What is a liberal?

No. It's just a weak response. According to your own link; "Common features of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) include excessive, often persistent anger, frequent temper tantrums or angry outbursts, as well as disregard for authority." You've seen no anger, temper tantrums or angry outbursts from anything I've said. You see it in abundance from the conservatives on this thread describing liberals.

Each thing I've posted is a result of reason and logical mechanism, including this post. The logic is a matter of deductive reasoning. Every idea is open to criticism, even yours. Even mine. You mistake logical criticism for defiance. Why would I take what somebody says, especially in an emotion laden characterization, as true? Doesn't truth matter here? Why would you? Now rather then look for a Wiki definition, why not critique what I've said? Wouldn't that be an example of reason and logical mechanism in full bloom? You'd actually be able to support your claim with something real.

It doesn't take much to fuel their "already held beliefs". You can see the outbursts of hostility in each of their posts. The condition you've described fits them to a tee. Perhaps you can tell me what the reason is, and what logical mechanism is being used for holding those beliefs? Simply asking them what demonstrates their "beliefs" as true is something you see as defiant. I see it as trying to get closer to the truth.

That's no different from the Democrats of today. The only difference is that they believe that it extends to everyone. They're a bit more conscious of the fact that minorities were denied those very things, and since justice matters to them, they recognize that the government is necessary to protect those rights for everyone. You should be aware of the fact that at the time when "classical Liberalism" was in place, it wasn't thought of as "classical" Liberalism. Liberalism is always moving. It never stays in one place. Conservatives and Republicans define themselves in Liberal terms. They now see themselves as "classical liberals. They're stuck in the past. There really is no logic to conservatism. In fact, its a foundationalist ideology that's based on logical fallacies. Logic is not a tool of the conservative, so they rely on appeals to tradition and authority. The Liberal employs logic and in typical reactionary form, the conservative automatically rejects logic as a liberal tactic. If you ask the conservative what is the basis of the ideology, when pressed they will find themselves in a trap of infinite regress v their dogma. As they dig deeper for each justification, they need another to justify the one before. There is no basis for the basis. They end up in a black hole. The only escape is through circular reasoning. That's the nature of ideology. Conservatism as it's own basis. Of course you can't use a theory as the basis for itself...that's circular reasoning and a logical fallacy. Clinging to a logical fallacy when you know what it is, is a sign of irrationality. Why would I want irrational people running my government?

You've misread what I said. I didn't say that conservatives need to exist for liberalism to exist. In fact, it's the other way around. Liberalism is the natural order of progress. Things change. Conservatism only exists as a reaction to that change. Read it again: "Conservatism is the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense."

A conservative is without any doubt, a traditional rationalist. This simplifies his life since he need only apply his theory of rationality to whatever assertion is in question. As such, he need never distinguish between truth and falsity. His theory does that for him. There is a conservative position on issues, and no more needs to be said. No thinking is necessary. As Liberals have no such theory of rationality, they must distinguish between truth and falsity themselves. They apply reason and logic as tools to help them make those distinctions rather than dogma and religious text.

 

That's a pretty good one, but I think that was individual state efforts (and that would be classical liberalism) and then... pan American health org... and what really took off was the WHO. I sure hope you aren't one of the one world government folks... trucker may blow an o-ring.

It really was a good one though... I wouldn't have thought that direction. Got a better one?

I am not arguing just to be obstinate. I just cannot come up with anything I like. I will give it to you if you find one

 

You have written a lot here, and you have been very civil. I don't have the time I believe you deserve at the moment. I just wanted you to know I will get back to you. Christmas eve... kids... a lot coming together atm.

Merry Christmas!

 

So getting rid of smallpox, a worldwide governmental effort doesn't count.
How about the transcontinental railroad?
How about the FDA, you don't have stuff like Elixir Sulfanidamide happening anymore...

How about public schools, they have come a long way since the first tax supported school in Boston in 1635, which is still in operation as a public school, and is probably the finest High School in the US, public or private. How about tax supported Police Departments? Tax supported Fire Departments?

 

But when the meaning is not understood by all, but rather corrupted to suit a certain agenda, the discussion is not only useful but necessary. The English speaking world originated outside and extends far beyond the borders of the United States, and the term liberal has a life beyond the political realm. If you wish to convey a meaning outside the definition of liberal - find another word.

 

Here is how a GREAT Liberal define the term:

 

The terms liberal and conservative are relative terms.....relative to the political center at any given time. The political center differs with every country. What is liberal in the United States isn't necessarily liberal in Europe. Because of this, there is a distinctly American definition of what does and does NOT constitute a liberal. When they conduct polls in this country as to whom is of the Liberal ideology, the respondents are CERTAINLY using my modern American definition versus your root word origin definition. The term Republican implies in support of the republic, and Democrat implies in support of democracy. Let me assure you, Republicans do not support the Republic more than Democrats, and Democrats do not support democracy more than Republicans. Insisting that we stick to the origins of the words would be foolish, and yet that is precisely what you are doing with steadfast stubborn, insistance that the root word origin MUST be used. We ALL know the basics of what constitutes an American Liberals political position, and when someone uses liberal to describe another's views, it is not a great mystery as to what is meant, as you obtusely keep trying to imply.

 

Good definition.

 

I'm not sure who is being obtuse here, but I find insults achieve very little which is productive in a discussion.

We are not all Americans, and this is an international discussion board, so we don't all know precisely what is meant when someone uses liberal to describe another's socio-political views, particularly when the implication is pejorative, and the term liberal is universally understood as complimentary.

From the lexicological point of view, using a term such as liberal is totally illogical if one wishes to imply a negative characteristic. Words have international meanings and the American definition of liberal does not differ substantially from the international one.

(From an American source, and unequivocally complimentary.)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal

 

Not being an American, perhaps you do not understand that the word is demonized in this country. Where you come from, perhaps it is a badge of honor,but politically, that is not the case in this country. You find VERY FEW politicians that will call themselves liberal because of the bad connotation it carries here. Politicans that used to call themselves Liberal, now call themselves Progressive, in order to escape the bad connotation that accompanies the term in this country. You will find a relatively small percentage of the population that will call themselves Liberal, but they are not up for election. For those facing election, they run from the word like the plague. While you say this is an international discussion board, it seems to me that American Politics are what is discussed in virtually every thread. As an international visitor, weighing in on a political chat board that discusses primarily American politics, you would be well served to gain at least a basic understanding of the American political landscape. Your confusion surrounding the totality of the usage of the term in this country, is an example of gross ignorance of the American political landscape.

 

I can't think of any that follow that set. It is pure BS. Unless one is a hater who has been brainwashed.

 

The only wasted vote is not voting your conscience, your ideology.
A wasted vote is voting against another person/party out of the lesser of 2 evils. We will always have 2 evils if that remains the mentality.

- - - Updated - - -

The only wasted vote is not voting your conscience, your ideology.
A wasted vote is voting against another person/party out of the lesser of 2 evils. We will always have 2 evils if that remains the mentality.

 

A liberal is someone with a twisted idea that they can and should tell other people how to live.

 

No, voting third party is a wasted vote. The only time I vote third party is in local elections where you can occasionally get them into office. It is extremely difficult on the statewide level and impossible on the national level. I much prefer the current path of the slow Libertarian take over of the Republican party. It will be a couple of election cycles yet but at the latest by 2024 the social conservative totalitarians will be relegated to the fringe where they belong and the Libertarian wing of the party will be the overwhelmingly dominant wing. I figure that in 2020 gay marriage won't even be used as a campaign issue anywhere except maybe in Kentucky.

Then and only then can the Republicans reverse the ever increasing authortarianism of the left in this country.

 

I should be able to provide a valid answer.

An American Liberal encompasses a broad definition, it could mean one that subscribes to demand side Keynesian economics, a socialist Marxist, communist, environmentalist, hippie, welfare king or queen, homosexual, an abortion supporter, illegal immigrants, bleeding heart white, oppressed white or non whites, non whites, and many more things that fail to come to me at the moment.

 

In amerika, Liberal= Commy/Socialists who support Eugenics and a bigger more intrusive govt.

Classical Liberalism is what amerikan "right wingers" are today.

Check out my thread titled: Defining Liberalism.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=265404

 

First let me give you a slight history lesson on conservatives in this country
From 1932 until 1968 no conservative could win the White House
From 1933 until 1992 Liberals controlled the house of representatives with the exception of two years in the 1940s
And the conservatives had their own third party
And they only began to gain acceptance as a backlash of the liberal desegregation policies of the forties fifties and sixties
So the huge campaign to demonize liberals Started in the seventies
It still goes on to day
The common saying among conservatives used to be
bleeding heart liberals
Whenever any law was passed to help the poor disabled or elderly

From 1920 until 1932 conservatives ran the country And the result Was a great depression
They wanted smaller government
less regulations on business and
Calvin Coolidge the president just before the depression cut taxes three times

What most liberals that I know Seem to believe
We should have compassion for all citizens of the United States
Not so greedy that they're worried that a small amount of tax money go to the poor
Not so selfish that they do not want to pay taxes to help supply revenue to their country

And most of all love the United States
I Care more about the country than any political party

And also believe that the government should work for the general welfare of all of its citizens






.
.
.


.







.
.

 

Lets get into specifics, go on and name one. If you think none follow that set it should be very easy. I expect a dodge, why not shock me with a reply that has a named program?

 

huh, I said I can not name one. So why ask me to name one?

But I found this to be a pretty good definition/explanation of liberal.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=336913&p=1063440811#post1063440811

 

OK, so just say that is what the left is all about.

 

I posted a link to another poster who explained pretty good what a liberal is about.
Freedom is number 1. IE, don't discriminate or tell someone they must live like you want them to.

 

I doubt it. There are many social programs that will be very very hard to eliminate. And some shouldn't. But none, except SS, be a lifelong sustenance.

 

Really?

Is it the liberals who tell gay people they can't be gay because it's "a sin?"
Is it the liberals who are against gay marriage?
Is it the liberals who want to make the US a "CHRISTIAN country?"
Is it the liberals who want to take away women's right to choose?
Is it the liberals who want the Holiday seasons to be known ONLY as the Christmas season?

Nope. . .ALL of that is the Right wing way of imposing their idea of how people should life on everyone!

 

They mix up economics with social equities.
As this guy says, 'free market' for economics, but not for social issues. Why?

So we have a situation where social conservatives want to impose a value system on social relationships instead of having a "free market" where people are free to do what they will, but they freak out if anyone suggests imposing a value system on the economic "free market" because people should be free to do what they will.

Why one set of standards for social relationships and another for economic relationships? A more fundamental question might be: why is that distinction even made -- why are social and economic relationships treated as if they are so fundamentally different? Granted, there are some differences, but are the differences really enough to warrant such a sharp division? Isn't is more a continuum?
http://atheism.about.com/b/2012/03/17/social-conservatism-vs-economic-conservatism.htm

 

Burke, the father of conservatism, actually emphasized the value of experience over rational speculation, and of superiority of the dispersed experience of the many over the concentrated knowledge of the few. Conservatism, as put forward by Burke, is a position that rests on the assumed fallible nature of mankind. You seem to be ascribing those traits to liberalism.

The goal of conservatism and liberalism is the public good, but they differ in their understanding of how the world works and of human nature. To say that conservatism always prefers the status quo is untrue. They are just emphasizing that we preserve the good things about the current system and proceed with caution, and that we should constantly be aware of humans' failings.

Conservatism is more of a mindset, and an understanding of how the world works. let's just say those tenets aren't adequately descriptive of conservatism, which by the way isn't inherently religious. In fact, the only tenet of conservatism is this that the nature of mankind is fallible but fixed. All other positions are based on that assumption. And liberalism, or leftism rather, does have a tenet which is pretty much the opposite: that the nature of man is malleable. And all other positions stem from that.

Again, that's the complete opposite of what conservatism is about.

No, conservatism doesn't justify any existing social order, but it points out that revolution might lead to something even worse (France!), and that gradual change which preserves what's good about the old order, is to be preferred. They value traditions because it represents the dispersed accumulated experience of society, which they view as superior to the rational articulation of the few.

Classy. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is brainwashed.

Liberalism comes of the Latin word for freedom. Easy peasy then? Except that, no, not really. for what is freedom? The problems lies with that some view freedom as the absence of coercion. Classical liberalism is a prime example, and largely, the right agrees with this view of freedom. Thus freedom for these folks is typically understood as negative. Negative means that all you have to do to respect my freedom is to not do anything. An example would be freedom of speech: just let me talk and I'm free.

However, the other half of the population understands freedom to mean the above plus constriction by circumstances. a small example to help you understand what I mean: if you are too poor to buy something you are not free because poverty is constraining you. Thus, freedom is understood as positive, which means that in order to respect my freedom an action is required of you. There was a court case about some people distributing leaflets on private property, and the court ruled that they had to be allowed to otherwise their right to free speech was violated. Id est, the owners of the property had to provide them with something -allowance to be on their property- in order for their freedom to be respected: a positive understanding of freedom.

By the way, keep this in mind as you read through this forum. You'll constantly see people from the right arguing with people on the left, and in many cases it comes down to that they have a completely different understanding of what concepts like freedom (and equality, justice, fairness etc.) means. I find it useful to use a right-left translator!
So it's not as easy as one might think given the two rather opposite understandings of freedom. Who are we to say that those who wish to make people free of poverty and circumstances enforced upon them by accident of birth, or other things beyond their control, are not fighting for freedom like those who wish people to be free of coercion? This would be easy if there were separate words for these two concepts, but sadly there aren't so we are forced to reach the conclusion that both capitalists and socialists are as justified to call themselves liberals, because they are each fighting for their own separate conceptions of freedom.

Read the above.

What is fairness? See, the problem is that there's really not a useful definition of fairness out there. Again, the right and left differ completely as to what fairness is. The right sees fairness as everyone playing by the same rules, whilst the left thinks that it can never truly be fair unless the unequal starting conditions of people are addressed. Thus you will hear conservatives talk about how people ought to be equal under the law, and leftists will talk about how women and minorities must be compensated for historical oppression, current economic disadvantages, and perceived discrimination.