1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

For liberals and other southpaws - your opinion on the Euston Manifesto

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by gwayneco, May 1, 2006.

  1. gifford1967

    gifford1967 Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    8,307
    Likes Received:
    4,653

    It is actually very easy to understand.
     
  2. Grizzled

    Grizzled Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2000
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    40
    Not at all. It’s very similar to the idea of Hegel’s dialectic and Habermas’ description of communicative reason. Start by thinking about it in an interpersonal sense. This is how you would resolve a conflict with a family member, right?

    A key part of what it means specifically is that you have to do some mental work and moral evaluation and that you can’t just climb up on your high horse and pretend that you are right and infallible and that everyone else is wrong and should bow down to your will. That is arguably the key to it.
     
  3. gwayneco

    gwayneco Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2000
    Messages:
    3,459
    Likes Received:
    36
    Not really. He's saying that you take a bunch of different ideas and throw them together and create something "new". But if you are just taking a bunch of existing ideas and tossing them into a pot to create a stew, then you're really being "conservative", and apparently that is a horrible thing according to Grizzled. Of course, none of this had anything to do with the topic of this thread.
     
  4. gwayneco

    gwayneco Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2000
    Messages:
    3,459
    Likes Received:
    36
    Yeah, I always refer to Habermas and Hegel when I get into an argument with my brother in-law.

    I am completely sure that the Holocaust was wrong. I know that I am right and infallible on that. Your position holds that I should have some lingering doubts about the evils of Aushwitz, Treblinka, etc. I'll gladly remain on my high horse as I look down on your fuzzy moral relativism.
     
  5. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,813
    Likes Received:
    20,472
    What about the relativism on whether it is right or wrong to start wars with nations that aren't a threat to you?

    What about the relativism to torture people? Is that always right or wrong?
     
  6. gwayneco

    gwayneco Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2000
    Messages:
    3,459
    Likes Received:
    36
    Like Kosovo? The Sudan?

    Define "torture".

    Do you disagree with my conclusion that the Holocaust was wrong?
     
  7. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,813
    Likes Received:
    20,472
    I agree 100% that the holocaust was wrong. I also think torture is wrong, and it already has a legal definition.

    I believe stopping an active and ongoing genocide is a valid reason for military intervention.

    But unlike those that want to change the definition of what torture is, or believe it is ok to torture when we do it, but not when someone else does, or attacking a nation that isn't a threat, and isn't in the midst of a genocide, I stick to my principles. I am against the relativism.
     
  8. Grizzled

    Grizzled Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2000
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    40
    I would almost say that you’re not understanding what I’m saying, but you seem threatened by it so perhaps you understand it more than you are letting on? Hegel and Habermas didn’t invent the concepts they were talking about, btw. They were merely describing what they saw happening in society, and imo the basics of these concepts are largely common on an interpersonal level. It’s when you make the relationships more distant that people seem to lose this understanding.

    What my position would do with an issue like the Holocaust is to force people who support it to try to explain why they feel it’s just and fair. It’s not simply a one sided process. Of course there is next to no one who would even try to do this today, and those that do aren’t likely to be able to justify it with anything higher than a tribal warfare understanding of morality.

    And what this kind of process is most successful at is exposing he moral relativism of those on their high horses, because they are inevitably the most hypocritical and morally relativistic. (And this is a basic Christian principle as well. We are all fallible and we are all always growing in our understanding of the world around us, and the moment that we proclaim ourselves infallible and able to judge others we are at that instant judging ourselves.) If we’re talking about the war in Iraq we can look at the fact that a certain group declared the other side to be part of an “Axis of Evil” and claimed to be morally outraged at the other for breaking international law by not letting inspectors do their work. This group set itself up as being law abiding and just and the enforcers of the law, but it promptly broke international law by invading Iraq, an act that has led to the deaths of over 30,000 Iraqi citizens and a crime wave that has included numerous rapes and kidnappings, and I have not yet seen it take responsibility for what it’s done. It just doesn’t get any more morally relativistic than that.
     
  9. gwayneco

    gwayneco Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2000
    Messages:
    3,459
    Likes Received:
    36
    If torture is so easily defined, then why don't you define it here? I'm not asking you change the definition when you haven't even offered one.

    You can go back to the decision to invade Iraq all you want, but it's not 2003. The point of the manifesto, which was the original point of the this thread, is where to go from here.
     
  10. Oski2005

    Oski2005 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    18,100
    Likes Received:
    447
    No wonder conservatives want liberals to adopt this manifesto. Ignoring the lead up and decision to go to war and only focusing on the future (as if we aren't thinking about it at all :rolleyes: ) means no more looking for any possible wrong doing by the administration.
     
    #30 Oski2005, May 2, 2006
    Last edited: May 2, 2006
  11. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,813
    Likes Received:
    20,472
    I didn't want to waste my time, by having you or others now claim that things that have always been torture shouldn't be considered torture, but here it is.

     
  12. Grizzled

    Grizzled Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2000
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    40
    “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Do you agree with this? If so then you must agree that failing to look back and analyse and learn from what happened would be a fatal mistake. People who merely assume that they are right and that everyone else is wrong don’t look back or sideways or anywhere else. They see no need to because they have convinced themselves that they are inerrantly right, or at least that they are above learning from anyone else, or from history itself. And it’s because that document is full of that kind of language that it reveals itself as conservative, not progressive, and therefore not the way to move forward.
     
  13. gwayneco

    gwayneco Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2000
    Messages:
    3,459
    Likes Received:
    36
    At some point you have to move forward instead of playing silly games like you are doing. I guess no one wishes to actually discuss the content of the document.
     
  14. gwayneco

    gwayneco Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2000
    Messages:
    3,459
    Likes Received:
    36
    Is sleep deprivation torture?

    Listening to loud music?

    Finally, do you think that the Allies in WWII ever used torture? And, if so, would that make them the moral equivalent of the Nazis/Japanese?
     
  15. MR. MEOWGI

    MR. MEOWGI Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    14,382
    Likes Received:
    13
    Yes it would.
     
  16. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    So do you apply that then to every situation? Situations are either holocaust or not holocaust and there's no gray inbetween?

    I'm actually for relativism since context and cost and benefit should always matter. When I say that the idea of invading to spread democracy is a liberal idea isn't a compliment. IMO the idea that we should invade to spread democracy, as encapsulated in GW Bush's second inaugural, represents some of the worst aspects of liberalism that advocates the use of force without paying attention to the potential negative effects of using that force.

    Saying Saddam is bad so we should remove Saddam is fine as long as you can realistically consider what happens when he's gone and how you are going to deal with that.

    You are correct that we have to deal with the fact that occupation has happened but that said doesn't mean there shouldn't be political accountability for the decision to undertake the invasion or a robust debate on considering the policy of what we should be doing with Iraq. Its not enough to say that we invaded and occupy so we need to continue this course since that's reality. Withdrawl is an option.
     
  17. bnb

    bnb Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    6,992
    Likes Received:
    316
    sounds more like college.
     
  18. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    16,182
    Likes Received:
    2,828
    Withdrawl is an option, but it should not be considered based on the reasoning behind the invasion, but rather based on what is happening there now and in the future. We can use the past to learn, to inform us as to what will possibly happen when a similar situation arises in the future, but we should not dwell on the past when there is no similarity between the situations we are looking at now and the conditions that existed then. There is no need to review the runup to the current war while we are fighting the war, if anything, we should be looking at examples of similar occupations and how best to proceed based on that information. Whether or not Bush lied about WMDs, if there was enough postwar planning, etc. has no effect on what we should do next. Those are things to look at when we are considering an invasion, not while we are fighting a war, IMHO.
     
  19. gifford1967

    gifford1967 Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    8,307
    Likes Received:
    4,653
    But looking at who advocated for what policy and evaluating how their recommendations panned out, can tell us a lot about whose opinions and recommendations we should value in the future. Based on their past track record for honesty and competence, I would say if the Bush Administration proposes it, you want to take a hard look at doing the opposite.
     
  20. gwayneco

    gwayneco Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2000
    Messages:
    3,459
    Likes Received:
    36
    Yeah, we get it - you hate Bush more than you love America.
     

Share This Page