De Vaticanus GodwiniiFollow

By being told that stoves are hot. I have never once in my life touched a hot stove element, and yet I still know not to do so.

Somehow.

It's how I dry my hands every morning.

Sorry, BT.

Hell, I burn myself on oven elements.

It get's better (this is actually relevant to the original topic--sorry):



http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63B4TR20100412

No offense to the catholics of this board, but your church is ******* retarded.

The irony is that he said this when visiting Chile, where the highest profile abuse cases involved young girls (and there are accusations that one girl was impregnated).

Plus, it's generally a bad idea to make such stupid, bold claims and back them up with "someone told me."

Annnd predictably, a bishop declaims that it's the Jews' fault.

Yep. Not the fault of kiddie-touching priests, but of Zionists who want to bring down the church because deep down inside, all Jews are God-killers.

Well, he's a retired bishop of a not-particularly-large diocese. It's not like he's spokesman for the Church, at least not an official one.



Edited, Apr 13th 2010 12:55pm by trickybeck

My sister works in PR. With each passing week, this scandal astounds her more. It's like the church doesn't even have any reps on payroll.

Hah. Missed this:



I don't advocate social liberalism. I oppose it. I advocate classical liberalism, which is not the same thing.



You're getting caught up on semantics. Look at the thing I'm describing, not the label being used.



Social Liberalism, as I am using it, is an ideology which offshoots from classical liberalism. Social liberalism believes that the freedom to do something is useless without the ability to do that thing as well. I've pointed this out in numerous other threads when observing that when many posters talk about "liberty", they are actually talking about "ability". Which is why their position is based on social liberalist ideology. It's not enough to have the freedom to obtain medical care if one cannot afford to pay for it. That is a social liberalist position.


I could write volumes about why this is a dangerous ideology to follow, but the simple reason is exactly what I described above. In order to sell itself to a population, social liberalists often have to work to blur the meanings of "liberty" and "ability" in the minds of their followers. The idea being that if you can get people to actually and honestly not see a difference between them, then they will act in a pure social liberalist manner. The danger is that this also means that they can't tell the difference between an act which harms someone (infringement of rights), and an act which simply fails to help someone (withholding of benefits). As a result, the people believe that if they are not provided something by the government, then their rights are being infringed. Thus, they demand that the government intervene in their lives (an act which typically results in less liberty as defined by classical liberalists), out of a false belief that this increases their liberty.

As I pointed out earlier, the guy receiving money from someone else in order to survive becomes dependent on that other person (or government). That's not an increase in liberty. It's a decrease. But if you've been indoctrinated into the idea that liberty is gained by being given things you couldn't obtain on your own, then you think you're gaining liberty while you're actually losing it. That's the trap of social liberalism. And it's insidious because those most trapped honestly don't even realize it. They'll usually be the ones yelling the loudest for more government goodies...

Welcome to Happy Chat Hour with your host, gbaji! The theme of the day is "gbaji makes up his own definitions, tells you you cannot do the same, and then explains why you're wrong!" Enjoy!

Examples:


Translation: My wording is right, not yours. Correctly labeling things matters to me!



Translation: Ok, I realize you're right, but correct labeling doesn't matter to me!



Translation: I can make up definitions!


Thanks for playing folks! Remember, the world would fall apart if not for my ellipses...

They do in your fUcked-up excuse for a brain, **********

To the rest of humanity there's denotation, connotation, and gbaji's warped psychotic opinion masquerading as thought.

Ok then. What term should I use? Tell me what the "official" term is to describe an ideology which believes that the freedom to do something is not sufficient, and that the state should also provide the "ability" to do those things?

Cause the closest term I've found that fits is Social Liberalism




I think you're splitting hairs by arguing that I'm using the incorrect term. But if you think so, then by all means, provide another. I have been abundantly clear as to exactly what I'm talking about here. Quibbling over terminology is silly IMO. I've demonstrated quite clearly that there is a component to political thought which absolutely does merge the concept of the ability to do something and the liberty to do something. I have had numerous debates on this forum with people who can't separate the two, and have made observations about it many other times as well. It is quite clearly the founding principle which leads people to support policies like affirmative action, and to argue that failing to provide health care, education, housing, etc is an infringement of "rights". As I've also pointed out, the entire concept of "positive rights" rests on this same assumption.


I'm just trying to cut through the BS of individual issue and get to the core ideology. Do you deny that all of those concepts arise from the very assumption about liberty and ability which I've been talking about? If not, then what is the commonality? Stop looking at the surface of the issues, and dig a little deeper. Look at *why* people take positions, not just the positions they take.

Jesus Hezb'ollah Christ