The Left (at least here in Sweden) is based on three pillars. They are the foundations on which the lofty edifice of Socialism/Communism/Feminism/Environmentalism has been built. They are as follows.
Ignorance Of The Issues. The Lefty is clueless. He doesn't understand, at all, how things work. Science, technology, business, history, economy etc etc are all mysteries to him.
Someone Else Should Pay. Regardless of what's being considered, with the Lefty it is ALWAYS about how someone else should pay. The idea that you pay for stuff you yourself want hasn't crossed his mind.
What I Don't Like Should Be Banned. When the Lefty doesn't like something his response is that it should be banned. He cannot grasp the concept of people doing thing differently, let alone see any value in it.
Apaling. :mad:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Freplygif.net%2Fi%2F1235.gif&hash=c66b4a4cf934b006404b885786919652eebbce37)
Quote from: The Brain on September 04, 2014, 11:53:03 AM
What I Don't Like Should Be Banned. When the Lefty doesn't like something his response is that it should be banned. He cannot grasp the concept of people doing thing differently, let alone see any value in it.
Is this prompted by recent man / beast laws in Sweden? :hmm:
Brain, while I don't totally disagree with you, you could justas easily write up a very simplistic version about "rightdom" that would make us sound just as bad.
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:01:04 PM
Brain, while I don't totally disagree with you, you could justas easily write up a very simplistic version about "rightdom" that would make us sound just as bad.
Maybe not the middle one.
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:01:04 PM
Brain, while I don't totally disagree with you, you could justas easily write up a very simplistic version about "rightdom" that would make us sound just as bad.
First and third point for sure applies to most people in general.
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:01:04 PM
Brain, while I don't totally disagree with you, you could justas easily write up a very simplistic version about "rightdom" that would make us sound just as bad.
I could write up a version that would make them sound much worse.
That's why best are true (classical, if you will) liberals. They don't want your money and they don't want laws banning everything they don't like, plus not all of them are stupid.
They are a dying breed, I give you that much.
Quote from: Tamas on September 04, 2014, 12:40:10 PM
That's why best are true (classical, if you will) liberals. They don't want your money and they don't want laws banning everything they don't like, plus not all of them are stupid.
They are a dying breed, I give you that much.
No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives. They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2014, 12:02:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:01:04 PM
Brain, while I don't totally disagree with you, you could justas easily write up a very simplistic version about "rightdom" that would make us sound just as bad.
Maybe not the middle one.
Oh I think George W. Bush and Reagan proved that is in fact true.
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:50:41 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 04, 2014, 12:40:10 PM
That's why best are true (classical, if you will) liberals. They don't want your money and they don't want laws banning everything they don't like, plus not all of them are stupid.
They are a dying breed, I give you that much.
No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives. They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.
How far back to go till we find that everything is "Pretty damn good"?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2014, 12:57:26 PM
How far back to go till we find that everything is "Pretty damn good"?
It's the invention of writing that really screwed things up. :mad:
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:50:41 PM
No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives. They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.
Doesn't it sort of discredit those sorts of conservatives that they really came to the forefront in an era that we now recognize as really sucking compared to current times?
"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.", has been wrong for hundreds of years; sure that doesn't exactly prove it is wrong today, but a historical pattern has developed....
To my mind, a lot of these issues are not binary, but rather matters of degree or emphasis.
I think of these things like the sliders in EU: at one end, no acceptance of innovations for any reason, and at the other, adopt every passing fad; "conservatives" think they have the 'sweet spot' of sanity along that scale, while "liberals" think they have it.
Same with such things as government intervention, public morality, etc.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2014, 12:59:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:50:41 PM
No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives. They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.
Doesn't it sort of discredit those sorts of conservatives that they really came to the forefront in an era that we now recognize as really sucking compared to current times?
"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.", has been wrong for hundreds of years; sure that doesn't exactly prove it is wrong today, but a historical pattern has developed....
Not at all - the historical record ahs in fact vindicated the conservative point of view.
Look - it's not that a conservative says "nothing should ever change". but rather "our society has evolved this way for a reason, so let's be careful and cautious when we change things".
Look, I think we all agree that the modern social democratic welfare state is a place that 100 or 200 years ago would sound like a socialist paradise. But every time that liberals tried to make the change all in one big jump it has failed miserably (French revolution, communism). The "slow and steady" approach demonstrated by the west has been the winner.
Quote from: DGuller on September 04, 2014, 12:25:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:01:04 PM
Brain, while I don't totally disagree with you, you could justas easily write up a very simplistic version about "rightdom" that would make us sound just as bad.
I could write up a version that would make them sound much worse.
There are three pillars of right wing thought in Sweden. Unfortunately they were made by IKEA so one didn't come in the box and the other two are pretty wobbly.
Too crude to be an effective troll.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 04, 2014, 01:12:12 PM
Too crude to be an effective troll.
Oh, I thought my joke was pretty good. :(
Now that was too weak to be an effective troll on Raz :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2014, 01:51:30 PM
Now that was too weak to be an effective troll on Raz :contract:
It's hard to troll me. You have to discovered what will piss off the Lords of Isometry who live in my brain. They have a unique perspective on things.
Not sure what that means but :hug:
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:50:41 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 04, 2014, 12:40:10 PM
That's why best are true (classical, if you will) liberals. They don't want your money and they don't want laws banning everything they don't like, plus not all of them are stupid.
They are a dying breed, I give you that much.
No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives. They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.
Sweden is a Socialist hellhole.
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:01:04 PM
Brain, while I don't totally disagree with you, you could justas easily write up a very simplistic version about "rightdom" that would make us sound just as bad.
I'm not out to make the Left look bad. I want to understand them. The Pillars work.
To fight the Left, we must understand the Left. We can ill afford another Klendathu.
Quote from: The Brain on September 04, 2014, 02:25:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:01:04 PM
Brain, while I don't totally disagree with you, you could justas easily write up a very simplistic version about "rightdom" that would make us sound just as bad.
I'm not out to make the Left look bad. I want to understand them. The Pillars work.
To fight the Left, we must understand the Left. We can ill afford another Klendathu.
:D
1 & 3 have the right written all over them.
As does number 2 to an extent. Its all about YOU pay for it yourself, whether you can afford it or not. If you can't then its your failing.
With three pillars of leftdom and three pillars of rightdom we only need one more for the Seven Pillars of Wisdom! :w00t:
Quote from: Syt on September 04, 2014, 02:42:14 PM
With three pillars of leftdom and three pillars of rightdom we only need one more for the Seven Pillars of Wisdom! :w00t:
With the three pillars of leftdom and the three pillars of rightdom I fear we will still need seven more pillars for the seven pillars of wisdom. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2014, 03:05:27 PM
Quote from: Syt on September 04, 2014, 02:42:14 PM
With three pillars of leftdom and three pillars of rightdom we only need one more for the Seven Pillars of Wisdom! :w00t:
With the three pillars of leftdom and the three pillars of rightdom I fear we will still need seven more pillars for the seven pillars of wisdom. :P
:( I wish I'd said that.
Quote from: grumbler on September 04, 2014, 03:11:20 PM
:( I wish I'd said that.
You probably will get the next few. With college football here I'm devoting most of my thought energy more toward the lines of brady hoke fat jokes. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2014, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 04, 2014, 03:11:20 PM
:( I wish I'd said that.
You probably will get the next few. With college football here I'm devoting most of my thought energy more toward the lines of brady hoke fat jokes. :P
I understand. If I was a Miami fan, I'd probably focus on trying to make lame jokes about other teams' coaches, too. :thumbsup:
Quote from: grumbler on September 04, 2014, 03:25:47 PM
I understand. If I was a Miami fan, I'd probably focus on trying to make lame jokes about other teams' coaches, too. :thumbsup:
I think the days of Miami fans limiting themselves to jokes about just other team's coaches ended monday night.
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 01:05:12 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2014, 12:59:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:50:41 PM
No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives. They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.
Doesn't it sort of discredit those sorts of conservatives that they really came to the forefront in an era that we now recognize as really sucking compared to current times?
"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.", has been wrong for hundreds of years; sure that doesn't exactly prove it is wrong today, but a historical pattern has developed....
Not at all - the historical record ahs in fact vindicated the conservative point of view.
Look - it's not that a conservative says "nothing should ever change". but rather "our society has evolved this way for a reason, so let's be careful and cautious when we change things".
Look, I think we all agree that the modern social democratic welfare state is a place that 100 or 200 years ago would sound like a socialist paradise. But every time that liberals tried to make the change all in one big jump it has failed miserably (French revolution, communism). The "slow and steady" approach demonstrated by the west has been the winner.
The problem with conservatism is exactly exemplified by this post - 200 years of waiting for things to get better in an evolutionary and cautious manner does not work for anyone but those who are already privileged. Everybody else will be dead before it gets better for them. This has always been the conservatives' sin - whether it came to slavery, equal rights, women's suffrage, equal marriage etc. Personally, I'd rather be a hotheaded idealist than a callous and cold-hearted monster.
Quote from: Martinus on September 04, 2014, 04:01:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 01:05:12 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2014, 12:59:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:50:41 PM
No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives. They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.
Doesn't it sort of discredit those sorts of conservatives that they really came to the forefront in an era that we now recognize as really sucking compared to current times?
"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.", has been wrong for hundreds of years; sure that doesn't exactly prove it is wrong today, but a historical pattern has developed....
Not at all - the historical record ahs in fact vindicated the conservative point of view.
Look - it's not that a conservative says "nothing should ever change". but rather "our society has evolved this way for a reason, so let's be careful and cautious when we change things".
Look, I think we all agree that the modern social democratic welfare state is a place that 100 or 200 years ago would sound like a socialist paradise. But every time that liberals tried to make the change all in one big jump it has failed miserably (French revolution, communism). The "slow and steady" approach demonstrated by the west has been the winner.
The problem with conservatism is exactly exemplified by this post - 200 years of waiting for things to get better in an evolutionary and cautious manner does not work for anyone but those who are already privileged. Everybody else will be dead before it gets better for them. This has always been the conservatives' sin - whether it came to slavery, equal rights, women's suffrage, equal marriage etc. Personally, I'd rather be a hotheaded idealist than a callous and cold-hearted monster.
Whatever you say Robespierre.
Quote from: Martinus on September 04, 2014, 04:01:05 PM
The problem with conservatism is exactly exemplified by this post - 200 years of waiting for things to get better in an evolutionary and cautious manner does not work for anyone but those who are already privileged. Everybody else will be dead before it gets better for them. This has always been the conservatives' sin - whether it came to slavery, equal rights, women's suffrage, equal marriage etc. Personally, I'd rather be a hotheaded idealist than a callous and cold-hearted monster.
Marty, I wanted to ask you this a while back. I remember way back in the paradox days like 13 years ago when you first came out. You made some comments along the lines being unhappy with a hostile situation in Poland, and you just wanted basic acceptance, and for that reason didn't want to push for things like gay marriage or more flamboyant things like extravagent gay pride parades (say in NYC), as they were too confrontational. I wonder what you think about that now.
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 04:06:54 PM
Whatever you say Robespierre.
In the US we've had pretty good luck with revolution. For instance we became independent two hundred years before Canada did.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2014, 05:18:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 04:06:54 PM
Whatever you say Robespierre.
In the US we've had pretty good luck with revolution. For instance we became independent two hundred years before Canada did.
:face:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2014, 05:18:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 04:06:54 PM
Whatever you say Robespierre.
In the US we've had pretty good luck with revolution. For instance we became independent two hundred years before Canada did.
:console:
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2014, 04:15:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 04, 2014, 04:01:05 PM
The problem with conservatism is exactly exemplified by this post - 200 years of waiting for things to get better in an evolutionary and cautious manner does not work for anyone but those who are already privileged. Everybody else will be dead before it gets better for them. This has always been the conservatives' sin - whether it came to slavery, equal rights, women's suffrage, equal marriage etc. Personally, I'd rather be a hotheaded idealist than a callous and cold-hearted monster.
Marty, I wanted to ask you this a while back. I remember way back in the paradox days like 13 years ago when you first came out. You made some comments along the lines being unhappy with a hostile situation in Poland, and you just wanted basic acceptance, and for that reason didn't want to push for things like gay marriage or more flamboyant things like extravagent gay pride parades (say in NYC), as they were too confrontational. I wonder what you think about that now.
Hmm, I don't recall but it is very well possible that I said that. Let's say I feel quite differently these days. It's not to say I am 100% on board with the more extravagant aspects of parades (I find those aspects quite tacky) but in the political and social engineering sense, they are quite an effective tactics - and I go to them (although the fire is burning out slightly recently, mainly because I am growing old). I think I could come up with a very long response, as the issue is somewhat ambivalent, but if I were to give you a short response, I would say the kind of view I used to have - as you say - is intellectually lazy, when coming from gay people. I may be not into pushing boundaries myself, but at least I have enough decency to acknowledge that those who push boundaries are making more room for me, so to speak.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2014, 03:05:27 PM
Quote from: Syt on September 04, 2014, 02:42:14 PM
With three pillars of leftdom and three pillars of rightdom we only need one more for the Seven Pillars of Wisdom! :w00t:
With the three pillars of leftdom and the three pillars of rightdom I fear we will still need seven more pillars for the seven pillars of wisdom. :P
You know I never got around to properly finishing that book, last weekend I was even within a mile or so of the scene of his death and the last place he lived. :blush:
I'll bite.
Quote from: The Brain on September 04, 2014, 11:53:03 AM
The Left (at least here in Sweden) is based on three pillars. They are the foundations on which the lofty edifice of Socialism/Communism/Feminism/Environmentalism has been built. They are as follows.
Ignorance Of The Issues. The Lefty is clueless. He doesn't understand, at all, how things work. Science, technology, business, history, economy etc etc are all mysteries to him.
Perhaps this holds more water in Sweden, but the Left in the U.S. is the only political group that seems to understand--nearly literally--anything at all. On the right, you have insane retards who think the Earth is 6000 years old and evolution didn't happen, and even in the center you have slightly more sophisticated retards, but retards all the same, who believe hyperinflation is happening or that our welfare system is financially unsupportable.
That said, too many Leftists even in America refuse to take the harder but more rewarding road of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Medicine. This is partly due to the corrupt Leftists who rule liberal arts academia, who have brainwashed a generation (or three) into believing ridiculous things that, when you look at it with the critical thinking they say they teach but don't, solely benefit liberal arts academics.
QuoteSomeone Else Should Pay. Regardless of what's being considered, with the Lefty it is ALWAYS about how someone else should pay. The idea that you pay for stuff you yourself want hasn't crossed his mind.
Leftists are redistributionists? What a shock. I'm glad you're here to bring us this hard-hitting analysis.
QuoteWhat I Don't Like Should Be Banned. When the Lefty doesn't like something his response is that it should be banned. He cannot grasp the concept of people doing thing differently, let alone see any value in it.
Totalitarianism is no vice. Stop pretending it is. In fact, the biggest problem with modern Leftism is that while it retains the mildest totalitarian streak, the discipline is missing. This has actually been a perennial problem of the Left, though: constantly splintering, while Rightists, hierarchical by nature, organize as a machine rather than an unruly mob. More Leftists should voluntarily do time in the military.
However, I'm surprised you missed the big doublethink in modern Leftism: if a white male is doing something differently, it should be banned; if some less privileged group is doing it, go nuts. For just one example, witness the failure of the Left to oppose Islam in the same way they (successfully, vociferously, and for the same exact reasons) oppose Christianity.
QuoteApaling. :mad:
If you only got paid $60k a year to do your job, you'd do it anyway, so suck it, John Galt.
I'm still miffed nobody liked my IKEA joke. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2014, 08:20:30 PM
I'm still miffed nobody liked my IKEA joke. :(
I liked it. :hug:
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:50:41 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 04, 2014, 12:40:10 PM
That's why best are true (classical, if you will) liberals. They don't want your money and they don't want laws banning everything they don't like, plus not all of them are stupid.
They are a dying breed, I give you that much.
No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives. They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.
That's not true. The American conservative movement does not look at the past as being better, with the exception of Pres Reagan's presidency.
It was the Republican party who fought to end slavery and aborted Pres Andrew Johnson's, a Dem, attempt to reinstate the southerner ex-confederates.
It was the Democratic party who oppoussed the civil rights movement in the 1960s.
Quote from: Siege on September 04, 2014, 10:54:30 PM
That's not true. The American conservative movement does not look at the past as being better, with the exception of Pres Reagan's presidency.
It was the Republican party who fought to end slavery and aborted Pres Andrew Johnson's, a Dem, attempt to reinstate the southerner ex-confederates.
It was the Democratic party who oppoussed the civil rights movement in the 1960s.
Andrew Johnson was not a Dem when he was President, he ran with Abraham Lincoln against McClellan and the Dems. And the Democratic Party both opposed and supported the Civil Rights movement. The Democrats managed to be the party of Segregation AND Blacks which was a pretty impressive political juggling act you have to admit. Anyway the split of Conservatives being mostly Republicans did not occur until much later so it really has nothing to do with the modern parties. The Democrats wish their tent was as absurdly big as it once was.
Anyway he was talking about classic Burkean Conservative types not whatever modern American Conservatism is.
Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2014, 11:04:11 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 04, 2014, 10:54:30 PM
That's not true. The American conservative movement does not look at the past as being better, with the exception of Pres Reagan's presidency.
It was the Republican party who fought to end slavery and aborted Pres Andrew Johnson's, a Dem, attempt to reinstate the southerner ex-confederates.
It was the Democratic party who oppoussed the civil rights movement in the 1960s.
Andrew Johnson was not a Dem when he was President, he ran with Abraham Lincoln against McClellan and the Dems. And the Democratic Party both opposed and supported the Civil Rights movement. The Democrats managed to be the party of Segregation AND Blacks which was a pretty impressive political juggling act you have to admit. Anyway the split of Conservatives being mostly Republicans did not occur until much later so it really has nothing to do with the modern parties. The Democrats wish their tent was as absurdly big as it once was.
Anyway he was talking about classic Burkean Conservative types not whatever modern American Conservatism is.
Truth be told the clarification of what Barrister said about slow evolutionary changes is something I find quite attractive. Shelf said I was conservative in temperament if not politics, which I think is correct.
The Democratic party in the civil right era was complicated. They essentially sacrificed political power to do the right thing, something they knew they were doing at the time. It was in my opinion the right decision, after all what is the point of holding office if not to serve your people well? I wonder if the GOP would be willing to make a similar sacrifice.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2014, 11:29:46 PM
Truth be told the clarification of what Barrister said about slow evolutionary changes is something I find quite attractive. Shelf said I was conservative in temperament if not politics, which I think is correct.
Does it really make sense though? I don't think conservatives have generally been for slow evolutionary changes. They are for the divine right of kings in one era, against gay marriage in another, etc. Slow evolutionary changes aren't the product of conservatives--but often the result of compromises with those wanting more extensive or rapid change. That doesn't seem like an endorsement of conservatives vs. liberals/labor/other opposition, but rather an endorsement of a balanced political approach.
The explosive excesses of the French Revolution that BB cites were to a certain extent driven by the existence of a conservative order with considerable power (originally inside france, later threatening a resurgence, and at all times threatening externally), putting in question the durability of the republic.
Yeah. BB's point is a bit like arguing for the superiority of the brake pedal over the throttle pedal.
I must brake you.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2014, 11:50:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2014, 11:29:46 PM
Truth be told the clarification of what Barrister said about slow evolutionary changes is something I find quite attractive. Shelf said I was conservative in temperament if not politics, which I think is correct.
Does it really make sense though? I don't think conservatives have generally been for slow evolutionary changes. They are for the divine right of kings in one era, against gay marriage in another, etc. Slow evolutionary changes aren't the product of conservatives--but often the result of compromises with those wanting more extensive or rapid change. That doesn't seem like an endorsement of conservatives vs. liberals/labor/other opposition, but rather an endorsement of a balanced political approach.
The explosive excesses of the French Revolution that BB cites were to a certain extent driven by the existence of a conservative order with considerable power (originally inside france, later threatening a resurgence, and at all times threatening externally), putting in question the durability of the republic.
I think he means changes inside the existing framework rather then revolutionary changes into the uncharted. Not only are changes within an existing framework less violent, but they are more likely to succeed and become permanent.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2014, 03:05:27 PM
Quote from: Syt on September 04, 2014, 02:42:14 PM
With three pillars of leftdom and three pillars of rightdom we only need one more for the Seven Pillars of Wisdom! :w00t:
With the three pillars of leftdom and the three pillars of rightdom I fear we will still need seven more pillars for the seven pillars of wisdom. :P
:lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2014, 12:59:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:50:41 PM
No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives. They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.
Doesn't it sort of discredit those sorts of conservatives that they really came to the forefront in an era that we now recognize as really sucking compared to current times?
"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.", has been wrong for hundreds of years; sure that doesn't exactly prove it is wrong today, but a historical pattern has developed....
"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up"...when it's just about them, that is.
Those happen to be the same people that resisted abolition, desegregation, enfranchisement and suffrage...you know, everything that contributes to an egalitarian society.
Which is why they're assfuck douchebags.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2014, 12:50:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2014, 12:59:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:50:41 PM
No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives. They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.
Doesn't it sort of discredit those sorts of conservatives that they really came to the forefront in an era that we now recognize as really sucking compared to current times?
"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.", has been wrong for hundreds of years; sure that doesn't exactly prove it is wrong today, but a historical pattern has developed....
"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up"...when it's just about them, that is.
Those happen to be the same people that resisted abolition, desegregation, enfranchisement and suffrage...you know, everything that contributes to an egalitarian society.
Which is why they're assfuck douchebags.
Yep. Conservatives, by their very definition are the group of people whose views are destined to lose to progress. ALL human progress has happened against the wishes of the conservatives of their times.
Quote from: Siege on September 04, 2014, 10:54:30 PM
That's not true. The American conservative movement does not look at the past as being better, with the exception of Pres Reagan's presidency.
It was the Republican party who fought to end slavery and aborted Pres Andrew Johnson's, a Dem, attempt to reinstate the southerner ex-confederates.
It was the Democratic party who oppoussed the civil rights movement in the 1960s.
This is the classic case of lying by omission. Both of these facts are correct if you go by party labels, and not what these parties actually stood for. If you pay a little closer attention, for both of these issues and stances, the Republicans in question would now be classified as Democrats, and the Democrats of the time would now be classified as Republicans. I've called you out on this blatant disingenuity before, and I have no doubt I'll have to do it again in the future, but here we are.
Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2014, 11:04:11 PM
The Democrats wish their tent was as absurdly big as it once was.
No, not really. Parties mean something beyond the letter after politicians' names. Having a tent big enough to contain people with wildly different goals and values is beyond pointless, and is doomed to blow up much like the Democratic party of the civil rights era. We can have a single Republicrat party tomorrow that would control all three branches of government and 100% of Congress, so what would that change? Exactly nothing at all, except that instead of what we call hyperpartisanship now we will have what we would call hyperfactionalism. Parties are just vehicles for people with similar values and objectives to band together for coordinating their political power, so by definition there is such a concept as balance between size of the tent and the tent's homogeneity.
Quote from: DGuller on September 05, 2014, 04:35:52 AM
Quote from: Siege on September 04, 2014, 10:54:30 PM
That's not true. The American conservative movement does not look at the past as being better, with the exception of Pres Reagan's presidency.
It was the Republican party who fought to end slavery and aborted Pres Andrew Johnson's, a Dem, attempt to reinstate the southerner ex-confederates.
It was the Democratic party who oppoussed the civil rights movement in the 1960s.
This is the classic case of lying by omission. Both of these facts are correct if you go by party labels, and not what these parties actually stood for. If you pay a little closer attention, for both of these issues and stances, the Republicans in question would now be classified as Democrats, and the Democrats of the time would now be classified as Republicans. I've called you out on this blatant disingenuity before, and I have no doubt I'll have to do it again in the future, but here we are.
Disingenuity on your part as well. Pro-slavery or pro-segregation stances would make one a pariah in both parties today.
Quote from: DGuller on September 05, 2014, 04:35:52 AM
This is the classic case of lying by omission. Both of these facts are correct if you go by party labels, and not what these parties actually stood for. If you pay a little closer attention, for both of these issues and stances, the Republicans in question would now be classified as Democrats, and the Democrats of the time would now be classified as Republicans. I've called you out on this blatant disingenuity before, and I have no doubt I'll have to do it again in the future, but here we are.
That is overly simple too. The one thing that has been consistent since 1860 is that Republicans are the party of big business, Democrats are not.
Prior to roughly WWII, the agrarian south didn't have so much interest in big business, while the trade oriented north did. This reinforced the regionalism of the parties.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2014, 11:29:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2014, 11:04:11 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 04, 2014, 10:54:30 PM
That's not true. The American conservative movement does not look at the past as being better, with the exception of Pres Reagan's presidency.
It was the Republican party who fought to end slavery and aborted Pres Andrew Johnson's, a Dem, attempt to reinstate the southerner ex-confederates.
It was the Democratic party who oppoussed the civil rights movement in the 1960s.
Andrew Johnson was not a Dem when he was President, he ran with Abraham Lincoln against McClellan and the Dems. And the Democratic Party both opposed and supported the Civil Rights movement. The Democrats managed to be the party of Segregation AND Blacks which was a pretty impressive political juggling act you have to admit. Anyway the split of Conservatives being mostly Republicans did not occur until much later so it really has nothing to do with the modern parties. The Democrats wish their tent was as absurdly big as it once was.
Anyway he was talking about classic Burkean Conservative types not whatever modern American Conservatism is.
Truth be told the clarification of what Barrister said about slow evolutionary changes is something I find quite attractive. Shelf said I was conservative in temperament if not politics, which I think is correct.
The Democratic party in the civil right era was complicated. They essentially sacrificed political power to do the right thing, something they knew they were doing at the time. It was in my opinion the right decision, after all what is the point of holding office if not to serve your people well? I wonder if the GOP would be willing to make a similar sacrifice.
The GOP will never do the right thing to serve the people well.
The GOP is in the hands of special interest, just like the Dems, and the GOP does not care about the conservative values, or liberty, or our constitutional republic.
The GOP is a tool of the corporations and the chamber of commerce, just like the Dems.
Different corporations perhaps, but not much difference.
Quote from: DGuller on September 05, 2014, 04:35:52 AM
Quote from: Siege on September 04, 2014, 10:54:30 PM
That's not true. The American conservative movement does not look at the past as being better, with the exception of Pres Reagan's presidency.
It was the Republican party who fought to end slavery and aborted Pres Andrew Johnson's, a Dem, attempt to reinstate the southerner ex-confederates.
It was the Democratic party who oppoussed the civil rights movement in the 1960s.
This is the classic case of lying by omission. Both of these facts are correct if you go by party labels, and not what these parties actually stood for. If you pay a little closer attention, for both of these issues and stances, the Republicans in question would now be classified as Democrats, and the Democrats of the time would now be classified as Republicans. I've called you out on this blatant disingenuity before, and I have no doubt I'll have to do it again in the future, but here we are.
Sure, because the Dems get to re-write their history and are forgiven for all their racism and discrimination.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 05, 2014, 07:58:12 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 05, 2014, 04:35:52 AM
This is the classic case of lying by omission. Both of these facts are correct if you go by party labels, and not what these parties actually stood for. If you pay a little closer attention, for both of these issues and stances, the Republicans in question would now be classified as Democrats, and the Democrats of the time would now be classified as Republicans. I've called you out on this blatant disingenuity before, and I have no doubt I'll have to do it again in the future, but here we are.
That is overly simple too. The one thing that has been consistent since 1860 is that Republicans are the party of big business, Democrats are not.
Prior to roughly WWII, the agrarian south didn't have so much interest in big business, while the trade oriented north did. This reinforced the regionalism of the parties.
Every billionaire I can name is a Dem.
I have to admit I am not very knowledgeable about the political affiliations of the Walton family.
Quote from: Tamas on September 05, 2014, 04:03:47 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2014, 12:50:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2014, 12:59:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:50:41 PM
No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives. They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.
Doesn't it sort of discredit those sorts of conservatives that they really came to the forefront in an era that we now recognize as really sucking compared to current times?
"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.", has been wrong for hundreds of years; sure that doesn't exactly prove it is wrong today, but a historical pattern has developed....
"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up"...when it's just about them, that is.
Those happen to be the same people that resisted abolition, desegregation, enfranchisement and suffrage...you know, everything that contributes to an egalitarian society.
Which is why they're assfuck douchebags.
Yep. Conservatives, by their very definition are the group of people whose views are destined to lose to progress. ALL human progress has happened against the wishes of the conservatives of their times.
That's only true if you view progress as a straight line, always improving. Again, history has shown that a great deal of what we thought was "progress" was a terrible mistake. Communism. Prohibition.
Change can just as easily be for the worse as for the better. It's why you see purportedly "progressive" countries like Venezuela to be basket cases.
So as a Conservative, sure, sometimes you'll be opposed to change that, in retrospect, were positives. But just as often, if not more often, you'll be opposed to changes and glad that you were.
Quote from: Barrister on September 05, 2014, 11:42:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 05, 2014, 04:03:47 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2014, 12:50:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2014, 12:59:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:50:41 PM
No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives. They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.
Doesn't it sort of discredit those sorts of conservatives that they really came to the forefront in an era that we now recognize as really sucking compared to current times?
"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.", has been wrong for hundreds of years; sure that doesn't exactly prove it is wrong today, but a historical pattern has developed....
"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up"...when it's just about them, that is.
Those happen to be the same people that resisted abolition, desegregation, enfranchisement and suffrage...you know, everything that contributes to an egalitarian society.
Which is why they're assfuck douchebags.
Yep. Conservatives, by their very definition are the group of people whose views are destined to lose to progress. ALL human progress has happened against the wishes of the conservatives of their times.
That's only true if you view progress as a straight line, always improving. Again, history has shown that a great deal of what we thought was "progress" was a terrible mistake. Communism. Prohibition.
Change can just as easily be for the worse as for the better. It's why you see purportedly "progressive" countries like Venezuela to be basket cases.
So as a Conservative, sure, sometimes you'll be opposed to change that, in retrospect, were positives. But just as often, if not more often, you'll be opposed to changes and glad that you were.
Communism is a valid example, I give you that, although I would mention that if it has not had its chance at running half the world, it would still be fought for as a viable society. Rest of the examples simply not valid.
And basically, all political progress which has ended up being accepted by society has been toward more personal liberty OR (the illusion) of higher social safety. All of these have been throughout history has been opposed by conservatives. EVERYTHING and I do mean absolutely everything you as a conservative hold dear and worth defending was once considered a liberal/evil monstrous concept by conservatives.
BB's all tough talk in court, would like to see how he does on defense before the revolutionary tribunal.
Quote from: Siege on September 05, 2014, 11:32:30 AM
Sure, because the Dems get to re-write their history and are forgiven for all their racism and discrimination.
Question: When Democrats swung in favor of civil rights in the 1940's why did those who oppose civil rights go to the GOP? Why did the GOP accept them?
Question: why are you arguing with Siege?
Quote from: Tamas on September 05, 2014, 12:13:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 05, 2014, 11:42:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 05, 2014, 04:03:47 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2014, 12:50:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2014, 12:59:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:50:41 PM
No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives. They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.
Doesn't it sort of discredit those sorts of conservatives that they really came to the forefront in an era that we now recognize as really sucking compared to current times?
"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.", has been wrong for hundreds of years; sure that doesn't exactly prove it is wrong today, but a historical pattern has developed....
"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up"...when it's just about them, that is.
Those happen to be the same people that resisted abolition, desegregation, enfranchisement and suffrage...you know, everything that contributes to an egalitarian society.
Which is why they're assfuck douchebags.
Yep. Conservatives, by their very definition are the group of people whose views are destined to lose to progress. ALL human progress has happened against the wishes of the conservatives of their times.
That's only true if you view progress as a straight line, always improving. Again, history has shown that a great deal of what we thought was "progress" was a terrible mistake. Communism. Prohibition.
Change can just as easily be for the worse as for the better. It's why you see purportedly "progressive" countries like Venezuela to be basket cases.
So as a Conservative, sure, sometimes you'll be opposed to change that, in retrospect, were positives. But just as often, if not more often, you'll be opposed to changes and glad that you were.
Communism is a valid example, I give you that, although I would mention that if it has not had its chance at running half the world, it would still be fought for as a viable society. Rest of the examples simply not valid.
And basically, all political progress which has ended up being accepted by society has been toward more personal liberty OR (the illusion) of higher social safety. All of these have been throughout history has been opposed by conservatives. EVERYTHING and I do mean absolutely everything you as a conservative hold dear and worth defending was once considered a liberal/evil monstrous concept by conservatives.
BB's point is that all political "progress" that has been rejected or shown to be monserous in practice has been opposed by conservatives, too.
One example of an issue embraced by progressives and opposed by conservatives, and later largely discredited and discarded nowadays - the Eugenics movement.
But I loved the Eugenics. :(. DONT MESS WITH A MISSIONARY MAN
Quote from: Siege on September 05, 2014, 11:32:30 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 05, 2014, 04:35:52 AM
Quote from: Siege on September 04, 2014, 10:54:30 PM
That's not true. The American conservative movement does not look at the past as being better, with the exception of Pres Reagan's presidency.
It was the Republican party who fought to end slavery and aborted Pres Andrew Johnson's, a Dem, attempt to reinstate the southerner ex-confederates.
It was the Democratic party who oppoussed the civil rights movement in the 1960s.
This is the classic case of lying by omission. Both of these facts are correct if you go by party labels, and not what these parties actually stood for. If you pay a little closer attention, for both of these issues and stances, the Republicans in question would now be classified as Democrats, and the Democrats of the time would now be classified as Republicans. I've called you out on this blatant disingenuity before, and I have no doubt I'll have to do it again in the future, but here we are.
Sure, because the Dems get to re-write their history and are forgiven for all their racism and discrimination.
And let's not forget the "leftist" Swedes and their blot and human sacrifices...
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2014, 02:24:12 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 05, 2014, 12:13:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 05, 2014, 11:42:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 05, 2014, 04:03:47 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2014, 12:50:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2014, 12:59:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:50:41 PM
No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives. They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.
Doesn't it sort of discredit those sorts of conservatives that they really came to the forefront in an era that we now recognize as really sucking compared to current times?
"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.", has been wrong for hundreds of years; sure that doesn't exactly prove it is wrong today, but a historical pattern has developed....
"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up"...when it's just about them, that is.
Those happen to be the same people that resisted abolition, desegregation, enfranchisement and suffrage...you know, everything that contributes to an egalitarian society.
Which is why they're assfuck douchebags.
Yep. Conservatives, by their very definition are the group of people whose views are destined to lose to progress. ALL human progress has happened against the wishes of the conservatives of their times.
That's only true if you view progress as a straight line, always improving. Again, history has shown that a great deal of what we thought was "progress" was a terrible mistake. Communism. Prohibition.
Change can just as easily be for the worse as for the better. It's why you see purportedly "progressive" countries like Venezuela to be basket cases.
So as a Conservative, sure, sometimes you'll be opposed to change that, in retrospect, were positives. But just as often, if not more often, you'll be opposed to changes and glad that you were.
Communism is a valid example, I give you that, although I would mention that if it has not had its chance at running half the world, it would still be fought for as a viable society. Rest of the examples simply not valid.
And basically, all political progress which has ended up being accepted by society has been toward more personal liberty OR (the illusion) of higher social safety. All of these have been throughout history has been opposed by conservatives. EVERYTHING and I do mean absolutely everything you as a conservative hold dear and worth defending was once considered a liberal/evil monstrous concept by conservatives.
BB's point is that all political "progress" that has been rejected or shown to be monserous in practice has been opposed by conservatives, too.
One example of an issue embraced by progressives and opposed by conservatives, and later largely discredited and discarded nowadays - the Eugenics movement.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:50:41 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 04, 2014, 12:40:10 PM
That's why best are true (classical, if you will) liberals. They don't want your money and they don't want laws banning everything they don't like, plus not all of them are stupid.
They are a dying breed, I give you that much.
No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives. They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.
I remember British lefty writer Hopi Sen writing about what he thought were the best traits of his sort-of platonic ideal conservatism and they basically boiled down to a sense of perspective which led to other virtues like a sense of humour and so on.
Basically MacMillan forever. Which is something I wouldn't be entirely averse to :mellow:
QuoteThat's why best are true (classical, if you will) liberals. They don't want your money and they don't want laws banning everything they don't like, plus not all of them are stupid.
Classical liberalism was, classically, the (very) pious prattling of the middle class. You look into any temperance movement, or group that set about 'improving' the working class and you found classical liberals. They had the same lack of empathy (which classical conservatism has) which made them grating then and grating now.
Which of course isn't to say it doesn't have its virtues, but it's a bit like the King Over the Water. The lower it's declined in actual electoral popularity, the greater it's panaceac potential.
Edit: Incidentally I think the whole PC thing is part of the liberal inheritance of western leftiness. It's that same moral fervour to reform people and save them, not from the demon drink, but rancid racism.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2014, 12:57:26 PM
How far back to go till we find that everything is "Pretty damn good"?
But that's reactionary views which is different. Conservatives, at their best, have a sense of perspective. Things aren't that bad. The likelihood of them making a radical change is slim. The likelihood of a radical change being for the best is almost nil.
Therefore the goal's to bend with the wind and manage change in an organic way while maintaining that sense of lightness. Long after we're gone there'll still be English shires or prairie fields. The best we should hope for or want from our leaders is that they're a wise steward of the nation passing it on in not too much worse condition than they found it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 05, 2014, 04:33:02 PM
Classical liberalism was, classically, the (very) pious prattling of the middle class. You look into any temperance movement, or group that set about 'improving' the working class and you found classical liberals. They had the same lack of empathy (which classical conservatism has) which made them grating then and grating now.
Yes, the problem with classic liberals is that they way over-estimated the ability of the common man to recognize and work towards his own interests. It was, as you note, the philosophy of the middle-class "self-made man" and presumed that anyone who didn't make himself was just lazy.
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2014, 02:24:12 PM
One example of an issue embraced by progressives and opposed by conservatives, and later largely discredited and discarded nowadays - the Eugenics movement.
Yep. And he's from Canada, so I imagine has something of the British conservative tradition which isn't legitimist or reactionary. It isn't entirely opposed to change.
It was conservatives who passed Catholic Emancipation (and Jewish Emancipation), the proportionally largest increase in suffrage, the first universal education law and have always had strands like Villa Conservatism or One Nation Toryism.
I think that's different from an often more rigid conservative heritage in much of Europe - especially Catholic countries.
Quote from: Barrister on September 05, 2014, 11:42:22 AM
That's only true if you view progress as a straight line, always improving. Again, history has shown that a great deal of what we thought was "progress" was a terrible mistake. Communism. Prohibition.
So as a Conservative, sure, sometimes you'll be opposed to change that, in retrospect, were positives. But just as often, if not more often, you'll be opposed to changes and glad that you were.
Prohibition seen as progress by whom? :blink:
Well, perhaps for islamo-like protestants in (North?) America and specially organised crime but I don't think the latter is the "we" you mentioned. Do you mean Canada and other US neighbors (Saint Pierre et Miquelon) which made a lot of money from it?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on September 05, 2014, 06:19:20 PM
Prohibition seen as progress by whom? :blink:
LOL Progressives, Protestants, organized women's groups, and other organizations that saw alcohol for what it was: a contributing factor to domestic violence, substance abuse and the perpetuation of unemployment and poverty. Kinda like, you know, now.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2014, 06:36:53 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on September 05, 2014, 06:19:20 PM
Prohibition seen as progress by whom? :blink:
LOL Progressives, Protestants, organized women's groups, and other organizations that saw alcohol for what it was: a contributing factor to domestic violence, substance abuse and the perpetuation of unemployment and poverty. Kinda like, you know, now.
Now I bet Seedy here Aced every History exam he took.
Listen to Beeb. "History has shown"? Man, it's like some Orleanist official in the 1830s going on about how history has shown that republicanism is dead.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 05, 2014, 04:36:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2014, 12:57:26 PM
How far back to go till we find that everything is "Pretty damn good"?
But that's reactionary views which is different. Conservatives, at their best, have a sense of perspective. Things aren't that bad. The likelihood of them making a radical change is slim. The likelihood of a radical change being for the best is almost nil.
Therefore the goal's to bend with the wind and manage change in an organic way while maintaining that sense of lightness. Long after we're gone there'll still be English shires or prairie fields. The best we should hope for or want from our leaders is that they're a wise steward of the nation passing it on in not too much worse condition than they found it.
:w00t:
Shelf nailed it.
Quote from: Siege on September 05, 2014, 11:32:30 AM
Sure, because the Dems get to re-write their history and are forgiven for all their racism and discrimination.
This makes no sense. This is all within living memory. And no history was rewritten and no Democratic politicians who were racist or discriminatory were forgiven...well except for maybe Robert Byrd.
Quote from: Siege on September 05, 2014, 10:49:34 PM
Shelf nailed it.
Sure. But you already said that American Conservatives are not that. They are far more radical.
Quote from: Valmy on September 05, 2014, 10:50:51 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 05, 2014, 10:49:34 PM
Shelf nailed it.
Sure. But you already said that American Conservatives are not that. They are far more radical.
Depends on which conservatives and which tradition you listen to. The Tea Party? Sure, they have little in common with Burkean conservatism. But the Conservatism of Romney, Dole, Bush Sr, even Reagan? Does that sound so different?
Quote from: Valmy on September 05, 2014, 10:50:06 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 05, 2014, 11:32:30 AM
Sure, because the Dems get to re-write their history and are forgiven for all their racism and discrimination.
This makes no sense. This is all within living memory. And no history was rewritten and no Democratic politicians who were racist or discriminatory were forgiven...well except for maybe Robert Byrd.
Most of what he says doesn't make any sense.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 05, 2014, 04:48:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2014, 02:24:12 PM
One example of an issue embraced by progressives and opposed by conservatives, and later largely discredited and discarded nowadays - the Eugenics movement.
Yep. And he's from Canada, so I imagine has something of the British conservative tradition which isn't legitimist or reactionary. It isn't entirely opposed to change.
It was conservatives who passed Catholic Emancipation (and Jewish Emancipation), the proportionally largest increase in suffrage, the first universal education law and have always had strands like Villa Conservatism or One Nation Toryism.
I think that's different from an often more rigid conservative heritage in much of Europe - especially Catholic countries.
Well, to be fair, it was also British conservatives who passed Equal Marriage. :bowler:
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 01:05:12 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2014, 12:59:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 12:50:41 PM
No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives. They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.
Doesn't it sort of discredit those sorts of conservatives that they really came to the forefront in an era that we now recognize as really sucking compared to current times?
"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.", has been wrong for hundreds of years; sure that doesn't exactly prove it is wrong today, but a historical pattern has developed....
Not at all - the historical record ahs in fact vindicated the conservative point of view.
Look - it's not that a conservative says "nothing should ever change". but rather "our society has evolved this way for a reason, so let's be careful and cautious when we change things".
Look, I think we all agree that the modern social democratic welfare state is a place that 100 or 200 years ago would sound like a socialist paradise. But every time that liberals tried to make the change all in one big jump it has failed miserably (French revolution, communism). The "slow and steady" approach demonstrated by the west has been the winner.
there are different kinds of conservativeness, though. there's the risk-adverse crowd, then there's groups like rural communities. rural communities are more prone to tradition, hence why things move a little slower there -- there's not much exposure to outside ideas (and it's sometimes accompanied by xenophobic hostility). someone can be conservative without being "conservative." i consider myself a liberal, but i tend to have a conservative approach to law.
in many respects, the "conservative" approach has not won throughout history. you mentioned socialism and today's world, but i think that oversimplifies it. each victory socialism achieved 80-100 years ago were separate acts where the individuals involved had an opportunity to go against the grain. so, while progress throughout history may be considered "careful and cautious" from one perspective, it can easily be seen as a series of quick advances, which at the time spurned the conservative mentality.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2014, 06:36:53 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on September 05, 2014, 06:19:20 PM
Prohibition seen as progress by whom? :blink:
LOL Progressives, Protestants, organized women's groups, and other organizations that saw alcohol for what it was: a contributing factor to domestic violence, substance abuse and the perpetuation of unemployment and poverty. Kinda like, you know, now.
So are they still clamoring for a new Prohibition?
I still don't get how Prohibition can be described as "progressive" when nativism, rural ultra-conservative areas, sectarianism (vs Catholics and Jews), xenophobia, and even anti-German sentiment played such a part in enabling its enforcement. Not to mention fundie Protties behind it.
As for domestic violence, it's has been known for quite a while that dry islamic societies have no domestic violence :lmfao:
It's a factor in domestic violence, yes but educating, fighting against alcoholism was already known back then as Christian moderation or whatever else.
As for unemployment and poverty, workers in breweries, wine yards and bars disagreed I believe.
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2014, 12:58:23 AM
Well, to be fair, it was also British conservatives who passed Equal Marriage. :bowler:
Yep. Over not insignificant opposition from within the party.
When the first gay marriages were happening they flew the rainbow flag over government buildings across the country. Here's Whitehall:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic2.demotix.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fa_scale_large%2F4300-2%2Fphotos%2F1396108817-rainbow-flags-fly-above-whitehall-to-celebrate-same-sex-marriage_4329772.jpg&hash=dac7ac558a56c9504e0e3a0e5e57d374529beb2f)
And as Cameron pointed out gay marriage is a conservative policy.
They are right. In fact I think that if Western conservative parties dropped (where applicable) their silly opposition to gay marriage and women's reproductive rights, I think majority of voters would support them, especially in the current geopolitical climate. Leave homos and sluts alone, and go after towelheads and Russkies instead, I say. :contract:
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2014, 06:34:43 AM
They are right. In fact I think that if Western conservative parties dropped (where applicable) their silly opposition to gay marriage and women's reproductive rights, I think majority of voters would support them, especially in the current geopolitical climate. Leave homos and sluts alone, and go after towelheads and Russkies instead, I say. :contract:
That might make them more palatable to homo 1%ers, but they'd probably lose votes doing that, as the Religious Right start losing their faith in Wall Street.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 06, 2014, 06:58:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2014, 06:34:43 AM
They are right. In fact I think that if Western conservative parties dropped (where applicable) their silly opposition to gay marriage and women's reproductive rights, I think majority of voters would support them, especially in the current geopolitical climate. Leave homos and sluts alone, and go after towelheads and Russkies instead, I say. :contract:
That might make them more palatable to homo 1%ers, but they'd probably lose votes doing that, as the Religious Right start losing their faith in Wall Street.
But where will the RR go? And I think they are losing more than just gay voters with their anti gay rhetoric.
Fuck the religious right.
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2014, 07:31:37 AM
But where will the RR go? And I think they are losing more than just gay voters with their anti gay rhetoric.
Stay at home or vote 3rd party. Why stay with a party that won't even pay lip service to the issues you care about?
I kinda agree with you on the gay marriage bit- it's a losing issue, just not a huge one. However, you lumped it in with abortion, which seems to help Republicans a lot. A large chunk of the population supports them because of that issue, while many/most pro-choice moderates recognize how little chance there is of overturning Roe at this point and feel free to vote Republican depending on the other issues.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 06, 2014, 07:55:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2014, 07:31:37 AM
But where will the RR go? And I think they are losing more than just gay voters with their anti gay rhetoric.
Stay at home or vote 3rd party.
would be glorious: no more political clout for the RR.
But would not result in Republican majorities.
I later thought the same thing, Peter (on the abortion vs gay marriage approach differences). Where do you think contraception and sex ed falls in this? The issue is there to stay or will republicans eventually give it up?
Which particular issues with contraception and sex ed? Allowing employers and insurance providers not to cover contraception is consistent with their general laissez-faire approach to health care. As for sex ed, that tends to be decided by local school boards, so it'll continue to produce occasional journalistic horror stories from both sides for a while. Not really an issue as far as Presidential and Congressional elections though.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on September 06, 2014, 05:11:12 AM
So are they still clamoring for a new Prohibition?
No, because it was unworkable, not because it was wrong.
QuoteI still don't get how Prohibition can be described as "progressive" when nativism, rural ultra-conservative areas, sectarianism (vs Catholics and Jews), xenophobia, and even anti-German sentiment played such a part in enabling its enforcement. Not to mention fundie Protties behind it.
That's because you're a douchebag European eggplant that isn't expected to understand a society of which you have no grasp, mainly because of wild hand gestures won't let you.
QuoteAs for domestic violence, it's has been known for quite a while that dry islamic societies have no domestic violence :lmfao:
Stupid statement.
QuoteIt's a factor in domestic violence, yes but educating, fighting against alcoholism was already known back then as Christian moderation or whatever else.
Another stupid statement. And yes, it was the Temperance movements that were the primary driver for it.
QuoteAs for unemployment and poverty, workers in breweries, wine yards and bars disagreed I believe.
Congratulations, you scored the stupid statement hat trick. Now go get hit by a car.
Quote from: The Brain on September 04, 2014, 11:53:03 AM
The Left (at least here in Sweden) is based on three pillars. They are the foundations on which the lofty edifice of Socialism/Communism/Feminism/Environmentalism has been built. They are as follows.
Ignorance Of The Issues. The Lefty is clueless. He doesn't understand, at all, how things work. Science, technology, business, history, economy etc etc are all mysteries to him.
Someone Else Should Pay. Regardless of what's being considered, with the Lefty it is ALWAYS about how someone else should pay. The idea that you pay for stuff you yourself want hasn't crossed his mind.
What I Don't Like Should Be Banned. When the Lefty doesn't like something his response is that it should be banned. He cannot grasp the concept of people doing thing differently, let alone see any value in it.
Apaling. :mad:
Same goes for the right, most of the time. Or anyone, really. People discuss, but have no clue. I have met far more clueless right-wingers than leftists. Then again, only right-wingers murder children in Norway.
Probably true. Although, once you get the Progress Party in government, pretty much everyone pays for their tax cuts for the rich.
The "I am offended, thus it should be banned" notion seems to be evenly distributed to me, at least.
So all in all, you are right and as most on the right, wrong.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on September 06, 2014, 05:11:12 AM
As for unemployment and poverty, workers in breweries, wine yards and bars disagreed I believe.
This stupid argument always annoyed me, much like it's contemporary argument in favor of legalized gambling. A job is not a universal good. If a job is created by promoting a socially damaging vice, then the sum total contribution of that job to the economy is negative. If you let a gambling addict easily piss away money in a casino, then he might be helping his blackjack dealer keep a job, but he'll be taking the job away from somebody who used to provide services to him for the money that he's now pissing away in a casino.
Death camps help the local economy!
Prohibition, in my mind, is like American gun control: a great idea in theory, a horror story in practice. Ditto most abortion restraints. Neither the Left nor the Right have a monopoly on imposing their moral values on the center, and both have appalling examples of what happens when their ideals get executed wholesale.
The proper mix of opportunity and justice is hard to find, but it is worth pursuing. It becomes hard when the Left and Right get so polarized that they'd rather see their own values compromised than the other side's advanced.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2014, 12:17:56 PM
Death camps help the local economy!
They're called life transformation centres now.
I'm skeptical of some of the facts concerning Prohibition. Like that it created the mob. I was under the impression that the mob existed before Prohibition and existed after it.
Gangs existed, and they did stuff, but my understanding is that the hundreds of billions of 2014 dollars' worth of revenues that Prohibition gave them created well-heeled, well-organized crime.
Now, prohibition can work, but not without being matched to an effective police state.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2014, 05:11:42 PM
Gangs existed, and they did stuff, but my understanding is that the hundreds of billions of 2014 dollars' worth of revenues that Prohibition gave them created well-heeled, well-organized crime.
Now, prohibition can work, but not without being matched to an effective police state.
Prohibition would only work with a foreign police force. No cop wants to arrest his partner's mother for a victimless crime, let alone his own mother. That's why there prohibition only works in places like Saudi Arabia, where the government can hire desert Bedouin and other fanatics as their cops.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2014, 05:11:42 PM
Gangs existed, and they did stuff, but my understanding is that the hundreds of billions of 2014 dollars' worth of revenues that Prohibition gave them created well-heeled, well-organized crime.
Now, prohibition can work, but not without being matched to an effective police state.
They were well organized enough to rig the World Series and operate political machines.
Quote from: grumbler on September 06, 2014, 05:43:31 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2014, 05:11:42 PM
Gangs existed, and they did stuff, but my understanding is that the hundreds of billions of 2014 dollars' worth of revenues that Prohibition gave them created well-heeled, well-organized crime.
Now, prohibition can work, but not without being matched to an effective police state.
Prohibition would only work with a foreign police force. No cop wants to arrest his partner's mother for a victimless crime, let alone his own mother. That's why there prohibition only works in places like Saudi Arabia, where the government can hire desert Bedouin and other fanatics as their cops.
I had no idea that poisoning people was a victimless crime.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2014, 05:11:42 PM
Gangs existed, and they did stuff, but my understanding is that the hundreds of billions of 2014 dollars' worth of revenues that Prohibition gave them created well-heeled, well-organized crime.
Now, prohibition can work, but not without being matched to an effective police state.
You don't even need that. All you need is a lack of demand. For instance there is a prohibition on lots of things in the US, however, very few people want to buy plutonium, and thus the prohibition on plutonium works quite well.
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2014, 06:34:43 AM
They are right. In fact I think that if Western conservative parties dropped (where applicable) their silly opposition to gay marriage and women's reproductive rights, I think majority of voters would support them, especially in the current geopolitical climate. Leave homos and sluts alone, and go after towelheads and Russkies instead, I say. :contract:
In the US it'd be mad. There's a generational shift on gay marriage within religious conservatives or evangelical Protestants just as pronounced as in the general population. This, above all, is why I think that battle's won. I'd guess the GOP moves to a federalist stance on the subject within the next 10 years.
By contrast in the general population and among religious conservatives there's no such shift on abortion. In addition to that because the key decision was made by the Supreme Court the only way to influence the debate one way or the other is through Presidential (and to a lesser extent Senatorial) elections. So unless there's some sudden shift on that, which seems unlikely, abortion will probably remain the key litmus test for both parties. From what I understand the last time there was a pro-life Democrat on their ticket was Sargent Shriver (ie. just before Roe v Wade), I imagine it's similar for Republicans.
QuoteThe proper mix of opportunity and justice is hard to find, but it is worth pursuing. It becomes hard when the Left and Right get so polarized that they'd rather see their own values compromised than the other side's advanced.
To an extent. I think the problem is that perhaps the question has changed. Social Democracy did attain a balance across the West and civilised the industrial age in my view and was a durable mix for that time and that problem.
In my view the current threat to opportunity isn't from an over-active, over-taxing state but from rapidly increasing disparities of wealth, part of which is a consequence of globalisation. The weird thing is it's now difficult to be what used to be upper middle class in the South of England because their old haunts are now there for billionaires only. You don't find many old judges or George Smileys in Chelsea anymore.
And I think a lot of the super-rich of today have that unattractive self-made man element to them. Your Brins and Blankfeins deserve a lot of admiration for what they've managed to do, but in some of their comments and views you do get that sense that anyone who's failed to be rich has done so because they're lazy (I think I read a comment from one of today's super-rich to the effect that if you've not made a million by the time you're forty, you're just lazy).
I think the new challenge is finding the right balance in a globalised age, with the inheritance of fortunes largely still to come. As the question's changed I think both left and right are sort of retreating to their default positions.
This is part of the reason I like the Tea Party, unlike the rest of the Republican party they're proposing policies that aren't preserved in aspic from a Georgetown dinner party circa 1986 and I think that their populist instinct will serve them well. I've less hope for a Clinton/Cuomo-ish Democrat Party.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2014, 05:46:36 PM
I had no idea that poisoning people was a victimless crime.
Nowt poisonous about booze. In moderation it's even good for you :)
Hilarious to see Comte Largent, the so-called catholic (as catholic as he's Irish) being a lackey of fundie Protties. Explains the ad homs as diversions. :)
No wine for you at the next mass ;)
Grumbler
Your explanation and analysis make more sense to me though one could debate about the examples.
DGuller
Apples and oranges. Even in Europe, gambling is much more regulated than alcohol. In some country, you can be banned from casinos or ask to be banned.
Even so, laws about alcohol vary wildly. Fun fact the countries which had prohibitions (smaller scale) and often the most severe laws still now (Nordic countries namely since only Denmark did not have a prohibition IIRC) have the most retarded drinking patterns e.g binge drinking and/or too much spirits. Causation ? Correlation (no wine culture)? Up to debate.
Last thing, as mentioned by Sheilbh, in small doses, quality alcohol (not the kind produced by organised crime) does not harm and may actually help.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2014, 05:50:42 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2014, 05:11:42 PM
Gangs existed, and they did stuff, but my understanding is that the hundreds of billions of 2014 dollars' worth of revenues that Prohibition gave them created well-heeled, well-organized crime.
Now, prohibition can work, but not without being matched to an effective police state.
You don't even need that. All you need is a lack of demand. For instance there is a prohibition on lots of things in the US, however, very few people want to buy plutonium, and thus the prohibition on plutonium works quite well.
I think the plutonium market is largely bounded by supply.
I was only addressing your argument about jobs, not your larger position. Any argument for or against a policy that is about "creating jobs" or "valuable jobs will be lost" is almost universally a terrible one.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2014, 05:07:31 PM
I'm skeptical of some of the facts concerning Prohibition. Like that it created the mob. I was under the impression that the mob existed before Prohibition and existed after it.
Many things exist after being created.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2014, 06:35:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2014, 05:50:42 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2014, 05:11:42 PM
Gangs existed, and they did stuff, but my understanding is that the hundreds of billions of 2014 dollars' worth of revenues that Prohibition gave them created well-heeled, well-organized crime.
Now, prohibition can work, but not without being matched to an effective police state.
You don't even need that. All you need is a lack of demand. For instance there is a prohibition on lots of things in the US, however, very few people want to buy plutonium, and thus the prohibition on plutonium works quite well.
I think the plutonium market is largely bounded by supply.
Have you worked in the plutonium market?
Your argument has merit when it's about subsidies. I can't help but thinking about what I saw on TV once, when some tobacco farmers were whingeing for subsidies because they were making "quality products" and they needed them to continue their activity. :yuk:
That's very different from outlawing an industry and decreasing tax revenues while public health problems instead of decreasing, increase even more thanks to adulterated alcohol.
Quote from: The Brain on September 06, 2014, 06:48:40 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2014, 06:35:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2014, 05:50:42 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2014, 05:11:42 PM
Gangs existed, and they did stuff, but my understanding is that the hundreds of billions of 2014 dollars' worth of revenues that Prohibition gave them created well-heeled, well-organized crime.
Now, prohibition can work, but not without being matched to an effective police state.
You don't even need that. All you need is a lack of demand. For instance there is a prohibition on lots of things in the US, however, very few people want to buy plutonium, and thus the prohibition on plutonium works quite well.
I think the plutonium market is largely bounded by supply.
Have you worked in the plutonium market?
What are you, a cop?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2014, 07:01:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 06, 2014, 06:48:40 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2014, 06:35:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2014, 05:50:42 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2014, 05:11:42 PM
Gangs existed, and they did stuff, but my understanding is that the hundreds of billions of 2014 dollars' worth of revenues that Prohibition gave them created well-heeled, well-organized crime.
Now, prohibition can work, but not without being matched to an effective police state.
You don't even need that. All you need is a lack of demand. For instance there is a prohibition on lots of things in the US, however, very few people want to buy plutonium, and thus the prohibition on plutonium works quite well.
I think the plutonium market is largely bounded by supply.
Have you worked in the plutonium market?
What are you, a cop?
Labels sicken me.
Quote from: The Brain on September 06, 2014, 06:47:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2014, 05:07:31 PM
I'm skeptical of some of the facts concerning Prohibition. Like that it created the mob. I was under the impression that the mob existed before Prohibition and existed after it.
Many things exist after being created.
But few things exist before.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 06, 2014, 05:57:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2014, 05:46:36 PM
I had no idea that poisoning people was a victimless crime.
Nowt poisonous about booze. In moderation it's even good for you :)
The poison is in the dose, however it is still fairly poisonous. Lots of people die of alcohol poisoning every year.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2014, 07:56:09 PMThe poison is in the dose, however it is still fairly poisonous. Lots of people die of alcohol poisoning every year.
The poison's always in the dose - with the exception of smoking.
Lots of people die from skin cancer, or health problems from obesity too.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 06, 2014, 08:09:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2014, 07:56:09 PMThe poison is in the dose, however it is still fairly poisonous. Lots of people die of alcohol poisoning every year.
The poison's always in the dose - with the exception of smoking.
Lots of people die from skin cancer, or health problems from obesity too.
Very few people drop dead by walking outside from "sun poisoning" or simply eating to much in an afternoon. Many people die from drinking to much in a night. Food and sun by themselves are not poisonous. Alcohol actually is. It is poisonous even in small amounts. The problem is that people find the detrimental effects of the poison pleasurable. That's were cognitive dissonance kicks in and you get things like "Lots of people die of skin cancer".
Okay, but I don't think many people drop dead from drinking too much on a night out of nowhere. Like skin cancer from sun bathing with no cream or obesity caused deaths from over-indulgence or a too rich diet it builds up to that level. Personally if you sun bathe regularly and you're not using any protection that is just dangerous and stupid. Stuff like fried butter, or deep-fried mars bars however delicious are far, far more a poison as a nice glass of muscadet.
It isn't poisonous in even small amounts. Look at all the stuff about how wine especially, in moderation, is good for you.
With the exception of smoking it's just another case of moderation in all things.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2014, 05:46:36 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 06, 2014, 05:43:31 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2014, 05:11:42 PM
Gangs existed, and they did stuff, but my understanding is that the hundreds of billions of 2014 dollars' worth of revenues that Prohibition gave them created well-heeled, well-organized crime.
Now, prohibition can work, but not without being matched to an effective police state.
Prohibition would only work with a foreign police force. No cop wants to arrest his partner's mother for a victimless crime, let alone his own mother. That's why there prohibition only works in places like Saudi Arabia, where the government can hire desert Bedouin and other fanatics as their cops.
I had no idea that poisoning people was a victimless crime.
So, Duque gets called out for making stupid statements, but Raz doesn't for that? :D
Quote from: Martinus on September 07, 2014, 03:23:46 PM
So, Duque gets called out for making stupid statements, but Raz doesn't for that? :D
A lot of people are too wise/chicken to argue with Raz.
So, I am just having a glass of chardonnay right now. Earlier I had a steak. Earlier still I practiced sodomy. And on top of this, I worked through Sunday on a highly stressful job.
I guess I should just be locked up.
Quote from: Martinus on September 07, 2014, 03:30:40 PM
So, I am just having a glass of chardonnay right now.
You and your fucking wine glass mentions. Enough already, attention whore.
And yesterday's election means Leftism will be in power. GooooOOO VOTERS!! :w00t:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2014, 03:34:04 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 07, 2014, 03:30:40 PM
So, I am just having a glass of chardonnay right now.
You and your fucking wine glass mentions. Enough already, attention whore.
Ultraman :w00t: