Somewhere, buried in the pathetic waste of time that post was- was the classic works vs. faith dilemma that split the Roman Catholic church so many years ago. Both traditions assume that one still has faith in Jesus, or more appropriately- that one still believes in one's respective ideology. But in order to attain salvation in Roman Catholicism, one must do good things- or works.
I don't believe that a progressive must actively do good things to be considered progressive. I think voting is a way to do nothing yet still act- if you can get past the paradox of what I am saying. But if you claim to be "as progressive as anyone" while having clearly conservative views on a lot of things- that's wrong- clearly contradictory.
I have progressive views on mostly everything, but maybe I'm willing to concede more than a progressive thumb to splinemodel's progressivism. Not much more.
Actually the works versus faith dilemma has nothing to do with belief. It concerns whether you can purchase your salvation via good works or whether it is simply granted via grace. Likewise there are plenty of folks who believe Jesus existed but do not seek religious understanding or acts from that belief.
If you don't have to do good things to be considered progressive then it is simply a matter of words. Say the right words and you are progressive? If progressive do not have to act on their beliefs, then why should others have to change?
It is profoundly offensive for you to declare yourself the sole judge of whether someone is progressive. I know for example that you do not support drug legalization. Likewise you declared that you do not support male choice which aligns you with Dr. Laura and John Kasich for example. Why are you allowed to pick and choose as you want and not others? Your views on those two issues are clearly conservative. Much more conservative than my own views. Yet you declare you own the word and can judge the fitness of others to use it.
Tell me Shawn are Southern "Blue Dog" Democrats not progressive?
Actually the works versus faith dilemma has nothing to do with belief. It concerns whether you can purchase your salvation via good works or whether it is simply granted via grace. Likewise there are plenty of folks who believe Jesus existed but do not seek religious understanding or acts from that belief.
If you don't have to do good things to be considered progressive then it is simply a matter of words. Say the right words and you are progressive? If progressive do not have to act on their beliefs, then why should others have to change?
It is profoundly offensive for you to declare yourself the sole judge of whether someone is progressive. I know for example that you do not support drug legalization. Likewise you declared that you do not support male choice which aligns you with Dr. Laura and John Kasich for example. Why are you allowed to pick and choose as you want and not others? Your views on those two issues are clearly conservative. Much more conservative than my own views. Yet you declare you own the word and can judge the fitness of others to use it.
Tell me Shawn are Southern "Blue Dog" Democrats not progressive?
Nick
No, trumptman, and I want you to acknowledge your error here. I am interpreting the definition of progressivism to mean something. Based on that definition, I form a conclusion. You are free to disagree with my conclusion- it is your right and your opinion to do so- but that does NOT mean your interpretation has to be valid. You should give me the same right to disagree with your conclusion based on the definition. By all means, your conclusion is wrong because action is not necessary for being. I can be a conservative and not do anything. I'm still- hypothetically- a conservative ideologically speaking. That point is so impossibly ridiculous to deny. It's really really simple actually.
"Blue Dog" Democrats are hardly progressive. Ask Dennis Kucinich about progressivism.
EDIT: add a "****" to any part of that post, please. your choice.
I take it you've been observing all the construction going on around the Princeton campus, eh? Construction is the worst culprit of abuse of union power. We used a spray on waterproofing for a foundation for a project so one person could do the job of 4. So what do we see in the field during its application? One guy spraying on the stuff and three to watch him do it.
Yeah, no kidding. I've worked construction in the DC area, and things seem to be very differrent. If at least because we take our half our lunch break, and perhaps 10mins for coffee at 9, but other than that we're on the job. There's definitely something to be said for safety and etc, but I have a very hard time supoorting the construction related unions in Jersey. Too many times I see three guys go into a truck and one guy come out carrying something.
On another note. . .
Yo Shawn, if the part of your body that doesn't support drug legalization is your thumb, I'm even more "progressive" than your thumb.
Progressive - Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
Conservatism - A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
Looking at those two definitions, I can see a bit of a middle ground. Being opposed to sudden change yet open to intelligent review of new policies, ideas, or methods allowing for eventual implementation would be the definition of a progressive conservative.
Anyway, I think using the term liberal or conservative anymore is just silly. People like Shawn and Scott, really two sides of the same coin more than either of them would like to think, have stolen these words from the public and turned them into an n-bomb.
I am for social freedoms, very limited government, and economics that focuses on personal responsibility. Sure, it takes a little longer to say but it doesn't allow people like Shawn or Scott or Bunge or SDW to change your message based on a word they have hijacked.
No, trumptman, and I want you to acknowledge your error here. I am interpreting the definition of progressivism to mean something. Based on that definition, I form a conclusion. You are free to disagree with my conclusion- it is your right and your opinion to do so- but that does NOT mean your interpretation has to be valid. You should give me the same right to disagree with your conclusion based on the definition. By all means, your conclusion is wrong because action is not necessary for being. I can be a conservative and not do anything. I'm still- hypothetically- a conservative ideologically speaking. That point is so impossibly ridiculous to deny. It's really really simple actually.
"Blue Dog" Democrats are hardly progressive. Ask Dennis Kucinich about progressivism.
EDIT: add a "****" to any part of that post, please. your choice.
Really, you are laughable. Read back through the thread and understand what you have posted. You declared yourself the standard bearer of progressivism. You declared that those who didn't measure up were equal to your thumb.
Then you say you can have your definition which is, of course in Shawnland, valid. You are welcome to state it and I am (oh thank the heavens) actually allowed to disagree with it.
You then state that while I am allowed to disagree (groveled thanks...really ) my point can't possibly be valid because...well it isn't your point.
I needed a laugh that hearty really.
Now you declare actions are not necessary to achieve a label. Then how do you prove someone is that label? Anyone can say anything. You declare half the Democratic party unprogressive even though I am sure their rhetoric is bound to be. Bush and others for example declare themselves to be compassionate and believe it of themselves as well. If you don't use actions, how can you claim they are not compassionate?
Likewise you still have not explained how you can achieve change with no actions.
Mostly though I think it odd you think it fine that those who highmindedly teach and run our most expensive colleges can declare themselves progressive and be big on words but so short on actions.
Likewise the students attending them will not only tolerate the poverty in their midst, but expect it to serve them while declaring themselves "suffering" to get by on the scholarships their earned for no other reason than they were born to two parents, likely educated and white and went to the schools in their local neighborhood.
You may care to call that progressive. I call it defending the status quo which is anything but progressive.
This thread has been a wonderfully pointless debate, but Nick did you start it just to draw people in for a pointless argument? or, do you actually give a shite about the issue?
This thread has been a wonderfully pointless debate, but Nick did you start it just to draw people in for a pointless argument? or, do you actually give a shite about the issue?
I support unionization. I belong to a union and am a union rep. I also support fair trade.
I find the thought that universities who aren't even for profit entities deny some of their workers the right to unionize. It is even worse when you consider what they often claim to represent which is an enlightened, progessive view.
This thread has been a wonderfully pointless debate, but Nick did you start it just to draw people in for a pointless argument? or, do you actually give a shite about the issue?
Obviously just to argue with people on the internet.
How else do you explain his obtuse refusal to admit that views are different than actions. According to his ****ed up logic, I can't have progressive views on something unless I show it in my actions.
We're not progressives unless we act on every single one of our views. That's his point. You have to be a troll to agree with that.
Obviously just to argue with people on the internet.
How else do you explain his obtuse refusal to admit that views are different than actions. According to his ****ed up logic, I can't have progressive views on something unless I show it in my actions.
We're not progressives unless we act on every single one of our views. That's his point. You have to be a troll to agree with that.
Or maybe you just have to be a hypocrit who constantly implores others to do the work you would never do yourself.
"Hey, feed the poor, well I support it but let some other fool DO it, I just support them doing it which means I am compassionate and enlightened. Now where is the remote..."
Or maybe you just have to be a hypocrit who constantly implores others to do the work you would never do yourself.
"Hey, feed the poor, well I support it but let some other fool DO it, I just support them doing it which means I am compassionate and enlightened. Now where is the remote..."
Nick
You can hold VIEWS and NOT ACT on them. You are saying you can't hold views UNLESS you act on them.
There's a difference between not acting on something and acting against something. There are clearly instances where the two are the same, but you don't always have to act to have a belief (which is trumptman's point- that we're not progressives because we don't act on every single one of our beliefs)
It's more like banging someone's head off the wall trying to convince them that views can exist separate from actions.
You can hold VIEWS and NOT ACT on them. You are saying you can't hold views UNLESS you act on them.
Look if they are preventing someone from unionizing, then you ARE acting on their views. If you are attending the university then you are an accomplice. I'm not asking about a matter in which the person isn't even involved but wants to state a view. If your fees pay their wages and they prevent unionization. Then you are supporting that view.
Universities are acting on this and to claim that doing nothing is okay is wrong. If you claim to support workers rights and then watch them not allow the very person cleaning your table to gain those rights while claiming to be compassionate, then you are just a liar. It would be like those nice folks who supported human rights while owning slaves. It comes across as hypocritical.
This isn't something supported from afar. It isn't something half a world a way that you have to "support" since you can't actually go there. This is a local issue that I asked about. Something tells me all your spinning is hiding something.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Somewhere, buried in the pathetic waste of time that post was- was the classic works vs. faith dilemma that split the Roman Catholic church so many years ago. Both traditions assume that one still has faith in Jesus, or more appropriately- that one still believes in one's respective ideology. But in order to attain salvation in Roman Catholicism, one must do good things- or works.
I don't believe that a progressive must actively do good things to be considered progressive. I think voting is a way to do nothing yet still act- if you can get past the paradox of what I am saying. But if you claim to be "as progressive as anyone" while having clearly conservative views on a lot of things- that's wrong- clearly contradictory.
I have progressive views on mostly everything, but maybe I'm willing to concede more than a progressive thumb to splinemodel's progressivism. Not much more.
Actually the works versus faith dilemma has nothing to do with belief. It concerns whether you can purchase your salvation via good works or whether it is simply granted via grace. Likewise there are plenty of folks who believe Jesus existed but do not seek religious understanding or acts from that belief.
If you don't have to do good things to be considered progressive then it is simply a matter of words. Say the right words and you are progressive? If progressive do not have to act on their beliefs, then why should others have to change?
It is profoundly offensive for you to declare yourself the sole judge of whether someone is progressive. I know for example that you do not support drug legalization. Likewise you declared that you do not support male choice which aligns you with Dr. Laura and John Kasich for example. Why are you allowed to pick and choose as you want and not others? Your views on those two issues are clearly conservative. Much more conservative than my own views. Yet you declare you own the word and can judge the fitness of others to use it.
Tell me Shawn are Southern "Blue Dog" Democrats not progressive?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually the works versus faith dilemma has nothing to do with belief. It concerns whether you can purchase your salvation via good works or whether it is simply granted via grace. Likewise there are plenty of folks who believe Jesus existed but do not seek religious understanding or acts from that belief.
If you don't have to do good things to be considered progressive then it is simply a matter of words. Say the right words and you are progressive? If progressive do not have to act on their beliefs, then why should others have to change?
It is profoundly offensive for you to declare yourself the sole judge of whether someone is progressive. I know for example that you do not support drug legalization. Likewise you declared that you do not support male choice which aligns you with Dr. Laura and John Kasich for example. Why are you allowed to pick and choose as you want and not others? Your views on those two issues are clearly conservative. Much more conservative than my own views. Yet you declare you own the word and can judge the fitness of others to use it.
Tell me Shawn are Southern "Blue Dog" Democrats not progressive?
Nick
No, trumptman, and I want you to acknowledge your error here. I am interpreting the definition of progressivism to mean something. Based on that definition, I form a conclusion. You are free to disagree with my conclusion- it is your right and your opinion to do so- but that does NOT mean your interpretation has to be valid. You should give me the same right to disagree with your conclusion based on the definition. By all means, your conclusion is wrong because action is not necessary for being. I can be a conservative and not do anything. I'm still- hypothetically- a conservative ideologically speaking. That point is so impossibly ridiculous to deny. It's really really simple actually.
"Blue Dog" Democrats are hardly progressive. Ask Dennis Kucinich about progressivism.
EDIT: add a "****" to any part of that post, please. your choice.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I take it you've been observing all the construction going on around the Princeton campus, eh? Construction is the worst culprit of abuse of union power. We used a spray on waterproofing for a foundation for a project so one person could do the job of 4. So what do we see in the field during its application? One guy spraying on the stuff and three to watch him do it.
Yeah, no kidding. I've worked construction in the DC area, and things seem to be very differrent. If at least because we take our half our lunch break, and perhaps 10mins for coffee at 9, but other than that we're on the job. There's definitely something to be said for safety and etc, but I have a very hard time supoorting the construction related unions in Jersey. Too many times I see three guys go into a truck and one guy come out carrying something.
On another note. . .
Yo Shawn, if the part of your body that doesn't support drug legalization is your thumb, I'm even more "progressive" than your thumb.
Just being an ass.
Originally posted by BR
Progressive - Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
Conservatism - A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
Looking at those two definitions, I can see a bit of a middle ground. Being opposed to sudden change yet open to intelligent review of new policies, ideas, or methods allowing for eventual implementation would be the definition of a progressive conservative.
Anyway, I think using the term liberal or conservative anymore is just silly. People like Shawn and Scott, really two sides of the same coin more than either of them would like to think, have stolen these words from the public and turned them into an n-bomb.
I am for social freedoms, very limited government, and economics that focuses on personal responsibility. Sure, it takes a little longer to say but it doesn't allow people like Shawn or Scott or Bunge or SDW to change your message based on a word they have hijacked.
Right On BR!
Fellows
Originally posted by ShawnJ
No, trumptman, and I want you to acknowledge your error here. I am interpreting the definition of progressivism to mean something. Based on that definition, I form a conclusion. You are free to disagree with my conclusion- it is your right and your opinion to do so- but that does NOT mean your interpretation has to be valid. You should give me the same right to disagree with your conclusion based on the definition. By all means, your conclusion is wrong because action is not necessary for being. I can be a conservative and not do anything. I'm still- hypothetically- a conservative ideologically speaking. That point is so impossibly ridiculous to deny. It's really really simple actually.
"Blue Dog" Democrats are hardly progressive. Ask Dennis Kucinich about progressivism.
EDIT: add a "****" to any part of that post, please. your choice.
Really, you are laughable. Read back through the thread and understand what you have posted. You declared yourself the standard bearer of progressivism. You declared that those who didn't measure up were equal to your thumb.
Then you say you can have your definition which is, of course in Shawnland, valid. You are welcome to state it and I am (oh thank the heavens) actually allowed to disagree with it.
You then state that while I am allowed to disagree (groveled thanks...really
I needed a laugh that hearty really.
Now you declare actions are not necessary to achieve a label. Then how do you prove someone is that label? Anyone can say anything. You declare half the Democratic party unprogressive even though I am sure their rhetoric is bound to be. Bush and others for example declare themselves to be compassionate and believe it of themselves as well. If you don't use actions, how can you claim they are not compassionate?
Likewise you still have not explained how you can achieve change with no actions.
Mostly though I think it odd you think it fine that those who highmindedly teach and run our most expensive colleges can declare themselves progressive and be big on words but so short on actions.
Likewise the students attending them will not only tolerate the poverty in their midst, but expect it to serve them while declaring themselves "suffering" to get by on the scholarships their earned for no other reason than they were born to two parents, likely educated and white and went to the schools in their local neighborhood.
You may care to call that progressive. I call it defending the status quo which is anything but progressive.
Nick
Originally posted by trick fall
This thread has been a wonderfully pointless debate, but Nick did you start it just to draw people in for a pointless argument? or, do you actually give a shite about the issue?
I support unionization. I belong to a union and am a union rep. I also support fair trade.
I find the thought that universities who aren't even for profit entities deny some of their workers the right to unionize. It is even worse when you consider what they often claim to represent which is an enlightened, progessive view.
Nick
Originally posted by trick fall
This thread has been a wonderfully pointless debate, but Nick did you start it just to draw people in for a pointless argument? or, do you actually give a shite about the issue?
Obviously just to argue with people on the internet.
How else do you explain his obtuse refusal to admit that views are different than actions. According to his ****ed up logic, I can't have progressive views on something unless I show it in my actions.
We're not progressives unless we act on every single one of our views. That's his point. You have to be a troll to agree with that.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Obviously just to argue with people on the internet.
How else do you explain his obtuse refusal to admit that views are different than actions. According to his ****ed up logic, I can't have progressive views on something unless I show it in my actions.
We're not progressives unless we act on every single one of our views. That's his point. You have to be a troll to agree with that.
Or maybe you just have to be a hypocrit who constantly implores others to do the work you would never do yourself.
"Hey, feed the poor, well I support it but let some other fool DO it, I just support them doing it which means I am compassionate and enlightened. Now where is the remote..."
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Or maybe you just have to be a hypocrit who constantly implores others to do the work you would never do yourself.
"Hey, feed the poor, well I support it but let some other fool DO it, I just support them doing it which means I am compassionate and enlightened. Now where is the remote..."
Nick
You can hold VIEWS and NOT ACT on them. You are saying you can't hold views UNLESS you act on them.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
You can hold VIEWS and NOT ACT on them.
But isn´t that a bit like lying?[/devilsadvocat]
Originally posted by Anders
But isn´t that a bit like lying?[/devilsadvocat]
There's a difference between not acting on something and acting against something. There are clearly instances where the two are the same, but you don't always have to act to have a belief (which is trumptman's point- that we're not progressives because we don't act on every single one of our beliefs)
It's more like banging someone's head off the wall trying to convince them that views can exist separate from actions.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
You can hold VIEWS and NOT ACT on them. You are saying you can't hold views UNLESS you act on them.
Look if they are preventing someone from unionizing, then you ARE acting on their views. If you are attending the university then you are an accomplice. I'm not asking about a matter in which the person isn't even involved but wants to state a view. If your fees pay their wages and they prevent unionization. Then you are supporting that view.
Universities are acting on this and to claim that doing nothing is okay is wrong. If you claim to support workers rights and then watch them not allow the very person cleaning your table to gain those rights while claiming to be compassionate, then you are just a liar. It would be like those nice folks who supported human rights while owning slaves. It comes across as hypocritical.
This isn't something supported from afar. It isn't something half a world a way that you have to "support" since you can't actually go there. This is a local issue that I asked about. Something tells me all your spinning is hiding something.
Nick