Hypocrisy and Right vs. Left Wing

[SoCalRC]

Another good example of the point he objected to. I’ve again quoted the Church, and pointed to things which can be checked as matters of objective fact. They are of zero interest to you.

I don’t think that there is anything wrong with accepting that some people place a higher emphasis on pre-conception than perception. Think of it this way. Based on your limited info here we can make several statistical assertions.

You are more likely to live in poverty than me. You are more likely to be divorced. And you are more likely to be convicted of a violent crime (in fact, the statistical gap on some violent crimes, like domestic violence, is several orders of magnititude).

These disparities are things we can count and measure. Their existance is not really debatable. But why something exists is often debatable. We could adopt an outlook that many religious leaders had at the time of Christ, and say your state and your peers are being punished for God - perhaps for the conspicuous consumption of impure corn liquor and multiple generations of unbiblical sex.

IE, Hardship flows from God, blame is on the individuals.

This sort of stereotype would, rightfully, enrage southern individuals, such as Vern and yourself. But, viewed clinically, Vern’s own explanation is, at best, only a variation. He has repeatedly indicated that socio economic ills are a reflection of the individuals. Weath simply indicates virtue, more effort, self improvement, etc.

IE, Blame is on the individuals, God is irrelevant.

From a logical point of view, this does not seem to make much sense. Vern points to his own success as an example of how people can choose to get ahead. But, if he is correct, and individual choice is the principal difference, then his own example is diminished. Think about it like a grading bell curve, getting a C+ or even a B+ in ‘socio economics’ means different things depending on rather you are in an ‘Advanced Placement’ class or ‘Special Education’.

But, from a Catholic point of view what is most troubling is the theology. Blame is kept, God is discarded. Compare this with the message of Christ, who rejected the the assignment of blame on the poor. In fact, we are called to be poor in spirit. A religious priest must take a vow of poverty.

IE, God is the source of all goodness, God is a source of infinite love, blame is collective, the absense of peace and unity and all lives committed to service.

In a society structured around earthly power, this is subversive. But we reiterate it every time we collectively recite the Nicene Creed. Rather or not a person truly accepts it is a question between them and God.

I’m just pointing out that if we abandon our Dogmatic believe about the inalienable rights (plural) of the human person then we are not “pro life” in the Catholic sense. We might still be “anti abortion”, but we have abandoned “every stage” and “every condition”.

I say “might” because it depends on our futher actions. If we do not hold ourselves or those we support accountable for real results, then it is reasonable to question our sincerity about even abortion. Our beliefs may be fixed because they must be compatible to something we care about more.

 

[BamaRider]

For the SoCalRC- I did stay awake to the end of your last post brother but it was kinda hard.

I don’t need a long deposition, so just gimme the short version. Is it your opinion the entire USA would be better off if run like the State of California?

 

[estesbob]

For the SoCalRC- I did stay awake to the end of your last post brother but it was kinda hard.

I don’t need a long deposition, so just gimme the short version. Is it your opinion the entire USA would be better off if run like the State of California?

I wish he would tell the story about the Republican Party enslaving wowmen and forcing them to have abortions. Its one of my favorites!

 

[SoCalRC]

For the SoCalRC- I did stay awake to the end of your last post brother but it was kinda hard.

I don’t need a long deposition, so just gimme the short version. Is it your opinion the entire USA would be better off if run like the State of California?

Not in the least. But another fine example of the principle of different mechanisms of thought. It would never occur to me to form an opinion, let alone attempt a summary, without actually studying what was said. You, on the other hand, are seemingly comfortable presenting your preconceptions as probable fact, even when they are baseless.

Look at it this way. I see the world as quite complex. You believe that everything you need to know can be compressed in a sound bite. I think it is pointless to over simplify. You would find my points no more compelling if I did. After all, you like things stripped of nuance and supporting evidence - so how can one overly simplistic sound bite really prove or disprove another?

I think that the commonality should be the Church. That is a higher truth we both supposedly acknowledge. That is why I so frequently quote her. Unfortunately, she does not speak in sound bites either.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You are more likely to live in poverty than me.

etc, etc. Basically that conservatives are inferior to liberals in all respects worth mentioning.

This sort of stereotype would, rightfully, enrage southern individuals, such as Vern and yourself.

As to the first assertion, I would readily agree, as you have told us before how rich you are, and I know I’m not.

Possibly you could post the studies of which you speak, rather than simply assert conclusions. I would be particularly interested in the pools picked for the studies done by identifiable conservatives that say conservatives are not as bright as leftists.

Being conservative in some ways, thus at least partially stupid, I cannot really see how I am supposed to drive through the heavily democratic sectors of any large city, then through the republican parts of town and conclude that intelligence, crime, etc are all higher in the latter than in the former. Yes, I know there are small sections where the left wing elites live too.

And I would like to see where the Pope says it’s okay to vote for abortionists as long as they favor nationalized healthcare and foreclosure relief. Guess I’ll just wait on that.

And of course you’re going to vote Democrat. That’s why you’re here; to persuade others that they should do so as well. I might be stupid, but I’m not stupid enough to doubt it when the Dem party line is all you ever talk about.

And when you assert that southerners like Vern and Estes would naturally resent something, your bias is showing. But then, liberal elitists have always thought poorly of southerners. I thought they had gotten past that sort of bigotry by now, but I guess maybe not.

 

[BamaRider]

SoCalRC is sayin-

Not in the least. But another fine example of the principle of different mechanisms of thought. It would never occur to me to form an opinion, let alone attempt a summary, without actually studying what was said. You, on the other hand, are seemingly comfortable presenting your preconceptions as probable fact, even when they are baseless.
Look at it this way. I see the world as quite complex. You believe that everything you need to know can be compressed in a sound bite. I think it is pointless to over simplify. You would find my points no more compelling if I did. After all, you like things stripped of nuance and supporting evidence - so how can one overly simplistic sound bite really prove or disprove another?

I think that the commonality should be the Church. That is a higher truth we both supposedly acknowledge. That is why I so frequently quote her. Unfortunately, she does not speak in sound bites either.

This is why it is so hard to debate with a liberal, you ask a simple question and ya get a weather report and plethora of inconsistencies.

You don’t want America run like California because A ( too liberal, B ( too conservative, or C ( it is liberal just not a good example. Ok, so what would be a good example?

As a libeal I assumed you liked living in one of the most liberal states, and if you don’t, why would you stay there, and if you do, why wouldn’t you want the other 49 states run in the same manner?

Lemme guess! More complicated then a simple sound bite! LOL

I can say I wish Washington DC was more like Alabama. Not perfect, but governed by moslty God fearing people, who if given a choice would strike down Roe v Wade and run Planned Parenthood outta here on a rail.

 

[ribozyme]

SoCalRC is sayin-

This is why it is so hard to debate with a liberal, you ask a simple question and ya get a weather report and plethora of inconsistencies.

What are these alleged inconsistencies in his posts? Could you show me some egregious contradictions? I do not completely agree with him, but I agree with most of his posts content and it is mostly internally consistent,

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

Do you have any idea what would have happened if Bear stearns and Lehman brothers had went down? The miiddle and lower classes would have been devastated . Even the Democrats knew this could not be allowed to happen.

yeah right. it only would hurt the ceo’s. the market should be left alone to correct itself. this bail out only makes things worse. besides, bear stearns was bought out the next day. it was criminal and unprecedented. but what do you expect from the republicrats.

that’s very conservative, use the government to bail you out when you make bad decisions.

repbulcrat or demican, either way the middle class is f-ed.

 

[BamaRider]

Ribo wanted to know-

What are these alleged inconsistencies in his posts? Could you show me some egregious contradictions? I do not completely agree with him, but I agree with most of his posts content and it is mostly internally consistent,

---

Soooooooo

1. SoCal is liberal
2. Lives in the Hotel California=one of the top liberal states
3. He supports liberal agendas and their champions
4. He has the means to live anywhere he wants, but remains in the Hotel, so I’m gonna assume he likes it.

(If any of those premises are false, he is free to correct. I had to ascertain these notions through pages and pages of gobbly gook, so my dedcutions could be wrong)

But when I asked this question-

I don’t need a long deposition, so just gimme the short version. Is it your opinion the entire USA would be better off if run like the State of California?

I got this answer- (emphasis mine)

Not in the least. But another fine example of the principle of different mechanisms of thought. It would never occur to me to form an opinion, let alone attempt a summary, without actually studying what was said. You, on the other hand, are seemingly comfortable presenting your preconceptions as probable fact, even when they are baseless.

So I find that inconsistent. If you are a liberal living in the Hotel California, and voting to keep the status quo, it would not be consistent not wish your version of Oz on the rest of us

I happen to live in a place I like, and I believe the country would be better if the very conservative principals of my state were applied nationwide,. Therefore, I’m consistent and as SoCal so pointed out SIMPLE and straight talking. A badge I happen to like.

And what does “wonk ya out” mean?

 

[ribozyme]

Ribo wanted to know-

Soooooooo

1. SoCal is liberal
2. Lives in the Hotel California=one of the top liberal states
3. He supports liberal agendas and their champions
4. He has the means to live anywhere he wants, but remains in the Hotel, so I’m gonna assume he likes it.

(If any of those premises are false, he is free to correct. I had to ascertain these notions through pages and pages of gobbly gook, so my dedcutions could be wrong)

Hmm… well, he might prefer the climate or he has his family in California. The fact that he lives there does not mean he is doing it because California has liberals. But, it seems to me that wealthy conservatives regard money as an end, while wealthy liberals regard it as a means.

But when I asked this question-

I don’t need a long deposition, so just gimme the short version. Is it your opinion the entire USA would be better off if run like the State of California?

I got this answer- (emphasis mine)

Not in the least. But another fine example of the principle of different mechanisms of thought.

It would never occur to me to form an opinion, let alone attempt a summary, without actually studying what was said. You, on the other hand, are seemingly comfortable presenting your preconceptions as probable fact, even when they are baseless.

So I find that inconsistent. If you are a liberal living in the Hotel California, and voting to keep the status quo, it would not be consistent not wish your version of Oz on the rest of us

I happen to live in a place I like, and I believe the country would be better if the very conservative principals of my state were applied nationwide,. Therefore, I’m consistent and as SoCal so pointed out SIMPLE and straight talking. A badge I happen to like.

And what does “wonk ya out” mean?

I do not prefer your vision for the United States. However, I wish people believe in the ethical systems advocated by Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, John Rawls, and Peter Singer. (of course, I disagree with some aspects of their philosophies.) In addition, I wished people adhered to the epistemology of David Hume and Karl Popper. Your do not seem to base your worldview on these people’s views or express anything that shows sympathy for their ideas. However, SoCalRC, although not explicitly does. For example, he attempts to provide empirical evidence for his views. Also, he considers alternative hypotheses and tests them rigorously. Moreover, his ethical views seem to reflect that of John Rawls as he attempts to imagine the conditions of the unfortunate in society although he supports such sentiment by citing the Church, not a secular Kantian philosopher. (John Rawls’ major contribution in ethics is the original position where tries to envision themselves in a state before their birth. However, during such as a state we do not know our personal traits, our parent’s financial status, our talents, and other traits about ourselves. In practice, this heuristic for a social contract is hard to implement pragmatically. But if we were in such a state, Rawls’ reasons that we would try to minimax our condition in society; that is minimizing any potential loss. In other words, we should try to **maximize **the well-being of the most unfortunate in society.) SoCalRC reminds me of myself, but without the defeatism and secularism.

Regarding a wonk, I’ll respond in a facetious manner: A wonk is a person with Asperger’s syndrome who is interested in social justice. Such a person has a natural aversion with human contact so he prefers not to help the poor by volunteering, but by reading policy papers online in his free time so he could understand the travails of the unfortunate and advocate policies that will rectify those injustices. A wonk is also a person who prefers pragmatic solutions over ideology.

 

[SoCalRC]

This is why it is so hard to debate with a liberal, you ask a simple question and ya get a weather report and plethora of inconsistencies.

Can you cite a single instance to support your claim that I am, in fact, a liberal? If you bother to search the forums you will find that I am staunchly pro-life. In fact, I am more conservative on abortion than most of posters here.

Further, my point is, and consistantly has been, that we are not voting Catholic enough. That is, we are compromising too much in the voting choices we make now. One simple example, the CAF voters guide lists same sex marriage as a non-compromise issue. But the Vatican goes farther, in it’s document on voting it states:

“Analogously [to abortion and protection of the human fetus], the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Words like “monogamous” and “stability in the face of modern laws on divorce” compel me to consider more than gay marriage when considering rather a candidate truly reflects this non negotiable moral principle. From a Catholic point of view that would make me more conservative, not liberal.

You don’t want America run like California because…

I can’t comment because I cannot find even a remote connection between the question and anything I have previously raised.

You seem to be contending that I am somehow ‘stuck’ on right to life. That is, I cannot connect it to my own ideology. You are incorrect. I wholly and completely vote the Catholic position on right to life (at least to the very best of my ability). It seems to me that you are the one who might have a problem. Look at how Pope John Paul II explained to the laity, our responsibility on right to life:

"In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of therights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: <<All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator>>" - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI #38

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html

Now, look at ABC news from today:

abcnews.go.com/print?id=4583256

Next, read the recently released Yoo memo on torture:

gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/files/march.14.memo.part1.pdf

gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/files/march14.memo.part2.pdf

Be sure to note two things, first, it contains no reference to Youngstown v. Sawyer, 343, U.S. 579 (1952), the Supreme Court case which specifically ruled on the limits of presidential power during war. Yoo knew about it. In fact, he seems to have considered it essential reading when studying the seperation of powers:

law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/assign.html

If you read Youngstown, you can probably guess why it was omitted. Second, notice that the memo does bother to inform us that the President could, if he wanted, even have the child of a detainee mutlilated (the example used is crushing the child’s testicles).

So, we have the nifty combination of utter disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law, and unspeakable vile acts. The acts are (see above) non negotiable in Catholic Dogma, and directly related to the moral foundation of our belief on abortion.

To me, non negotiable means just that. Why are you so insistant that Catholics should compromise on even right to life issues? That would seem to be a far more ‘liberal’ and secular position than mine.

 

[SoCalRC]

So I find that inconsistent. If you are a liberal living in the Hotel California, and voting to keep the status quo, it would not be consistent not wish your version of Oz on the rest of us

I happen to live in a place I like, and I believe the country would be better if the very conservative principals of my state were applied nationwide,. Therefore, I’m consistent and as SoCal so pointed out SIMPLE and straight talking. A badge I happen to like.

First, it is worth noting that I have never suggested anything but very conservative voting (from a Catholic point of view). Your adherence to your preconception of my beliefs and voting patterns may be an example of the different types of thought I have mentioned.

Second, your presentation of your state would appear to another case of preference to preconceptions over measurable reality. According to the US government, your state has more poverty, more illiteracy, more divorce, and higher rates of various other social ills than most (all?) of the ‘liberal’ states you seemingly disdain.

So, while you profess a belief in your own moral superiority, there is no measurable evidence to support your claim. Since I am Catholic, not an extreme Evangelical, I do not believe that your state’s problems are any evidence whatsoever of moral inferiority or superiority. I belief that you and your peers are fellow children of God and assume that, each Sunday, Catholics amoung you call to mind their own sins and unworthiness, just as we do here.

All Catholics proclaim, as one body, our collective unworthiness to receive the Lord. But we all remain welcome at God’s table. I believe that it is that moment of perfect social justice, all of us made equal by our own unworthiness, that permits us to also experience a brief moment of the Unity and Peace that we also collectively pray for.

 

[SoCalRC]

1. He has the means to live anywhere he wants, but remains in the Hotel, so I’m gonna assume he likes it.

For the record, this one is true. I wound up here after serving in Vietnam and liked the locale and the climate. I love the Sierras, and extended cold is just murder on my shoulder and arm (I’m still carrying foreign bone fragments).

Our parish has always made us feel like family, and we have some of the finest Catholic schools in the country (which was important to us for our kids).

 

[Ridgerunner]

Bama:

What you, like all Southerners, don’t seem to realize is the tremendous social progress that has been made in California. There’s no poverty. No crime. No drugs. No gangs. No gay parades. No desecration of Catholic Masses. The Catholic politicians there are all prolife, and the good citizens of California elect them again and again, knowing how pristine their prolife records are.

Alabama, on the other hand, has all those evangelicals and fundamentalists who have so many preconceived notions; notions like “God exists”, and “gay marriage is wrong” and “abortion is murder”. When are you going to learn, Bama? When are you southerners going to realize the Catholic Church is okay with abortion as long as you talk about how bad Republicans are, and elect a Nancy Pelosi to the Senate?

SoCalRC is going to vote for the Dem candidate for president. And so should you. Just because they’re both abortion supporters doesn’t mean you shouldn’t follow SoCal’s example. See, Bama, both of those candidates talk about “change”. It’s a little unclear what they mean by that, but one of them seems to be against the war in Iraq. The other is probably more hawkish than Bush, (How long have we been in Kosovo, now?) But that’s okay, because that one talks about healthcare a lot. The other talks about getting out in what, 16 months? Either way, though, they’re both fine. Don’t you remember where SoCal actually produced the statement by the Pope that it’s okay to vote the abortion ticket as long as you vote for a candidate who talks a lot about “change”? Well, he didn’t actually produce it, but he will. It’s only because you have all those preconceived notions that you don’t think he can. He’s going to do it right after he produces the papal statement that waterboarding a handful of terrorists is worse than millions of abortions.

And what about those studies by conservative groups proving that conservatives aren’t as smart as liberals? He’s not going to just say those studies prove what he says. He’s going to actually produce them so you can read them yourself. That will show you how ignorant your preconceived notions really are.

You see, Bama, there are preconceived notions that are true and there are those that aren’t. Like believing southerners are full of preconceived notions. That preconceived notion requires no proof because everbody knows it’s true. Well, that study by conservatives that says conservatives are pattern thinkers probably has a segment entirely dedicated to proving that southerners don’t think. We’ll soon see.

And because you are a southerner, and because, for that reason if no other, you are such a pattern thinker, SoCal is trying to do you a favor by persuading you to break out of your moral absolutism and vote democrat.

Now, he could surprise me, and say he’s not going to vote for the dem presidential candidate this fall. But since he’s not a pattern thinker, and is such an upfront guy, he’s going to tell us not only who he’s going to vote for, but whose campaign he has or is going to contribute to.

So just hold on. All the answers will probably be in the next post.

 

[Ender]

“Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.”

The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: <<All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator>>" - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI #38

As presented above these paragraphs contradict one another and I think a large part of the difference in the positions staked out in this thread is determined by which paragraph is believed to present the guiding principle.

If, as is stated in paragraph one, all other human rights issues are “false and illusory” if the fundamental right to life is compromised, then abortion will be the overriding, uncompromisable issue. If, as paragraph two states, all offenses against life, integrity, and the dignity of the human person are thrown together as a “supreme dishonor to the Creator” then we have not only the license but the obligation to factor in issues like the minimum wage and OSHA requirements.

My opinion is that, while there is (unfortunately) a laundry list of issues of true evil that need to be addressed, the belief that we can resolve them at the expense of the actual right to life issues is … false and illusory.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

What are these alleged inconsistencies in his posts? Could you show me some egregious contradictions? I do not completely agree with him, but I agree with most of his posts content and it is mostly internally consistent,

Becuase they are the same cut n posts rants he always makes. They can be summed up with this:

He hates republicans
God hates republicans
The Church backs up his views.

I will have to admit that some of the tales he spins are quite amusing-i guess we have moved on from republicans forcing women into slavery to the republicans having a private army(blackwater) and wanting to to turn the whitehouse over to a fundamentalist preacher.

 

[estesbob]

Bama:

So just hold on. All the answers will probably be in the next post.

Actually all the “answers” are in his previous posts . The only thing that changes from post to post is the atrocity the Republcian party is participating in.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What are these alleged inconsistencies in his posts? Could you show me some egregious contradictions? I do not completely agree with him, but I agree with most of his posts content and it is mostly internally consistent,

That in itself is a danger signal.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Becuase they are the same cut n posts rants he always makes. They can be summed up with this:

He hates republicans
God hates republicans
The Church backs up his views.

I will have to admit that some of the tales he spins are quite amusing-i guess we have moved on from republicans forcing women into slavery to the republicans having a private army(blackwater) and wanting to to turn the whitehouse over to a fundamentalist preacher.

As opposed to the shining example of private and public morality who occupied it during most of the 1990s?

 

[BamaRider]

Why are we having this discussion then? SoCal says he votes staunchly Catholic. I’ll take him at his word. That means there is only one party for him come fall.

I’d post the links but they mention party name, but PM me and I’ll shoot it to ya if you wish to read more.

**Cut and pasted from political party #1 offical platform- link provided on request. Page 42.
**

" *Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose,
consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against the edited by me party
efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption
incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare". *

I found no plank on how it defined marriage.

From the political party platform of #2 -p. 83

"We strongly support a call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, " It went on to define marraige as a MAN and WOMAN.

from page 84 of same party platform-

“As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of
Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to
life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution
and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections
apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that
right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion
and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges
who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.”

From there SoCalRC et al can decide which is the most Catholic.