CLARIFICATION OF TERMS...MAYBE

In this blog the term "lliberal" is more or less synonomous with the terms; leftist, progressive, marxist, anarchist, communist etc.. I feel that I'm forced by convention to use these terms interchangeably even though I know that many true Liberals may take offense.

I believe that most readers of this blog factor in a certain degree of ambiguity with regard to the above terms.

That said, I should reiterate that in another time, I and those like me were thought of as Liberals. That is to say, people who believe in true equality under the law and true freedom of thought, speech and spirit. As distinct from leftists/liberals who must only claim such beliefs temporarily as a matter of convenience. You can bet that if Michael Moore or George Soros or Sean Penn--or a host of others, you know the names-- were empowered to do so, they would immediately stamp out through brutal force all of our rights which so many young men and women have died to protect.

Count on it!

Of course, they would do it for our own good.

They're very thoughtful that way.

But I digress.

Simply put. The term "liberal" has been co-opted by the left. That being the case, I don't have any choice but to use it in conjunction with their many other handles.

JJ

PS. As always, comments are open on this blog. There is no need to sign in or log in. So jump in and give us your two cents. Please be thoughtful and please be nice.

Comments

[Hank]

Illiberal, leftist. They are hardly liberal. There have been no true liberals in America since Daniel Patrick Moynihan died.

[Grokodile]

LOL. Look, villification of the "other" side is part of the problem in American politics today. Seriously, the values and viewpoints of people differ, and you have a democracy and a set of rules defined by the consitution. If you respect those, then you should understand and appreciate that other peoples viewpoints are as valauble as your own. That's the basis of your country. Stop trying to villify the left or the right and get back to the business of moving forward. Using elements of right wing thinking and elements of left wing thinking will get you a lot further than fighting a battle on every issue. However, to do that would require not accepting whatever spin "your side" generates and realizing that somewhere in the debate the other side also has important and valid points to make. End rant.

[Jack Jones]

I don't think so Grokodile. There are certain points and values which can only be compomised to the detriment of human society. I don't accept your blanket statement "...other (people's) viewpoints are as valuable as your own." Obviously, if you adhere strictly to that rule then you must give full acceptance to the rabid Nazi who advocates various forms of genocide. What about the Talibanist who wants to bring about through force, rigid codes of behavior, compulsory female clitoral circumcision for instance? And what of the NAMBLA member who believes that adult men should be allowed to sexually exploit young boys? What about the slave owner in Sudan who believes that slavery is a perfectly acceptable institution? All of these find expression in the political process. Are these viewpoints truly valuable? Should I compromise my belief that adult men should never be allowed to exploit young boys? Should I compromise my belief that women shouldn't be treated like cattle? Are all points of view equally valid as you seem to suggest? I say emphatically no. It seems as though you haven't really thought through your beliefs Grokodile. History shows us that going along to get along only works in the very short term. Usually the end result is disaster.

[Grokodile]

Yes, let's immediately jump into Nazi's and the Taliban -- that's a sure fire sign of a lost argument right there. Bzzzt. Thanks for playing. Come back when you have given this some more serious thought.

[Jack Jones]

Grokodile, please clarify. Why exactly are Nazis and The Taliban off limits in this discussion? Can you cite any examples of cultural or societal behavior which you find absolutely unacceptable? Is there at least one principle which you would be unwilling to compromise? These are not rhetorical questions. If you can cite even one absolute belief, the entire foundation of your thesis--that we must all compromise our principles to some extent--is shown to be a house of cards. If you have no such belief you're to be pitied.

[Grokodile]

Hi, I just noticed your reply. I have a couple of points for your to consider: 1) It is easy to come up with silly or crazy counter arguments, but that isn't really the issue that I am raising. Don't fool yourself to imagine that I'm proposing we throw away all laws or virtues. 2) If you are not willing to respect the opinions of others, then you don't really believe in the concept of democracy, with one person, one vote. You don't always get to like the opinion, or vote, of another, but as long as it is legal and within the constitution, and you actually believe in the wisdom of the founding fathers, then you must respect it. I have discussed this issue with people at various times and it is a very important concept. Society goes where the majority of society wills, within the legal framework initially established. Dragging out the Nazi's of all things to make your point surely means you've lost the discussion. Regards, Grokodile

[Jack Jones]

Grokodile 1) Exactly what silly or crazy counter arguments are you referring to? 2)While I applaud your astute observation that one man one vote is "an important concept" (positively brilliant), I don't remember indicating in this post or any other that I'm not willing to "respect" or take account of the opinions of others. Kindly cite the passage which left you with that impression. Somehow Grokodile, you've developed the pesky habit of pulling ridiculous statements out of your butt without expecting that someone might actually ask you to explain them. Interesting. Along that same line,--and for the second time--, would you please, please, pllllease explain the point you were trying to make in the following sentences. "Dragging out the Nazi's of all things to make your point surely means you've lost the discussion.", and, "Yes, let's immediately jump into Nazi's and the Taliban -- that's a sure fire sign of a lost argument right there." Taken independently or in the context of your comments, neither sentence makes a great deal of sense. Put another way, what on earth are you talking about?!!! But you've piqued my curiosity, so if you get a moment please elaborate.