82%. But across every age group and among Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters alike, the monarchy is enjoying solid support."

Link: Queen enjoys record support in Guardian ICM poll UK news The Guardian

Do we need more evidence that brepat is both a liar and a fool? Methinks not.

 

[Iceweasel]

"Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory.

"Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good."

Link: The History of Utilitarianism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

That's a rather long winded way to state the obvious. Who determines what does the most good and what good is?

Good question. Do you want to know? First, go get the fall class schedule for your local Jr. College (don't worry, they accept everyone). Next, enroll in History of Western Philosophy I and be prepared to put your biases aside and begin to think.

In other words you can't answer. Thought so.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

My post is there for everyone with at least average intelligence to understand. You can try to muddle the conversation with your incessant use of the 'word' dimocrap, but my points still stand.

I don't know who speaks less coherently, you or TemplarKormac. Either way, you both are pretty funny.

I blame A.M. radio, myself. The demagogues who all blast away with the same message are very adept at whipping up resentment and outrage among the uneducated in order to produce culture warriors who see "conservative" as an identity rather than as a political ideology. If you listen to the message, one recurring theme is that it is actually their uneducated followers who are the smart ones and any who diverge in the very slightest from the agenda they are selling is therefore stupid. This acts like an aphrodisiac to all those running around with enormous chips on their shoulder due to the fact they never received any positive feedback as to their intelligence when actually attending school.

The very notion that the totality of ANY political ideology is based upon lies is too retarded to be worthy of consideration. These ultra-conformists do not understand the tenets of political ideologies in the first place since they are only capable of seeing it as identity, so all they are capable of is this extremely simple-minded approach to the world wherein they are the good guys and liberals the baddies. They haven't the foggiest notion that what is being conserved in conservative are social institutions, and so lack the ability to view various political movements in proper perspective.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory.

"Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good."

Link: The History of Utilitarianism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

That's a rather long winded way to state the obvious. Who determines what does the most good and what good is?

Good question. Do you want to know? First, go get the fall class schedule for your local Jr. College (don't worry, they accept everyone). Next, enroll in History of Western Philosophy I and be prepared to put your biases aside and begin to think.

In other words you can't answer. Thought so.

I could, in a ten-page term paper, or in a blue book. But if I write more than three paragraphs people like you won't read it. Anything that challenges your biases is either ignored as evidenced by cutting and running, or given a single sentence of zero substance but for the usual ad hominem.

 

[Wry Catcher]

My post is there for everyone with at least average intelligence to understand. You can try to muddle the conversation with your incessant use of the 'word' dimocrap, but my points still stand.

I don't know who speaks less coherently, you or TemplarKormac. Either way, you both are pretty funny.

I blame A.M. radio, myself. The demagogues who all blast away with the same message are very adept at whipping up resentment and outrage among the uneducated in order to produce culture warriors who see "conservative" as an identity rather than as a political ideology. If you listen to the message, one recurring theme is that it is actually their uneducated followers who are the smart ones and any who diverge in the very slightest from the agenda they are selling is therefore stupid. This acts like an aphrodisiac to all those running around with enormous chips on their shoulder due to the fact they never received any positive feedback as to their intelligence when actually attending school.

The very notion that the totality of ANY political ideology is based upon lies is too retarded to be worthy of consideration. These ultra-conformists do not understand the tenets of political ideologies in the first place since they are only capable of seeing it as identity, so all they are capable of is this extremely simple-minded approach to the world wherein they are the good guys and liberals the baddies. They haven't the foggiest notion that what is being conserved in conservative are social institutions, and so lack the ability to view various political movements in proper perspective.

Well said, and thoughtful. Thanks.

 

[bripat9643]

Open question to supporters of the OP:

What lie was the liberal cause to free the slaves based on?

What lie was the liberal cause to break away from Britain and start our country based on?

Lincoln said many times that he never intended to free the slaves, so that's a lie right there.

Also, 18th century liberals and modern liberals are two separate animals with no relation to each other.

Which is strange since 18th century conservatives and modern conservatives are exactly the same.

Modern conservatives support the monarchy? That's not true even in Britain.

"Pro-royal feeling is spread remarkably equally among the social classes, and across the regions of England and Wales. It is less marked in Scotland – where 36% say the country would be better off without the Windsors – but even there a solid 50% feel the opposite way. Support is stronger among the older, and especially among Conservative voters, in whose ranks it reaches 82%. But across every age group and among Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters alike, the monarchy is enjoying solid support."

Link: Queen enjoys record support in Guardian ICM poll UK news The Guardian

Do we need more evidence that brepat is both a liar and a fool? Methinks not.

Nobody supports putting the monarchy in control of the government.