Liberal Outlook

[Didacus]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1373629' date='Aug 29 2007, 02:17 PM'][quote]"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment." -Bertrand Russell[/quote]

reactions?
[/quote]

Dairy,

Do you think that when one 'truth' is abandonned and another accepted that God changes Himself to match the truth that is current amongst His children? Or do you think God remains a constant Truth while the opinion of His children towards Him (and Truth) may change over time as some come nearer to Him, and some fall astray?

[dairygirl4u2c]

of course that God is the constant. your opinion is what changes.

i fear you are asking because you are thinking.... god doesn't change, and my opinions are from God, therefore i'm correct and don't need to worry.
maybe that's not what you thinjk, and maybe think i'm absolute relativeist. i'm not that either, absolutely.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think the minimum wage debate is indicative. where i was allowing my arguments to evolve to account for the realities i had not realized, i see no one else's arguments evolving. even people who argue for the wage. human tendency is to think your arguments are sound, when in fact, even if you are right, you are not right for the right/accurate reasons.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1373878' date='Aug 29 2007, 09:05 PM']what's even more telling i think than my last post, is that no one is claiming conservatives embrace that ideology.
if i were a psychologist, i'd be having a field day with your responses. you have any response to give, yet you choose the ones you do. (i thikn that's the key to psychology btw, just a theory of mine, to begin assessing people)[/quote]
This was allegedly a [i]liberal[/i] ideology, so why should anyone claim that [i]conservatives[/i] embrace it?

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1374109' date='Aug 30 2007, 09:52 AM']granted it would have been good if he said... "for the most part" it's good to be flexible.

the flipside of course to what most of you are saying is.. my positions are right. i refuse to change them. or even consider it.
that's a very big problem in the world. as christians, you should expect people who want to convert to be open. doesn't that mean that everyone should be open to new ideas? muslims won't change if they did what you seem to suggest. democrats won't convert. a dude who's a pedophile won't. etc etc etc
even political positions. take minimum wage. i don't understand how you'd be against it even though i try my hardest to get you to explain it in a way that makes sense and answers my concerns. but, even though you fail me, i am open to the idea that i'm missing something. a wage would end up being more bad than good. my fundamental ideas are wrong. i now i didn't always have those theroies about the giant, and everyone's entitlement to something minimal if they are willing to work something substantial. ya gotta be open to change.[/quote]
First you take a somewhat vague and self-congratulatory "definition" of liberalism, then you go on to claim that conservatives take an opposite view - that absolutely no one and nothing should change, not even pedophiles - an absurd position that no conservatives I know of hold.

This goofy straw-man is then used (in typical fashion) to explain your alleged intellectual superiority to conservatives.
While neither you nor Anomoly have budged (no pun intended) in your positions on minimum wage, you insinuate that your position has not changed because you have seen no reasonable arguments against it, while the only reason Anomoly hasn't bowed to your superior wisdom must be that he's just a stubborn conservative who refuses on principle to change his position.

As a conservative, I am open to the possibility that our knowledge of certain things (such as scientific knowledge) can change with new evidence. However, I believe certain principles, such as the precepts of religion and morality, are eternal and unchanging, and not subject to further review. For example, that it is always wrong to murder an innocent human being - this is not something that can change with the times, or with new "evidence." I believe in the preservation of what Russell Kirk has called "the Permanent Things."

Edited September 1, 2007 by Socrates

[dairygirl4u2c]

i wasn't accusing anamoly of not changing to my superior wisdom. if anyone's reading anything into anything, it seems to be you. i tend to be accusing him or you all in general of your approaches, not being open to change. whereas i am open. perhaps he is open, and people here are. but they certanly don't portray themselves that way.

i wasn't saying conservatives think pedophiles shouldn't change. or that conservatives are pedophiles or anyting of the sort. reread what i said. all i was trying to say, was that close minded thinking absolutely causes that sort of behavior. not willing to change cause you think you are right and evertyone else is wrong.

[quote]This was allegedly a liberal ideology, so why should anyone claim that conservatives embrace it?[/quote]
they should embrace open minded ness. not of course open that your brains have fallen out. that's not a liberal or conservative ideal. it seems to be a common liberal quality, and i wanted to see what you all thought. your responses were all one sided.
all the reasons you should be open to change is why conservativers should embrace it. with that qualifier that you usually need to be open to change. disclaimer disclaimer. open mindedness shouldn't be a political issue....

i ralize this is a political forum and i should expect and it's not so unreasonable to post bias posts. but, after i've pointed it out, is it so hard to admit you all cold be more open to change? or list the good things of being open? or maybe saying it's something that you admire of liberals when they don't cause that ideal to be perverse?

Edited September 1, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

for example, i posted that we shoudnt care about what that senator did. but i was thinking about it, and i do recognize that's what i used to think about politicians private lives but i think it's not that simple. it's one factor to take into account for a politician. if he's lying to his wife, when in a bad situation, he might lie in the office too, or something. so it is relevant.
or, take that i used to be pro choice. long reasons to why i change, but now if i were in charge, it'd be illegal, all of it.

sure the permanent things don't make one closed minded for embracing them. i tend to be a little too open minded, as i always say give me your argument and i'll consider it, for almost anything. even to the question of existance, which is pretty absurd of me rationally speaking. but anyway....

this is probably the point where socrates, instead being conciliatory and realistic does not respond to the effect of... sure liberals are open minded and it can be a good quality but they often take it too far, and many are not open minded.... and conservatives are often not open minded but that's often for good reasons and there are many who are open to the negotiable things. saying something like that goes a long way, IMHO, of showing good character, something i was trying to portray in the initial post.

Edited September 1, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c