I agree we need a better separation between liberals and leftists. I'm not sure what the dividing should be, but the image I always use is FDR liberals vs post-Vitenam liberals.

FDR liberals still seem to believe in the underpinnings of the American experiment: relatively limited government (when compared to the Leftists), greater relative economic freedom. While post-Vietnam liberals seem to reject everything about American society, pining away for some quasi-Socialist/Communist all-encroaching government that will impose their will.
Paul Smith | Homepage | 05.18.06 - 7:12 pm | #

"While post-Vietnam liberals...."

Exactly. That does seem to be a sort of dividing point.

On this topic, calling some of the moral degenerates in America who hide on the Left, Leftists, is probably an insult to principled Leftists.
mynym | Homepage | 05.18.06 - 10:30 pm | #

rather!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nancy Willing | 05.20.06 - 4:57 pm | #

You see this article:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/.../21/ 198212.html

Similar subject. Blogged on it at my site.

I do think that modern liberalism (or "progressives" as the term is used in the article I linked above) is much more iconoclastic than principled. They're more against whatever the status quo is than working on any consistent sense of principles.
Paul Smith | Homepage | 05.21.06 - 3:04 pm | #

We have a local blogger at downwithabsolutes.com who reminds me of this iconoclastic tone. I would cite it as an example but his blog seems to be down.

From Will:

Liberalism's civil war seemed won after Henry Wallace's Progressive Party candidacy failed to prevent President Truman's 1948 election. But the war broke out again in the Democratic Party's crack-up over Vietnam in 1968. Then, Beinart says, a ``new liberalism'' emerged that ``questioned whether America had much to offer the world.'' [...]
Since then, Beinart argues, liberals have lacked a narrative of national greatness that links America's missions at home and abroad.

rather!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, I think that you agree with some Gay© reasoning and philosophy. Logically, such reasoning undermines any principles that contradict or transcend being ruled and defined by one's own sexual desires.
mynym | Homepage | 05.21.06 - 4:10 pm | #

It's probably the same way that you know not to eat your own excrement without trying it.

Or that you know not to drink the milk that comes out of a cow - eeugh!

Or that you know not to imagine that the planets revolve around the sun rather than the other way around - crazy!

Or that you know not to go around telling everyone to love their neighbour, when everybody else at the time knows that this is a preposterous notion - how deviant!

God forbid anyone should try something different, or "unnatural", on the off-chance that it might actually turn out to be ok.
FionnMatthew | 05.21.06 - 8:51 pm | #

mynym I'll have to digest your comments above and get back......
Glad to see the lightened background.
I did not know there was a "gay" reasoning and philosophy.
Nancy Willing | 05.21.06 - 10:41 pm | #

Or that you know not to drink the milk that comes out of a cow - eeugh!

Drinking milk that is excreted from a cow for the purpose of being drunk is far different than taking in excrement that has already served its purpose for Life until Nature recycles it, yet there is little purpose in going into basic facts of life and death when a person is set on trying to deny them.

Or that you know not to imagine that the planets revolve around the sun rather than the other way around - crazy!

It is typical these days to try to put one's own spin on the work of geniuses who have pointed out a hidden unity to things or things that are hidden from "common sense." In contrast, it is worth noting:“The holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”--Galileo Galilei, Laws of Dynamics, astronomical confirmation of the heliocentric system

The Bible is supportive of Natural Law, a sort of "common sense" of good and evil that comes about naturally enough. It seems that it just gets more specific as to why it is there and so on. It's also worth noting that common sense is usually correct. Based on empirical observation and common sense the ancients thought that the moon revolves around the earth, and it does. When common sense is wrong or there is something that cannot be easily seen or sensed correctly is when a genius has to come along and correct things. That's not usually the case, usually people's common sense of things serves them well enough, which is similar to their sense of Natural Law. It can be wrong but usually it isn't.

Or that you know not to go around telling everyone to love their neighbour, when everybody else at the time knows that this is a preposterous notion - how deviant!

Loving your neighbor may be a deviation from the norm depending on the culture you live in, yet somehow most deviations don't tend to result in anal parasites and the like the way that perverse forms of sexual deviancy do.

God forbid anyone should try something different...

God created differences and all the colors of the rainbow to exist within the Light, yet God forbid that anyone insist on calling perversity diversity or acting as if the metaphoric Dark is the metaphoric Light, even if it tries to play pretend.

...or "unnatural", on the off-chance that it might actually turn out to be ok.

When something violates basic natural categories as well as the Life driven purpose of things for the sake of a perversion of the true version of things "it might actually turn out" that people wind up with intestinal parasites and a taste of death. And that is only the crude physical level of things, there's more going on with perversions than that. The interesting thing is that religious hedonists do not seem to care, even to the point of death. Some may as well set up shrines for the sort of sacrifices they make to Hedonism.

Expect more and more of it though, as it seems that American civilization is on the decline. It may seem that in a civilization there must be some limit to its perversion, some length to which perverts will not take things. For perhaps perversion can be played with, yet stopped and contained in the "special case" for it that we'll make here or there while still defining the more perverse things as such. But history shows that is not the case. Instead there comes a time when historians can say things like, "And there was no end to their perversion." "And there were no lengths to which they did not go." And so on. It seems that one violation of basic natural categories is not enough. And it seems that a perverse desire cannot be fulfilled because it is based on lies that turn a true desire that could be fulfilled from its course. It was never a true desire to begin with. Instead it's an illusion, so trying to fulfill such a desire is like drinking salt water. You think that you can get away with it a little bit, yet usually your own desire is being turned to destroy you. It's as Socrates said, you come to be ruled by what is supposedly your own desire. It's curious how that is possible, yet it is. All people have come to know this basic fact of life, whatever the issue of the perversion of their desire is.
mynym | Homepage | 05.23.06 - 11:42 pm | #

I did not know there was a "gay" reasoning and philosophy.

There generally is, as is rather obvious in our culture. You should try to have knowledge of it because it is shaping the pop-culture that you have to live with. Given a sort of State run divorce industry such reasoning is probably going to grow to shape the whole culture more and more, as it is merely a symptom of such things.
mynym | Homepage | 05.23.06 - 11:50 pm | #

Drinking milk that is excreted from a cow for the purpose of being drunk

Cow's milk is of a different composition to human milk, and, in many cases, disagrees with human intestines and/or kidneys. One might argue that this means that milk which comes from a cow (which is not excrement - excretion is the process of eliminating from an organism waste products of metabolism and other materials that are of no use) is not there for the purpose of human consumption.

is far different than taking in excrement that has already served its purpose for Life until Nature recycles it,

You're saying that my similes are disanalogous to the act of consuming excrement. That to dare to be different as to one type of thing is not the same as to dare to be different as to another type of thing.

By the same logic, your own simile is disanalogous to the act of writing off the potential virtue of homosexual sex.

yet there is little purpose in going into basic facts of life and death when a person is set on trying to deny them.

As you would probably be keen to argue elsewhere, "fact" is an ambivalent term. There are various versions of the "facts of life and death", all dependent on perspectival interpretation.

It is typical these days to try to put one's own spin on the work of geniuses who have pointed out a hidden unity to things or things that are hidden from "common sense." In contrast, it is worth noting:“The holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”--Galileo Galilei, Laws of Dynamics, astronomical confirmation of the heliocentric system

Yes, Galileo believed his findings were compatible with theism. And yet, regardless of this, he was subjected to pressure until he was forced to capitulate because the universe he described was purportedly unnatural and deviant.

"Common sense" natural law was wrong. It has been wrong. It can be wrong. This tells us that a certain amount of doubt is probably a good thing. Richard Dawkins would benefit herein. So would advocates of "Natural Law".

Loving your neighbor may be a deviation from the norm depending on the culture you live in,

Are you here admitting of a distinction between natural law and social normalcy?

yet somehow most deviations don't tend to result in anal parasites and the like the way that perverse forms of sexual deviancy do.

Anal parasites, I would imagine, are no less pleasant than genital parasites or other diseases. Sexual deviancy is not the sole cause of such things. It's possible to catch an STD without being a pervert.

God created differences and all the colors of the rainbow to exist within the Light, yet God forbid that anyone insist on calling perversity diversity or acting as if the metaphoric Dark is the metaphoric Light, even if it tries to play pretend.

Who is to decide what is the metaphoric Light, if "common sense" is subject to any doubt? Past arbiters of what constitutes the metaphoric Light (Pope Urban VIII) have been wrong. Wherein lies our standard, if all is subject to interpretation, either of 'nature' or of scripture?

When something violates basic natural categories as well as the Life driven purpose of things for the sake of a perversion of the true version of things "it might actually turn out" that people wind up with intestinal parasites and a taste of death.

1. If homosexuality is wrong, then all homosexuals will contract a parasitic infection.

2. Not all homosexuals contract a parasitic infection.

3. Therefore homosexuality is not wrong.

Regardless of the truth of the proposition contained therein, the parasitic infection argument is invalid.

For perhaps perversion can be played with, yet stopped and contained in the "special case" for it that we'll make here or there while still defining the more perverse things as such. But history shows that is not the case. Instead there comes a time when historians can say things like, "And there was no end to their perversion." "And there were no lengths to which they did not go."

The Greeks believed that the (vastly inadequate) freedoms that the Romans allowed their women were the depths of perversity.

Perversity is merely a turning aside from the norm. Retrospective judgements of perversity are subject to the tendency of historians to assess activity from a bygone age in the context of their own social norm.

It's as Socrates said , you come to be ruled by what is supposedly your own desire.

Socrates used that argument in the Gorgias, where he also argues that the common-sense morality, the election-poll ethics of the demos is not the truth. To the socially normal in demagogic Athens, Socrates was perverse, because he alone stood outside the social norm, in pursuit of a transcendental knowledge and a transcendental truth. In the Apology, he notes that he is condemned for the same reason.

Why sacrifice a transcendental truth for immanent certainty? This is the fallacy inherent in scientism.
In settling for certainty, you cut out part of the dialectic, and hamstring the everlasting approach to transcendental truth, and to God.
FionnMatthew | 05.24.06 - 2:18 pm | #

Cow's milk is of a different composition to human milk, and, in many cases, disagrees with human intestines and/or kidneys.

Natural Law relies on a basic metaphysical sense or "common sense" of basic natural categories that are themselves physical. The purpose of the secretions of milk by a cow are for drinking by its calf, humans are making use of that purpose for their own purposes.

One might argue that this means that milk which comes from a cow...is not there for the purpose of human consumption.

And? Given various lines of evidence, it most likely was not designed for the purpose of human consumption. But if we inform basic common sense notions of Natural Law with Divine Revelation then we see that God already specifically allowed for the use of animal products, although it may not be their original purpose.

As you would probably be keen to argue elsewhere, "fact" is an ambivalent term. There are various versions of the "facts of life and death", all dependent on perspectival interpretation.

Indeed, there are some Gays© that have been called "bug chasers" in their subculture that are known for trying to contract HIV as the result of their perspectival interpretation. The "fact" is, is that we do not live in a vacuum and so how far we go with freedom gets defined somewhere along the line. I would say let the dead in the head bury their dead, yet sometimes we cannot do that, not if we live in a welfare state in which the sick want the State to force those who work to pay for the medication of the sick. As for me, America as a State used to take the correct view on such things and it was based on Natural Law. I.e., all people can live under very basic common senses and enjoy freedom based on self-evident truths that are evident in the Self. It's a marriage between the transcendent and the immanent, a basic sense of transcendent rights that are appicable in immanent ways.
mynym | Homepage | 05.24.06 - 7:25 pm | #

Yes, Galileo believed his findings were compatible with theism. And yet, regardless of this, he was subjected to pressure until he was forced to capitulate because the universe he described was purportedly unnatural and deviant.

It may have been more because he made fun of the Pope than a supposed deviant and unnatural universe. As a person who makes fun to have some fun myself, my perspective and "interpretation" might even be that this is the most important lesson to be drawn from the imagery so often invoked about Galileo. I.e., don't censor those who make fun.

The most likely scenario is that Galileo was censured because he went against the established/"natural" Aristotlean philosophy of his day when he didn't have the empirical evidence or sound science to make his case. Ironically, just because someone is vindicated by history does not mean that they necessarily made their case correctly. He also went against "common sense" but that was rather a side issue because we learned long ago that common senses can be wrong, although they usually are not.

Apparently you have little to say to the fact that common sense or the stored wisdom of the species and its instinct is usually not wrong. It can be, yet usually it isn't. So it seems that you are reduced to the position that any uncertainty or fallibility opens the door to the notion that we cannot have enough transcendent forms of knowledge by which to judge Gay© "bug chasers" as engaging in something that is wrong, instead of just another choice about what lifestyle to live. That was Kinsey's fallacy and it has itself been proven wrong numerous times.

As for me, I do not believe that admitting the possibility that one could be wrong about good and evil immediately opens the door to wallowing about in things that you know are wrong.
mynym | Homepage | 05.24.06 - 7:42 pm | #

I would have a few other notes and things but for the sake of time and space I will only comment on this reasoning:
1. If homosexuality is wrong, then all homosexuals will contract a parasitic infection.

2. Not all homosexuals contract a parasitic infection.

3. Therefore homosexuality is not wrong.

Regardless of the truth of the proposition contained therein, the parasitic infection argument is invalid.

Number one avoids the main issue because homophilia is wrong for the same type of reasons that pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, etc., are wrong and not the same type of reasons that things like risky forms of heterosexual behavior are wrong. Note how your logic or attempt to undermine a "common sense" position to legitimize homosexuality also legitimizes promiscuity. "If promiscuity is wrong, then..." Etc.

But that level of being wrong does not deal with the main issue because it's a sexual perversion that clearly violates basic natural categories. So any reasoning that is applied to homophilia (the perversion of male and female) tends to legitimize the others as well, pedophilia (child and adult), zoophilia (human and animal), necrophilia (life and death), etc. These are such basic aspects of Natural Law that some may be lost in their common senses for a moment just considering them. Yet given the decline of Western civilization and the fact that there is no sign of it stopping any time soon, you may as well consider perversion and its unnatural "nature."
mynym | Homepage | 05.24.06 - 7:57 pm | #