Quote:
Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@09-22-2003 10:35 PM
Actually, I have not talked myself into any corner. Because it does not matter if the information we recieve through our senses is imaginary or not, it is the only data we have to act on. So, while it is only 'hard data' as a relative term it will have to do since their is absolutely no other choice. |
Err,
1) You started this as rant against the illogic of liberals and socialists... (making a profit isn't greed... socialists pay by effort, not progress...)
2) Then you go and define away half your terms... (rationalists use hard facts, but there ARE no hard facts - what's more, you don't have to go and explain your world philosophy to the rest of us; the poor don't have it so bad anyway, and technology has fixed most of the problems of capitalism - not that's not to say that rationalists don't want reform...)
3) And now you rant at us for, well, accepting life as it is and defining it as what we want it to be, while you conservatives are "really" the ones objectively looking for reform, when it's plain to see that it was the liberals and socialists who were looking for reform and the conservatives who were looking to keep the status quo as it stands.
I seriously have a hard time following the leaps of logic in each of your posts, and the fact of the matter is not helped by the fact that your posts have little or no relation to each other. Why don't you, instead of writing out a bunch of nonsensical rhetoric and then asking us to back up our claims against it, start out by writing out the backdrop to this philosophy of yours so we can get off on the right foot: Which means, of course...
What encompasses self-interest, as compared to greed;
Is it feasible to accept the indication that liberals are progressive and conservatives are, well conservative;
Is the system of capitalism flawed, and why;
As such, who is at fault for justifying (or attacking) the system, reformers or conservatives?