Evan Sayet: "How Modern Liberals Think"

[Joshua_B]

I first saw this video a few months ago, and he seems to make a great deal of sense from an intellectual standpoint.

[YT]eaE98w1KZ-c[/YT]

 

[Schlosser85]

I kind of lost interest around the 3 minute mark when he stated liberals hate America and side with evil. Four more minutes and he states liberals reject all forms of morality and decency, and....yea.

No, we don't.

 

[SV Fan]

I kind of lost interest around the 3 minute mark when he stated liberals hate America and side with evil. Four more minutes and he states liberals reject all forms of morality and decency, and....yea.

No, we don't.

You have to remember this was a few years after the 2004 election. At that point many on the right believed if you are against the President that is a sign of hating America

 

[moviedoors]

I closed it less than 3 minutes in when he got to the "liberals really do hate America" point. I'm perusing a transcript now, and it's just more war mongering, anti-homosexuality, pro-abstinence, revisionist history nonsense. I'm not interested in infantile, reductionist, black-and-white, partisan nonsense like this.

 

[moviedoors]

Having googled Evan Sayet, he appears to be no more than another ranting blowhard in the Rush Limbaugh tradition.

No, thank you.

 

[Joshua_B]

To his credit, Evan does specify in his message that he's talking about a certain segment described as "Capital L" liberals.

 

[SV Fan]

To his credit, Evan does specify in his message that he's talking about a certain segment described as "Capital L" liberals.

I guess the next question would be how many people who vote Demcorat would he classify as "Capital L" liberal. All that being said I think when you start classifying somebody else beliefs as evil or hating/not understanding America, you are basically pandering to your base and lose any moral high ground.

 

[Joshua_B]

I guess the next question would be how many people who vote Demcorat would he classify as "Capital L" liberal. All that being said I think when you start classifying somebody else beliefs as evil or hating/not understanding America, you are basically pandering to your base and lose any moral high ground.

Both camps have people who use generalizations to describe their opponents; that's hardly a crime. I've watched several of Evan's speeches, and his main argument seems to be that "modern Liberal" philosophy requires a complete lack of intellectual and/or moral discrimination. In other words, the entire Liberal ideology is founded on rejecting any concept as more right or wrong than another.

 

[Schlosser85]

My support of things like gay rights, abortion rights, etc. is not based in my lack of "moral discrimination", but my idea of what constitutes what is morally just, which is diametrically opposed to what social conservatives think.

 

[Joshua_B]

My support of things like gay rights, abortion rights, etc. is not based in my lack of "moral discrimination", but my idea of what constitutes what is morally just, which is diametrically opposed to what social conservatives think.

A fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals in general is that the former often side with basic logic, where the latter largely rely on emotion. Speaking only for myself, I'm not concerned so much with what makes me personally happy, as I am with what best reflects the intentions of the Founders to protect and preserve the values they sought to instill for the United States.

Immigration's a classic example today, so here's my take: anyone can live freely in this country without penalty, so long as they have the proper documents, and uphold the laws of our nation. If not, they'll either wind up in jail, or perhaps deported. That said, the most important thing to do first is close the border between the U.S. and Mexico. Liberals then ask about Canada, to which I reply, "how many of them do you see trying to get in here the wrong way?"

Evan said something in one of his messages which amused me, but also made a great point. He observed (and I'm paraphrasing), "Every other superpower on Earth has tried to control the globe. Germany, Russia, and France all wanted to rule the world at some point. The U.S. is the most powerful and prosperous country around, and we haven't even taken over Canada."

 

[SV Fan]

Evan said something in one of his messages which amused me, but also made a great point. He observed (and I'm paraphrasing), "Every other superpower on Earth has tried to control the globe. Germany, Russia, and France all wanted to rule the world at some point. The U.S. is the most powerful and prosperous country around, and we haven't even taken over Canada."

The US has a habit of interjecting itself into everybody else's business with it comes to foreign policy. Some may look at that as over reaching the boundaries of the country.

For people who want to uphold the founders ideals, I am fairly certain they were non-interventionists when it came to foreign policy

 

[Joshua_B]

The US has a habit of interjecting itself into everybody else's business with it comes to foreign policy. Some may look at that as over reaching the boundaries of the country.

I'd say it depends on the situation. Obviously, we'd need to be politically involved with other countries to keep them from destroying us. That said, I still think we need to handle our own problems first, before trying to solve everyone else's.

For people who want to uphold the founders ideals, I am fairly certain they were non-interventionists when it came to foreign policy

What do you mean by "non-intervention"?

 

[SV Fan]

What do you mean by "non-intervention"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism

Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".[1] Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.[2]

Nonintervention is distinct from, and often confused with isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade. Non-interventionism is a policy in government only and thus does not exclude non-governmental intervention by organizations such as Amnesty International.

Basically the exact opposite of how the US handled North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq, Lybia and one could argue Afghanistan(hell the entire Middle East for that matter)

The Banana Wars of the early 20th century and Cold War of the mid to Late 20th century could also be argued as going against Non-interventionism. While we at it might as well add Greneda(Reagan's War), Nicaragua going after drug lords in Columba, etc etc. When it comes down to it basically the way the US has handled foreign policy since 1900, give or take 20 years.

How can I forget WW1 and WW2. A Non-Interventionalist would have avoided WW1 and in the case of WW2, their was new found Non-interventionism in the 1930s but Japan bombing Pearl Islander ended that(which is why the the US didn't end up getting involved till 1941).

 

[The Overlord]

A fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals in general is that the former often side with basic logic, where the latter largely rely on emotion. Speaking only for myself, I'm not concerned so much with what makes me personally happy, as I am with what best reflects the intentions of the Founders to protect and preserve the values they sought to instill for the United States.

Immigration's a classic example today, so here's my take: anyone can live freely in this country without penalty, so long as they have the proper documents, and uphold the laws of our nation. If not, they'll either wind up in jail, or perhaps deported. That said, the most important thing to do first is close the border between the U.S. and Mexico. Liberals then ask about Canada, to which I reply, "how many of them do you see trying to get in here the wrong way?"

Evan said something in one of his messages which amused me, but also made a great point. He observed (and I'm paraphrasing), "Every other superpower on Earth has tried to control the globe. Germany, Russia, and France all wanted to rule the world at some point. The U.S. is the most powerful and prosperous country around, and we haven't even taken over Canada."

You do realize you are just creating a straw man argument with this stereotypical liberal? You need arguments that are not based on logical fallacies.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'd say the immigration thing seems to be decided by emotion for both sides. Liberals talk about empathy, and conservatives are pretty much pissed. Nevermind that many illegal immigrants are actually contributing more to the economy than hurting.

The only thing Liberals lack the moral high ground on is abortion.

On the other hand, when you need to get **** done, you really need conservatives.

 

[Joshua_B]

You do realize you are just creating a straw man argument with this stereotypical liberal? You need arguments that are not based on logical fallacies.

What fallacies are in my prior post?

 

[The Overlord]

What fallacies are in my prior post?

You are using a strawman version of a liberal, you are using a straw man argument, you are not describing a liberal, you are describing a strawman you can knock down, hence, strawman argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Look at this way, if I said the difference between liberals and conservatives is, conservatives are racist, homophobic zealots who are all secretly hypocrites who hate the poor and are obsessed with money, would you think that is even remotely a fair statement? Of course not, its a ridiculous straw man argument, that is what you and Evan Sayet are making, strawman arguments. What you and Sayet are saying is almost as ridiculous as the conservative strawman I just created up there.

 

[Schlosser85]

Sayet's argument is "liberals believe people trying to do what they feel is right and moral has causes wars all through human history, therefore liberals reject any form of morality".

Which is just....not true.

I don't support a woman's right to choose, or equality for gays, or decriminalization of marijuana out of a secret subversive agenda to reject morality. I support those things because, to me, it's the morally right thing to do.

Supporting gay rights is as much of a moral imperative to me as opposing gay rights is in the minds of social conservatives.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's a rather meaningless discussion if we can't agree on what's moral.

 

[Schlosser85]

It's a rather meaningless discussion if we can't agree on what's moral.

But that's the entire problem.

My idea of what's moral and a hardcore social conservative's are diametrically opposed.

Apart from, you know, not going out and shooting somebody.

 

[SentinelMind]

All our political views derive from basic first principle values, emotions, preferences.

When it comes down to it, modern day liberals seem "if I want something really really really bad...everyone should acknowledge it and institutionalize it and finance it....no matter the cost"

See abortion "rights" and adding maternity care to mandatory coverage health care? Why should men be penalized for not buying health insurance without maternity care they can't use? Because a feminist lobby wants their special interest financed by others..single men. Why should Planned Parenthood, an organization that performs practices contrary to conscious of millions of Americans, continue to get funding when there are alternative clinics? Abortion industry is profitable. Who cares about growing life in the womb.

Marriage used to be an basic civil institutions based on creating best foundation for raising children and creating bedrock for civilization. Now its morphed into "if person A really wants to have sex with person B....then we need to say their relationship is same as others relationship, regardless of output and consequences"

Modern day liberalism really disgusts me...basic tenant is you should get whatever you want at other people's expense, livelihood, and dignity.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I still think some of the options on check lists liberals and conservatives check are kind of strange.

Being opposed to abortion and maternity leave is just odd (SM just gave that good example).

Being opposed to the death penalty, but having no problem with partial-birth abortion (which is murder, by any rational definition) is a good liberal example.

 

[Joshua_B]

You are using a strawman version of a liberal, you are using a straw man argument, you are not describing a liberal, you are describing a strawman you can knock down, hence, strawman argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Look at this way, if I said the difference between liberals and conservatives is, conservatives are racist, homophobic zealots who are all secretly hypocrites who hate the poor and are obsessed with money, would you think that is even remotely a fair statement? Of course not, its a ridiculous straw man argument, that is what you and Evan Sayet are making, strawman arguments. What you and Sayet are saying is almost as ridiculous as the conservative strawman I just created up there.

Well, let's get one thing straight; I'm mainly concerned with accuracy over arbitrary "fairness". People like those you described do exist among conservative organizations, but what matters most is the ideology of such groups. Conservatism doesn't logically lead to racism or malice, because we actually accept that some things are morally superior to others. By contrast, "modern liberalism" is founded on the ideology that absolute truth doesn't exist, and any attempt to prove otherwise is motivated by hate. That sounds pretty self-defeating to me.

 

[SV Fan]

Marriage used to be an basic civil institutions based on creating best foundation for raising children and creating bedrock for civilization. Now its morphed into "if person A really wants to have sex with person B....then we need to say their relationship is same as others relationship, regardless of output and consequences"

Modern day liberalism really disgusts me...basic tenant is you should get whatever you want at other people's expense, livelihood, and dignity.

Just out of curiosity how does 2 guys getting married step all over at somebody's expense, livelihood or dignity?

 

[SentinelMind]

I still think some of the options on check lists liberals and conservatives check are kind of strange.

Being opposed to abortion and maternity leave is just odd (SM just gave that good example).

I didn't say I'm against company maternity leave...I said why should I be forced to buy insurance policy with maternity care in it...especially since I can't use any of the benefits.....rather deceptive on your part, Thunder.