How do you feel about profanity?

[Guest American Woman]

As long as the new poster does not break rules, we should let it go. And if it is him, we should give him another chance. That's generally my attitude, learn to forgive.

But baby if you screw up again, BAAMM!

In Anti-Am/olp1fan/olpfan1/stopstarron's case, I think three chances were enough, four counting this latest run - especially since he came back each time so obviously changed and remorseful.

At any rate, the warnings and temporary suspensions provide the poster with "another chance" - over and over, in some cases. Banning is the last straw.

Edited June 16, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest Manny]

In Anti-Am/olp1fan/olpfan1/stopstarron's case, I think three chances were enough, four counting this latest run - especially since he came back each time so obviously changed and remorseful.

Looks like you are right. I haven't been keeping track but clearly there is a limit to how many times a person gets a chance to redeem themselves.

I always hope that people will grow up and learn from difficult life experiences. For some people, this just takes a lot longer.

[bleeding heart]

Sorry but even wolves got respect and order in the pack, something which today's leftist Liberal refuses to appreciate.

I'm not certain that the wolf pack is the ideal that we should strive for.

At any rate, the Left has had quite a history with Order and with authoritarianism.

The Left is growing up out of such destructive Daddy issues, fortunately.

[Guest Manny]

I'm not certain that the wolf pack is the ideal that we should strive for.

At any rate, the Left has had quite a history with Order and with authoritarianism.

The Left is growing up out of such destructive Daddy issues, fortunately.

Interstingly you mention it as "Daddy issues", which is more or less the type of authority I was talking about. The fact that certain people seem to have an agenda to undermine parental authority, yet seem to defer to the power of the state, is somewhat ironical...

[bleeding heart]

Interstingly you mention it as "Daddy issues", which is more or less the type of authority I was talking about. The fact that certain people seem to have an agenda to undermine parental authority, yet seem to defer to the power of the state, is somewhat ironical...

Perhaps you could expand upon this, taking it out of the realm of partisan conjecture ("The Left!" some folks keep screeching, apropos of nothing, ironically pronouncing about a "left-wing media" that is nothing of the sort.....)

How does "the Left" undermine parental authority in ways that others not of "the Left" do not?; simultaneously, how does the Left "defer to the power of the state"...in ways that conservatives and (self-described) "centrists" avoid?

I've noted well that suich claims are often made, and that little evidence is ever presented, nor usually even attempted.

As if doctrinal surety is sufficient...and nothing is more deferntial-to-power than that.

Edited June 19, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Manny]

How does "the Left" undermine parental authority in ways that others not of "the Left" do not?; simultaneously, how does the Left "defer to the power of the state"...in ways that conservatives and (self-described) "centrists" avoid?

I've noted well that suich claims are often made, and that little evidence is ever presented, nor usually even attempted.

It's a tough one. Yes, you've cornered me. It's easier to use terms like "Left" because they evoke such a wide and deep set of related concepts, it's just easier than trying to drill down and identify the specific, or the historical background that justifies use of the term. But, I shall attempt it.

The general issue is parental authority, and from whence it comes. My argument is that it must come from the parents. Parents are individuals. The "right" tends to uphold individual liberty above state authority. The right does not support extensive social welfare, as it sees this as a mechanism of the "nanny state". Think Libertarianism. Right wingers believe people should be responsible for themselves. The conservative right tends to adhere to tradition. Traditional structures, family structures. The patriarchs, the matriarchs are in charge of the house, and make decisions according to traditional values.

Over the past several decades, beginning in the late 1960's and onward, leftism and liberalism have shaped western society in dramatic ways. Traditional structures- torn down. Family values- torn down. Parental authority- etc. Don't trust anyone over 30. The hippies became my children’s teachers, in school. They taught that the child has rights, can make their own decisions, should learn about things at such an early age that they don't yet have the wisdom or maturity to keep in proper context. And yet ironically the state replaces the family as the ultimate decider, because it is the will of the people. And what the people want is always best. Unfettered leftism gives the person a promise of "freedom" from their traditional authority figures, but does so by taking their childhood away, taking their family away, their culture, and finally, their identity. Eventually even words like "He" and "She" must be eliminated. Equality at all costs. Equality means, no one is allowed to be above the other in status. Not even the parents. Not god, certainly. But ironically, the state, the beneficent all-knowing big brother, will fill that void in our souls, and tell us what the purpose of our life is.

[bleeding heart]

It's a tough one. Yes, you've cornered me. It's easier to use terms like "Left" because they evoke such a wide and deep set of related concepts, it's just easier than trying to drill down and identify the specific, or the historical background that justifies use of the term. But, I shall attempt it.

The general issue is parental authority, and from whence it comes. My argument is that it must come from the parents. Parents are individuals. The "right" tends to uphold individual liberty above state authority. The right does not support extensive social welfare, as it sees this as a mechanism of the "nanny state". Think Libertarianism. Right wingers believe people should be responsible for themselves. The conservative right tends to adhere to tradition. Traditional structures, family structures. The patriarchs, the matriarchs are in charge of the house, and make decisions according to traditional values.

Over the past several decades, beginning in the late 1960's and onward, leftism and liberalism have shaped western society in dramatic ways. Traditional structures- torn down. Family values- torn down. Parental authority- etc. Don't trust anyone over 30. The hippies became my children’s teachers, in school. They taught that the child has rights, can make their own decisions, should learn about things at such an early age that they don't yet have the wisdom or maturity to keep in proper context. And yet ironically the state replaces the family as the ultimate decider, because it is the will of the people. And what the people want is always best. Unfettered leftism gives the person a promise of "freedom" from their traditional authority figures, but does so by taking their childhood away, taking their family away, their culture, and finally, their identity. Eventually even words like "He" and "She" must be eliminated. Equality at all costs. Equality means, no one is allowed to be above the other in status. Not even the parents. Not god, certainly. But ironically, the state, the beneficent all-knowing big brother, will fill that void in our souls, and tell us what the purpose of our life is.

I think this is a really good answer, but (I suppose predictably ) I take issue with two crucial points you make:

first of all, that Conservatives believe in "personal responsibility" and "the right of the individual" more than the Left (or some nebulous "centre") does is, I believe, bland boilerplate, concocted out of whole cloth by self-serving voices on the Right...and I think it's quite false.

Or, more accurately, I don't think conservatism--even libertarianism, usually--adheres at all to its/their stated principles.

As for the rest...it would appear you've taken a broad and sweeping historical trend, a massive alteration of social mores and educational philosophy and changes in social dynamics over many decades, and relegated it to "the hippies."

At any rate, when it comes to Power and Authority, I would say tradition is a serious problem. I think Power and Authority has to justify its use...at every step.

I should never have to question Power, because legitimate Power must always have to justify itself.

And in every case it cannot--it is ilegitimate.

Morally, I'd take this all the way down to parental authority. (And I have three grown children, for what that's worth to the discussion.) Any use of authority that cannot be immediately and cogently justifed is an affront to the liberty that, I'm to understand, conservatives wish to wield with such lack of restraint from "the State."

Edited June 19, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Manny]

I used Hippy, and that's unfortunate because it seems biased and evokes many different images. But it was just easier than saying "leftist liberals who reject traditional authority figures" or something like that. I don't mean just hippies though.

I believe the era 1960's is approximately right. You could argue it came even earlier, but it was not as dramatic a change as what came during that period, a liberal cultural revolution. Free love, peace, drugs, rock and roll. Psychedelia, the Beatles. Then disobedience became a capital venture. There was big money to be made in it.

But there had to be an opposite reaction, the rise of counter-conservatism. Rise of the neocons. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ronald Reagan. The liberal Dr. Frankenstein created this monster. It created this highly polarized society, two separate cultures fighting for the same space. This is about the failure of the liberal dream to create a better world.

Some of this discussed in the popular video- "The Power of Nightmares".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4_vkIsKOU4

Edited June 20, 2012 by Manny

[eyeball]

The "right" tends to uphold individual liberty above state authority.

Say WHAT?!

[bleeding heart]

I used Hippy, and that's unfortunate because it seems biased and evokes many different images. But it was just easier than saying "leftist liberals who reject traditional authority figures" or something like that. I don't mean just hippies though.

Sure, I get that. But the contemporary misunderstanding is about what hippies were. Mostly they were pretty much apolitical; they usually (I assume) subscribed to lefty ideals, but they weren't generally part of the activist movements that truly made a difference.

I believe the era 1960's is approximately right. You could argue it came even earlier, but it was not as dramatic a change as what came during that period, a liberal cultural revolution. Free love, peace, drugs, rock and roll. Psychedelia, the Beatles.

Civil rights, women's rights, the rights of the individual, free speech rights and the right to assmbly...all these good things increased directly as a result of 60's activism. I don't mean to paint it all as rosy, much less as universally wise and sober, but the good that came out of it is pretty clear.

As for "peace"...this is the era in which people decided that violent government behaviour in foreign lands was not always just and necessary. The government today could not get away with the sort of massive casualties of innocents in Vietnam....the public would not stand for it.

And that's a legitimate and decent example of how not bowing to authority--in this case, the State--has been influenced by the Left. (Also by some Christian conservative and liberal groups...I don't wish to diminish their decency nor their activism, in matters of peace and of Civil Rights.)

So in this case, for one, we see that conservatives (and yes, most "libertarians") are supportive of State power, while the Left has been an opponent.

Hell, some of our more hawkish citizens, Canadian and American and British and so on, feel we're not violent enough, that we've become weak thanks to the massive social movements.

Then disobedience became a capital venture. There was big money to be made in it.

Oh, sure, but that's how capitalism works...through co-option of social trends. That's it's genius, both for better and for worse. There's nothing--not one single thing--that cannot be (and has not been) co-opted for profit.

That doesn't reflect on liberal social movements. Not at all.

But there had to be an opposite reaction, the rise of counter-conservatism. Rise of the neocons. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ronald Reagan. The liberal Dr. Frankenstein created this monster. It created this highly polarized society, two separate cultures fighting for the same space. This is about the failure of the liberal dream to create a better world.

The liberals did not create that world; they are part of it, though with slightly different perspectives.

And the liberal dream for a better world has not failed in every respect. There have been some resounding successes. At any rate, to think that the world was a pretty fine place before the left came along and ruined it is--literally!--insane.

Some of this discussed in the popular video- "The Power of Nightmares".

I've seen this. It's true in certain ways; for example, the so-called "neoconservatives" were basically Cold War liberals, originally.

However, the movie makes much of their idealism...which gives them too much credit.

They are essentially students of (conservative philosopher) Leo Strauss; their ideals (and his) are idealistic in that they're almost Romantic; but they require brutality, violence, and deception of the voting public to achieve their "noble" aims.

This is by design (though no doubt some "neocons" are not quite so Machiavellian in intent).

For example, the late, disgraceful Christopher Hitchens, in defense of the neocons' Iraq War strategy, wrote this:

Part of the charm of the regime-change argument (from the point of view of its supporters) is that it depends on premises and objectives that cannot, at least by the administration, be publicly avowed. Since Paul Wolfowitz is from the intellectual school of Leo Strauss—and appears in fictional guise as such in Saul Bellow's novel Ravelstein—one may even suppose that he enjoys this arcane and occluded aspect of the debate. For those lacking a similar gift for hidden meanings, the best way to appreciate the unstated case for war may be to examine the criticisms leveled by its opponents. These criticisms, which rely on supposed inconsistencies and hypocrisies on the pro-war side, are themselves riddled with contradictions.

Leaving aside the stated opposition to democratic principles that Hitchens avows, and assumes of those he admires, the dankness of the "idealists" is pretty self-evident...according to some their most intense supporters.

And that's because, according to scholar Shadia Drury, there are two types of neocons: the "Gentlemen" (to use Strauss's term), who really, really believe in the West flitting about, doing good, spreading democracy...the convnetional pieties that no serious person believes is the case; and then the real neocons, the Philosopher Kings...who are deceptive, who are nihilists who believe the rest of us cannot handle the truth, and so deal in outright power and propaganda games.

Straussian scholars were so impressed with Drury's insights that they "brought me into the club," she said, astonished by it all.

(I would only add to all this thta it's not plain to me that the "neoconservatives" are especially anything new; deception and propaganda has been part of the ruling cliques forever, and has always been a major part of everyone's foreign policy. If there's a difference, it's in the simultaneous Straussian self-awareness of what they're doing, and in their profound arrogance, which befits the Elitists that they so explicitly are.

Edited June 22, 2012 by bleeding heart

[dre]

The "right" tends to uphold individual liberty above state authority.

:lol:

[bleeding heart]

:lol:

A concise critique, Dre, and about as expansive as such assertions deserve.

[TheNewTeddy]

Getting back to the original topic:

It is rare that I use profanity, but when I do, I do so with full intent. I've heard people that can not go a paragraph without swearing - these people are idiots IMO. I will swear when and only when no other word will fit. In all my posts here I've only felt the need to use profanity 2 times, but I would not go back and un-use these words. When I use them I use them with intent, and if there are consequences, bring them on.

[Guest Manny]

A concise critique, Dre, and about as expansive as such assertions deserve.

Yeah, ridicule is always a great way to counter someones argument, and promote discussion. Carry on

[bleeding heart]

Yeah, ridicule is always a great way to counter someones argument, and promote discussion. Carry on

Hmmm. It would seem I did counter your argument, in an attempt to promote discussion...and that you remain uninterested in having such a discussion.

[Guest Manny]

Hmmm. It would seem I did counter your argument, in an attempt to promote discussion...and that you remain uninterested in having such a discussion.

I remain uninterested? I gave two lengthy replies to your difficult open ended question. Someone else posts simple mocking laughter, and you're gushing about how great it is. I should write a rebuttal against ?

How about just :angry: :angry: :angry:

There's your debate,

Maybe it's time you hippies lay off the bong and the doobies?

Clean up a little

[bleeding heart]

Maybe it's time you hippies lay off the bong and the doobies?

Clean up a little

You know what happens when you engage in a caricature about another poster...while not knowing anything about him?

You become a troll.

This evident flaw aside, and as to your other comment...I take your point.

Edited June 27, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Manny]

You know what happens when you engage in a caricature about another poster...while not knowing anything about him?

You become a troll.

Oh I see, so I get sniped and now I'm a troll, eh?

Oh my, how typical of you,

and this from the bleeding heart, no less.

Leftist.

There, I need say no more. You are that.

I use it, it is itself profanity...

[bleeding heart]

Oh I see, so I get sniped and now I'm a troll, eh?

no, when you start opining about "hippies" (a favoured subject of yours, I now see) and bong hits....when you literally know nothing of a poster's personal life--you become a troll.

I also conceded your point...but don't let that stop you.

Leftist.

There, I need say no more. You are that.

I use it, it is itself profanity...

Why sure, all effete little reactionaries are in total agreement on that single point.

Edited June 27, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Manny]

SOCIALIST

[bleeding heart]

SOCIALIST

If that helps you, fine.

[Jack Weber]

Profanity??

I got some!!!

[socialist]

it is my freedom to use profanity. cons trying to control what i want to say will no succeed. i don't care if i swear in front of my own or anyone elses kids. my little kids swear. big deal. if a parent scolds me for swearing in front of thier kid i'll flip them the bird and unleash an onslaught of profanity in front of anyone. it is my right as a canadian to speak any way i want. the hell with the do gooders. us 99%ers need to know how to speak to those who abuse our rights.

[Moonlight Graham]

it is my freedom to use profanity. cons trying to control what i want to say will no succeed. i don't care if i swear in front of my own or anyone elses kids. my little kids swear. big deal. if a parent scolds me for swearing in front of thier kid i'll flip them the bird and unleash an onslaught of profanity in front of anyone. it is my right as a canadian to speak any way i want. the hell with the do gooders. us 99%ers need to know how to speak to those who abuse our rights.

Do you think a child, or the child's parents more accurately, should have a right not to be exposed to unnecessary profanity? If you become a teacher, do you think you should have the right to use profanity in the classroom in front of you kids and not be fired?

[socialist]

Do you think a child, or the child's parents more accurately, should have a right not to be exposed to unnecessary profanity? If you become a teacher, do you think you should have the right to use profanity in the classroom in front of you kids and not be fired?

not if i become a teacher its when. i will say whatever i wish in front of my students. they need to hear the truth. as a teacher i will be a co-parent. bill ayers is one of north americas greatest educators. read some of his work and you will understand what the purpose of a teacher is. my students will leatn how big oil is destroyin their enviroment and many animals habitats. they bwill learn how the ndp looks after all people even the poor.