24 definitions by Tex in Tex
Tolerance, in the political and social sense, involves two components: 1. Finding others' beliefs or behavior wrong or, in some substantive way, highly objectionable. This fundamental disagreement must be present on issues that really matter, not on issues that are minor or trivial. 2. In the face of this intense disagreement, one refrains from resolving differences by violence or the threat of violence.
Tolerance is NOT a matter of pluralism or multi-culturalism. In order to be tolerant, one does not accept or find others' actions or attitudes a matter of indifference. Rather, a necessary condition for tolerance is rejection of others' beliefs and way of life.
The upshot of tolerance is fighting a continual civil war with those whom one disagrees with in non-violent ways. A society characterized by tolerance will be full of constant confrontation and conflict without threats or violence. As commentator Jonathan Schwartz has argued, tolerance involves challenging the beliefs that others accept without question including issues surrounding sexuality, religion, and race.
Tolerance also is closely related to free speech. Free speech is primarily designed to promote free discussion of controversial questions in politics, religion, and morality. Therefore, speech codes and Politically Correct sensibilities advanced by the left are restrictions on free speech and are forms of intolerance.
Tolerance is NOT a matter of pluralism or multi-culturalism. In order to be tolerant, one does not accept or find others' actions or attitudes a matter of indifference. Rather, a necessary condition for tolerance is rejection of others' beliefs and way of life.
The upshot of tolerance is fighting a continual civil war with those whom one disagrees with in non-violent ways. A society characterized by tolerance will be full of constant confrontation and conflict without threats or violence. As commentator Jonathan Schwartz has argued, tolerance involves challenging the beliefs that others accept without question including issues surrounding sexuality, religion, and race.
Tolerance also is closely related to free speech. Free speech is primarily designed to promote free discussion of controversial questions in politics, religion, and morality. Therefore, speech codes and Politically Correct sensibilities advanced by the left are restrictions on free speech and are forms of intolerance.
I think everything you say and believe is immoral and disgusting. I shall try to eradicate your beliefs from the face of the earth. But, I shall express my disagreement only verbally and refrain from violence to suppress your point of view. Therefore, I am demonstrating tolerance.
by Tex in Tex February 7, 2008
Derived from the Middle English 'libertyn' meaning 'freedman,' which came from the Latin root 'liber,' which means 'liberty.' Libertine was a derogatory term which referred to someone who was a free-thinker or non-believer. Until the 19th Century, atheists or agnostics were considered beyond the pale of reasonable or civilized people. The term was extended to describe people who lacked moral self-restraint. Being a libertine was associated with living as an animal or an uncivilized person. John Stuart Mill's dictum, "Better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied" applies as a condemnation of the libertine.
Many contemporary libertarians miss crucial moral distinctions and have fallen into perverting the Liberty Principle into a "Libertine Principle." Contemporary liberals (social democrats and socialists, not classical liberals) have fallen into the same moral nihilism falsely believing that they are defending liberty when they place atheism, sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, and illicit drug use on par with traditional morality and religious belief.
Many contemporary libertarians miss crucial moral distinctions and have fallen into perverting the Liberty Principle into a "Libertine Principle." Contemporary liberals (social democrats and socialists, not classical liberals) have fallen into the same moral nihilism falsely believing that they are defending liberty when they place atheism, sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, and illicit drug use on par with traditional morality and religious belief.
Fool: I am a libertarian. I smoke dope, watch pornography, and have sex with anything not nailed down. I love liberty as did the Founding Fathers.
Person with common sense: You are not a libertarian or a liberal, you are a libertine.
Person with common sense: You are not a libertarian or a liberal, you are a libertine.
by Tex in Tex March 8, 2008
Congressman from Lake Jackson,Texas in the metro Houston area. He works as a medical doctor. He has been a consistent classical liberal or libertarian as congressman and a presidential candidate (as a Republican in 2008 and a Libertarian in 1988). He holds to a consistent constitutionalist position upholding the Lockean political philosophy that the United States was founded upon. He argues for a nighwatchman view of the State consistent with the Jeffersonaian view of the U.S. Constitution.
On social issues Congressman Paul is a conservative. He supports the right to life and opposes abortion on demand. He also opposes open borders policy on immigration realizing that it is crucial to protect the culture the American political, legal, and economic system is rooted in. Even though some of his supporters are social and moral nihilists, Paul has maintained a consistent social conservatism and realizes that the main source of leftist attack on American traditions has been the Federal government. Even though he supports drug and sex deregulation, he has never endorsed illicit drug use or aberrant sexual practices. His position is to allow nature to take its course with reckless and immoral behavior rather than placing such behavior on par with traditional morality.
This same logic is present in his economic policy. Companies or individuals who can create new products or services that people choose to buy because they perceive these products or services can help them should be free to prosper. Those who offer poor quality products or services should be allowed to fail. Government should only provide basic rules for these pursuits to take place, such as prevention of fraud and enforcing contracts. As Milton Friedman used to say, the market forces people to "put up or shut up." This maxim applies to life-styles as well as business enterprises.
On social issues Congressman Paul is a conservative. He supports the right to life and opposes abortion on demand. He also opposes open borders policy on immigration realizing that it is crucial to protect the culture the American political, legal, and economic system is rooted in. Even though some of his supporters are social and moral nihilists, Paul has maintained a consistent social conservatism and realizes that the main source of leftist attack on American traditions has been the Federal government. Even though he supports drug and sex deregulation, he has never endorsed illicit drug use or aberrant sexual practices. His position is to allow nature to take its course with reckless and immoral behavior rather than placing such behavior on par with traditional morality.
This same logic is present in his economic policy. Companies or individuals who can create new products or services that people choose to buy because they perceive these products or services can help them should be free to prosper. Those who offer poor quality products or services should be allowed to fail. Government should only provide basic rules for these pursuits to take place, such as prevention of fraud and enforcing contracts. As Milton Friedman used to say, the market forces people to "put up or shut up." This maxim applies to life-styles as well as business enterprises.
I am voting for Ron Paul because he stands for the principles Jefferson articulated in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence.
by Tex in Tex January 28, 2008
Liberal elitist hipster: That is so horrible that MacDonald's is everywhere in the world. They are breaking down indigenous culture and traditional folkways. Monoculture everywhere. (Moments later) It is so wonderful that we are breaking down these backward ways of life in the South and any other traditional culture. We want to spread cosmopolitanism everywhere. I am a citizen of the world!
by Tex in Tex February 21, 2008
The fundamental motivation for humans. Lucifer fell from Heaven in his attempt to become God--the ultimate power grab. Lucifer, as Satan, acting through the Serpent, suggested to Adam and Eve (the first humans created by God in his image) that they could become God luring them into rebellion him. Following the pattern set by their original parents, all humans are driven by a desire to be God.
Humans, now in a fallen condition, are continually trying to one up each other. Even members of one's own family or friends attempt to gain power over each other. As Nietzsche pointed out, virtually all human behavior is motivated by the "Will to Power." Nature even rewards people with more power as they live longer, feel happier, and have higher levels of serotonin in their brain. People band together in an attempt to dominate other groups even more thoroughly. Wars, racism, economic competition, cutting remarks at parties, domestic violence can all be traced back to the urge to dominate others.
Subtly, even attempts to equalize wealth, income, social status, racial disparities are attempts by those without power to pull down and dominate those who are currently in power. Equality of result is motivated by resentment and envy. Efforts to equalize people's conditions are movements by those who are presently less powerful to gain power over those who have dominated them. Many times these less powerful people are aided by those with power who feel guilty that they have power but then assume power over the minorities they claim to help. For example, witness the recent assertion by the Clintons that Martin Luther King and the black leadership in the Civil Rights Movement were not as effective in actually achieving their social goals until their cause was championed by white leftist liberals such as LBJ and themselves--meaning in clear language--shut up, stay in your place, and do not vote for that uppity Barack Obama.
The desire for power makes the entire project of the Left an impossibility. People are selfish, sadistic, and power-crazy. This urge for dominance will never change until the world as we know it ends. There is no exception in human history to hierarchy and inequality. A more reasonable goal is to limit those in power and induce them to serve the common good as classical liberalism sought to do.
Humans, now in a fallen condition, are continually trying to one up each other. Even members of one's own family or friends attempt to gain power over each other. As Nietzsche pointed out, virtually all human behavior is motivated by the "Will to Power." Nature even rewards people with more power as they live longer, feel happier, and have higher levels of serotonin in their brain. People band together in an attempt to dominate other groups even more thoroughly. Wars, racism, economic competition, cutting remarks at parties, domestic violence can all be traced back to the urge to dominate others.
Subtly, even attempts to equalize wealth, income, social status, racial disparities are attempts by those without power to pull down and dominate those who are currently in power. Equality of result is motivated by resentment and envy. Efforts to equalize people's conditions are movements by those who are presently less powerful to gain power over those who have dominated them. Many times these less powerful people are aided by those with power who feel guilty that they have power but then assume power over the minorities they claim to help. For example, witness the recent assertion by the Clintons that Martin Luther King and the black leadership in the Civil Rights Movement were not as effective in actually achieving their social goals until their cause was championed by white leftist liberals such as LBJ and themselves--meaning in clear language--shut up, stay in your place, and do not vote for that uppity Barack Obama.
The desire for power makes the entire project of the Left an impossibility. People are selfish, sadistic, and power-crazy. This urge for dominance will never change until the world as we know it ends. There is no exception in human history to hierarchy and inequality. A more reasonable goal is to limit those in power and induce them to serve the common good as classical liberalism sought to do.
"Two people fall in love when each thinks they are getting someone they don't deserve." Seinfeld on the subtleties of the will to power.
by Tex in Tex February 1, 2008
Katie Scarlett O'Hara is the main character in the novel and movie, *Gone with the Wind.* In the story, Scarlett is the oldest daughter of an Irish/Catholic immigrant and his French aristocratic wife in mid-nineteenth century Georgia. The family builds an opulent plantation they name Tara just south of Atlanta in Jonesboro. Scarlett loves her father and her home but is otherwise completely self-absorbed.
Before the Civil War, Scarlett is the coquettish belle of the ball attending soirees where she flirts with and torments young men who fall in love with her beauty and burning sexual energy. Scarlett is in love with melancholic Ashley who is love with Melanie. At one of these parties, Scarlett throws herself at Ashley as they are alone in a drawing room. Ashely rebuffs her advance and withdraws. Scarlett throws a vase against the wall in a rage only to find Rhett Butler lying on the couch who has overheard the previous exchange between Scarlett and Ashley. Rhett is immediately intrigued by Scarlett's beauty and energy as are most men. The audience, though, immediately recognizes that Rhett is the man for Scarlett. He is the only one who can tame and domesticate her, which is what she needs.
The story unfolds as the tension builds between the two properly matched couples, Ashley/Melanie and Rhett/Scarlett. Scarlett resists Rhett while being intrigued by him as she marries several other men along the way toward finally marrying Rhett. The entire time, she dreams of marrying Ashely who is married to Melanie. Finally, Scarlett wrecks her marriage with Rhett only realizing what the audience saw all along--that she was intended for Rhett, not Ashely.
Scarlett comes to her senses too late as Rhett walks out the door saying to Scarlett in reply to her question what will happen to her if he leaves her, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." The final scene in the story finds Scarlett pulling herself together after crying over Rhett's leaving and her worrying over how to get Rhett back saying, "I can't let him go. I can't. There must be some way to bring him back. Oh I can't think about this now! I'll go crazy if I do! I'll think about it tomorrow. (She closes the door.) But I must think about it. I must think about it. What is there to do? (She falls forward onto the ascending stairs.) What is there that matters?...Tara!...Home. I'll go home, and I'll think of some way to get him back! After all, tomorrow is another day!"
Scarlett represents both the Old South belle and the New South businesswoman. In both settings that change so drastically in the story and in reality, Atlanta moves from a semi-feudalistic society of manners and morals to a raucous business climate in which everything goes. Scarlett uses her beauty, charm, and craftiness in both social climates to attain her ends. Scarlett gains most everything she thinks she wants through sheer willpower and moral compromise with the exception of Ashley only to realize too late that she has lost her integrity and what she really needs. The story unfolds as a mirror to Atlanta as it has sold itself out for money and acceptability. This is why Atlanta's Southern culture is tragically "Gone with the Wind."
Before the Civil War, Scarlett is the coquettish belle of the ball attending soirees where she flirts with and torments young men who fall in love with her beauty and burning sexual energy. Scarlett is in love with melancholic Ashley who is love with Melanie. At one of these parties, Scarlett throws herself at Ashley as they are alone in a drawing room. Ashely rebuffs her advance and withdraws. Scarlett throws a vase against the wall in a rage only to find Rhett Butler lying on the couch who has overheard the previous exchange between Scarlett and Ashley. Rhett is immediately intrigued by Scarlett's beauty and energy as are most men. The audience, though, immediately recognizes that Rhett is the man for Scarlett. He is the only one who can tame and domesticate her, which is what she needs.
The story unfolds as the tension builds between the two properly matched couples, Ashley/Melanie and Rhett/Scarlett. Scarlett resists Rhett while being intrigued by him as she marries several other men along the way toward finally marrying Rhett. The entire time, she dreams of marrying Ashely who is married to Melanie. Finally, Scarlett wrecks her marriage with Rhett only realizing what the audience saw all along--that she was intended for Rhett, not Ashely.
Scarlett comes to her senses too late as Rhett walks out the door saying to Scarlett in reply to her question what will happen to her if he leaves her, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." The final scene in the story finds Scarlett pulling herself together after crying over Rhett's leaving and her worrying over how to get Rhett back saying, "I can't let him go. I can't. There must be some way to bring him back. Oh I can't think about this now! I'll go crazy if I do! I'll think about it tomorrow. (She closes the door.) But I must think about it. I must think about it. What is there to do? (She falls forward onto the ascending stairs.) What is there that matters?...Tara!...Home. I'll go home, and I'll think of some way to get him back! After all, tomorrow is another day!"
Scarlett represents both the Old South belle and the New South businesswoman. In both settings that change so drastically in the story and in reality, Atlanta moves from a semi-feudalistic society of manners and morals to a raucous business climate in which everything goes. Scarlett uses her beauty, charm, and craftiness in both social climates to attain her ends. Scarlett gains most everything she thinks she wants through sheer willpower and moral compromise with the exception of Ashley only to realize too late that she has lost her integrity and what she really needs. The story unfolds as a mirror to Atlanta as it has sold itself out for money and acceptability. This is why Atlanta's Southern culture is tragically "Gone with the Wind."
Scarlett O'Hara: "Where will I go, what will I do?"
Rhett Butler: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."
Rhett Butler: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."
by Tex in Tex February 16, 2008
United States nineteenth century general most well-known for his leadership of the Federal "Western" army in 1864-1865 during the American Civil War. He also fought against Indians in the American West after the war.
General Sherman is the originator of the modern concept of "total war." In moving through Georgia and then into the Carolinas, Sherman devised a strategy of deliberately targeting civilians for attack. He also targeted the homes and personal property of the civilians of the South who posed no military threat to Union forces. Such targeting of civilians for attack had been considered immoral at the time. The goal of such a strategy was purely utilitarian. It did not matter who morally deserved attack on this view, but instead the only question became the total number of lives saved versus lives lost as well as aggregate gains and losses in supplies and property.
During the siege of Atlanta in the summer of 1864, Sherman decided to order the bombardment of distinctly civilian areas of Atlanta with the express purpose of terrorizing the civilian population into pressuring the Confederate military and political leadership to surrender. Civilians, including slaves, were killed as intended by General Sherman and his subordinates. Confederate General John Bell Hood protested the targeted killings of non-combatants as uncivilized and inhuman. Sherman ignored the appeals by Hood to target only Confederate military positions and personnel. His infamous comment in response to such appeals was "War is Hell."
After the fall of Atlanta to Federal forces in early September 1864, the city was occupied for two months. General Sherman ordered the civilian population evacuated by force. After the evacuation of the city by civilians, General Sherman ordered the city to be burned to the ground. The civilians who were forced to leave Atlanta had to live in the woods for months with no provisions or shelter. He then proceeded through Georgia on his way to Savannah burning and destroying towns, farms, and plantations. His men looted the private property and destroyed civilians' homes leaving them destitute and without provision. After the capture of Savannah, which he spared, he continued into South Carolina where his tactics of "total war" accelerated in their savage ruthlessness culminating in the Federal army burning Columbia, South Carolina to the ground.
Such vicious tactics established the mind-set and military precedent for using civilians as pawns in a military conflict. Such tactics had previously been deemed morally unacceptable. The deliberate targeting of civilians for attack was taken up in World War II ending in the deaths of millions. The bombing of European cities by both sides of the war and Japanese cities by the U.S. as well as attacks on civilians in China, the Philippines, and Korea by Japan were consistent with and encouraged by Sherman's precedent. The logic of saving lives in the long-run by these tactics seems to have been refuted by history.
Modern terrorism also follows the same basic strategy of targeting helpless non-combatants for attack in order to terrorize the remaining citizens into capitulation.
The contemporary American practice of only targeting military personnel for deliberate attack reverses the policy of the American government instituted by General Sherman in Atlanta in 1864. The policy of killing sufficient numbers of civilians and destroying their homes to force surrender has been recognized as the mark of only the most barbarous kind of terrorist, such as those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks.
General Sherman is the originator of the modern concept of "total war." In moving through Georgia and then into the Carolinas, Sherman devised a strategy of deliberately targeting civilians for attack. He also targeted the homes and personal property of the civilians of the South who posed no military threat to Union forces. Such targeting of civilians for attack had been considered immoral at the time. The goal of such a strategy was purely utilitarian. It did not matter who morally deserved attack on this view, but instead the only question became the total number of lives saved versus lives lost as well as aggregate gains and losses in supplies and property.
During the siege of Atlanta in the summer of 1864, Sherman decided to order the bombardment of distinctly civilian areas of Atlanta with the express purpose of terrorizing the civilian population into pressuring the Confederate military and political leadership to surrender. Civilians, including slaves, were killed as intended by General Sherman and his subordinates. Confederate General John Bell Hood protested the targeted killings of non-combatants as uncivilized and inhuman. Sherman ignored the appeals by Hood to target only Confederate military positions and personnel. His infamous comment in response to such appeals was "War is Hell."
After the fall of Atlanta to Federal forces in early September 1864, the city was occupied for two months. General Sherman ordered the civilian population evacuated by force. After the evacuation of the city by civilians, General Sherman ordered the city to be burned to the ground. The civilians who were forced to leave Atlanta had to live in the woods for months with no provisions or shelter. He then proceeded through Georgia on his way to Savannah burning and destroying towns, farms, and plantations. His men looted the private property and destroyed civilians' homes leaving them destitute and without provision. After the capture of Savannah, which he spared, he continued into South Carolina where his tactics of "total war" accelerated in their savage ruthlessness culminating in the Federal army burning Columbia, South Carolina to the ground.
Such vicious tactics established the mind-set and military precedent for using civilians as pawns in a military conflict. Such tactics had previously been deemed morally unacceptable. The deliberate targeting of civilians for attack was taken up in World War II ending in the deaths of millions. The bombing of European cities by both sides of the war and Japanese cities by the U.S. as well as attacks on civilians in China, the Philippines, and Korea by Japan were consistent with and encouraged by Sherman's precedent. The logic of saving lives in the long-run by these tactics seems to have been refuted by history.
Modern terrorism also follows the same basic strategy of targeting helpless non-combatants for attack in order to terrorize the remaining citizens into capitulation.
The contemporary American practice of only targeting military personnel for deliberate attack reverses the policy of the American government instituted by General Sherman in Atlanta in 1864. The policy of killing sufficient numbers of civilians and destroying their homes to force surrender has been recognized as the mark of only the most barbarous kind of terrorist, such as those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks.
General William T. Sherman meeting Yasser Arafat in Hell: "Good job killing those innocent people...You got what you wanted from the killings...I did the same in Atlanta in 1864."
by Tex in Tex February 3, 2008