creation

Yes, is there some wider international violent conflict on going in Holland? Or is that example you bring up really just an immigration issue in Holland?



That is exactly my view, thank you. Yet Gardener seems to be intent on informing me that I am something other than a liberal because I sympathise with the national cause of a people who, due to their Arab traditions are less liberal than us in the West.

This is a curious position of his/ hers that I hope can be explained. After all, were the Indians less entitled to be rid of the British because of the status of their women?
Indeed, must liberalism be enforced across the world? Or even be a condition of support?

mbig

The conflict in Holland is absolutely wider-- stretching [at least] across Europe and Scandinavia/'The West'.
This is obvious.

Liberalism doesn't have to be "enforced across the World" (strawman alert)... but it should absolutely be Protected (a protected value) in countries socially advanced enough to enjoy it and wanting to keep it.
Posing otherwise is Disingenous.. about where the first section I quoted was as well.
-

__________________
"Whether it comes from a despotic sovereign or an elected president, from a murderous general or a beloved leader, I see power as an inhuman and hateful phenomenon. . . I have always looked on disobedience toward the oppressive as the only way to use the miracle of having been born." -- Oriana Fallaci

creation

Fair enough, an interesting point.

I must admit, I also find the opposing ideas presented here utterly foul. I also detest the attempts to bait and disdain people who hold opposing views.

Im sure we can both agree here.





Indeed, yet I cannot subscribe to this for the simple reason that the opposition to Isreal came primarily and firstly from inside Palestine itself.

creation

What definition of international conflict are you using here? Are Peacekeeprs required?


Agreed. So why shouldnt the Palestinians be supported in their cause by liberals?

mbig

I was responding to a conflict of Ideas. (strawman alert again).
though physical conflict would be possible/inevitable at some point as Islam achieves a certain population threshold.
ie, in instances like cartoon violence, Dutch assassination, the French Riots, etc.

This is a complete Deflection. Not a reply.

Nevertheless... a response... Palestinians/Arabs generally ARE supported in their objective of a state by liberals (including by Centrist Zionists like me), just Not in Eliminating the Jews a way to do that, as they have for 60 years.
Still in the Hamas Charter. (A liberal's worst Nightmare)

__________________
"Whether it comes from a despotic sovereign or an elected president, from a murderous general or a beloved leader, I see power as an inhuman and hateful phenomenon. . . I have always looked on disobedience toward the oppressive as the only way to use the miracle of having been born." -- Oriana Fallaci

bub

No you can't

I do realize that socialism is about keynesian policies, where the state plays a major role in fighting inequalities, and that you, as a libertarian, defend the exact opposite.

I also realize that in fascist states, the state also plays a major role. But that's the only common point between socialism and fascism. On the contrary,
- socialists are internationalists while fascists are strongly nationalists.
- Socialists defend the society as a whole while fascists have repeteadly cleansed their minorities
- socialists are the ones who brought the vote right to women and workers, fascists are opposed to democracy
and especially
- fascists are strongly opposed to socialism and everything that is left wing. Didn't the nazi go to war against bolchevists?

__________________
===|:-)

creation

Thank you.

So not an overt conflict then, that one would normally have resolutions about at the UN or apply sanctions in regards to etc etc.


A deflection?

I was speaking of why I am referred to as a non-liberal, what were you speaking of?

In any case, I suspect we both agree that eliminating anyone is not a good idea.

Gardener

You have been most adament about rejecting time-honored liberal principles when presented to you, and have yet to advance any principle that is at all liberal in nature. In your blind support, you support the terrorist tactics of an illiberal people, the attitudes of an illiberal people, and support the racist hatred of an illiberal people.

Despite the fact that you want others to think you are a liberal for doing so and have offered circular, self-serving sophistry to the effect you must be a liberal because liberals support Palestinians blindly, you are not actually liberal in attitude.

You sound rather more like somebody from the Muslim Brotherhood than a liberal here.

__________________
You lack lust; you're so lackluster. Is that all the strength you can muster?

Agnapostate

What's remarkable is the absurdity of that comment. Fascism and socialism are utterly contradictory doctrines.

This is also wrong, actually. Keynesianism is specifically designed for the sustainment of capitalism (it's often inaccurately described as any "government intervention"), and libertarianism originated as an explicitly socialist and anti-state ideology.

__________________
The workmen desire to get as much, the master to give as little as possible...It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. -Adam Smith

creation

Thank you.

What principles have i rejected?

Surely justice is a liberal principle of the highest order. Is it not?


What makes you say these things? Have I written something that gives support to racism? To terror?

Obviously not, but Id be glad to hear of it.

This is curious, you are long on accusations but rather short on detail. Why am I not liberal in attitude?