The Bright Shining Lie

[rtwngAvngr]

That it is, but you've got some real style.

Oh gee. Now I'm getting red in the face!

 

[deaddude]

Can you possibly then cite the sources for the quotes? maybe give the speakers names.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Can you possibly then cite the sources for the quotes? maybe give the speakers names.

No. it's just general sentiment expressed on any liberal forum on the internet. Quit acting ignorant.

 

[Bonnie]

The Psychology of Radical Egalitarianism

(created April 20, 2003; last updated May 25, 2003)
A culture of dependence has been created in many countries by allowing America to provide for their military security. This has led to the adoption of radical egalitarian ideologies in Western Europe and elsewhere. The psychological origins of these socialist and morally relativist ideologies are discussed.



At first glance, the ever-increasing shrillness of the criticism of all things American by environmentalists, human rights activists, continental Western Europeans, animal rights activists, anti-globalists, and others appears to flow from a variety of unrelated causes, ranging from disagreements over the role of supranational organizations, the threat of "global warming", genetically modified foods, militarism, the future of the nation-state, pollution, and a variety of other causes that have been taken up by special interest groups.

It is tempting for Americans to debate each of these issues on their merits, because individually, the issues are often based more on emotion than actual facts and thus are easy to refute. However, it is more important to understand the real motivations that inspire these seemingly disparate voices. Although each special interest group specializes in a different aspect of modern culture to criticize, often their criticisms are expressions of an underlying conviction that America is the source of whatever is wrong with the world. The implication, both flattering and annoying to Americans, is that America is all-powerful and all-knowing, and therefore anything unfortunate that happens must be part of some American conspiracy.

The incessant criticism is, of course, an appeal for America to do what the activists want, and their laundry list of changes is therefore, not surprisingly, endless. But the motivating factor for the rage of these anti-Westerners is deeper than the issues they espouse. For example, it has been argued that even if the environmentalists could be somehow convinced, for example, that global warming is not a problem, they would simply switch to another criticism in order to maintain the same level of pressure against America. Whether they are conscious of it or not, the motivation is more of a rebellion against modern capitalist society and American culture; the cause they have undertaken is in most cases merely a means of expressing this anticapitalist and anti-American ideology.

This ideology is called "radical egalitarianism". It is an ideology that branched off from Western-style Liberalism in the 18th century and reached the height of its influence in the revolutions of 1848 and the Communist era of the 20th century. This ideology takes different forms on each side of the Atlantic. In Europe, it takes the form of an indiscriminate and often spiteful and hypocritical anti-Americanism. In America, it takes the form of what is often called by its detractors as "political correctness".

This ideology is based on two fundamental suppositions: (1) that an unequal distribution of wealth and other benefits of society is inherently harmful, and that the purpose of government is to ensure that wealth is evenly distributed, regardless of the relative contributions or merits of the parties involved; and (2) that modern capitalist society is in some way spiritually corrupting, and that mankind should return to an earlier, more natural state. These two ideas are present to varying degrees in the environmentalist, anti-globalist, and "human rights" movements currently in vogue among leftists and endemic in Western Europe. Both ideas have an intrinsic intellectual appeal in some circles, and debating them is an important task. However, in this article I will discuss an equally important question, namely the psychological factors that lead to their adoption.

more................http://brneurosci.org/relativism.html

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Good Article!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Moral relativists HAVE a moral code, though they deride morality in others. Their moral code is socialism.

First of all, how are you defining moral relativism? Are you talking about situational ethics? Are you describing non-absolutist ethical systems? Just what do you mean by moral relativism? Be specific please.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

First of all, how are you defining moral relativism? Are you talking about situational ethics? Are you describing non-absolutist ethical systems? Just what do you mean by moral relativism? Be specific please.

You know what it is. it's calling people stupid and inflexible for having any fixed values sytem at all. It's that whole "who are YOU to say what's right and wrong" sociopathy.

 

[Bullypulpit]

You know what it is. it's calling people stupid and inflexible for having any fixed values sytem at all. It's that whole "who are YOU to say what's right and wrong" sociopathy.

What are your standards of what's right and wrong? By what criteria do you determine the "rightness" or "wrongness" of a given action or activity?


P.S. Sorry I can't stick around, I'm getting ready to leave town overnight, and I'll pick this up again tomorrow. Have a good one.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What are your standards of what's right and wrong? By what criteria do you determine the "rightness" or "wrongness" of a given action or activity?


P.S. Sorry I can't stick around, I'm getting ready to leave town overnight, and I'll pick this up again tomorrow. Have a good one.

My code is not the issue here. The point of the thread is that people who claim to not have a fixed morality actually do. They do, its this: Rich people and the things they do to become rich are evil. Taking their money away and ruining the free market system is good.

 

[musicman]

My code is not the issue here. The point if the thread is that people who claim to not have a fixed morality actually do. They do, its this: Rich people and the things they do to become rich are evil. Taking their money away and ruining the free market system is good.

Property is theft. Wealth is a zero/sum game - i.e., the only reason you HAVE is because I DON'T. I needn't be ashamed of envy. In the first place, shame is a bad thing; anything that makes me feel less than OK is, by definition, bad - since I am the center of the universe. Secondly, envy is an admirable human trait. It MUST be; the Clintons say so, and all the folks at CBS and CNN, and all my favorite cool Hollywood stars. Of course, they're all obscenely wealthy, too - but at least they feel bad about it.

 

[Bonnie]

Musicman

It MUST be; the Clintons say so, and all the folks at CBS and CNN, and all my favorite cool Hollywood stars. Of course, they're all obscenely wealthy, too - but at least they feel bad about it.

Yes and in their despair they seem quite fit and willing to have me relieve them of their guilt by relieving me of my hard earned money, and generously reminding me how greedy and cold hearted I am for not wanting to give away more.

 

[Bullypulpit]

My code is not the issue here. The point of the thread is that people who claim to not have a fixed morality actually do. They do, its this: Rich people and the things they do to become rich are evil. Taking their money away and ruining the free market system is good.

What is a "fixed morality"? First you state that some people are moral relativists, then you claim they have a "fixed morality". Are you contradicting yourself for a reason?

 

[musicman]

What is a "fixed morality"? First you state that some people are moral relativists, then you claim they have a "fixed morality". Are you contradicting yourself for a reason?

Not that RWA needs me to speak for him, but I think he's saying that it is moral relativists who contradict themselves.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What is a "fixed morality"? First you state that some people are moral relativists, then you claim they have a "fixed morality". Are you contradicting yourself for a reason?

No. Learn to read.

http://www.rif.org


Is that all you got?

 

[Bullypulpit]

My code is not the issue here. The point of the thread is that people who claim to not have a fixed morality actually do. They do, its this: Rich people and the things they do to become rich are evil. Taking their money away and ruining the free market system is good.

I don't begruge anyone the fruits of their own labor. But one of the greatest failings of our system as it now stands is that the income generated in the form of wages is treated little differently than the income generated by assets.

Let people keep more of their wages and tax the capital gains from investment income, and the sales of financial instruments - stocks, bonds, futures contracts, etc. to the tune of 50% or so. To sweeten the deal, tax those gains at a lower rate if those instruments are held for 5 or more years and minimize the impact of speculators on the market. Also, tax the capital gains on the sales of primary residences at a significantly lower rate than those of properties that are flipped by real-estate investors and speculators. Again, if those properties are held for five years or more, the capital gains would also be lower than if the property was flipped after being held for only a few months.

 

[Bullypulpit]

No. Learn to read.

http://www.rif.org


Is that all you got?

I'm simply asking you to define your terms. For a more in depth look at the philosophical underpinnings of moral relativism I suggest you go here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

This should help you clarify your terms.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't begruge anyone the fruits of their own labor. But one of the greatest failings of our system as it now stands is that the income generated in the form of wages is treated little differently than the income generated by assets.

Let people keep more of their wages and tax the capital gains from invsetment income, and the sales of financial instruments - stocks, bonds, futures contracts, etc. to the tune of 50% or so. To sweeten the deal, tax those gains at a lower rate if those instruments are held for 5 or more years and minimize the impact of speculators on the market. Also, tax the capital gains on the sales of primary residences at a significantly lower rate than those of properties that are flipped by real-estate investors and speculators. Again, if those properties are held for five years or more, the capital gains would also be lower than if the property was flipped after being held for only a few months.

And you attach a moral value to this sort of plan, this plan is GOOD to you. You have a moral code. It's socialism. You're just as commited to it as fundies are to jesus.

 

[Bullypulpit]

And you attach a moral value to this sort of plan, this plan is GOOD to you. You have a moral code. It's socialism.

Letting people keep their wages is socialism!?!

<blockquote>Main Entry: <b>so·cial·ism</b>
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
<b>1 :</b> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods - <i><b>Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary</b></i></blockquote>

Now that we've got the definition straight, how do you equate letting people keep more of their wages and taxing captial gains at higher rates than wages as "socialism"? It seems to me that socialist economies take most of the wages earned by an individual for a cradle-to-grave paternalistic government. That's not what I described.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Letting people keep their wages is socialism!?!

<blockquote>Main Entry: <b>so·cial·ism</b>
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
<b>1 :</b> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods - <i><b>Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary</b></i></blockquote>

A fifty percent captal gains tax is TOWARDS socialism.

 

[Bullypulpit]

A fifty percent captal gains tax is TOWARDS socialism.

No, it's not. It's about keeping more of an individual's wages in their pocket...letting them keep more of the fruits of their labor. Any income earned from investments is gravy.