How Did An Idiot Like Kerry Get Into Yale?

[nspeds]

<p>

It is inane how much liberals will change their basic principles around so that new information will support their candidates and positions. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

</p>

<p>On the contrary, the problem is not due to a perpetual modification of belief-systems, but it is because liberalism in general does not constitute a single political view:</p>

<p>

Liberalism can be understood in historical terms. It is a political tradition which has developed and become one of the dominant political forces in what is known as the Western world over the last three hundred years or so. It is identified by a series of political causes espoused by liberals over the centuries, by a variety of claims about the working of society and the economy, and by a cluster of ideas concerning the fundamental principles of political morality. It is probably true to say that no political cause, no one vision of society nor any political principle has commanded the respect of all liberals in any given generation, let alone through the centuries.(1) But the liberal tradition displays a considerable degree of unity and continuity which have enabled it to become one of the dominant and most formative strands of western culture.

</p>

<p>The (1) denotes an in-text citation to ‘Western Liberalism, ed. E. K. Bramsted and K. J. Melhuish, London, 1978.’</p>

<p>This excerpt is from ‘The Morality of Freedom, Joseph Raz, Oxford, 1986, pp. 1.’</p>

[soccerfanatic]

<p>Man, we need another candidate like Clinton, the real self-made man. He went from the trailer park to Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar!</p>

[davidav87]

<p>How well you did at Yale or whether you went to SJSU has nothing to do with how good a president you’ll be. A person could have gone to SJSU or something and still be a great president.
I didn’t take the time to read through the whole thread and I’m sure this was posted before but did you all know that Bush did better at Yale than Kerry did during the first semester, heh.</p>

[primitivefuture]

<p>As long as another maniac like Bush doesnt holding one of the most powerful positions in the world, everything will be fine in terms of peace, safety from terrorists, and a prosper America.</p>

[uc_benz]

<p>nspeds, did you not read through your excerpt? </p>

<p>“But the liberal tradition displays a considerable degree of unity and continuity”</p>

[nspeds]

<p>

“But the liberal tradition displays a considerable degree of unity and continuity”

</p>

<p>That is irrelevant to the point I am advancing.</p>

<p>

Both liberals and conservatives seem to change their convictions constantly to match the circumstances.

</p>

<p>This is obviously an ideological shift and not an alteration in kinship.</p>

<p>

It is probably true to say that no political cause, no one vision of society nor any political principle has commanded the respect of all liberals in any given generation, let alone through the centuries.

</p>

<p>…but my argument is that these ideological changes are not really ‘changes’. They merely reflect the plurality of ideologies that are subsumed by the liberal tradition. Since there is no definite standard on what marks liberalism - except for perhaps a few fundamental principles - there is no ground from which to verify these ideological changes and tendencies above that of the aforementioned minimal standard of fundamental principles. Thus, liberals can change their views and remain in the liberal tradition without fear of self-contradiction.</p>

[uc_benz]

<p>If is irrelevant then why was it in your source?</p>

<p>You were trying to make the point that liberalism does not change whimsically because it is an aggregate of so many views that it cannot possibly change because it encompasses pretty much every view to begin with. Yet, your source says that liberalism is continuous and unified. Continuous and unified implies a basic point of view held by all liberals. You don’t seem to think that, yet you cite it. Why is that?</p>

[slipstream99]

<p>why does the BUSH haHa thread get closed but not this one?</p>

[nspeds]

<p>

If is irrelevant then why was it in your source?

</p>

<p>I did not fabricate a source so that I could respond to his post; the rest of the source (the text), talks about the nature of authority and how a group of individuals bind themselves to the duties applied to them by that authority. Is that relevant as well? </p>

<p>

You were trying to make the point that liberalism does not change whimsically because it is an aggregate of so many views that it cannot possibly change because it encompasses pretty much every view to begin with.

</p>

<p>1) You commit a strawman.
2) You ended a sentence with a preposition.</p>

<p>

Yet, your source says that liberalism is continuous and unified. Continuous and unified implies a basic point of view held by all liberals. You don’t seem to think that, yet you cite it. Why is that?

</p>

<p>There is no such implication. If so, then perhaps Raz is contradicting himself when just before that he argues:</p>

<p>

It is probably true to say that no political cause, no one vision of society nor any political principle has commanded the respect of all liberals in any given generation, let alone through the centuries.(1)

</p>

<p>But there is no contradiction. I am united with my family, but that does not mean that I share their convictions. I, too, am united with my friends, and others in my university, but I do not share their ideologies. Your claim fails by reductio ad absurdum.</p>

<p>

You don’t seem to think that, yet you cite it. Why is that?

</p>

<p>I chose to include the entire paragraph. If you have a problem with that, confront Raz. I would love to observe the travesty that is some CC poster debating a pre-eminent scholar in social and political philosophy.
<a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/cu/philosophy/Faculty/_facultypages/josephraz.html[/url]”>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/philosophy/Faculty/_facultypages/josephraz.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Last I checked, I could choose how much to include in an excerpt so long as I do not blatantly take it out of context.</p>

[nspeds]

<p>

Yet, your source says that liberalism is continuous and unified. Continuous and unified implies a basic point of view held by all liberals. You don’t seem to think that, yet you cite it. Why is that?

</p>

<p>To epitomize your reading skills, or lack thereof, it is best that I also include the caveat:</p>

<p>

Since there is no definite standard on what marks liberalism - except for perhaps a few fundamental principles - there is no ground from which to verify these ideological changes and tendencies above that of the aforementioned minimal standard of fundamental principles. Thus, liberals can change their views and remain in the liberal tradition without fear of self-contradiction.

</p>

<p>There are core precepts to the liberal tradition, but ideologies can vary beyond that minimal standard.</p>

[thermodude]

<p>

Though Clinton became a scholar, I remember reading that he actually failed out.

</p>

<p>Actually, this isn’t true. Clinton did NOT fail out of Georgetown, but instead did rather well there. I believe he graduated with a 3.5+ GPA (If someone could find out the exact, that would be nice), in addition to particiapating in a large amount of EC’s.</p>

<p>Maybe the Democrats should have just nominated Wesley Clark, as he graduated 1st on his class with a 4.0.</p>

[nspeds]

<p>

Clinton did NOT fail out of Georgetown, but instead did rather well there. I believe he graduated with a 3.5+ GPA, in addition to particiapating in a large amount of EC’s.

</p>

<p>No. I heard that he failed out of the Rhode’s program.</p>

[uc_benz]

<p>You should stick to quoting scholarly articles instead of trying to pass off as an intellectual yourself. </p>

<p>Ending my sentence with a preposition? Thanks Grammar Queen.</p>

<p>I’m not debating your “pre-eminent” scholar, but rather, I am debating your use of his words. Which WERE blatantly out of context.</p>

[nspeds]

<p>

You should stick to quoting scholarly articles instead of trying to pass off as an intellectual yourself.

</p>

<p>Is that the best you can do? First you propound a ridiculous argument, and now attempt to swindle out by a logical fallacy? Brilliant sleight-of-hand. Too bad it was just revealed…</p>

<p>

I’m not debating your “pre-eminent” scholar, but rather, I am debating your use of his words. Which WERE blatantly out of context

</p>

<p>How do you know it is ‘blatantly out of context’? Did you read the book?</p>

<p>OH! You are assuming it is out of context merely because of your failure to interpret the excerpt. That is another fallacious argument, I fear.</p>

[nspeds]

<p>Here is what is immediately after the excerpt I provided:</p>

<p>

This essay, however, will not pursue the historical trail. It is addressed primarily to people who grew up in the embrace of the liberal tradition or who at least have felt its attraction, to those who wish to define their own position relative to that tradition.

</p>

<p>So much for taking it out of context…</p>

[uc_benz]

<p>I don’t even think you know what you’re arguing about even more. </p>

<p>A previous poster proposed that liberals (specifically Kerry) change their views according to the public perception at the time. Yet, you countered by saying that Democrats don’t have one view, but rather, have several different views. And you argued with a source that leaves a lot to be desired. The author does not say anything to the degree of which liberals don’t agree on one idea, and he certainly does not give an explanation to why this is so. Could it be because they are constantly trying to identify with the public? I think so.</p>

[nspeds]

<p>

A previous poster proposed that liberals (specifically Kerry) change their views according to the public perception at the time.

</p>

<p>Good so far.</p>

<p>

Yet, you countered by saying that Democrats don’t have one view, but rather, have several different views.

</p>

<p>Sound the alarm. That is incorrect. I argued that there is variation in liberalism altogether. I never confined this variation, though there is admittedly some, to the Democratic party. Moreover, all Democrats are not perfectly aligned on the left. There are numerous who hover around the center, but are still affiliated with the party. To conflate, and by extension, shift, my argument to Democrats, severely distorts my statement.</p>

<p>

And you argued with a source that leaves a lot to be desired.

</p>

<p>How does it leave a lot to be desired? The source suggests that there are certain core principles to the liberal tradition, but that there is variation beyond that standard such that there has not been one coherent view in its dominance in the Western hemisphere. The fact that liberals are united in perpetuating liberalism does not contradict that claim, it merely suggests, at the very most, that they share a joint-interest in wanting to advance the adumbrated core principles. Beyond that minimal standard, however, it is certain that there is ideological discordance.</p>

<p>

The author does not say anything to the degree of which liberals don’t agree on one idea

</p>

<p>But he does. The implicit suggestion is that of the minimal standard I suggested in the previous paragraph and my two preceding posts.</p>

<p>

and he certainly does not give an explanation to why this is so.

</p>

<p>1) He provides a source, which you can peruse at your own leisure.
2) I doubt a person holding joint teaching positions at Oxford and Columbia would err on this issue, for the impetus of writing his text was predicated on it;)</p>

<p>

Could it be because they are constantly trying to identify with the public? I think so.

</p>

<p>First you reprimand my source, and then you render a suggestion that is supposed to hold more weight because… you suggested it? Where is the evidence? You could adduce the poster’s remark on shifting ideologies within the liberal tradition, but so long as core beliefs are not modified, the author I cited lucidly states that there is much variation in the liberal tradition.</p>

[primitivefuture]

<p>Dude, stop using a thesaurus! Cant you just use your own words in plain, simple language?</p>

[nspeds]

<p>

Dude, stop using a thesaurus! Cant you just use your own words in plain, simple language?

</p>

<p>Not everyone using abstruse rhetoric, per force, uses a thesaurus. Perhaps this is the appropriate time for you to learn new words…</p>

[cevonia]

<p>‘Abstruse rhetoric’? Now there’s an oxymoron. Abstruse means difficult to comprehend. Rhetoric is language used in such a manner as to be persuasive. I don’t quite see how you expect to be persuasive if you’re simultaneously (and deliberately) obfuscating your argument to the point of incomprehension…</p>