Politically, I find most Liberals intolerant of other's viewpoints.

[Mr. Peepers]

All progressives are cognitive deficients; their reasoning relies purely upon group-think

Actually, I disagree. I would say that much more describes the right-wing. They only seem to get their news from a handful of sources, as it never has an objective aside. It is always the same slanted rhetoric over and over and over. I have not heard one new original idea come out of the right wing. Not one.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

All progressives are cognitive deficients; their reasoning relies purely upon group-think, which is why they spend so much time reading... they cloister their limited intellectual means in the reasoning of others within that group.

Wrong. They read everything. Including the stuff that they don't agree with. I read things that make my blood boil, but I still read it. I will not, however, read anything from any of the faux pundits with not a brain cell one in their heads which includes anyone on Fox or anyone like Anne Coulter or Limbaugh who are only in it for the money and the ego anyway. They are irrelevant BS.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

This a position I have formed through 30 years of emperical observations garnered through the intellectual interaction and debate with THOUSANDS of would-be Independent, Moderate, Centrist, Progressive halfwits... such as yourself.

Right. A neocon calling me a half-wit. THAT'S rich. Although you have learned to string together all your best big words, nothing you have written is even remotely correct nor true. All of the successful societies have an aspect of collective ownership. Otherwise, the majority of the population is at the hands of the insatiably greedy - much like our own corporations and the wall streeters who played 5 card monte with our 401K's. That's just the way it is. You think a free market utopia is so wonderful, look how most in Russia are living. You seem to have more of a closed mind than anyone.

 

[Diuretic]

Meanwhile, back on topic.

"None of the higher mental processes are required for conservatism. The advocate of change, on the contrary, must have a certain degree of imagination in order to be able to conceive of anything different from what exists."

But a little further, after a discussion of where opposition to the status quo comes from (in summary it can come from "sympathy with the unfortunate or from hatred of the fortunate.....")

"On the intellectual side, again, there is a tendency for advocates of change to organise themselves into groups, welded together by a narrow orthodoxy, hating heresy, and viewing it as moral treachery in favour of prosperous sinners. Orthodoxy is the grave of intelligence, no matter what orthodoxy it may be. And in this respect the orthodoxy of the radical is no better than that of the reactionary."

Bertrand Russell, "Education and the Social Order."

As usual, Bertie nails it.

Is he implying that conservatives do not organize into groups with narrow orthodoxy and hating heresy?

please...

He was focussing on what he calls "advocates of change". The passage that starts, "On the intellectual side..." is preceded by this:

"Many revolutionaries in their day-dreams are not so much concerned with the happiness that is to come to the common people as with the vengeance that they will be able to wreak on the insolent holders of power from whom they are suffering in the present."

He's not engaged in a discussion of conservative/reactionary v progressive and certainly isn't condemning progressivism, simply pointing out a tendency among some extremists. All this is in a wider discussion of education and how it shapes the individual versus the citizen.

But I admit I like this bit:

"Animal habit is sufficient by itself to make a man like the old ways, just as it makes a horse turn down a road which it usually turns down."

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Here's the thing about that... you people are idiots; there isn't a dimes worth of difference from what you believe, than what King Hussein believes and the mounds of disjointed drivel flapping around in Chomsky's resin soak noggin...

Noam Chomsky is right about a lot of things. He is wrong about some things. I still read his books because they make me think. Thanks for lowering the bar by calling me an idiot. I personally think that all conservatives are intellectually inferior. Seriously inferior, but I didn't insult you.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

But... the best of luck to ya, in working your way through it.

Whatever. You're the one needing to coddle your conservatism by trashing progressivism with rediculous assertions that are in no way true. Same old talking points. I am content with my station and ideology and will never stop learning... Like you have. Way to prove my point, hack.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

All progressives are cognitive deficients; their reasoning relies purely upon group-think

Actually, I disagree.

Color me SHOCKED!

I would say that much more describes the right-wing. They only seem to get their news from a handful of sources, as it never has an objective aside.

ROFL... Yeah... It does sorta seem that way doesn't it? And how pathetic are they for limiting themselves to the same sources of news as the Left enjoys...

It is always the same slanted rhetoric over and over and over. I have not heard one new original idea come out of the right wing. Not one.

Well what would you suggest they do, given that they're responding to the same tired cliches and empty platitudes that the Left has trotted out since the first mamby pamby, feminized driveler of insipid nonsense spouted the notion that one person's need somehow required the confiscation of another persons means?

I can't see the need for a new idea, given that the issues those ideas are addressing remain constant. Perhaps you can demonstrate your point by trotting out a new idea to address THAT...

 

[Mr. Peepers]

I can't see the need for a new idea, given that the issues those ideas are addressing remain constant.

Okay, I'll bite. What issues are you referring to? There are many problems with American society.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Left has trotted out since the first mamby pamby, feminized driveler of insipid nonsense spouted the notion that one person's need somehow required the confiscation of another persons means?

So... It's okay to take from the poor and give to the very wealthy, but it's sacrelege to take from the wealthy in order for the poor to survive? Even if the wealthy are cheating on their taxes, outsourcing good jobs and starting up shell companies to avoid taxes? That's okay? It's okay that a cancer diagnosis can take your house and put you literally on the street? It's okay that the only jobs being created are crappy minimum wage jobs? It's okay that executives now make up to 700x that of the lowest worker but worker's wages have been stagnant for decades - meanwhile the cost of living is skyrocketing? Bow to your corporations. I'm trying to keep more of my money. If I have to take it from them, so be it. I've been screwed for long enough as a lower percentile taxpayer. For what? Iraq? That giant cash suck that went STRAIGHT to Bushco's defense and security buddies... on the taxpayer dime and on the backs of our kids? I could go on... that's just one example.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

All progressives are cognitive deficients; their reasoning relies purely upon group-think, which is why they spend so much time reading... they cloister their limited intellectual means in the reasoning of others within that group.

Wrong. They read everything. Including the stuff that they don't agree with. I read things that make my blood boil, but I still read it.

LOL... Yet you remain the cognitive deficient ya were before the old blood boiled...

And by that I mean that you're projecting that your opposition does not read the ideas of those they oppose... and you're concluding, from this false premise, that this somehow stands you as superior to that opposition... then, in your next breath>>>

I will not, however, read anything from any of the faux pundits with not a brain cell one in their heads which includes anyone on Fox or anyone like Anne Coulter or Limbaugh who are only in it for the money and the ego anyway. They are irrelevant BS.

you proudly declare your refusal to read the work of the more effective voices of that opposition...

This demonstrates a fatal flaw in the construct of your reasoning... It demonstrates a delusion wherein you "FEEL" that you read the thinking of those whose ideas differ from yours... leaning hard on such as a point of much pride; while you pride yourself on ignoring the same damn thing... specifically, this flaw is known as a non sequitur...

You see, your premise is that you read the work of your opposition... even while you conclude that you do not read the work of your opposition.

But setting that aside... the truth is that there is nothing new to be found in either position; as both positions are merely reactions to the conditions common to humanity. And Humanity is subject to natural laws... immutable principles... or those things which simply "ARE"... they exist as hardline templates...

Left-think merely seeks to rationalize around that natural order; to find an easier way... Right-think simply recognizes that natural order and seeks to conserve the recognition of the immutable principles which define that natural order.

Nothing particularly complex about it... its simply beyond the cognitive means of those limited to Left-think ot comprehend... that's all...

But not to worry friend... nature has a cure for it... just be patient and it'll work itself out.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

All progressives are cognitive deficients; their reasoning relies purely upon group-think, which is why they spend so much time reading... they cloister their limited intellectual means in the reasoning of others within that group.

The really sad thing is that what you said here easily applies to the Modern Conservative Movement. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter.... there's a cottage industry right now of Modern Conservatives (I use the term loosely) who publish books which are easily sold to ditto heads that can barely think for themselves. They sit around the radio at the prescribed hours of the day, listen only to the Talk Show Host approved news outlets, and regurgitate the same tired talking points daily to those unlucky enough to know them, either online or (worse!) in person.

I do find your disdain of reading to be a shortcoming. I study Mathematics. As a young man I was very good at Mathematics and was easily able to solve, completely from scratch, the problems that I encountered. As the problems I encountered became more sophisticated, the techniques required for solution became more esoteric and more studying was required. By the time I earned my Ph'D, reading and digesting the mathematical works of others became a vital and necessary tool for enabling my own research.

There is a definite need to appeal to the knowledge of those that came before, be it the Founders, the Prophets, the Apostles, etc. What is a mistake, and is always a mistake, is to read and accept the ideas you read without critical analysis. That leads to close minded group think. Reading with a critical eye leads to spiritual and mental growth.

 

[Ravi]

Pubic is a rabid hater of leftists, he shows no respect for anyone with differing views and in fact is a shining example of how wrong the OP was as posted.

Pubic is the new conservative ideal.

 

[Bahaman]

Well what do you expect? Conservatives are stupid.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Well what do you expect? Conservatives are stupid.

Not all.

But the "Ditto-Head" variety tend to be pretty dumb in my experience. They hear something they like and utterly fail to think about whether or not it makes any sense. Worse, they seem to have the same mindset as the guy that thinks the stripper likes them. The Right Wing (and Left Wing) pundits are there for the paycheck. If being a leftist paid better, they'd be a leftist.

The Modern Conservative Movement, as symbolized by Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc is absolutely the worst thing to happen to the real Conservatives in a 100 years. Its certainly the worst thing to happen to the Republican Party in at least a generation.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This a position I have formed through 30 years of emperical observations garnered through the intellectual interaction and debate with THOUSANDS of would-be Independent, Moderate, Centrist, Progressive halfwits... such as yourself.

Right. A neocon calling me a half-wit. THAT'S rich.

First, I didn't 'call' you a halfwit... I merely noted that my observations of your severely limited intellectual means are indicative of that common to the half-wit.

But secondly, it is 'rich'... rich in the deep understanding of Left-think and the addle-minded purveyors of such bilge.

Third... I'm not a Neo-con... I'm a paleo-con... OKA: An American... The Advocate of individual Liberty... which stands unapologetically in opposition to the forces of Left-think collectivism... and Statists of every stripe.

Although you have learned to string together all your best big words, nothing you have written is even remotely correct nor true.

Ahh... yet another Left-thinking, self professed would-be intellectual of the well read variety, coming to lament the use of 'big words.' LOL... Always a good time...

All of the successful societies have an aspect of collective ownership.

Name one.. and define 'successful'... correlating that definition to the enumerated traits of the referenced society which demonstrates their 'scuccess' through collective ownership...

Odds are your confusing 'existance' with 'success'... but I'm open to hearing your argument.

Otherwise, the majority of the population is at the hands of the insatiably greedy - much like our own corporations and the wall streeters who played 5 card monte with our 401K's. That's just the way it is. You think a free market utopia is so wonderful, look how most in Russia are living. You seem to have more of a closed mind than anyone.

ROFLMNAO... So you've concluded, upon no discernible basis that collective ownership is the only potential means that a culture can usuage greed... and this in the face of the current financial crisis which is a direct result of the greed demonstrated by none other than the ideological Left, through their implementation of Federal policy which required that the Mortgage industry set aside sound actuarial lending policy, so as to establish a system which was more fair to the least financially able... which crashed the equity markets wherein the tattered 401Ks were resting...

LOL... BRILLIANT!

Good stuff...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Meanwhile, back on topic.

"None of the higher mental processes are required for conservatism. The advocate of change, on the contrary, must have a certain degree of imagination in order to be able to conceive of anything different from what exists."

But a little further, after a discussion of where opposition to the status quo comes from (in summary it can come from "sympathy with the unfortunate or from hatred of the fortunate.....")

"On the intellectual side, again, there is a tendency for advocates of change to organise themselves into groups, welded together by a narrow orthodoxy, hating heresy, and viewing it as moral treachery in favour of prosperous sinners. Orthodoxy is the grave of intelligence, no matter what orthodoxy it may be. And in this respect the orthodoxy of the radical is no better than that of the reactionary."

Bertrand Russell, "Education and the Social Order."

As usual, Bertie nails it.

Is he implying that conservatives do not organize into groups with narrow orthodoxy and hating heresy?

please...

He was focussing on what he calls "advocates of change". The passage that starts, "On the intellectual side..." is preceded by this:

"Many revolutionaries in their day-dreams are not so much concerned with the happiness that is to come to the common people as with the vengeance that they will be able to wreak on the insolent holders of power from whom they are suffering in the present."

He's not engaged in a discussion of conservative/reactionary v progressive and certainly isn't condemning progressivism, simply pointing out a tendency among some extremists. All this is in a wider discussion of education and how it shapes the individual versus the citizen.

But I admit I like this bit:

"Animal habit is sufficient by itself to make a man like the old ways, just as it makes a horse turn down a road which it usually turns down."

ROFLMNAO...

Russell, in most of his various screeds, was an advocate of what he referred to as "the middle way." He was a profound advocate of fascism... and as noted earlier, is considered one fo the numerous fathers of that ideological bastard.

Russell never failed to promote socialism... lending credence to it at every opportunity... with the referenced quote being no exception... The notion being advanced to the contrary is just deceitful nonsense.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

you proudly declare your refusal to read the work of the more effective voices of that opposition...

They are in no way experts and do not know what they are talking about. They stay within party rhetoric and I view them as nothing more than entertainment and I take them at that value... which is nonexistant. They are not relevant sources in other words.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

you proudly declare your refusal to read the work of the more effective voices of that opposition...

They are in no way experts and do not know what they are talking about. They stay within party rhetoric and I view them as nothing more than entertainment and I take them at that value... which is nonexistant. They are not relevant sources in other words.

I'd add that from experience, if you listen/read the Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh/Coulter crowd enough they become laughably predictable. I've listened to and read books by all four. I won't be reading their future books as it would be a waste of time. If you read the blurb on the jacket to see what this weeks diatribe is about, you can usually script something like 90% of the book on the back of a napkin without needing to read it.

When they offer something new in the way of ideas, I'll be happy to give them a look.

 

[Diuretic]

I have to admit that I wasn't aware of Russell being a supporter of Fascism. My first memories of him were his activities in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, hardly the actions of a supporter of Fascism I would have thought.

In edit: this is in response to Pub's assertion.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Name one.. and define 'successful'... correlating that definition to the enumerated traits of the referenced society which demonstrates their 'scuccess' through collective ownership...

Norway, Sweden, Germany, The Netherlands, Ireland, France, UK, Canada, Chile, Peru, Argentina... should I go on? All successful societies with strong social programs AND manage to have quite a few rich people. Hint: Wasn't it Norway that had the most millionaires in 2007? By your capitalist blinders, that should spell "success" to you.