U.S. LSU Student Reportedly Plans to Burn US Flag

[JayVols]

I derive mine from the Bible but not blindly. The founders used the Bible, Natural Law, and time proven philosophy. That's why they used words like "we hold these truths to be self-evident".

They, like modern conservatives/libertarians, recognized that you can deny "truth" all you want but moral laws are every bit as objective as natural laws. You can have a society where property rights are denied... but you cannot have a free or just society. Likewise for life, speech, religion, privacy (in the original meaning not the one corrupted by Roe v Wade), association, assembly,...

You can have a society where you through "kindness" detach personal responsibility from the freedom to make choices... but there is a cost if you do.

These "truths" are every bit as certain over time as the truth that smoking 2 packs a day will shorten your life. You have been indoctrinated in post-modernism. Did you realize it? I know it sounds real "tolerant", high-minded, and sophisticated... but it really isn't. It is a recipe for social decay.

Truth is truth. It is NOT subjective nor dependent on the whims or fancies of anyone. You either agree with it or you don't. In the absence of a means of absolutely proving a pov, you either hold ideals and beliefs that are consistent with it or you don't. Truth is NOT different for different people. Peoples' belief about truth and their choices concerning it are quite different... but truth is not fluid. I see so truth is relative for everyone except you? On what basis do you claim both are irrational or fail at anything? Though you pontificate on "your truth may not be someone else's truth" you have to go back to assuming some objective basis to even make your argument.

Both are not irrational. I can show a great number of ways that progressivism is inconsistent with known, demonstrated "truth". I can show you ways in which it disagrees with itself or else leads to contradictory priorities. I can show you pragmatically where it simply does not work.

All I ask is and all my challenges are based on the simple, self-evident TRUTH that what someone believes should be consistent with itself AND consistent with the objective truths we can derive from philosophy and experience. LOL@U. What did you just do? You just said that others are wrong (in this case me) while you are right.... in the process of lecturing me about doing the same thing.

No rationalization necessary at all. Two things that are contradictory cannot both be true. Things that are inconsistent with themselves are not true. Example: the internal inconsistencies of the argument you make here. You cannot simultaneously say that no one can say anyone else is objectively wrong while declaring such actions wrong. You violated your own rule by establishing your rule- internally inconsistent and therefore FALSE.

Either people through their gov't have a right to confiscate and consume someone else's wealth or they don't. If they do then that should lead to a healthy society and economy. If they don't then it should lead to class antagonism, crime, debt,....

I am under no pretense that I have all the answers or know all the truths.
My main point is that it is laughable at best to think one political ideology is basically any different than another. The left feels their truth is unassailable, the right does as well. I am a proud moderate. I have a set of truths that I hold dear. BUT I am under no illusion that my political beliefs are absolute gospel, whereas you seem to think that yours is totally infallible. I am happy for you that you have a political belief system that works for you. I am not trying to belittle those beliefs. What I take issue with your statements over is the fact that you are so certain that it is only those that don't share your beliefs are being disingenuous, shady, or even down right corrupt. Those characteristics exist in all political philosophies. To think that one's own philosophy's exempt from that is at best aloof and arrogant and at worst delusional.

I guess we will agree to disagree. Have a pleasant day..

 

[sjt18]

I am under no pretense that I have all the answers or know all the truths.

Then shouldn't you just shut up? If you cannot argue logically from a basis of "truth" then why attempt to lecture someone who attempts to do so?

My main point is that it is laughable at best to think one political ideology is basically any different than another.

Of course they're different. What kind of statement is that? Is saying that one person has a "right" to health care paid for by another person different from denying that the first person has any such right? Absolutely. The laughable thing is that you so thoughtlessly claim there isn't.

One could be right. The other could be right. That is to be argued out. But it is clear that both cannot be right AND that they are NOT the same.

The left feels their truth is unassailable, the right does as well.

So what? Those views are in conflict. Test them and see which are true and which are not. To do that, you must start from a reasonable premise. I start from the same basic premises that our founders claimed (in spite of their own human fallibility). The most fundamental part of that is the ideal of individual rights and sovereignty. When an issue comes up, it really isn't hard to predict where I will come down. The side that most respects those concepts will get my vote.

I am a proud moderate. I have a set of truths that I hold dear.

Which means what? What views do you proudly hold? Can you demonstrate that the follow logic and lines of reasoning that do not conflict or negate each other?

BUT I am under no illusion that my political beliefs are absolute gospel, whereas you seem to think that yours is totally infallible.

Infallible? No. However, I am convinced. If you want to change my mind, I assure you that you can. Give a better case for what you believe and I will agree with you. Many people who know me are uncomfortable with my views on drugs. However I do not think I can be consistent on declaring other rights and freedoms without having a pretty libertarian view on that one. How can I argue for the extent of religious freedom I desire while denying someone else the right to separately and at no cost to me follow their own moral dictates?

I came to that view because I could not incorporate any other and remain consistent.

I am open but not easy. I do not come to positions easily or without thorough reflection... nor do I give them up easily.

If you aren't sure that your views are true then shouldn't you come to that conclusion before arguing their merits?

Iron sharpens iron. If that kind of banter bothers you then put me on ignore. I mean you no harm... but will argue as strongly as I can for what I believe.

I am happy for you that you have a political belief system that works for you. I am not trying to belittle those beliefs. What I take issue with your statements over is the fact that you are so certain that it is only those that don't share your beliefs are being disingenuous, shady, or even down right corrupt.

That's a little difficult because I think you probably cast too wide of a net when defining those who agree with me. Let me state clearly. I do not trust Republicans. I trust actions. The GOP has "said" the right things for a long time. They've used their conservative base to gain power and then to basically become Dems. For that matter, the far left feels betrayed by the Dems right now too.

I believe in the truth of ideals... not people much less politicians. I VERY strongly believe that the only way to create a just and good society is by the rule of law and not men.

Those characteristics exist in all political philosophies. To think that one's own philosophy's exempt from that is at best aloof and arrogant and at worst delusional.

No. Not in the philosophies but rather in the politicians.

I guess we will agree to disagree. Have a pleasant day..

Certainly. You as well... and no hard feelings. It is better to duel like this than with pistols.

 

[JayVols]

Then shouldn't you just shut up? If you cannot argue logically from a basis of "truth" then why attempt to lecture someone who attempts to do so?
Of course they're different. What kind of statement is that? Is saying that one person has a "right" to health care paid for by another person different from denying that the first person has any such right? Absolutely. The laughable thing is that you so thoughtlessly claim there isn't.

One could be right. The other could be right. That is to be argued out. But it is clear that both cannot be right AND that they are NOT the same.

So what? Those views are in conflict. Test them and see which are true and which are not. To do that, you must start from a reasonable premise. I start from the same basic premises that our founders claimed (in spite of their own human fallibility). The most fundamental part of that is the ideal of individual rights and sovereignty. When an issue comes up, it really isn't hard to predict where I will come down. The side that most respects those concepts will get my vote. Which means what? What views do you proudly hold? Can you demonstrate that the follow logic and lines of reasoning that do not conflict or negate each other? Infallible? No. However, I am convinced. If you want to change my mind, I assure you that you can. Give a better case for what you believe and I will agree with you. Many people who know me are uncomfortable with my views on drugs. However I do not think I can be consistent on declaring other rights and freedoms without having a pretty libertarian view on that one. How can I argue for the extent of religious freedom I desire while denying someone else the right to separately and at no cost to me follow their own moral dictates?

I came to that view because I could not incorporate any other and remain consistent.

I am open but not easy. I do not come to positions easily or without thorough reflection... nor do I give them up easily.

If you aren't sure that your views are true then shouldn't you come to that conclusion before arguing their merits?

Iron sharpens iron. If that kind of banter bothers you then put me on ignore. I mean you no harm... but will argue as strongly as I can for what I believe.

That's a little difficult because I think you probably cast too wide of a net when defining those who agree with me. Let me state clearly. I do not trust Republicans. I trust actions. The GOP has "said" the right things for a long time. They've used their conservative base to gain power and then to basically become Dems. For that matter, the far left feels betrayed by the Dems right now too.

I believe in the truth of ideals... not people much less politicians. I VERY strongly believe that the only way to create a just and good society is by the rule of law and not men. No. Not in the philosophies but rather in the politicians.



Certainly. You as well... and no hard feelings. It is better to duel like this than with pistols.

I have no desire to pistol duel (although I'm a pretty good shot, lol). I didn't take issue with your philosophy per se. I just have a hard time accepting absolutism from anyone. I just don't see the TACTICS being that different, just my view. The MESSAGES are polar opposites. I am sure of only one absolute, but that's in the religion thread. I wouldn't put you on ignore. That's a cop out. I never run from a discussion (that's not always a good thing). I truly believe through discussion understanding, not necessarily agreement, can be reached. Once we have understanding, respect can be gained. I am not suggesting compromising beliefs, but as long as there is a measure of respect, there's hope that we can move forward as a people. Also with respect, no need for the aforementioned pistols.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

I don't disagree with the comment about tactics. We have allowed a "political class" to develop in our nation against the hopes of our founders. That class is a fairly closed fraternity. I believe very few care about the US Constitution, our founding ideals, freedom, or really the people. They care about power.

I actually think Dem members of that fraternity are more idealistic than the GOP members. Dems profess an ideology that I believe is almost 100% wrong... but then go out in sincerity and try to move the country in that direction. In that way, I actually give them more respect than the GOP. The GOP establishment very cynically preaches things like reducing the size and scope of gov't but with power they do the opposite.

Also, most of these people are corrupted long before they get to Washington. Almost everyone has some secret in the closet that would prevent them from being elected or maybe that they would not want to come out for fear of hurting other people. Few of those secrets are actually secret. Someone knows and as soon as a cover up is done that politician is both corrupted and shackled. Forever that thing is held over his/her head enabling someone to manipulate them.

We've fallen into a vicious cycle. If someone proclaims high ideals then someone will dig up something to discredit them. The other option is to dismiss high ideals... but that just lowers the bar further, right?

 

[sjt18]

I didn't read much of what you wrote over there. Perhaps you could give me a concise statement of that one "absolute". If it is what I think it is then I believe I can give you even more compelling reasons NOT to be a moderate much less a Progressive.