Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 422







Post#10526 at 01-14-2006 12:22 AM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-14-2006, 12:22 AM #10526
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
I'm not the least bit surprised to see the left mocking or pooh poohing the importance of the Saddam trial.
Mike's a Leftist? Whoa. :shock:

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Traditionalists, however, seek to realize the hope of future progress by affirming The Past.
Yeah, let's affirm lynchings, child labor, laws against female-held property, theocracy, crucifixions, The Rack, serfdom . . .

Hey, that Past was something else! Good times. Good times.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#10527 at 01-14-2006 12:48 AM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
01-14-2006, 12:48 AM #10527
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Quote Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
I'm not the least bit surprised to see the left mocking or pooh poohing the importance of the Saddam trial.
Mike's a Leftist? Whoa. :shock:

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Traditionalists, however, seek to realize the hope of future progress by affirming The Past.
Yeah, let's affirm lynchings, child labor, laws against female-held property, theocracy, crucifixions, The Rack, serfdom . . .
Don't know about the rest, but serfdom... that most certainly is being reaffirmed today. What do you think the whole process of luring people deeper and deeper into consumer debt, as well as negatively-amortized interest-only loans on escalating home prices, is really all about?

It's about setting people up to be owned, lock stock and barrel, by corporations. They've already limited the ability of ordinary people to declare bankruptcy, so that once you're hooked there'll be no way out, nowhere for you to go except to them... on your knees. It's only a matter of time before the notion of debtor's prisons... if not out-and-out debt slavery... is floated around the halls of Congress.
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King







Post#10528 at 01-14-2006 04:00 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
01-14-2006, 04:00 AM #10528
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
Not to threadjack, but...

I don't know why they didn't just execute him in the field. Bringing him back for a monkey trial isn't justice. it's more like a mockery of one.
I'm not the least bit surprised to see the left mocking or pooh poohing the importance of the Saddam trial. The rule of law is, after all, a traditionalist institution and thereby an annoyance to those who, like liberals (at least those who can unabashedly admit it), would thrust a bitter dagger into the heart of The Past.

Traditionalists, however, seek to realize the hope of future progress by affirming The Past. Thus, Saddam's crimes against that hope must be exposed fairly and properly in a "court of law" if said hope is to be truly valid.

The Left rejects this affirmation with The Past. Thus, it is actually in their agenda to trivialize trials such as these just as the Chicago Seven (yes, Ramsey Clark was there too) turned their "court of law" into a circus in 1969.
Trials -- legal procedures to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt -- and warrants to listen to phone conversation -- legal procedures to establish probable cause -- are both under attack these days. I'll add the Geneva conventions, a set of rules on how to fight wars.

Conflict is changing. Rules which held when two major powers were fighting an overt war don't work so cleanly when the enemy are insurgents and terrorists. I would not be surprised if the rules of war are rewritten at the 4T / 1T cusp. Until that happens, I will generally favor those trying to enforce the existing international treaties, while scorning those who claim that Rule of Law doesn't imply to them. Edit : It is worth noting that the insurgents and terrorists are among those who consider themselves Above the Law, and are included among those scorned. One might not entirely forget that by the old rules fighters not in uniform were illegal combatants or spies, and tended to be hanged with little to no formality. This tradition seems to be vanishing faster than the notion of warrants.

But characterizing the Left as being the ones who want to ignore Rule of Law while the Right is upholding tradition might not be entirely true, depending on whether one thinks of the current US Administration as being Left or Right. Last I knew, there were those on both sides trying vigorously to disown the Bush 43 administration, to put him in the opposite camp. Anyway, holding prisoners outside the US to avoid court jurisdiction, arbitrarily declaring and holding 'enemy combatants,' disregard of the Geneva Convention and warrantless searches might be ranked as questionable. I would prefer not to characterize the issue of Rule of Law against governments thinking themselves Above the Law as partisan. Both Nazi and Communist governments belonged to the Above the Law camp. Too many Americans (more than one) are ready to embrace similar ethics (or lack thereof). Said individuals come from both left and right, and are opposed by both right and left. Bush 43 and McCain, the most vigorous advocates in many respects, are of the same party.

Anyway, count me on the side of Law. On this issue, forget left and right.







Post#10529 at 01-14-2006 10:09 AM by antichrist [at I'm in the Big City now, boy! joined Sep 2003 #posts 1,655]
---
01-14-2006, 10:09 AM #10529
Join Date
Sep 2003
Location
I'm in the Big City now, boy!
Posts
1,655

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
Not to threadjack, but...

I don't know why they didn't just execute him in the field. Bringing him back for a monkey trial isn't justice. it's more like a mockery of one.
I'm not the least bit surprised to see the left mocking or pooh poohing the importance of the Saddam trial.
If I'm the left, then their troubles are even worse than we thought.

Did Iraq have a constitution against which Sadam acted? I don't know but that seems important. I assumed that in a cruel dictatorship, the cruel dictator makes the laws, and the cruel things he does are entirely legal.

Edit for typos







Post#10530 at 01-14-2006 10:41 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
01-14-2006, 10:41 AM #10530
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Rule of law

Federalize the "law" in the new Irak. When the new "state" is set up:

The Progressive Ba'ath Socialists could be tried by the Shia under Shariah law. If anything remained, that portion could be sent to the Kurds to be tried unsder their version of marxist-war lord law.

Any portion left over could be sent to the Sunni to be tried by Shariah law. Then the Turcomen, Xians, etc.

This would be Iraki justice (such as it might be) rather than Coalition justice (such as it is) for the internal affairs of Irak. Many a camel court might be preferred to the Anglo-spheric kangaroo justice (sic) that the Progressive Ba'ath Socialists may receive. The kangaroos might have an international case to bring to the Hague, etc. But, I would have let the several strainers of Iraki federalism and the several findings of Iraki law do their work first. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

I think we would find little need of cell space in the Netherlands for the remaining Progressive (alleged) criminals.







Post#10531 at 01-14-2006 11:17 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
01-14-2006, 11:17 AM #10531
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
Did Iraq have a constitution against which Sadam acted? I don't know but that seems important. I assumed that in a cruel dictatorship, the cruel dictator makes the laws, and the cruel things he does are entirely legal.
Legitimate rule of law begins with an important premise:
  • We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Given the idealized nature of these words, one is tempted to reject their import on the basis of historical hypocrisy (ie., slaves, injuns, institutionalized injustice). Liberals, and paleo-cons (you?), are not tempted by this rejection because they wholeheartedly reject these words for differing reasons.

Thus the left tosses both the affirmation baby and the institutional bath-water out upon the ash-heap of history (so to speak). "All men" need not apply to Iraqis because it has been proven a farce by Americans. There is no justice, no hope, no future because the The Past is utterly corrupt: Stare Decisis writ large.







Post#10532 at 01-14-2006 11:38 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
01-14-2006, 11:38 AM #10532
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

The Pale of Progress

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Legitimate rule of law begins with an important premise:
  • We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

...
Do you mean that my cousins who live under Nordic law in Republics and Kingdoms do not live under the rule of legitimate law?

That those who live under the variants of the Code Napoleon in Old and New Europe and the lower Americas do not live under the rule of legitimate law?

That those in the Anglo-sphere who have a tradition of common law and Blackstone do not live under the rule of legitimate law?

Those who abide in the parishes of Louisiana and the ridings of Quebec do not live under the rule of legitimate law?

That those under Shariah are not under the rule of legitimate law?

Confucian codes? Mosaic law? Roman law? Canon law? All illegitimate?


Beyond the Pale :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:







Post#10533 at 01-14-2006 03:46 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-14-2006, 03:46 PM #10533
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59
Don't know about the rest, but serfdom... that most is certainly being reaffirmed today. What do you think the whole process of luring people deeper and deeper into consumer debt, as well as negatively-amortized interest-only loans on escalating home prices, is really all about?

It's about setting people up to be owned, lock stock and barrel, by corporations. They've already limited the ability of ordinary people to declare bankruptcy, so that once you're hooked there'll be no way out, nowhere for you to go except to them... on your knees. It's only a matter of time before the notion of debtor's prisons... if not out-and-out debt slavery... is floated around the halls of Congress.
Well then, Marc's "Traditionalists" affirm the Past and bring us outstanding "Progress". The future belongs to the Troglodytes! :shock:
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#10534 at 01-14-2006 03:51 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-14-2006, 03:51 PM #10534
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: The Pale of Progress

Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
Confucian codes? Mosaic law? Roman law? Canon law? All illegitimate?
Illegitimacy is a sore topic for the Trog. Tread lightly.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#10535 at 01-14-2006 07:10 PM by Acton Ellis [at Eastern Minnesota joined May 2004 #posts 94]
---
01-14-2006, 07:10 PM #10535
Join Date
May 2004
Location
Eastern Minnesota
Posts
94

De-lurking for a minute to post this link to an article about a man who found a newspaper from 1925 in the back of a broken mirror. The similarities are startling.

http://www.alternet.org/story/30751/







Post#10536 at 01-14-2006 07:50 PM by antichrist [at I'm in the Big City now, boy! joined Sep 2003 #posts 1,655]
---
01-14-2006, 07:50 PM #10536
Join Date
Sep 2003
Location
I'm in the Big City now, boy!
Posts
1,655

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
Did Iraq have a constitution against which Sadam acted? I don't know but that seems important. I assumed that in a cruel dictatorship, the cruel dictator makes the laws, and the cruel things he does are entirely legal.
Legitimate rule of law begins with an important premise:
  • We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Given the idealized nature of these words, one is tempted to reject their import on the basis of historical hypocrisy (ie., slaves, injuns, institutionalized injustice). Liberals, and paleo-cons (you?), are not tempted by this rejection because they wholeheartedly reject these words for differing reasons.

Thus the left tosses both the affirmation baby and the institutional bath-water out upon the ash-heap of history (so to speak). "All men" need not apply to Iraqis because it has been proven a farce by Americans. There is no justice, no hope, no future because the The Past is utterly corrupt: Stare Decisis writ large.
Hmm, I'm not sure that captures my thoughts, but now I have label at least. I will be a paleo-con! (So who are those guys?)

Seriously though, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are great, even for all men. But unless it is codified somewhere other than my constitution, it's going to be hard to try him on it. I sure hope the citizens of New Jersey aren't looking for me for some New Jersey law I broke, that they see as self evident.

And anyway, we are supposed to be at war with those guys. President of the other team should be executed. That's closer to justice. And sense.







Post#10537 at 01-14-2006 09:02 PM by The Pervert [at A D&D Character sheet joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,169]
---
01-14-2006, 09:02 PM #10537
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
A D&D Character sheet
Posts
1,169

Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
Did Iraq have a constitution against which Sadam acted? I don't know but that seems important. I assumed that in a cruel dictatorship, the cruel dictator makes the laws, and the cruel things he does are entirely legal.
Legitimate rule of law begins with an important premise:
  • We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Given the idealized nature of these words, one is tempted to reject their import on the basis of historical hypocrisy (ie., slaves, injuns, institutionalized injustice). Liberals, and paleo-cons (you?), are not tempted by this rejection because they wholeheartedly reject these words for differing reasons.

Thus the left tosses both the affirmation baby and the institutional bath-water out upon the ash-heap of history (so to speak). "All men" need not apply to Iraqis because it has been proven a farce by Americans. There is no justice, no hope, no future because the The Past is utterly corrupt: Stare Decisis writ large.
Hmm, I'm not sure that captures my thoughts, but now I have label at least. I will be a paleo-con! (So who are those guys?)
Time for you to get chummy with Virgil. 8)
Your local general nuisance
"I am not an alter ego. I am an unaltered id!"







Post#10538 at 01-14-2006 10:20 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
01-14-2006, 10:20 PM #10538
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
That's closer to justice. And sense.
Getting "chummy with Virgil," in this "sense" of "justice" will lead to a dead end. Virgil's barn was burned to the ground and Virgil seeks no "justice" but to merely moveon.org.

The "dead end" kids (ie., "Millennials"?) will seek the justice Saari has "morally" denied. The barn-burner, ignored by Saari, flames again and again, until called in the "court of law," like Saddam, to answer for his crimes. 8)







Post#10539 at 01-14-2006 10:39 PM by antichrist [at I'm in the Big City now, boy! joined Sep 2003 #posts 1,655]
---
01-14-2006, 10:39 PM #10539
Join Date
Sep 2003
Location
I'm in the Big City now, boy!
Posts
1,655

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
That's closer to justice. And sense.
Getting "chummy with Virgi," in this "sense" of "justice" will lead to a dead end. Virgil's barn was burned to the ground and Virgil seeks no "justice" but to merely moveon.org.

The "dead end" kids (ie., "Millennials"?) will seek the justice Saari has "morally" denied. The barn-burner, ignored by Saari, flames again and again, until called in the "court of law," like Saddam, to answer for his crimes. 8)
Talking with you is like talking to a drunk. You take one thing I say and go off iin a complete different direction. You are so quick to put labels on me and put words in my mouth, that you don't seem to be listening. What I say and what you infer and refer to are two different things.

I am simply not sure that there is a lot of credibility to trying an evil dictator in whatever court they are doing it. I am more inclined to think he should've been killed in the field. Either way he is destined to die. It's just that this way he gets the added benefit of weeks of on-air shenanegans, and a little bit of play acting.







Post#10540 at 01-14-2006 11:04 PM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
01-14-2006, 11:04 PM #10540
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
That's closer to justice. And sense.
Getting "chummy with Virgi," in this "sense" of "justice" will lead to a dead end. Virgil's barn was burned to the ground and Virgil seeks no "justice" but to merely moveon.org.

The "dead end" kids (ie., "Millennials"?) will seek the justice Saari has "morally" denied. The barn-burner, ignored by Saari, flames again and again, until called in the "court of law," like Saddam, to answer for his crimes. 8)
Talking with you is like talking to a drunk. You take one thing I say and go off iin a complete different direction. You are so quick to put labels on me and put words in my mouth, that you don't seem to be listening. What I say and what you infer and refer to are two different things.
Like talking to a drunk? Oh, I've long assumed that our Mr. Lamb has a serious drinking problem... haven't you? It's one of many reasons that I'm not generally upset by anything he says, nor do I often respond... other than for the occasional poke at fun :-).

I am simply not sure that there is a lot of credibility to trying an evil dictator in whatever court they are doing it. I am more inclined to think he should've been killed in the field. Either way he is destined to die. It's just that this way he gets the added benefit of weeks of on-air shenanegans, and a little bit of play acting.
I'd agree... to be honest, I am quite surprised that the Saddam circus trial is actually going on. When we invaded Iraq, I fully expected for Saddam to be killed in an ambush/standoff by the U.S. Marines... not dissimilar to the fate that befell his serial rapist/murderer sons.
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King







Post#10541 at 01-15-2006 02:45 AM by Linus [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 1,731]
---
01-15-2006, 02:45 AM #10541
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
1,731

Quote Originally Posted by Acton Ellis
De-lurking for a minute to post this link to an article about a man who found a newspaper from 1925 in the back of a broken mirror. The similarities are startling.

http://www.alternet.org/story/30751/
Great article.
"Jan, cut the crap."

"It's just a donut."







Post#10542 at 01-15-2006 10:12 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
01-15-2006, 10:12 AM #10542
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
Not to thread-jack, but...

I don't know why they didn't just execute him in the field. Bringing him back for a monkey trial isn't justice. it's more like a mockery of one.

/threadjack
Yep, me too. I say kill the bloody bastard quickly, and save some taxpayer loot to boot! 8)







Post#10543 at 01-15-2006 12:28 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
01-15-2006, 12:28 PM #10543
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Getting "chummy with Virgi," in this "sense" of "justice" will lead to a dead end. Virgil's barn was burned to the ground and Virgil seeks no "justice" but to merely moveon.org.

The "dead end" kids (ie., "Millennials"?) will seek the justice Saari has "morally" denied. The barn-burner, ignored by Saari, flames again and again, until called in the "court of law," like Saddam, to answer for his crimes. 8)
Talking with you is like talking to a drunk.
Please allow me the opportunity to, hiccup!, redeem my rather obscure post.

There is nothing, in life and death, more important than a "trial." Jesus was tried... and then put to death. If a trial was good enough for Jesus it ought to be good enough for Hitler, er, Saddam.

But, you may say, Jesus got a bum rap, not a trial. Correct. But without a bum rap trial, Jesus would have been forgotten to history. So, a trial, even bum rap trials are essential to life, liberty and the pursuit of the "truth."

So why do some folks reject this important feature of life? Saari does. He witnessed a barn burnin'. But the barn burner, for all he knows, escaped to burn more barns. He did not wish to pursue the burner, to bring the burner to justice. No, he let him go saying, "God will judge."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Man is God's agent of judgment, just as Man is God's agent of mercy. And without judgment mercy is meaningless. And without a trial there can be no judgment or mercy, even a bum rap one.

Everyone deserves a trial. And everyone will get one, eventually. As Saul, er, Paul once said:
  • Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
It is therefore the important responsibility of everyone to deal with those "open beforehand," as we would have God deal with us "after." To do otherwise is to, as I pointed out, merely postpone the responsibility on to the next (Millennials?) generation of judges.







Post#10544 at 01-15-2006 03:57 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-15-2006, 03:57 PM #10544
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
But, you may say, Jesus got a bum rap, not a trial. Correct. But without a bum rap trial, Jesus would have been forgotten to history. So, a trial, even bum rap trials are essential to life, liberty and the pursuit of the "truth."
What do you care about Jesus? You're just going to make up what you believe he meant anyway. After all, you're "Jesus" believes in killing people and ignoring the poor.

You and HC would have had a good time partying with Caiaphas and Annas.


See you in Hell, Marc.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#10545 at 01-15-2006 08:25 PM by antichrist [at I'm in the Big City now, boy! joined Sep 2003 #posts 1,655]
---
01-15-2006, 08:25 PM #10545
Join Date
Sep 2003
Location
I'm in the Big City now, boy!
Posts
1,655

Thank you. That does make more sense.

I agree with you to a point.

And that point was this is supposed to be a war. The soldiers donīt get trials, they just get killed. If it was something other than war, I would feel differently.

That, and I am leery of international courts. Who is trying him? Against what standard?

Weren't you the one who was asking how the hell Stalin's and Mao's crimes got ignored, but Hitler and the caught Nazis go to victor's courts?







Post#10546 at 01-16-2006 10:07 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
01-16-2006, 10:07 AM #10546
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
Weren't you the one who was asking how the hell Stalin's and Mao's crimes got ignored, but Hitler and the caught Nazis go to victor's courts?
Yes, and I also argue that this is largely the reason why liberals find themselves on the wrong side of history. They have always pooh poohed the significance of these despots, while reserving great indignance for a much greater threat posed, in their minds-eye, by tail-gunner Joe, Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope.

And so it continues today. Bush and Alito totally eclipse the danger posed by al Qaeda and militant Islamism.







Post#10547 at 01-16-2006 10:07 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
01-16-2006, 10:07 AM #10547
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
Weren't you the one who was asking how the hell Stalin's and Mao's crimes got ignored, but Hitler and the caught Nazis go to victor's courts?
Yes, and I also argue that this is largely the reason why liberals find themselves on the wrong side of history. They have always pooh poohed the significance of these despots, while reserving great indignance for a much greater threat posed, in their minds-eye, by tail-gunner Joe, Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope.

And so it continues today. Bush and Alito totally eclipse the danger posed by al Qaeda and militant Islamism.







Post#10548 at 01-16-2006 10:16 AM by Uzi [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 2,254]
---
01-16-2006, 10:16 AM #10548
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
2,254

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
Weren't you the one who was asking how the hell Stalin's and Mao's crimes got ignored, but Hitler and the caught Nazis go to victor's courts?
Yes, and I also argue that this is largely the reason why liberals find themselves on the wrong side of history. They have always pooh poohed the significance of these despots, while reserving great indignance for a much greater threat posed, in their minds-eye, by tail-gunner Joe, Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope.

And so it continues today. Bush and Alito totally eclipse the danger posed by al Qaeda and militant Islamism.
Lamb, all you do is write about how bad liberals are. How would we know you really care about shutting down The Base (Al Qaeda)?
"It's easy to grin, when your ship's come in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man who's worth while is the man who can smile when his pants are too tight in the seat." Judge Smails, Caddyshack.

"Every man with a bellyful of the classics is an enemy of the human race." Henry Miller.

1979 - Generation Perdu







Post#10549 at 01-16-2006 10:16 AM by Uzi [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 2,254]
---
01-16-2006, 10:16 AM #10549
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
2,254

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
Weren't you the one who was asking how the hell Stalin's and Mao's crimes got ignored, but Hitler and the caught Nazis go to victor's courts?
Yes, and I also argue that this is largely the reason why liberals find themselves on the wrong side of history. They have always pooh poohed the significance of these despots, while reserving great indignance for a much greater threat posed, in their minds-eye, by tail-gunner Joe, Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope.

And so it continues today. Bush and Alito totally eclipse the danger posed by al Qaeda and militant Islamism.
Lamb, all you do is write about how bad liberals are. How would we know you really care about shutting down The Base (Al Qaeda)?
"It's easy to grin, when your ship's come in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man who's worth while is the man who can smile when his pants are too tight in the seat." Judge Smails, Caddyshack.

"Every man with a bellyful of the classics is an enemy of the human race." Henry Miller.

1979 - Generation Perdu







Post#10550 at 01-16-2006 11:08 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
01-16-2006, 11:08 AM #10550
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

We hold these truths

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. John Gray
The idea that we must choose between liberalism and relativism reflects
the poverty of the contemporary political imagination and a disabling
loss of historical memory. Kwame Anthony Appiah's
Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers is a welcome
attempt to resurrect an older tradition of moral and political
reflection and to show its relevance to our current condition. Appiah,
a professor of philosophy at Princeton, seeks to
revive cosmopolitanism, a view of humans as citizens of the world that
was advanced by the Cynics in Greece in the fourth century BCE and
elaborated by Stoic philosophers in Roman times. In Appiah's view
cosmopolitanism has two intertwined strands: the idea that we have
obligations to other human beings above and beyond those to whom we are
related by ties of family, kinship or formal citizenship; and an
attitude that values others not just as specimens of universal humanity
but as having lives whose meaning is bound up with particular practices
and beliefs that are often different from our own. Appiah sees this
cosmopolitan perspective re-emerging in the Enlightenment and expressed in the
1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Kant's idea
of a League of Nations.


As a position in ethical theory, cosmopolitanism is distinct from
relativism and universalism. It affirms the possibility of mutual understanding between
adherents to different moralities but without
holding out the promise of any ultimate consensus. There are human
universals that make species-wide communication possible--and yet these
commonalities do not ground anything like a single universally
valid morality or way of life. Clearly this is a position that carries
within it a certain tension. The idea that we have universal moral
obligations is not always easily reconciled with the practices and
beliefs that give particular human lives their meaning.
Appiah recognizes this tension, and writes: "There will be
times when these two ideals--universal concern and respect for
legitimate difference--clash. There's a sense in which
cosmopolitanism is the name not of the solution but of the challenge."
Quote Originally Posted by JG
... Again, Michel de
Montaigne is surely one of the great early modern exponents of
cosmopolitan ethics. He affirmed a common humanity transcending
differences of custom and tradition--and at the same time denied that
any one way of life was best for everyone. These modern cosmopolitans
were too aware of the intractability of human affairs to imagine that
great human evils such as anarchy, war and tyranny could be overcome by
seeking to make a single form of government universal. They believed--to
my mind rightly--that pursuing such a goal would only add to the
sum of human evils. Nothing could be more alien to these cosmopolitan
thinkers than the missionary certainties of the kind of liberalism that
seeks to establish one type of regime throughout the world.

There is a strange presumption in recent thought about human values.
When we think about basic issues in ethics and politics, it is taken as
a given that we face a choice between liberalism and relativism.
Believing that human values are cultural constructions that vary widely
across time and space, relativists urge us to be conscious of
difference. If they have a political message it is one of tolerance:
"Don't try to impose your way of life on others; be sensitive to the
claims of cultural minorities in your own society." Liberals, on the
other hand, insist that there are requirements of justice or rights that
apply to all human beings regardless of the communities or cultures to
which they belong. The liberal political message is one of universalism:
"The human species is--or may one day become--a single moral community
in which the same values are honored everywhere." Either we commit ourselves to liberal universalism or we must embrace moral relativism.
-----------------------------------------