Another Biast Thread about "Liberals"

sync0s

Well-Known Member
So you are superior to me, because you use spell check? lol that is amazing!!
Never said that, but one would be curious as to why you are so defiant to use tools that are so easily accessible to you. I think it shows a little bit how close minded a person is.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
As Deprave, so clearly stated the thred was started by a liberal. ( a liberal in the true sense ) Not a liberal that was co-opted by the progressive left.
I can see why you think liberals are so snobbish now. It is so hard for me to take you seriously. My knee jerk reaction to the things you say are in fact very sarcastic and demeaning. I apologize, sincerely too. You have the right to your opinion no matter how poorly you communicate it. So in a charitable gesture of genuinely trying to bridge a gap, I ask you to please expound upon your opinion, (that I am not a true liberal and that I was co-opted by the progressive left?). You say I misunderstood your plantation comment for racism, fine. I see how it looks like I just jumped in to back UB, as Kelly4 also pointed out, although I see that as a misunderstanding on his part (and also probably on others).

Again, I wish to reiterate, I can be convinced by a cogent argument, and I will also try harder to not ridicule a poor argument.
 

sync0s

Well-Known Member
It's too bad theoretical politics isn't done as much as the math and physics versions.

Btw, syncos, I'm talking about this:

Rule based AI which uses rules (facts) and places inferences on them. Google and Amazon already use them.

This is just one method:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system
So this, again, goes back to my question: Who's fact? Computers are only as smart as the person who programmed them.

However, seems to me you call for an establishment of rules. Sounds an awfully lot like more government power to me.
 

sync0s

Well-Known Member
I can see why you think liberals are so snobbish now. It is so hard for me to take you seriously. My knee jerk reaction to the things you say are in fact very sarcastic and demeaning. I apologize, sincerely too. You have the right to your opinion no matter how poorly you communicate it. So in a charitable gesture of genuinely trying to bridge a gap, I ask you to please expound upon your opinion, (that I am not a true liberal and that I was co-opted by the progressive left?). You say I misunderstood your plantation comment for racism, fine. I see how it looks like I just jumped in to back UB, as Kelly4 also pointed out, although I see that as a misunderstanding on his part (and also probably on others).

Again, I wish to reiterate, I can be convinced by a cogent argument, and I will also try harder to not ridicule a poor argument.
Classical liberalism is now libertarianism.

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[SUP][3][/SUP] Notable individuals whose ideas have contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke[SUP][4][/SUP], Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law[SUP][5][/SUP], utilitarianism[SUP][6][/SUP], and progress.[SUP][7][/SUP]
There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the 20th century led by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[SUP][8][/SUP]
Some call the late 19th century development of classical liberalism "neo-classical liberalism," which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom, while some refer to all liberalism before the 20th century as classical liberalism.[SUP][9][/SUP]
The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[SUP][10][/SUP] Libertarianism has been used in modern times as a substitute for the phrase "neo-classical liberalism", leading to some confusion. The identification of libertarianism with neo-classical liberalism primarily occurs in the United States,[SUP][11][/SUP] where some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government.[SUP][12][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][14]
[/SUP]
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Classical liberalism is now libertarianism.

[/SUP]
I identify foremost as progressive. I also identify with the simplest and most straightforward definition of liberal in modern vernacular (not wikipedia's). So if I am using the term incorrectly, then I concede, I'm not a true liberal. I consider the first 14 words of the Declaration of Independence to epitomize liberal thinking.

The left lane is for passing, slow traffic stay right.
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
So this, again, goes back to my question: Who's fact? Computers are only as smart as the person who programmed them.

However, seems to me you call for an establishment of rules. Sounds an awfully lot like more government power to me.
Progams can't change? New rules can't get added?

Do we stil have alcohol prohibition? Slaves? Women can't vote?

Because we will make mistakes, we shouldn't try to have technology help us with politics and law? We already have technology suggesting movies and planning software like a Disneyland ride itinerary which is very accurate by using past behavior patterns.

This is how stupid technology is in politics. A laptop is banned in senate and house meetings, but an ipad is allowed because it has no qwerty keyboard!

I use technology to live every aspect of my life. Limiting it is just as stupid as banning calculators for math homework when I was in elementary and jr high. I still used one and showed each step. But I was cheating!
 

zambonic

Well-Known Member
I can see why you think liberals are so snobbish now. It is so hard for me to take you seriously. My knee jerk reaction to the things you say are in fact very sarcastic and demeaning. I apologize, sincerely too. You have the right to your opinion no matter how poorly you communicate it. So in a charitable gesture of genuinely trying to bridge a gap, I ask you to please expound upon your opinion, (that I am not a true liberal and that I was co-opted by the progressive left?). You say I misunderstood your plantation comment for racism, fine. I see how it looks like I just jumped in to back UB, as Kelly4 also pointed out, although I see that as a misunderstanding on his part (and also probably on others).

Again, I wish to reiterate, I can be convinced by a cogent argument, and I will also try harder to not ridicule a poor argument.
First of all my first post on this thread was directed at Kelly4 and was answering questions asked by Deprave. I beg you to point out anything in that post that was deemining or sarcastic. No facts just my opinion as to why they attack and why there are so many. Secondly, I knew I would be attacked and by who. So you also helped me prove my point, so with that I thank you. As far as your last statement. I am truly sorry, but I do not believe that statement to be true. So with that I wish you a wonderful day, as I have better things to do with my time!
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
First of all my first post on this thread was directed at Kelly4 and was answering questions asked by Deprave. I beg you to point out anything in that post that was deemining or sarcastic. No facts just my opinion as to why they attack and why there are so many. Secondly, I knew I would be attacked and by who. So you also helped me prove my point, so with that I thank you. As far as your last statement. I am truly sorry, but I do not believe that statement to be true. So with that I wish you a wonderful day, as I have better things to do with my time!
I never said you were demeaning or sarcastic, I said I was. Your lack of literacy is the reason for that. See, there I go again, I can't help it. "No facts, just your opinion" is the other reason. You are welcome for the proven point.
 
Top