"Conservatives only use hate & fear while Liberals use logic & reason."

[Whaleboy]

It's just a fancy way of saying anarchist.

As I explained above, it may appear that way, indeed, simplistically its true, but that definition is insufficient. The fact that I believe in a free market destroys many notions of anarchism, so I resort to its cute little sister, libertarian communism

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by elijah
Che:

Marry me Chegitz Guevara!!!

Are you cute?

[Whaleboy]

Are you cute?

In a delightfully rugged way!

Thus the burning question must be asked - Is any "intellectual" truly stupid enough to use this as an avatar? It will take me months of intense calculations to come up with that one, I tell you!

My post count is about 80/90 off the needed 500 . All the others are military

[chequita guevara]

I would point out that the original libertarians were in fact, communists. This meaning of the term predates it current usage by at least 100 years. To further perplex folks, the first English language paper to print Marx was called The Red Republican.

So, I am communist, a libertarian, a republican, a democrat, a socialist, a social democrat, and even an anarchist, depending on when and where the term is from.

[Whaleboy]

The Red Republican

Che can have my babies for that!

Its just proof that the political "coordinates" are far more complex than simplistic 1/2 dimensions would have us believe.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by elijah




Che can have my babies for that!

By that I hope you mean I can take them once you explain to your future baby's momma, since I'm not built for such things you know.

[Whaleboy]

I'm not built for such things you know

Love is a powerful force!

[GePap]

Looks like zylka is vacation hunting.

[Whaleboy]

I was going to say....

[Whaleboy]

Did anyone else understand any of that?

[Ben Kenobi]

but enough so to be inherently pacifist.

Elijah:

So where do I fall, am I conservative or am I a liberal?

Remember, I am a pacifist. Pacifism has nothing to do with moral relativism, and everything to do with believing that restraint outweighs violence.

[Whaleboy]

Remember, I am a pacifist. Pacifism has nothing to do with moral relativism, and everything to do with believing that restraint outweighs violence.

For me, its much to do with cultural relativism, as well as a general distaste for violence. That latter position fuels the subsequent logic.

I'd need more info about you to decide for myself, but going on that, if you consider peace/restraint to be more important than imposing your will on others, then I'd side with liberal.

When you say restraint, you could interpret that to mean that you have distaste, but will not cross a line of assaulting that man/nation. You will probably influence and critique him though. This influence and passive impedence, while not actively impeding is part of the means of moral/cultural relativism, so its not really separate. Is that interpretation fair?

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
Looks like zylka is vacation hunting.

Yep... all taken care of.

[Ben Kenobi]

By restraint, I mean that I will discuss with someone what I believe, though I will never use violence to promote my position. I don't think the protests that I do fall under the category of passive, since we do go out in public.

The problem with moral relativism is how do you come out with the presupposition that violence is wrong? That's what I'm not getting. If all points of view are equally valid, why should we restrain the violent? That's why I believe pacifism cannot work under moral relativism.

[GePap]

I am not convinced that moral relativism means all view points are equal: I say this becuase you can still devide viewpoints by things such as whether they are rational extensions of given suppositions, or whether they rationally lead to the desired ends which one supposes to be their desired aims.