31–40 of 99 posts
It's easy to resolve this discrepancy when you realize these people are not actually liberal or progressive.
No True Scotsman fallacy? I personally give the respect to people to refer them as they would like to be identified. If a Muslim jihadi says he is a jihadi, I respect his self identification and call him that. Similarly, I respect these people's self identification as liberal or progressive.
It's easy to resolve this discrepancy when you realize these people are not actually liberal or progressive.
No True Scotsman fallacy? I personally give the respect to people to refer them as they would like to be identified. If a Muslim jihadi says he is a jihadi, I respect his self identification and call him that. Similarly, I respect these people's self identification as liberal or progressive.
Besides, powerful and wealthy people have often claimed to be "on the side of the poor and helpless", to "protect" their subjects and so on throughout history.
This applied to: emperors, kings, aristocrats & knights, shogun & samurai, military leaders... hence the hypocrisy that the pastor is pointing out.
"The city had also made it hard for the church to provide meals for the homeless by requiring costly permits, he said." Is that true?
Its been enforced haphazardly in Atlanta over the last couple of years.
Large SV companies have nowadays become cash-making media machines of a gargantuan scale, acquiring that cash from all over the world for a service of questionable value, and investing it back in a relatively small area while providing only a few tens of thousands of jobs there. This distribution of capital creates a huge imbalance, no matter how "liberal" the stakeholders are.
My sense from reading was that he was upset by what he perceived to be hypocrisy on the part of the wealthy. In that they talked the talk about charity and making the world better, but their actions spoke differently. So liberal words, liberal values being expressed, but pure greed when it mattered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd rather say the Church advocates the responsible use of wealth.
Not quite. I don't know what the church is nor can I speak about it's motivation. I'm speaking about the gospel. Matthew 19:23 specifically: Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. It's a rare thing for Jesus to make a pronouncement like that in the text. Which leads me to believe it's an important part of his teaching.
Also, out of curiosity, what translation is that?
It's easy to resolve this discrepancy when you realize these people are not actually liberal or progressive.
The old 2x2 model of Left vs. Right and Authoritarian vs. Libertarian doesn't really work on a "longitudinal" basis. Community has been redefined in a few ways, and we're more bipolar -- Liberal Libertarianism for "us", the full authoritarian treatment for "them".
The posts in question
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No True Scotsman fallacy? I personally give the respect to people to refer them as they would like to be identified. If a Muslim jihadi says he is a jihadi, I respect his self identification and call him that. Similarly, I respect these people's self identification as liberal or progressive.
That fallacy does not apply. I can claim to be an alien from Saturn. People can, and should, disagree. Besides, powerful and wealthy people have often claimed to be "on the side of the poor and helpless", to "protect" their subjects and so on throughout history. This applied to: emperors, kings, aristocrats & knights, shogun & samurai, military leaders... hence the hypocrisy that the pastor is pointing out.
It's easy to resolve this discrepancy when you realize these people are not actually liberal or progressive.
No True Scotsman fallacy? I personally give the respect to people to refer them as they would like to be identified. If a Muslim jihadi says he is a jihadi, I respect his self identification and call him that. Similarly, I respect these people's self identification as liberal or progressive.
To make no issue of someone calling themselves "progressive" while not supporting the policies considered "progressive" is perfectly possible, but it basically shifts the conversation away from the topics at hand and pushes them one level of abstraction into the slippery nature of the way we use language.
There is a substantive disagreement that could be addressed head on: What does the person calling themselves "progressive" believe that title mean? And why do they believe that the title applies to themselves?