Is this the model?
Kultural Marksism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.

http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

‘Seems as though we can’t say “take up your bed and walk” but we are being asked to make ourselves see a walking person?

Having said that people don’t always have time to cross all the ‘t’s and dot the ‘i’s in their behaviour and we may at times (without thinking) assume the one pushing the wheel chair is the one who has more marbles (not recognising Stephen Hawkins) but…..?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“We are often in deep denial that we even have an attitude problem, some of our best friends have disabilities but we don’t realise we might be one of them.”

Is our attitude to the disabled really that bad? Don’t we have ramps everywhere and building owners bemoan having to put in disabled toilets. It seems to me that one thing that distinguishes those at one end from those at the other is that despite great historical shifts (womens rights, minorities etc) it is never enough.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Censorship or patience needed?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Getting back to the original topic are our attitudes to the disabled really that bad? Don’t we have wheel chair ramps everywhere etc. One thing that sets the far left apart (it seems to me) is that they are never satisfied with changes to society. Woman’s rights, minority rights etc even after long historical adjustments are still (as she put it) “we are in deep denial” etc.
Nickers!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Shunda,
I had no intention of attacking christianity or such, many supposedly non-religious groups act in a manner very similar to religions and cults, while i use religious as a derogitary term it is ment to describe an unquestioning and devout beleif in that which is without proof or even disprooved and should not be seen as applying to all followers of religion nor not belonging to those whom favour less supernatural approaches.
One would think that you would choose different examples than those thus cited, though in its much shorter span the green movement has probally almost matched the christian ‘acheivements’, lol.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Suggest you have regular general discussion threads, like KiwiBlog.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Indeed kjuv. I take a long weekend off and everyone waxes philisophical! I should take more holidays, no?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

A pleasant and unexpected outcome from frog’s lack of providing any new postings has been a very interesting time of reflection from the contributors

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

” Holding steadfast to a beleif without questioning it, no matter how valid it may seem, is an attribute of religion and works activly against science and the procurement of truley just outcomes.”

It is not an atribute of religion as much as an atribute of human nature. While I totally agree that the unquestioning religious dogma of some is particularly disturbing, it is no more so than the unquestioning dogma of a secular world that believes that nothing will stand in the way of the endless pursuit of wealth and power.
Religion, namely christianity has been at the forefront of many “just” outcomes such as ending slavery, helping the poor, and inventing the modern education system to name a few.
And you may be suprised to know that some of the first scientists to suggest the earth may infact be very old were christian geologists.
No doubt some bright spark will rattle off some “sin” list to discount the net possitive input of the church. I wonder whether the green movement will have any less flawed history in 2000 years time (assuming we still exist) or will it take its share of the blunders of world history.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Yes Mark – a soul constantly buffetted by wayward winds and whims of fashion and fancy gets exhausted and jaded, unless he/she maintains some sort of buffer – your ‘loyalty to ideals’ fits that bill nicely (alll tempered by a smidgeon of sapient’s questioning and the pursuit of truely just outcomes of course).

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Loyalty to Ideals might be the greatest of human achievements.
Without a heart-set on positive outcomes, not much good happens; in my humble experience

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

doubtless you are right, sapient.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Greenfly,
But doubt is good, it is in questioning that we progress. Holding steadfast to a beleif without questioning it, no matter how valid it may seem, is an attribute of religion and works activly against science and the procurement of truley just outcomes.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

loyalty can carry a person through times of doubt, and is valid, I think, when those doubts are the result of a conscious and dishonest attack on some aspect of their beliefs by another ‘party’. Many green supporters may have felt a wavering of their support for the party when wave after wave of attack came in from the opponents of the section 59 repeal and laterly, the call for action on global warming.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Greenfly,
Not intentionally, that is the phrase i normally use; though how apt it is is not lost on me.
If the adherance were not impaired and the individual could indeed see that what they propose would not and could not work then yes i would call it loyalty, but i would also suggest that their mental functioning may be suffering from impairment. loyalty is not always, or even reguarly, a good thing, atleast not in my opinion. I would much rather that people attempt to think things through themselves than mearly take a posistion because it is consistant with the posistions others have taken whit whom they had sided in the past. If they do indeed think and question the course then by definition it is not loyalty but rationality if they see it as correct; and if they see it as wrong; stupidity.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

‘in’ ought to be out

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sapient – did you choose the phrase, ‘blind ideological adherence’ in because of the thread’s topic?
If the adherence weren’t ‘impaired, would you call it ‘loyalty’ and admire it? Do you regard loyalty highly? There are many green members who are not impaired by blindness but are nevertheless loyal to the ideology.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Kahikatea,
I made no mention nor insinuation of Natural Selection having a moral force, my observation was mearly that.
What i think ought to be is irrelivant, but all that motivates us, all that we are, and all that we ever will be is a product of the laws of physics and the influences which we so sumerise as natural selection.
We exist mearly because our form has been more useful than others in replication and continuation of our genetic structure.
If there can be any objective or rational basis for a moral code to guide humanity, and i do not postulate that there could be, then the continuation and proliferation of our lineage would be the logical basis; the path which most greatly ensures our survival and proliferation is the path that ought be taken. This does not neccacarily neccesitate activly promoting the production of those which we consider strong or disincentivising those we consider weak as such actions could or could not be beneficial and decisions should be made based on the perceived benefit to the proliferation of the species. If a action benefits us, it is good, even if it is genocide (though i can think of few cases where that could benefit us). if the action costs us then it is bad, even if it is supporting the old and retarded (which can be demonstratibly negative past and bellow certain points). My point being that just because an action seems right it may not be so in the greater view of things. we have a duty to proliferate, and since we are now a keystone species, that duty is even more great than previously

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>Natural selection will happen anyway, but that does not mean that natural selection has any moral force that we should attempt to follow

That is what kiore1 meant by the is/ought divide, I guess: The Naturalistic Fallacy (Hume) you cannot derive an ‘ought’ (moral stance) from an ‘is’ (a natural state). Just because something occurs doesn’t mean to say it should occur. On the other hand, we do need to have some justification for our moral codes: ‘Nature’ (the subject of many of our science disciplines) may be at least as good as ‘the market’, the bible, the heavens (astrology) or our culture…… who knows?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)