Is culture just changing, or is it on the decline? (ritual, tradition)

[Booko]

Originally Posted by PureX

The enslavement and genocide of conquered peoples used to be commonplace, and is no linger so common, today. These behaviors still occur, but now days only among the more backward cultures, and as these deeds are exposed by the media, other countries feel compelled to do something to stop it.
Starvation and disease are still among us, but not nearly to the degree that it once was. The same conditions that cause starvation today, have always been among us, but now days we have the will and the technical ability to move food and medicines into the troubled areas, and to save some of the people that otherwise would not have been saved.

There has always been famine and that will continue, but the starvation can be stopped, as you say -- we have the ability to move quantities of food to prevent the starvation.

The thing is, much of the starvation is due to violence within countries. It's difficult to harvest a crop when you've been overrun by fighting or are a target of genocide. It kinda distracts farmers from their work.

[kevmicsmi]

Originally Posted by PureX

First, I have made no assertion about liberals being more refined. I have no idea where you're getting that from.

How many conservatives do you know, that are also philosophical relativists?......They are deeply troubled and frightened by the notion of such a "groundless" existence. And they would panic, I believe, if they were really forced to confront relativism within their own psyche.

Gee, I have no idea where I got that from....

And second, the only definition of liberal that I'm using is the one that you'll find in the dictionary (as opposed to the one invented by right wing media blowhards).

Great, What do you consider yourself? Maybe I should tell organizations like Move on that if their members consider themselves liberal, they are Adam Smith capitalists by dictionary definition.

: a political orientation that favors progress and reform 2: an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market and the gold standard

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberalism

Or, on the other hand, we could all be adults and just assume the Move on crowd was talking about liberal in the context of accepted American politics. Im sure you are aware PureX, that words meaning changes all the time based on accepted public perception of meanings. If your position is Liberal should only be taken with a dictionary literal meaning, I would conceed the point (even though your position would be extremely absolutist), except for the context you provided...

I think we're also seeing the battle between absolutism and relativism in the deep divide within the American political culture. Here, we describe it as a battle between cultural "conservatives" and "liberals".

Gee, I wonder where I got the idea you were talking about liberal/conservative in the context of American political culture, not a dictionary definition.

And the people proposing the bans are trying to conserve clean air. So apparently it's conservatives fighting conservatives, then. Because by definition, a liberal would promote freedom of choice and the tolerance of our differences. If they were to propose any laws at all, it would be to set aside areas for smokers and non-smokers.

By definition anything that is above a given reference point is whats up, but Im sure if someone asked you "whats up?" you would know what they mean. Unless of course you are taking the absolutist position that all american political liberal ideas follow your definition in practise....In which case, I wold believe you to be wrong from my perception, in this certain context, at this point in my life.

Environmentalists are trying to protect the environment. They don't recognize anyone's "right" to exploit the environment for personal gain, at the expense of everyone else's well-being, or at the expense of the ecosystem itself. I don't consider them liberals or conservatives, really, because they have elements of both in their ideology. They're defined by their issue: they're environmentalists

You are right, I see plenty of bumper stickers printed by PETA found on cars with Bush/Cheney 04 stickers. I hear people who profess to be conservatives talk about the dung beetle all the time. Let me ask you a simple yes or no question Purex.....Is it more likely that a staunch environmentalist will support an american liberal party like the Greens, or Democrats, rather than an American conservative party like the Republicans, or the Libertarians? How about I answer for you.....YES!!!!!

I know that the right wing media blowhards have been telling you over and over and over again that all environmentalists are wild-eyed, drugged up, super-liberal hippies, out to destroy the economy for the sake of some frog or insect that no one else cares about, anyway, but this isn't really the case

I dont think that at all. I think some are nuts, and some are reasonable. Unlike, of course, your absolutist view on how right leaning people view all environmentalists.

Poles show that most Americans are seriously concerned about protecting the environment from human exploitation and that most of us have no desire to return to past days when factories and strip mines and toxic waste dumps were legal and commonplace, and so was acid rain, burning rivers, and dead lakes.

POLLS show that when POLLS are worded a certain way. When certain human exploitation is assumed (when it has not been proven)in a poll question, of course you will get skewed results.

Yes. I certainly do dispute that.

Wow, a straight answer.

I went to college. I went for quite a few years and I attended colleges in several major cities. I have a master's degree. I met lots of college professors, and sat in lots of college classes, and never once did I hear a single teacher or professor promote or discourage any kind of speech. I do believe that college professors tend to be more liberal than conservative, but that has more to do with colleges being places that invite the free exchange of ideas, and that promote new ways of thinking among it's students, which are distinctly liberal characteristics.

Accepting anecdotal evidence as a clear rebuttal of a point would seem like absolutist thinking to me.

http://www.noindoctrination.org/cgib...?status=recent

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12145

There is a good place to start.

In fact, it's may interest you to know that teachers, artists, reporters, authors, scientists, and well-educated folks in general tend to be liberals. This is because receiving an education involves opening the mind to new experiences, and new ways of thinking about and doing things, which is a distinctly liberal trait.

Why didnt you mention areas of study like Economics, and Business? Are you sure the majority of scientists and doctors are liberal? Maybe the liberal trait these jobs mostly have in common the lack of recognition of reality needed to succeed in the chosen career. What do you mean by well educated? Do you mean the liberal who graduated college with a degree that was taking orders from myself(dropped out at 16 originally) in a warehouse? Do you mean the highly educated liberal who graduated college that pays me rent every month, in effect buying property for me? Who is more well educated? The person in college learning what his favorite communist professor wants him to learn, or someone becoming educated by real life?

Lots of people disagree with the racial quotas: liberals, conservatives, racists, idealists, people who have lost opportunities because of quotas, even many people who stand to gain from racial quotas disagree with them. I really don't think the quota system has anything at all to do with liberals or conservatives, except in the lying mouths of the right wing media blowhards, who will stoop to any form of slander to sell you their demonized, imaginary "liberal" scape-goats.

Which political party has bought the vote of African Americans with racial divissive issues like this one, and proceeded to corrupt cities to the point of no return (see New Orleans)? Would that be the more liberal Democrats, or the more conservative Republicans?

You don't even know what the word "liberal" means. All you know is what the right wing media blowhards have told you the word means. And what they've told you is that the word "liberal" stands for everything wrong and bad about America. They told you this specifically to get you all worked up and to stir up your ignorance and anger and resentment and to get you to focus all of this on these imaginary evil "liberals" their telling you about. The media blowhards themselves are doing this because they know it will keep you tuning into their shows. Rush Limbaugh figured this out years ago, and the FOX network brought the idea to TV. When all the other media warthogs saw that it was working, they jumped on the muck-raking gravy train.

This is hillarious. Some person who spent time in college in America is going to demonize others for indoctrination . YEAH, CAUSE COLLEGES DO NONE OF THAT!!! I derive my definition from the policies and views of Americans who consider themselves liberal, or progressive, etc. Your whole above quote is an example of narrow minded absolutist garbage...the same thing you decry!!!! PureX, I love when you get on these rants about the right wing. Many things you accuse them of, you hypocritically end up following with your emotional, and extremely condescending posts.

The republican political party jumped on the "demonize the liberals" because they realize they could easily convince you that these "evil liberals" are all DEMOCRATS! And they realize that they could get you to vote for even their pathetic, disgraceful, corporate hand-puppet of a candidate because you are convinced that no matter how bad their candidate is, the "evil liberal democrat" candidate will be a thousand times worse.

The conceit and condescention is really annoying. A label like liberal does not lead to my disagreement with a person. IT IS THEIR POSITIONS! IS THAT SO HARD TO BELIEVE? Why must everyone who did not vote for Kerry be stupid, duped, or evil? WHO IS ACTING LIKE A REACTIONARY ABSOLUTIST NOW???????? Why are so many of your posts so hypocritical???

Continued

[kevmicsmi]

And the very wealthy "movers and shakers" in society like what the media blowhards are doing (and in fact own the media outlets, themselves) because while the media is busy stirring up our ignorance and prejudice and against each other, they're busy buying off the politicians of both parties, getting them to write the laws in their own favor, and are then using them to rob us all blind

Would it happen to be just the corrupt "Movers and Shakers", or ABSOLUTELY all of them?

How many conservatives do you know, that are also philosophical relativists? I have quite a few conservative friends, and the reason they are conservative is because they are not at all comfortable with the idea of relativism. They vaguely understand the concept of relativity, and they accept it scientifically, but they truly believe that life without the concreteness of philosophical absolutes would be total chaos and anarchy. They are deeply troubled and frightened by the notion of such a "groundless" existence. And they would panic, I believe, if they were really forced to confront relativism within their own psyche

Everyone has both absolutist and relativist thoughts and reasoning, depending on the issue at hand. Also, I stick by my statement, liberals are not in favor of more personal freedom.

You don't even know what a liberal is, let alone what their "issues" are.

I know exactly what a liberal believes in the context of American Political Culture. I also know what a liberal is in the cocoon like life of a college intellectual. I also know what proper context means to a definition. I also know that YOU brought up liberal in the context of American Political Culture, not Webster's definition of liberalism.

That's a ridiculous straw man that doesn't exist anywhere but in the minds of frightened, poorly educated, absolutists.

Why, because you dont like the fact that your idea of where relativists land politically is the thought of an absolutist? Cant you accept the fact that people can not be absolutely unbiased, or fair, or absolutist, or relativist? Or, is anyone who thinks that automatically labeled an absolutist?