Quantcast

In cahoots over political terminology?

Letter-to-the-Editor-698x408

By

Editor, Index-Tribune:

Social justice, open borders, income equality and amnesty, to name just some of the terms used by state and federal politicians in cahoots with journalists in the mass media, beg to be defined.

I would like to know just what they, who employ those terms, really mean. Knowing that, I may be better able to understand these terms in the context in which they are used. I could perhaps then be more able to decide to agree or disagree with their use to describe an ideal or occurrence.

To use these terms without a clear definition of there purpose only causes confusion.

Maybe that is what is intended.

Roger Jack Young

Temelec

  • Phineas Worthington

    Agreed. Though maybe the distortion of terms is not born out of intent to do malice, but simply by default from the ideological lens through which they see the world.

    • Robert Piazza

      Ah Phineas, you put it much more eloquently than I would have!

      • Phineas Worthington

        Its hard to remember that most people have good intentions even though there are so many bad outcomes. Let the other side cast aspersions toward us being evil for espousing individual rights, liberty, and free markets, its says more about them than us.

  • Fred Allebach

    This is exactly the same as weasel words like ‘individual rights’, ‘free market’ etc. The ‘confusion’ is not from one side only here boys; you have your part to play; own it. This forum in regards to such topics is more about sarcastic posturing than getting to the root of anything. Mr. P below is like the pot calling the kettle black. We don’t get anywhere here; the wheels spin around and the record skips in the same place every time. It is entertaining though, to shoot the crap with people who act as if the whole world can be reduced to one set of premises and all the rest are false. Distorted and confused, yes, conflate the ‘truth’ with your own uncritical auto pilot.

    • Phineas Worthington

      Such hostility toward our shared values Fred. Where does that come from?

      I have a theory. It comes from fear, the fear of not being able to take care of yourself at some point in the future. We all grow old. We all die. Though that does not change right and wrong.

      • Fred Allebach

        How is it that you somehow know right and wrong more than those of us who are in a conspiracy with the mass media? Was it given to you by God? How is that you know with such certainty? Could it be simply by default from the ideological lens that you view the world? C’mon, we’re all bozos on this bus, even you.

        • Phineas Worthington

          Fred, you value individual liberty implicitly just by being here and living your life in a moral, productive manner which I presume you do like most people. You just don’t seem to acknowledge it with your ideas consistently. We are most certainly on the same bus, agreed.

          • Fred Allebach

            Phineas, I support your second paragraph; were getting somewhere! The first paragraph I don’t quite get, can you restate for clarity? Are we stepping back from our own twists to be able to look at ourselves as advocates of diff philosophical trajectories?

          • Phineas Worthington

            I’ll try. Lets start with some simple black and white ideas on morality.

            The initiation of force or fraud by one individual toward another, or even the threat of it, is immoral. Can we agree on that basic moral premise?

          • Fred Allebach

            Let’s backtrack since i asked the first question: Are we stepping back from our own twists to be able to look at ourselves as advocates of diff philosophical trajectories? Before we get to speicific content let’s define process.

            To answer your question: i think this is contingent on who is the in-group. people typically apply morals to their own group but not out-groups. So we could say war is immoral, but people justify it (Israel etc) because the others are out-group. I see where you are leading with your question and that’s why i want to have a neutral process rather than have this end up back at square one with an individual/ community impasse

          • Phineas Worthington

            Its a simple yes or no q.

            If we cannot agree on this most basic moral premise of what constitutes proper, moral human behavior, the doctrine of the non-initiation of force, I don’t really know where to go from there Fred.

            Don’t try heading off the more derivative issues where we disagree by overcomplicating the basic fundamentals where I know we all agree.

            Of course, it is immoral for one person to initiate the use of force or the threat of it against another. That’s our starting point.

          • Fred Allebach

            Phineas, I see, as before, that I can’t steer you to step back from your content and look at things from an academic point, and so if you don’t address my initial question: Are we stepping back from our own twists to be able to look at ourselves as advocates of diff philosophical trajectories? then we are stuck at the sane impasse of disputing content. As I see it, nobody owns ‘the truth”, no ideology is synonymous with truth.

            I see morals as relative; they are a human capacity, content is how they are manifested; so everyone thinks their morals are true but in reality the study of morals is not a matter of truth, that’s for true believers.

            I see you as a true believer, which is why it’s very difficult to get anything going with you.

          • Phineas Worthington

            The initiation of physical force of one individual against another, or even to threaten it, is immoral. Its a black and white objective moral truth.

            We were once a society that saw this as self-evident, no longer. Its no wonder bullying is epidemic, kids just emulate what they see modeled by adults.

          • Fred Allebach

            Well Phineas, you want to observe that some people have
            views distorted by ideology yet somehow you don’t. That means you think your view equals the truth, and any wider net thinking is relativism. (There are legit knocks on relativism yes, but not sufficient to justify absolutism as the only alternative.) Your tone and approach seems more akin to religion, which is the antithesis of REASONABLE. You’ve got some inconsistencies your putting out.

            The next step after confronting such a black and white chasm,
            is sarcasm and judgment, which we agreed was undesirable, yet is a logical consequence of rigid thought. There is a whole spectrum of points, ideals, philosophies etc to bring, from there a discussion can start, but we fundamentally delegitimize each other when no ground can ever be given (absolutism).

            Any consensus or agreement, on anything, has to start from
            people sharing the same baseline assumptions. If not then we see the all too common intransigent posturing.

            But, seeing a spectrum of content and process across a range
            of human experience, that’s academic, relative, and… unreasonable? From where does this REASON come?

            This much is clear to me: you’re a true believer and an unreliable partner in any open-ended discussion; you do just what you accuse others of yet can’t see it. How in the world can you talk about being rational when the primary assumption for your argument is faith? Everything we are debating is a social construct; this isn’t math, there are no immutable facts of socio-economy. We all want a postulated ‘good’. C’mon man, you are smart, stretch yourself a little.

          • Phineas Worthington

            I teach my child, “Don’t hit.” Its the right thing to do.

            This moral relativism around such a basic concept explains to me that the epidemic of bullying has a direct line back to this lack of moral clarity modeled by adults.

          • Fred Allebach

            The guy’s letter that started this thread had to do with trying to define a few terms, maybe trying to open up a link but I see in the end you are really not interested in much other than trying to justify some religious/ political view in the guise of ‘reason’, so I’ll remember to not take you seriously in the future. You’re putting out tons of obfuscation and not dealing at all with perfectly legit ideas and questions I’m presenting; you’re an unreliable partner.

          • Phineas Worthington

            To define terms, we start with first principles. And you cannot even place a high value on individual human life. Its striking really that you would so freely admit it.

  • Phineas Worthington

    I’d like to answer Mr. Young’s question for myself. Open immigration to me means decriminalize work, allow in the peaceful, productive people, and keep out the criminals and people with communicable diseases. A principled government with limited, defined functions will operate more effectively.

  • Robert Piazza

    Attack! Demonize! Attack! The progressive way to respond to the opposition when they really have nothing constructive or coherent to say.
    “weasel words”
    “pot calling the kettle black”
    “sarcastic posturing”
    “conflate the ‘truth'”
    “wheels spin”
    “record skips”
    So tell us Fred, just what is the progressives definition of the terms questioned by Roger?
    That was the question, you know.

    And please spare us the literary comics!

    • Phineas Worthington

      I empathize with the exclamation marks.

      • Fred Allebach

        Individual, individual, individual, why are you even here dealing with other people, just stay home and count your money.

        • Phineas Worthington

          I am here trying to defend good values against bad ideas. BTW- I rent a modest apartment and work for a living. I am quite used to people jumping to conclusions about me because of my name though.

    • Fred Allebach

      I guess you just aren’t sophisticated enough to grasp a nuanced conversation, Bob. Name calling is easy. As is clear from this thread, it is impossible to talk to Phineas, and apparently you as well.

      • Phineas Worthington

        Fred, he quoted you and your name calling. No ownership. I expected that though.

      • Robert Piazza

        Fred, that’s your problem. You consistently talk TO not WITH those who express a differing ideology from yours. Your use of nuances is a convenient vehicle to redefine your meaning of any statement.

        Your comment that I’m not sophisticated enough to grasp your “meanings” is trite and frankly offensive. When it comes to sophistication, based on your reaction to others points
        of view, I suspect Phineas and I have been to a few more rodeos than
        you!
        I really don’t mind the literary sparing with you because you are a plethora of thinly supported progressive ideology.