"Live and Let Live?"

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,904
60,285
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
Could a "Live and Let Live" philosophy poison our education system, and, ultimately, our society.
Yes...if it is based on a view that all viewpoints are equally good, and produce equal success.




1. There is little debate that higher education is a wholly owned subsidiary of liberalism. This means that a huge and significant captive audience is exposed to a kind of thinking that imperils the American idea, and the American contract. One of the most eloquent exponents of the nature of the peril was University of Chicago philosopher Allan Bloom, who, some 25 years ago, warned that the intellectual relativism that was taking over the academy, and the claim that it represents greater openness, in fact, led to "the closing of the American mind."

2. According to Bloom, traditional liberal education had been founded on a belief in rationality and objective truth, in vigorous and free inquiry, and in the importance of encountering the great ideas and the great books; now, the university, and the culture as a whole, was under the sway of relativistic thinking and rigid political ideology, and this change represents a menace to American democracy.

3. One result of this relativism is identity studies. The problem is not simply a pathological fixation on group identity, but a preoccupation with the historical grievances of certain groups, combined with a virulent hostility to America, which is consistently cast as the villain in the histories of these groups, and of the world at large.





4. A major impetus was the Neo-Marxist philosophers of the Frankfurt School. “The Frankfurt School of philosophers emigrated from Nazi Germany and became dyspeptic critics of American culture. Several landed in Southern California where they were disturbed by the consumer culture and the gospel of relentless cheeriness. Depressive by nature, they focused on the disappointments and venality that surrounded them and how unnecessary it all was. It could be paradise, Theodor Adorno complained, but it was only California.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17wed4.html

a. The Frankfurt School propagated a revisionistic Neo-Marxist interpretation of Western culture called Critical Theory, an aggressive promotion of a radical left-wing socio/political agenda. In essence, Critical Theory was a comprehensive and unrelenting assault on the values and institutions of Western civilization.

b. Thus, there is a straight line from the Frankfurt School to the formation in many colleges and universities of programs, and departments of African-American Studies, Ethnic Studies, Feminist Studies, Peace Studies, and LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bi-sexual/Transgender) Studies. Breitbart, "Righteous Indignation.

c. Waiting to ally themselves with the Frankfurt School Marxists were the Americans who had accepted the Wilson/TR synthesis of Hegel and Marx. And a welcoming ‘nest’ was provided for these vipers by the Columbia University Sociology department. And, the perfect storm: America was up for helping scholars fleeing from Germany. The guy in charge of this was Edward R. Murrow, the Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars. Ibid.




5. The ideas that have increasingly dominated American universities since the sixties have flowed from the graduates out into the larger society.

a. The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.” Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.

b.“The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.”
Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 51

c. “[The radicals] did not go away or change their minds; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood.” Ibid p. 53





And these individuals, this philosophy, is infecting the students, the captive audience, in almost every college and university in the nation.

It is no wonder that individuals who have benefited from the wealth of this nation, been educated at the finest institutions of higher learning, say things like:

"For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I’m Really Proud of My Country”
 
Last edited:
Could a "Live and Let Live" philosophy poison or education system, and, ultimately, our society.
Yes...if it is based on a view that all viewpoints are equally good, and produce equal success.

To PoliticalChic: I am not sure how, or if, my interpretation of live and let live blends into your premise. This excerpt is one of the things I’ve said on the subject over the years:

Eric Hoffer’s great observation applies to Socialists much more than it applies to the followers of an organized religion: “To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance.”

Organized religions were never a threat to individual liberties in America. Before Socialists began their campaign to install their own religion as the state’s religion no one was forced to join a church, or support a religion not of their own choosing. Freedom of religion —— as it was practiced in America before Socialists infiltrated the highest levels of government —— basically said live and let live. Busybodies abhor the very concept of letting others live their lives as they see fit. Live and let live is their intolerance.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/232410-a-second-amendment-tax.html
 
> Busybodies abhor the very concept of letting others live their lives as they see fit. Live and let live is their intolerance. - from Flanders cite

Exactly.

Intolerant meddlers are everywhere. From anti-abortion scum to zionist jingoes there are gaggles of intolerant religious nuts appealing to emotions that keep human cattle from watching the money corporations have looted from the US treasury since Reagan handed them the keys as Falwell took the stage.
 
> Busybodies abhor the very concept of letting others live their lives as they see fit. Live and let live is their intolerance. - from Flanders cite

Exactly.

Intolerant meddlers are everywhere. From anti-abortion scum to zionist jingoes there are gaggles of intolerant religious nuts appealing to emotions that keep human cattle from watching the money corporations have looted from the US treasury since Reagan handed them the keys as Falwell took the stage.

To DugDale_Jukes: After you stop spinning, try to grasp this simple concept: VOLUNTARY versus INVOLUNTARY.

As to abortion: Don’t force me to pay for them. THAT’S INVOLUNTARY.
 
No one is talking PUBLIC money FOR ABORTIONS but you, Flanders.

Intolerance is intolerance. Entitlements are an entirely different subject, and you are well to the left of me on that.

So, put the top down, amigo. It is your spin making you dizzy.
 
Last edited:
Could a "Live and Let Live" philosophy poison or education system, and, ultimately, our society.
Yes...if it is based on a view that all viewpoints are equally good, and produce equal success.

To PoliticalChic: I am not sure how, or if, my interpretation of live and let live blends into your premise. This excerpt is one of the things I’ve said on the subject over the years:

Eric Hoffer’s great observation applies to Socialists much more than it applies to the followers of an organized religion: “To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance.”

Organized religions were never a threat to individual liberties in America. Before Socialists began their campaign to install their own religion as the state’s religion no one was forced to join a church, or support a religion not of their own choosing. Freedom of religion —— as it was practiced in America before Socialists infiltrated the highest levels of government —— basically said live and let live. Busybodies abhor the very concept of letting others live their lives as they see fit. Live and let live is their intolerance.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/232410-a-second-amendment-tax.html

1.First, let me say, with respect to the darker philosophies of socialism/Liberalism/progressivism, you have summarized much of what I believe in a manner far more succinctly than I choose to be.

2. I felt I might be in trouble with a title such as 'live and let live,' but chose it as an attention-getter.
Your usage is the more colloquial, I attempted to use it as a pejorative.

That is why I used the "?"

3. To be specific, I mean that there is a danger to society in not pointing out the ill effects of the darker philosophies. People who simply choose to go along to get along leave the field to tyrants.

All political views are not equal. You and I agree on the deleterious.
Rep on the way.
 
The live and let live philosophy has an implied caveat.

As you live you harm no one else.

I don't see it as a poor way to live. In fact I would like to see more of it.
 
No one is talking PUBLIC money FOR ABORTIONS but you, Flanders.

Intolerance is intolerance. Entitlements are an entirely different subject, and you are well to the left of me on that.

So, put the top down, amigo. It is your spin making you dizzy.

To DugDale_Jukes: You started out:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IhEp72u3Sfo]bolz spinning top - YouTube[/ame]​

Now you’re squirming like a dead snake:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgcqaBgXcSo&feature=player_detailpage]Dead snake still squirming - YouTube[/ame]​

You introduced money by implying they are performed for free. I pointed out that I did not want to pay for butchering babies.

Before you morph into your next phase, I should tell you that I still haven’t figured out how you determined that forcing others to pay for abortions equates to live and let live.



You and I agree on the deleterious.

To PoliticalChic: Indeed we do.
 
We can't allow this "Live and Let Live" philosophy to thrive because it basicly means you shouldn't tax anyone.

How can we get a Giant Government Bureaucracy in place without Taxes? :confused:
 
We can't allow this "Live and Let Live" philosophy to thrive because it basicly means you shouldn't tax anyone.

How can we get a Giant Government Bureaucracy in place without Taxes? :confused:

Jeeezzzz.....you guys.

I was trying to give "Live and Let Live" a bit if a spin....

I see I should stick to the mundane.
 
No one is talking PUBLIC money FOR ABORTIONS but you, Flanders.

Intolerance is intolerance. Entitlements are an entirely different subject, and you are well to the left of me on that.

So, put the top down, amigo. It is your spin making you dizzy.

To DugDale_Jukes: You started out:


Now you’re squirming like a dead snake:

You introduced money by implying they are performed for free. [DJ comment: I implied nothing of a kind you filthy lying cocksucker.]

I pointed out that I did not want to pay for butchering babies.

Before you morph into your next phase, I should tell you that I still haven’t figured out how you determined that forcing others to pay for abortions equates to live and let live. [DJ comment: Once again you demonstrate that you are a dirty rotten lowlife cocksucking liar, and your greek chorus is also a dirty cocksucking liar.]

Nothing I posted suggested anything like what you post above.

My post supported YOUR excerpt on meddlers in the context of corporations looting the US treasury.

Your personal sick, twisted, hypocritical rejection of your own cite is apparently based on your personal desire to meddle in the lives of others. Worse one suspects you reject your own Bible which mentions no prohibition whatever against voluntary abortion and is VERY SPECIFIC and VERY CLEAR life begins with the quickening, or first breath.

The bottom line is you are a lying hypocrite and like most of your kind you accuse me of your own bad acts. Typical nutball behavior, so no one reading this is surprised including your own kind.

Next.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top