so he is proposing we should teach dates, names, and statistics instead of teaching ideas and abstract thought?
Names dates and stats are the basis for formulating convincing rhetoric. Rhetoric is constructed with analysis and abstract thought, but one must KNOW something about the world to construct it.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Conservatives base their morality on moral objectivism. That is: big government is NEVER okay, welfare is NEVER okay, etc.
what about corporate welfare?
what about the huge growth in government we saw w/ reagan, bush and jr??
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
You're failing to prove why there still aren't the eternal truths that VDH speaks about. VDH is talking about the system of education - not the students. He's blaming himself and our parents.
That's what I'm saying : there are no eternal truth. There never was any and chances are there never will be any (leaving math out of this). Because truth is dependant on knowledge and knowledge is not static. What we know today invalidates what my father learned in college (before the 60's) : the truths he learnt will not help him make sense out of the current chaos. For example take a look at one of Ahnimus' thread on brain damage, the ideas and knowledge there were unknown just 20 years ago and they have an influence on law, philosophy and may even explain some historical events.
Then there's also where you come from, your cultural background etc. There again, there will never be eternal truthts : history taught in asia will leave you different lessons than history taught in the us, does this mean on is more stupid than the other?
So in the end, as our knowledge evolves, not only in volume but also by correcting what we thought was right but proves to be wrong, we have to have a dynamic education system. It's a sad thing but King Lear will not always be relevant, because things change including the english language.
So this guys believes King Lear provides insight into life that more matches his view of how humans should think.. than rap music? and is more relevant?
hmmm
and he thinks that teaching about our society more as it is today is bad? We should teach how it was a long time ago?
He believes there is absolute truth - and he knows what it is and it should be arranged that everyone else knows it?
And he believes he knows the answer to the questions he asserts that modern college student don't? oh please enlighten us.... Stop the suspense!
There are plenty of liberals who find the current higher education system to be completely ruined for the same reasons as VDH. They would agree with VDH. Some of you are turning this into an Us vs. Them issue because you're a bunch of leftist hacks who couldn't think critically if your lives depended on it. This is about intellectual standards in higher education.
As for Kabong's questions:
Bush is not a conservative.
Kann:
Just because you say it doesn't make it true.
Abuskedti:
I can barely comprehend what you wrote.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Educate yourself. You've got some work to do on that front.
O.K., so, now that I've cooled down a bit.
You're absolutely right. Moral Relativism as a philosophy takes an extreme angle. However, you're the one calling out moral relativism where it isn't being applied. From the beginning I've said that what you're pointing out as moral relativism isn't moral relativism. I use you as an example, showing how you can take a relative position depending on the circumstances (WWII). "But I'm not a moral relativist" you scream. You're right, you're not.
And the people who view morality different than you are not necessarily, either. However, you refuse to admit that, and start calling people moral relativists, "proving" (not very well, mind you) that moral relativism is false and therefore conclude that you have been right all along.
And to prove your point, you paste a description of moral relativism that states it's extreme angle and claim you can't be a moral relativist because you believe in moral absolutes. Right? Well, what makes you different? How do you know the overall moral outlook of the people you are debating with? Answer, you don't. However, you need them to be what you claim them to be in order to further your argument. If they're not, it doesn't work - and when they claim they're not what you claim them to be, you tell them they can't make that argument. Debating with you is like the following:
CorporateWhore: Dude, you're a homosexual.
RainDog: What the hell are you talking about? I had sex with my girlfriend last night.
CorporateWhore: See! I knew there was no such thing as a real homosexual.
There are plenty of liberals who find the current higher education system to be completely ruined for the same reasons as VDH. They would agree with VDH. Some of you are turning this into an Us vs. Them issue because you're a bunch of leftist hacks who couldn't think critically if your lives depended on it. This is about intellectual standards in higher education.
As for Kabong's questions:
Bush is not a conservative.
And here's another example of what I'm getting at. El Kabong mentioned more than just George Bush.
And in the first paragraph here, you pushing what you need "liberals" to be in order for them to fit in with your worldview. Again - False.
There are plenty of liberals who find the current higher education system to be completely ruined for the same reasons as VDH. They would agree with VDH. Some of you are turning this into an Us vs. Them issue because you're a bunch of leftist hacks who couldn't think critically if your lives depended on it. This is about intellectual standards in higher education.
I am quite certain no rightist hacks would ever read this, buy it hook-line-and-sinker without giving it much thought and say "(insert right-wing pundit) was right! College is a conspiracy to turn us all into liberals."
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
From the beginning I've said that what you're pointing out as moral relativism isn't moral relativism. I use you as an example, showing how you can take a relative position depending on the circumstances (WWII).
This is the cruxt of your problem. You're the one confusing what real moral relativism is. I never said it was anything else than what it is.
"...Nor is ethical relativism merely the idea that different people have different beliefs about ethics, which again no one would deny. It is, rather, a theory about the status of moral beliefs, according to which none of them is objectively true. A consequence of the theory is that there is no way to justify any moral principle as valid for all people and all societies."
Encyclopia Brittanica cannot be argued with. I was discussing moral relativism, while you insisted on discussing something else. VDH was talking about the type of moral relativism that the enecyclopia Brittanica discusses.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
This is the cruxt of your problem. You're the one confusing what real moral relativism is. I never said it was anything else than what it is.
"...Nor is ethical relativism merely the idea that different people have different beliefs about ethics, which again no one would deny. It is, rather, a theory about the status of moral beliefs, according to which none of them is objectively true. A consequence of the theory is that there is no way to justify any moral principle as valid for all people and all societies."
Encyclopia Brittanica cannot be argued with. I was discussing moral relativism, while you insisted on discussing something else. VDH was talking about the type of moral relativism that the enecyclopia Brittanica discusses.
That still doesn't change the fact that you were pointing out moral relativism in posters on this board where it didn't necessarily exist.
You're not getting at anything. You're confusing yourself.
I'm not "pushing" anything. I KNOW liberals who believe the same as VDH.
Good for you for knowing people. Still doesn't change my point. You need liberals to be a certain way in order for your arguments to work. Not all liberals are how you need them to be.
This is the cruxt of your problem. You're the one confusing what real moral relativism is. I never said it was anything else than what it is..
And I never said you implied that the definition of moral relativism as a philosophy is anything other than what it is. I'm saying you're applying it to people who are not necessarily moral relativists. You broaden the term to include everyone you need it to include. Only when it was turned on you did you start crying that "that's not what moral relativism is."
Well, my only point was that since I know liberals who agree with VDH, then this is not a political issue. It's an intellectual issue.
The type of educational system that you support should be compared on its merits to the type that VDH supports. VDH discusses it and after 8 pages on this message board, we've come no closer to proving him wrong. Tells you something.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
And I never said you implied that the definition of moral relativism as a philosophy is anything other than what it is. I'm saying you're applying it to people who are not necessarily moral relativists. You broaden the term to include everyone you need it to include. Only when it was turned on you did you start crying that "that's not what moral relativism is."
No, the people I applied it to are moral relativists.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Well, my only point was that since I know liberals who agree with VDH, then this is not a political issue. It's an intellectual issue.
The type of educational system that you support should be compared on its merits to the type that VDH supports. VDH discusses it and after 8 pages on this message board, we've come no closer to proving him wrong. Tells you something.
god dammit...I still want to know if I can call someone a "ho" if I'm a white male with little or no influence...?
the great VDH (<----he he he, sounds like a pro wrestling name) is not very clear...
nor are you and your circular arguments...
for those who were wondering, my loincloth is a smash hit....the chicks really dig it...I did bring my spear...but not the one used for killin...killin is wrong, unless, of course your killin an innocent person to save the lives of other innocent people...
If I were British, I'd say that Victor Davis Hanson is a crashing bore, but I guess it'd be more appropriate for me to simply call him an annoying tool. His Imus bit was pretty retarded. Does Hanson really believe that no one except him was brilliant and incisive enough to come up with the "Snoop Dogg does it too!" defense for Imus? The hypocrisy was pointed out ENDLESSLY by everyone who defended Imus. Leaders in the black community have been complaning about the content of rap lyrics for years. They didn't need the Socratic deductive powers of the VDH to uncover these truths.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
Well, my only point was that since I know liberals who agree with VDH, then this is not a political issue. It's an intellectual issue.
The type of educational system that you support should be compared on its merits to the type that VDH supports. VDH discusses it and after 8 pages on this message board, we've come no closer to proving him wrong. Tells you something.
When did I say I supported a type of educational system? I came in here to say that what people believe to be "right" does in fact change over time.
No, the people I applied it to are moral relativists.
Well, you attempted to apply it to me, and I'm not. So that should "tell you something."
By the philosophical definition of moral relativism, there are only two ways to determine if someone is a moral relativist. 1. That person tells you they are a moral relativist. 2. Ask every possible question regarding every possible aspect of every possible society and see if he or she gives a relative answer every time.
Which, again, takes me back to my original point; that "it isn't so much that we're changing what's right and wrong, but that what you see as moral relativism is really more "what was wrong then is wrong now" coming to light."
If I were British, I'd say that Victor Davis Hanson is a crashing bore, but I guess it'd be more appropriate for me to simply call him an annoying tool. His Imus bit was pretty retarded. Does Hanson really believe that no one except him was brilliant and incisive enough to come up with the "Snoop Dogg does it too!" defense for Imus? The hypocrisy was pointed out ENDLESSLY by everyone who defended Imus. Leaders in the black community have been complaning about the content of rap lyrics for years. They didn't need the Socratic deductive powers of the VDH to uncover these truths.
LOL "Leaders in the black community." The same ones that just burief the N word? Real winners there.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
LOL "Leaders in the black community." The same ones that just burief the N word? Real winners there.
What exactly does that have to do with the point I made about the VDH's assumptions about his own philosophical brillance? Sounds to me like you're just trying to defend your boycrush on the VDH in a passive/aggressive way.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
Well, you attempted to apply it to me, and I'm not. So that should "tell you something."
By the philosophical definition of moral relativism, there are only two ways to determine if someone is a moral relativist. 1. That person tells you they are a moral relativist. 2. Ask every possible question regarding every possible aspect of every possible society and see if he or she gives a relative answer every time.
Which, again, takes me back to my original point; that "it isn't so much that we're changing what's right and wrong, but that what you see as moral relativism is really more "what was wrong then is wrong now" coming to light."
No one is a pure moral relativist. People frequently use it to make arguments though, and those arguments are always false.
That is not how I see moral relativism. If someone attempts to say that "killing my born baby is okay for me but it isn't okay for you," that's moral relativism. The morality of the act changes depending on the people, place, or time of the act. The left uses this all the time.
The left uses it in regard to many things, abortion being one. Pro-lifers see abortion as murder. But, pro-choicers frequently say that they wouldn't have an abortion, but they support others' right to have an abortion. This is a morally relativist viewpoint. It's okay for you in your situation but it's not okay for me.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
No one is a pure moral relativist. People frequently use it to make arguments though, and those arguments are always false.
That is not how I see moral relativism. If someone attempts to say that "killing my born baby is okay for me but it isn't okay for you," that's moral relativism. The morality of the act changes depending on the people, place, or time of the act. The left uses this all the time.
The left uses it in regard to many things, abortion being one. Pro-lifers see abortion as murder. But, pro-choicers frequently say that they wouldn't have an abortion, but they support others' right to have an abortion. This is a morally relativist viewpoint. It's okay for you in your situation but it's not okay for me.
Is that not the best way to deal with a subject like abortion though...its the equivalent of being for a war and understanding innocent loss of life is okay..although you "hate" to see it happen...same fucking shit....all this moral blah-blah can be spinned to fit any agenda not just the "left" (or as I call it Nike) or the "right" (Adidas)
No one is a pure moral relativist. People frequently use it to make arguments though, and those arguments are always false.
That is not how I see moral relativism. If someone attempts to say that "killing my born baby is okay for me but it isn't okay for you," that's moral relativism. The morality of the act changes depending on the people, place, or time of the act. The left uses this all the time.
The left uses it in regard to many things, abortion being one. Pro-lifers see abortion as murder. But, pro-choicers frequently say that they wouldn't have an abortion, but they support others' right to have an abortion. This is a morally relativist viewpoint. It's okay for you in your situation but it's not okay for me.
So by this rationale, you are admitting that you, too, are a moral relativist from time to time (back to the killing/WWII argument). Then why the need to point out the philosophical definition of moral relativism? I mean, if no one is as extreme as that, what was the point?
Because it's a conservative buzz word. You need it.
"Value pluralism (also known as ethical pluralism or moral pluralism) is the idea that there are several values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other."
I haven't said that once so I'm not sure where you're getting that neat buzz word. Maybe you heard it from one of your beanie-wearing pals at Starbucks.
I've said that moral relativism cannot exist if moral objectivism is true. Moral objectivism is true. Therefore, moral relativism cannot exist.
If any morally objective statement is true, then moral relativism fails. Moral relativism is never the correct way to find the answer to a moral problem. It assumes that morality changes with time and attitudes, but it does not. It remains the same. We are the ones trying to discern it. We are changing, becoming closer to the correct moral outlook with time. Human rights are more important today than they were 1000 years ago. That is a drift toward right moral thinking, based on the dignity of human life.
As for murder vs. killing, I'm not sure where to begin.
Murder is wrong by definition - killing innocent people can never be justified. Killing can be justified if it is in defense of innocent life.
this is funny coming from someone who supports or at least initially supported the war in iraq and supports the death penalty!
as for your question if we're really trying to kill civillians....maybe not outright, we don't say 'ok, go kill some innocent ppl!' but we don't take steps to minimize it.
of the 4 bombs dropped in the initial attack on iraq a few years ago 3 of them missed their targets and landed in a civilian area
soldiers will open fire blindly when an ied goes off or they come under fire
cluster bombs
DU munitions
White Phosphorus munitions
the whole concept of shock and awe everyone, even toby keith loves, is based on the targeting of the civillian populace!
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
this is funny coming from someone who supports or at least initially supported the war in iraq and supports the death penalty!
as for your question if we're really trying to kill civillians....maybe not outright, we don't say 'ok, go kill some innocent ppl!' but we don't take steps to minimize it.
of the 4 bombs dropped in the initial attack on iraq a few years ago 3 of them missed their targets and landed in a civilian area
soldiers will open fire blindly when an ied goes off or they come under fire
cluster bombs
DU munitions
White Phosphorus munitions
the whole concept of shock and awe everyone, even toby keith loves, is based on the targeting of the civillian populace!
Nah, not really.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
and wouldn't the 'war is different, innocents just die' mean 9/11 was nothing too special? just collateral damage?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Comments
He's a modern day Ivan 'ho, aint he?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Names dates and stats are the basis for formulating convincing rhetoric. Rhetoric is constructed with analysis and abstract thought, but one must KNOW something about the world to construct it.
-Enoch Powell
what about corporate welfare?
what about the huge growth in government we saw w/ reagan, bush and jr??
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
That's what I'm saying : there are no eternal truth. There never was any and chances are there never will be any (leaving math out of this). Because truth is dependant on knowledge and knowledge is not static. What we know today invalidates what my father learned in college (before the 60's) : the truths he learnt will not help him make sense out of the current chaos. For example take a look at one of Ahnimus' thread on brain damage, the ideas and knowledge there were unknown just 20 years ago and they have an influence on law, philosophy and may even explain some historical events.
Then there's also where you come from, your cultural background etc. There again, there will never be eternal truthts : history taught in asia will leave you different lessons than history taught in the us, does this mean on is more stupid than the other?
So in the end, as our knowledge evolves, not only in volume but also by correcting what we thought was right but proves to be wrong, we have to have a dynamic education system. It's a sad thing but King Lear will not always be relevant, because things change including the english language.
hmmm
and he thinks that teaching about our society more as it is today is bad? We should teach how it was a long time ago?
He believes there is absolute truth - and he knows what it is and it should be arranged that everyone else knows it?
And he believes he knows the answer to the questions he asserts that modern college student don't? oh please enlighten us.... Stop the suspense!
As for Kabong's questions:
Bush is not a conservative.
Kann:
Just because you say it doesn't make it true.
Abuskedti:
I can barely comprehend what you wrote.
-Enoch Powell
That's one of my life's greatest tradegy.
(sorry, i'm bored)
You're absolutely right. Moral Relativism as a philosophy takes an extreme angle. However, you're the one calling out moral relativism where it isn't being applied. From the beginning I've said that what you're pointing out as moral relativism isn't moral relativism. I use you as an example, showing how you can take a relative position depending on the circumstances (WWII). "But I'm not a moral relativist" you scream. You're right, you're not.
And the people who view morality different than you are not necessarily, either. However, you refuse to admit that, and start calling people moral relativists, "proving" (not very well, mind you) that moral relativism is false and therefore conclude that you have been right all along.
And to prove your point, you paste a description of moral relativism that states it's extreme angle and claim you can't be a moral relativist because you believe in moral absolutes. Right? Well, what makes you different? How do you know the overall moral outlook of the people you are debating with? Answer, you don't. However, you need them to be what you claim them to be in order to further your argument. If they're not, it doesn't work - and when they claim they're not what you claim them to be, you tell them they can't make that argument. Debating with you is like the following:
CorporateWhore: Dude, you're a homosexual.
RainDog: What the hell are you talking about? I had sex with my girlfriend last night.
CorporateWhore: See! I knew there was no such thing as a real homosexual.
Talk about false.
And in the first paragraph here, you pushing what you need "liberals" to be in order for them to fit in with your worldview. Again - False.
I am quite certain no rightist hacks would ever read this, buy it hook-line-and-sinker without giving it much thought and say "(insert right-wing pundit) was right! College is a conspiracy to turn us all into liberals."
This is the cruxt of your problem. You're the one confusing what real moral relativism is. I never said it was anything else than what it is.
"...Nor is ethical relativism merely the idea that different people have different beliefs about ethics, which again no one would deny. It is, rather, a theory about the status of moral beliefs, according to which none of them is objectively true. A consequence of the theory is that there is no way to justify any moral principle as valid for all people and all societies."
Encyclopia Brittanica cannot be argued with. I was discussing moral relativism, while you insisted on discussing something else. VDH was talking about the type of moral relativism that the enecyclopia Brittanica discusses.
-Enoch Powell
You're not getting at anything. You're confusing yourself.
I'm not "pushing" anything. I KNOW liberals who believe the same as VDH.
-Enoch Powell
Well, my only point was that since I know liberals who agree with VDH, then this is not a political issue. It's an intellectual issue.
The type of educational system that you support should be compared on its merits to the type that VDH supports. VDH discusses it and after 8 pages on this message board, we've come no closer to proving him wrong. Tells you something.
-Enoch Powell
No, the people I applied it to are moral relativists.
-Enoch Powell
god dammit...I still want to know if I can call someone a "ho" if I'm a white male with little or no influence...?
the great VDH (<----he he he, sounds like a pro wrestling name) is not very clear...
nor are you and your circular arguments...
for those who were wondering, my loincloth is a smash hit....the chicks really dig it...I did bring my spear...but not the one used for killin...killin is wrong, unless, of course your killin an innocent person to save the lives of other innocent people...
By the philosophical definition of moral relativism, there are only two ways to determine if someone is a moral relativist. 1. That person tells you they are a moral relativist. 2. Ask every possible question regarding every possible aspect of every possible society and see if he or she gives a relative answer every time.
Which, again, takes me back to my original point; that "it isn't so much that we're changing what's right and wrong, but that what you see as moral relativism is really more "what was wrong then is wrong now" coming to light."
LOL "Leaders in the black community." The same ones that just burief the N word? Real winners there.
-Enoch Powell
What exactly does that have to do with the point I made about the VDH's assumptions about his own philosophical brillance? Sounds to me like you're just trying to defend your boycrush on the VDH in a passive/aggressive way.
No one is a pure moral relativist. People frequently use it to make arguments though, and those arguments are always false.
That is not how I see moral relativism. If someone attempts to say that "killing my born baby is okay for me but it isn't okay for you," that's moral relativism. The morality of the act changes depending on the people, place, or time of the act. The left uses this all the time.
The left uses it in regard to many things, abortion being one. Pro-lifers see abortion as murder. But, pro-choicers frequently say that they wouldn't have an abortion, but they support others' right to have an abortion. This is a morally relativist viewpoint. It's okay for you in your situation but it's not okay for me.
-Enoch Powell
Is that not the best way to deal with a subject like abortion though...its the equivalent of being for a war and understanding innocent loss of life is okay..although you "hate" to see it happen...same fucking shit....all this moral blah-blah can be spinned to fit any agenda not just the "left" (or as I call it Nike) or the "right" (Adidas)
Because it's a conservative buzz word. You need it.
this is funny coming from someone who supports or at least initially supported the war in iraq and supports the death penalty!
as for your question if we're really trying to kill civillians....maybe not outright, we don't say 'ok, go kill some innocent ppl!' but we don't take steps to minimize it.
of the 4 bombs dropped in the initial attack on iraq a few years ago 3 of them missed their targets and landed in a civilian area
soldiers will open fire blindly when an ied goes off or they come under fire
cluster bombs
DU munitions
White Phosphorus munitions
the whole concept of shock and awe everyone, even toby keith loves, is based on the targeting of the civillian populace!
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Nah, not really.
-Enoch Powell
not even a bit?
and wouldn't the 'war is different, innocents just die' mean 9/11 was nothing too special? just collateral damage?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way