fred: Liberalism, socialism, whatever you want to call it has a clearly defined set of principles.
Okay, can you give me those clearly defined set of principles right here right now?
Some overlap with Christianity (but so do various other belief systems), some do not.
Wow. You have really managed to get that incoherence down to a T.
Liberalism is not about trying to be Christian without Christ.
Depends on what you mean by liberalism but this is how most of the social democratic parties of the left (liberal in this sense) started out.
That's massively overstating the role of Christianity in modern leftist politics. Leftist politics has evolved, just as you claim Christianity has.
Again, I am not trying to define modern leftist politics. I am talking about taking Christ out of Christian system and PART of this process can be seen in the leftist mindset. Now stop wandering-wondering off and pay attention.
Secondly, just because the average OWS participant is not an intellectual scholar of liberalism, socialism, whatever you want to call it, so what? The average Christian knows very little about the Bible and is not a scholar of Christianity.
Your focus on the individual is touching. So in that case, the Christian would go to his priest or pastor for advice. Who does your leftist liberal OWS protester go to for advice? clarification? and given their beliefs and attitude would they even be willing to subject themselves to a hierarchical, er, authority?
In both cases, the average person has a vague notion of what the belief system advocates. This is probably true for any belief system. Yet you want to claim that this represents moral incoherence in one group, but not the other.
Also, there's a difference in kind between the questions "is murder okay?" and "how much tax is the right amount?" That's a large part of why the OWS movement are having trouble working out policies. They want the 1% to pay more tax.
I disagree that they are clear on whether murder is okay. Let us for fun thrown in the whole capital punishment, abortion, war, justified killings and see where the left articulates its stance on murder. Want to try?
Also, if the OWS protesters do not understand that getting the 1% to pay more is going to do nothing about the deficit then, er, ipso facto, the OWS protesters are by their very nature intellectually incoherent and again you studiously refuse to answer why these smart protesters are not in Washington. Why are they at Wall Street when all the policies and actions that took place were initiated by federal government authorities? Answer that please... You have evaded this from the very beginning.
This is not in dispute, despite what you may claim about no one knowing what they want.
The fact that we are disputing this apprarently means that it is in dispute. So, you are now of the opinion that everyone knows that the OWS movement is about getting the 1% to pay more. Is that your final answer? It certainly took you a LONG time to answer this question if this was so apparent why did not you just say so pages and pages ago when the question was first raised? What took YOU so long to answer this question with this response? Eh?
Every time any one of them has been shown in the media, he or she has said that.
You are joking of course. EVERY time. Gee. You might have a HARD time explaining then the union involvement (it was about collective bargaining) or the many other fringe (are they fringe?) elements that were down there for one reason or another. I have quoted a number of sources here on what the movement is and was about. This is the first that I have heard that EVERY time the response has been the same. Strange then the number of headlines in all the publications with different responses than the one that you have provided eh?
The problem lies in working out the particulars of an answer that is considerably more complex than a simple yes or no answer.
That is the best parody yet of the though processes behind this movement. Kudos for your finely honed sense of irony.
Likewise, the OWS protestors are annoyed at the fact that many of those on Wall Street were able to make their profits private whilst making their losses public, and a whole lot of sub-points to that.
So... if that is their view, then why are they protesting at Wall Street? The decisions regarding that were made in Washington. So? Are you going to take 15 pages before you figure out the correct response to this oft-posed question, too?
That the average person doesn't quite know how to address this issue has less to do with a morally incoherent position and more to do with the fact that the regulatory codes in the U.S. have thousands and thousands of pages and the average protestor does not have highly specialised knowledge in the required fields.
So they are incoherent because there are thousands of pages of regulatory code? or are you saying they are not incoherent but just do not know what to do about their um angst? regarding an issue that they do not understand because of so much code? so this is not incoherent because they feel that they want to do something about something that they cannot define in ways that they are not quite sure will work and then you want to say this is not incoherent? Any fool can figure out where the policies are being created and that is Washington so AGAIN why are they protesting at Wall Street?
Again, so what? This can be claimed about most belief systems we have as humans.
And here you get a first prize championship trophy for a most incoherent, incomprehensible statement. I believe that my wife is cheating, do I need to go to another city to find some random person or persons to challenge? because I cannot figure out where my wife is or because I blame a random stranger in another city for somehow being to blame. I do not know that but I feel that it might be true? or the Tea Party believes and buttresses its view that government has spent increasingly large sums of money on education, welfare, entitlements and that this has not led to an improvement in any measurable standard so it organizes to protest more government. So it focuses on two areas: getting government to spend less and get out of certain segments of the economy and or society. Would you say the Tea Party had a difficult time defining its objectives? I would not. And it went to Washington not New York to protest OR it went to areas where government was present not to McDonalds to complain about the price of a happy meal.
It is you who has an axe to grind here by ignoring these kinds of points that have already been mentioned by plenty of other posters already.
Well, since you ONLY JUST made the point that the OWS movement is about getting the 1% to pay more, it is hard to say is it not that I have an axe to grind by ignoring points that you have not even made until just now.
I don't even agree with them a lot of the time, but to claim that OWS doesn't even know what it's about is ridiculous.
You do not agree with them a lot of the time. Regarding what? You finally got around to saying that the movement is about getting the 1% to pay more. That is the statement that you have made now regarding what it is this movement stands for and you stated here that this is clear to all that every time these people have been interviewed this is the ONE stance that came up. Are you now sure or are you going to go back and refer to redistributive economics or social justice? or are they no longer relative now that you have determined that the ONE stance is getting the 1% to pay more or are the earlier two mere manifestations of the overall spirit of that stance?
So how can you disagree with them a lot of them time when there is only one principle? Either you agree or you disagree that the 1% need to pay more. What else is there? Are there other stances? or are we having a disagreement about homoousinism vs. homoiousinism or in which case, would you state that your earlier statements regarding there being one response EVERY time is incorrect or incorrectly interpreted or stated incorrectly by yourself no less or are you being incoherent here because you believe that there are other stated aims? or they all part of the one overall arching aim of getting the 1% to pay more and if there are other aims, what are they? or are they, too, just manifestations of getting the 1% to pay more. Finally, IF that is your FINAL stance, why would they be protesting at Wall Street? to shame the companies into paying more tax? after all, the tax policies are set in Washington, but the protesters know that right? because they are coherent, intellectually and morally... so again, why are they not in Washington but in New York... one wonders...
I think that we are finally achieving your true but hidden aim which is to engage in the aretaics of eudaemonics to advance agnoiology... clearly that must be the case and I applaud your devious devilsh demonic sense of irony in doing so.