View Poll Results: Mmm?

Voters
2. You may not vote on this poll
  • I'm a liberal, liberals are coherentists.

    0 0%
  • I'm a liberal, liberals are foundationalists.

    1 50.00%
  • I'm not a liberal, liberals are coherentists.

    0 0%
  • I'm not a liberal, liberals are foundationalists.

    1 50.00%
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 71

Thread: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

  1. #41
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,091

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    We should really have some sort of bipartisan committee deciding who gets to join the forum and who doesn't. I say something like 30 active members. 10 Liberals, 10 Conservatives and 10 Libertarians (picked randomly every time). Somebody who wants to join is given the task of writing a political essay. If a majority of those 15 people understand it, the person is allowed to join. If it's ramblings like that of this thread, we reject them until they can write something sensical. I think it would improve the quality of the forum.

    As far as this thread is concerned,

    .... wtf?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    We should really have some sort of bipartisan committee deciding who gets to join the forum and who doesn't. I say something like 30 active members. 10 Liberals, 10 Conservatives and 10 Libertarians (picked randomly every time). Somebody who wants to join is given the task of writing a political essay. If a majority of those 15 people understand it, the person is allowed to join. If it's ramblings like that of this thread, we reject them until they can write something sensical. I think it would improve the quality of the forum.

    As far as this thread is concerned,

    .... wtf?
    I'll do you one better.

    Why don't you ask children what they believe in before graduating them from school?

    Actually, why don't you ask children what they believe in before allowing them into school?

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    The whole thing about the weak, sensitive and so on, is just an assersion, you don't get that at all,
    Why would coherentists care about weak members of society? These are people who literally can't even speak up about their utility preferences.

    The same goes for the strange. Leftists don't care about strange utility preferences. They care about equal utility preferences. Those who are difficult to work with get forgotten as unproductive or expensive.

    and as I said leftists DON'T buy into ONLY cohesion, NO ONE does, not one person, even nihilists , of coarse things have to be coherant, but that doesn't mean there are no foundations, so your juts making **** up.
    Can you show what foundations leftists base on?

    Your idea of what conservatism is says it all, due process and rule of law, but a very specific kind, only the ones that defend the systems of power.

    As far as property comming from properness, thats an assersion, property comes from power, and threat of violence, always has always will, the appeal to properness is an afterthought to defend it.
    I never said anything about power. In fact, I referred directly to Habermas' discourse ethics.

    i AM a leftist ... and I've STUDIED Marx, I've studied MANY interpretations of Marx ...

    So if I were you I would shut your mouth trying to tell me what Marxism is about.
    What did I get wrong?

    A: Most leftists are not strict historical materialists, or moral nihilists, infact the vast majority are not.
    B: Foucault ultimately DID care about liberty, but he rightly pointed out that the concepts of liberty in society are shaped by the class structure.
    C: Lefitsts never claimed that people are not different ....
    D: Leftists were the ones that made liberty possible in the world
    E: No arguments here juts baseless assersions.

    Look, I'm gonna need some actual proper arguments, not just bull**** asserssions.

    Leftists care about liberty, REAL liberty, not liberty for those who can afford it.
    Liberty isn't real. It's ideal.

    I'm not sure how you can discern power from liberty if you don't understand that.

    I'm really not sure how you interpreted Foucault as being about liberty either. He even talked about conflict being the height of life (biopower) and the driving force of social progress.

    A: the whole rugged individualism is a strawman, I never said anything about that.

    B: My example of children is an example of what an argument justifying authority could be .... But if you think parents should not be able to say anything to their kids then fine, thats an argument to be had.

    C: What your saying about you supposed socialist society is a strawman, your just making **** up. A socialist society (I do NOT, nor do most leftists buy into early Marx's models, which were made specifically for a certain time and place) is nothing more than a democratization of the economy.

    People under capitalism work only to have their needs satisfied, what your describing is Capitalism, socail values come from different sources than the economy, and imaginatevely cultivating culture in Capitalism is only something you can do if you can afford it, socialism wants to extend that ability to everyone.

    Look man, I want to read REAL arguments, no more of this strawman, redherring, made up bull****.
    Democratization enslaves supply to demand. Literally, you have to take the means of production away from those who produce more to those who consume more.

    How that's liberty, I don't know.

    As for parenting, I never said that parents can't say anything to their kids. If anything, they have to because children aren't born with social customs or values in their heads. Parents have to familiarize their children.

    The problem arises when parents tell their kids to produce because children don't consent to exist. Hunger, exhaustion, and coldness are pressed upon them, not asked for.

  4. #44
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,787

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria View Post
    One of the problems I have a lot when debating with liberals is their very sense of justice seems to be backwards. They seem to believe that something is justified only if it's surrounded by compatible circumstances, ignoring the value of something itself.

    The first belief is called coherentism. The second belief is called foundationalism.

    Obviously, coherentism is circular because it begs to know why something coheres in the first place. You can't have a puzzle without puzzle pieces.

    A liberal response typically goes that it doesn't matter what the particular puzzle pieces are. It just matters that they fit together.

    The problem, of course, is that raises the question, "How do we know what fits in the first place?"

    Liberals typically claim that "what fits" spontaneously emerges among dynamic interactions between people.

    Unfortunately, liberals don't seem to care that spontaneous emergence doesn't necessarily yield compatible solutions. It's at this point that we see that liberals are tyrants. They don't care if slim minorities fall through the cracks of society. They just care about the big picture as long as the minority is too insignificant to be bothered. This is why liberals love free speech and democracy - they love how people can be intimidated from appeals to absurdity, and they love to employ mob justice in forsakening independents who don't conform. To boot, they can claim that they tried by giving people a shot to fit in, so they don't have anymore due diligence to be responsible for.

    Ironically, this appeal to democratic popular sovereignty is how liberals become elitists. For example, lets say liberals claim that 1% of society is a tolerable insignificant minority that can be allowed to fall through the cracks for any particular issue. Given a society which has multiple issues...

    99% * 99% = 98%
    98% * 99% = 97%
    97% * 99% = 96%

    If society multiplies 69 issues, this leads to only 50% of society being compatible across the board.

    If society multiplies 229 issues, this leads to only 10% of society being compatible across the board.

    If society multiplies 458 issues, this leads to 1% of society being compatible across the board.

    Issues don't have to be big matters here. We don't have to be talking about abortion, gay marriage, gun rights, income equality, environmental protection, or labor reform.

    They can be simple things. Things like, "When should people be allowed to play music into the night?" or "Where should a road be built?" or "Should we teach school curriculum this way or that way?"

    The point is liberal coherentism doesn't actually include all people. It just includes most people, and when "most people" gets repeated over and over, this leads to a very small minority actually being compatible with what society stands for.

    It also leads to social tyranny because those who are more compatible over more issues are treated as superior to those who are less compatible.
    The more of this post I read, the less of it I understand. And I'm trying really, really, REALLY hard to understand it.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  5. #45
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,091

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria View Post
    I'll do you one better.

    Why don't you ask children what they believe in before graduating them from school?

    Actually, why don't you ask children what they believe in before allowing them into school?
    Don't try the harder levels until you comprehend the simpler stuff. You might hurt yourself.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Don't try the harder levels until you comprehend the simpler stuff. You might hurt yourself.
    Exactly.

    Why does society graduate people into adulthood (or enroll them in school) without asking about legal concepts?

  7. #47
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    We should really have some sort of bipartisan committee deciding who gets to join the forum and who doesn't. I say something like 30 active members. 10 Liberals, 10 Conservatives and 10 Libertarians (picked randomly every time). Somebody who wants to join is given the task of writing a political essay. If a majority of those 15 people understand it, the person is allowed to join. If it's ramblings like that of this thread, we reject them until they can write something sensical. I think it would improve the quality of the forum.

    As far as this thread is concerned,

    .... wtf?
    At least he wasnt as bad as the pragmatarianism guy.

  8. #48
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,091

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    At least he wasnt as bad as the pragmatarianism guy.
    Is that the dude with the Rubik's cube?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  9. #49
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Is that the dude with the Rubik's cube?
    No the pragmatarianism guy had the idea that all budgets should be subject to national referendum.

    The rubik's cube guy was the origami guy I think and he was also far worse than dak, he was more of the cube guy kind of insane.

  10. #50
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,091

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    No the pragmatarianism guy had the idea that all budgets should be subject to national referendum.

    The rubik's cube guy was the origami guy I think and he was also far worse than dak, he was more of the cube guy kind of insane.
    I knew it was some sort of math game. Were you around when chuzlife was here? That was a piece of work.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •