Free Speech...protecting the Right

Main discussion area is here. Reply to a message to continue a discussion thread, or create your own new Topics.
User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

...on the Kock Brothers SPEECH...

Postby Crux » 2011 Feb 28 12:58

Of course they do speak...and they are vilified. I really didn't know much about them, but have had to suss out a little info because of the Left's WEIRD selective outrage directed towards THESE billionaires. Here is a nice little blurb about all the HUBBUB...

crux
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

The Prism we Peer Through

Postby Wise One » 2011 Aug 03 09:30

On August 2, 2011, GARY GUTTING in the NYT wrote:Are Your Political Opponents Crazy?

Opposing sides in political debates often characterize one another as crazy, or a bit more politely, “irrational.” John McCain, for example, recently said that the view of opponents of the debt-limit increase was “worse than foolish” and “bizzaro.” Paul Krugman suggested that President Obama’s desire to compromise on the debt-limit might be “obsessive and compulsive.” Even Elizabeth Drew, reporting on the debt-limit process, writes, “Were they all insane? That’s not a far-fetched question.” In less vivid terms, the claim is typically that a rival group’s thinking is dominated by a mind-muddling ideology that cannot be supported by rational argument.

People are, of course, frequently irrational; they ignore obvious facts or make silly mistakes in reasoning. But the mere failure to support some of your basic claims with good logical arguments does not show that you are irrational. Any argument requires premises that it assumes and does not prove. We may construct a further argument for an unproven premise, but that argument will itself have unproven premises. That’s why even mathematics, the most thoroughly rational enterprise we have, begins with unproven axioms.

Does it follow that all arguments are ultimately irrational? No, all that follows is that logicality (proof by logical argument) is not the same as rationality. There are ways of rationally accepting a claim that you can’t prove by argument.

Philosophers — Descartes is usually the premier example — have sometimes thought that they could find first premises that would be totally obvious to any rational person; “self-evident” was one popular term for such premises. But it has become apparent that very few substantive claims (even in mathematics) can be established by valid arguments from totally obvious premises. We almost always need to start from assumptions that are controversial. These assumptions often correspond to what I like to call “pictures” — comprehensive views of “the lay of the land” that guide our thinking on a given topic.

Conservatives, for example, see business as primarily a source of social and economic good, achieved by the market mechanism of seeking to maximize profit. They therefore think government’s primary duty regarding businesses is to see that they are free to pursue their goal of maximizing profit. Liberals, on the other hand, think that the effort to maximize profit threatens at least as much as it contributes to our societies’ well-being. They therefore think that government’s primary duty regarding businesses is to protect citizens against business malpractice.

Of course, conservatives admit that sometimes business practices need government regulation and liberals admit that sometimes regulation is a bad idea, but in each case these are exceptions to their basic picture. While conservatives are (as Ronald Reagan put it) terrified at the words, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you,” liberals are terrified at the words, “I’m from [for example] the cable company and I’m here to help you.”

Hardly anyone holds either of these rival pictures as the result of a compelling logical argument. Pictures come to have a hold on us from a complex mixture of family influences, schooling, personal experiences, discussions with friends, reading newspapers and blogs, and more. Arguments may play a role, but they are not decisive and we simply come to feel convinced of a particular picture. Apart from clearly pathological cases, there’s nothing inappropriate or irrational about this process. It’s the way almost everyone forms basic convictions about serious matters, including not just politics but also morality and religion.

But although accepting one of these rival pictures is not irrational, inflexible adherence to it can be. Neither picture would be viable without an exception-clause that acknowledges a certain validity to the rival picture. When an issue about regulation comes up, it’s entirely appropriate (and rational) for liberals and conservatives to begin with an inclination to the response generally favored by their picture. But both sides need to attend to the specific facts of the situation at hand and take seriously the possibility that these facts give reason for invoking the exception-clause in their picture. (For example: The risk from that nuclear plant is too big to take for the sake of free market principles, or the severity of our unemployment makes it worthwhile to exempt small businesses from some record-keeping regulations.) When liberals or conservatives become incapable of thinking this way, their positions become irrational.

My point can also be helpfully expressed in some terminology due to Aristotle. Sophia (roughly, theoretical knowledge), he says, grasps universal truths, whereas phronesis (roughly, good practical judgment) is required to properly apply these truths to particular instances. Although Aristotle might disapprove, we members of a deeply pluralistic society need to admit the availability of diverse, even conflicting sources of sophia — the rival pictures I’ve been talking about. Discussions about the theoretical truth of pictures are important, but of little immediate value in the trenches of practical policy-making.

Policy-making does, however require Aristotelian phronesis, particularly in the form of an ability to recognize salient facts that require invoking the exception-clause of a guiding picture. When participants in a political dispute show themselves to lack phronesis, then we are entitled to judge them irrational.

I leave readers with the exercise of applying this analysis in their own ways to the recent debt-limit debate.

The Stone is featuring occasional posts by Gary Gutting, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, that apply critical thinking to information and events that have appeared in the news.
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

This is a good man, not a sheep.

Postby Crux » 2011 Aug 11 20:41

crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

I bid you all...

Postby Crux » 2011 Sep 02 15:07

...good by.

crux
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

whatever

Re: Free Speech...protecting the Right

Postby whatever » 2011 Sep 29 21:59

free speech is fine until you say something that goes against someone else....say something about blacks, regardless of the comment, racist.

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Take it even further.

Postby Crux » 2011 Sep 30 07:38

Look at the Diversity Bake Sale on a California college campus recently. Here is a link. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/racist- ... bake-sale/

quoting from BERKLEY:

"The bake sale, which based its price structure on race — higher pricing for white and Asian students, lower pricing for black, Hispanic and female students – was intended to expose the hypocrisy of proponents of CA Senate Bills 185 and 387, that seek to re-introduce Affirmative Action by allowing the university system to base student admissions on ethnicity."

You can imagine the Leftist students got plenty exercised about a bunch of multi-ethic right wing students holding a cupcake sale that priced the treats according to what color they were!! I am telling you as the Left gears up for it's violent protests, they will be met by the cool calm and COLLECTED.

and again HERE:

“Just like the CA Senate Bills 185 and 387 the phone bank supports, we will be considering race, gender, ethnicity, national/geographic origin and other relevant factors to ensure the equitable distribution of baked goods to our diverse student body,” the College Republicans wrote in a Facebook announcement publicizing the event, set for Tuesday.
“Hope to see you all there! If you don’t come, you’re a racist!” :lol:

crux
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 354
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

Who Needs Official Lexington Flagpoles?

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2011 Oct 05 14:36

Who Needs Official Lexington Flagpoles? Hell, here's my own flag display right here!

How many of these get your blood churning? And so what if it does, isn't a little excitement a good thing in these dreary times?

Image Image
Image Image
Image

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Neck Ain't Red

Postby Crux » 2011 Oct 05 17:28

A Leftist Lady's Dream Boat?
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Sam
Posts: 394
Joined: 2009 Jul 31 22:49

Re: Free Speech...protecting the Right

Postby Sam » 2011 Oct 05 23:01

Gotta say this is in poor taste
Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as
"extremists

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Sam check out these LOONIES!!

Postby Crux » 2011 Oct 08 22:34

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI These folks are bureaucratic socialists of the first order. Is that Coondog with the bullhorn?
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Juggler
Posts: 710
Joined: 2007 Jun 11 03:51

Re: Free Speech...protecting the Right

Postby Juggler » 2011 Oct 09 10:57

Sam wrote:Gotta say this is in poor taste
Paraphrasing what has so often been said, "Taste is in the eye of the beholder." Personally, I find beholding those lovelies to be quite lovely indeed.

:pompom:

PS. Now even I can join in enthusiastic approval of the rebel flag!

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

"Highjack, Highjack..."

Postby Crux » 2011 Oct 09 17:45

It really is funny. John Lewis even walks away from the insane gathering and facilitator at one point... (he is a NUT of the first order) Watch it the whole way through. It is quite entertaining. This is the intolerant "love and light" crowd that believes itself to be MORE ENLIGHTENED than mere conservatives. They are so BORG-LIKE! :tongue3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI What a hoot. :mrgreen:
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Sam
Posts: 394
Joined: 2009 Jul 31 22:49

Re: Free Speech...protecting the Right

Postby Sam » 2011 Oct 10 02:55

I know I wouldn't want my daughters in pictures like these and these young women are someone's daughter. Just as I told my son. In law when my grand daughter was born she would grow up and want to see young men and maybe live with one. He said not with my daughter and I reminded him that he tried to do just that with my daughter.

Gotta believe this Stonewall administrator has no daughters or he would have found the picture in poor taste.
Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as
"extremists

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: Free Speech...protecting the Right

Postby fangz1956 » 2011 Oct 10 05:54

Those pics are no different than what one would see on any beach or at any poolside in this country. I do have a daughter and I am someone's daughter and there is zero for any woman to be ashamed of in those pictures. They are not lewd or crude in the least. Maybe those of you who find it to be in poor taste need to listen more to the women in your lives and less to the harpings of the Religious Right. It always amazes me that some folks find images such as the ones above to be in poor taste while pictures of carnage and destruction from holy wars are not.

I reckon some folks just enjoy wearing their glasses backwards.


:coffee:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

What?

Postby Crux » 2011 Oct 10 13:03

You wouldn't find it, unseemly, or inappropriate for you or your daughter to portray yourselves in this way? No?

Perhaps not then. No shame in this crude oversight. My bad... :hum:

crux
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Sam
Posts: 394
Joined: 2009 Jul 31 22:49

Re: Free Speech...protecting the Right

Postby Sam » 2011 Oct 10 13:38

I find
fangz1956 wrote:Those pics are no different than what one would see on any beach or at any poolside in this country. I do have a daughter and I am someone's daughter and there is zero for any woman to be ashamed of in those pictures. They are not lewd or crude in the least. Maybe those of you who find it to be in poor taste need to listen more to the women in your lives and less to the harpings of the Religious Right. It always amazes me that some folks find images such as the ones above to be in poor taste while pictures of carnage and destruction from holy wars are not.

I reckon some folks just enjoy wearing their glasses backwards.

Don't believe I was talking about pictures of carnage. Don't know this was included. I just don't like the kind of pictures. And even though I am an old man I enjoy seeing women dressed.in good taste. And I am wearing my glasses right. What I don't understand is why. You resort to the kind nd of wording you use when someone has an opinion which differs with yours or bring in the stuff on the Christian right. I just said I thought it in bad taste and didn't call anyone names etc
Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as
"extremists

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Keep The Change

Postby Crux » 2011 Oct 12 10:24

Y'all :salut: This is really great. Hank is AWAKE. He has made a new fan. I really just never tuned in but not anymore...
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Juggler
Posts: 710
Joined: 2007 Jun 11 03:51

Re: Free Speech...protecting the Right

Postby Juggler » 2011 Oct 12 11:44

Everybody is entitled to his taste. Hank Williams Jr is not to mine. I prefer lightness, beauty and humor to ignorance, ugliness and meanness. His biography indicates that his body and brain are nearly as badly damaged as his father's were. His father was a better musician, and apparently apolitical.

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: Free Speech...protecting the Right

Postby Coondog » 2011 Oct 12 13:27

Hank is certainly entitled to his opinion......which is demonstratably shared by other rednecks and his mentally challenged rowdy friends. But, as Stephen Colbert aptly asks, "Who will now remind us to be prepared for Some Football?"

I guess nobody reminded Hank, prior to his drunken tirade, to be ready for Some Backlash.

Well.......I suppose Rowdy Friends will have to suffice.

Coondog :director:

Now that both violence and stupidity have been removed from Some Football.....I'm switching to Some Soccer!

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Say what you will, certainly...

Postby Crux » 2011 Oct 15 23:32

...but how do you ignore these things? http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/ ... _news_dump
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...