- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I can see it went right over your head. I admit it was a lot to digest, but it wasn't intended for you. In your case I'd keep it REALLY simple. Mr Owl, doesn't seem to need the talking points. At least he posts from his own mind which is a plus, and wins points on that alone. Opinion based on a "total lack of understanding"?? :lamo The only lack of understanding here is you not understanding what was posted. I have a feeling most of the rational posters here, just might disagree with you. Your ideology ain't rocket science pal. It's all a rehash of garbage we've seen before. As for your "talkin points" addiction you should really get together with Fenton. Oh yeah...we ignore your results because, we've seen them already. That's why you lost the last two elections. People have longer memories than you think and nobody wants to go backward. We rejected stupid and voted for smart this time...again.
What you don't seem to understand is Obama has no plan to put 22 plus million Americans back to work full time, lower the 16.6 trillion dollar debt, reduce the numbers of people on taxpayer assistances, and grow the private sector economy. Moving forward in your world is high debt, lower economic growth, high unemployment, and greater govt. dependence. Congratuations, you are getting the govt. you want.
Wingnut talking points. Wow! What took you so long? How about "20 reasons to hate the Obama's dog"? do you have that one? You offer a list of 24 talking points. Did you prepare that list? No. So who gave it to you? So, I'm supposed to wade through each of the 24 points, and address these one by one? And first I would need to know who supplied them to you, and check their own credibility for oh...you know, bias. Then after determining that not only are they from a right wing website, I have to fact check each of your 24 points and respond to each one. And you think I'm going to indulge you in all that crap? They aren't even your own thoughts. Why not just debate with them instead of you? You have nothing to offer here worth debating. Like your twin that was separated from you at birth...you don't think for yourself. You require help from others. That's weak. When you do this you are appealing to a bias authority. It's called Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Appeal to Biased Authority. In this sort of appeal, the authority is one who actually is knowledgeable on the matter, but one who may have professional or personal motivations that render his professional judgment suspect: for instance, the source of your talking points. What you're asking me to do is to accept the authority of a biased source. Basing a substantial part of your argument on a source that has personal, professional, or financial interests at stake may lead to biased arguments. We already have biased arguments. Why would I want to accept your biased source? What is their authority based on? And you think I'm going to indulge in this kind of paper chase? Learn to think on your own. Come up with your own logical arguments. Lets see if you can do it.
I would say that the people earning the most money should pay the highest rate, and at the very least, no less than of a fraction than any group below them.
The top 1/10 of 1% earn about 8% of all income and pay about 9%% of total federal taxes. They big lie is that they pay 17% of the taxes, but that is sophistry, it requires one to pretend that no other taxes but income taxes exist, when of course other do exist, and those other taxes are regressive, so they are poored in greater percentages by people earning less than people making more.
When you add in state and local taxes, which are almost all regressive (sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc) then the it only gets better.
One would have to willfully ignorant not to understand this, seriously.
I know why rich people talk up the meme of the rich paying such a large share of income taxes, it is the only theoretically progressive tax we have, what I don't understand is why lower income conservatives buy into this big lie. The facts are out there, but not easy to find among all the rhetorical slight of hand, but a person intent on learning the truth can figure it out.
That's quite a gymnastics routine. I haven't seen anything like that since the summer games :applaud Atwater is appealing to the very same mentallity, showing exactly how to appeal to the very same racist voter with new language. He explains clearly how you can't use the same words that you could in the 50's without painting the candidate and the party itself as hopeless racists. He explains in words that everyone can understand, that the term States Rights, would appeal to those people that know, that "States Rights" = the right of a state to decide for itself how it will handle segregation outside of the Federal Government and it's blasted constitution, leaving the issue up to the states. Ronald Reagan made that very appeal to States Rights at the Neshoba County Fair near the town of Philadelphia Mississippi. The place where Schwerner, Cheney, and Goodman were murdered for trying to register blacks to vote. In his speech he said this: "I believe that there are programs like that, programs like education and others, that should be turned back to the states and the local communities with the tax sources to fund them, and let the people [applause drowns out end of statement].I believe in state's rights.
I've heard the recording of that speech. That States Rights comment really went over well. Of all the places in the United States he could have kicked off his campaign, Reagan does it right in the heart of Klan Kountry, and appeals to the very same crowd that killed three young mend and buried them in an earthen damn. They shot Schwerner and Goodman but they saved something special for Cheney. The shot him after shoving the gun up his backside, and then shot him in the penis because he ( a black guy) should have known better. Great location to kick off a presidential campaign. And you wonder why blacks don't vote Republican? Those were the so-called "Reagan Democrats". Those same conservative Democrats are conservative Republicans today. Same ideology. Different tie.
Again, you have not provided proof of your assertions. You have supposition. Im not saying I have proof either. Im saying I offered my view.
Your entire proof is based upon a logical leap, one you cannot prove conclusively.
Well then, here's my comment: "I don't think that works. I already admitted long ago, on this very thread that I knew I could be wrong. In fact, it was me that said I know I can be wrong. Can you say as much? How much more gracefully would you like than my own full admission? Conservatism is NOT infallibly correct. It's inherently flawed. The problem is when you accept that ideology you accept it all. And that means that when it comes to the truth or the ideology...the truth loses, because the ideology cannot be wrong. If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on? When you find out..then ask what that base is based on. You'll find yourself in a dilemma of infinite regress vs your dogma. You'll always be looking for another basis to justify the one that comes next. It's a black hole, and theres no way out of it, except to say I believe it because I believe it, which is circular reasoning. A person that clints to a logical fallacy when he knows that it's a logical fallacy is irrational so why on earth would I or anybody want to accept irrationality as a way of life, or elect irrational people to govern this country?"
If it's wrong, then explain why it's wrong? Just you saying that it's wrong means nothing unless you can provide some explanation of what makes it wrong. That's called a critique. Or is it wrong, because you say it's wrong? I'm afraid that won't be enough. You can't very well appeal to yourself as your own authority? What would you base that on? So...if it's wrong you should be able to explain why?
Its wrong because its circular reasoning. You set your thesis without proof other than your own assertions. Smoke, mirrors and bull****.
That isn't what I said. I asked you if if YOU could be wrong. I never made any assertion that you believe conservatism CAN'T be wrong. Although there seems to be a whole lot of them that feel that way. No compromise at all. Very absolutist in principles and values that can't ever be compromised even though they can't be demonstrated as true. I asked you if YOU were fallible and if you are, then I know you are smart enough to know that any idea coming from a fallible source must itself be fallible. It can't be infallible. It's inherently flawed and prone to error.That means that if you know that about yourself, you have to also know that about conservatism as an ideology. If you can't ever compromise in your principles or values, you must believe that they're infallibly correct. You wouldn't hold values that you don't believe are absolutely true would you? So lets keep it real here ok? I never asserted that you think conservatism is infallible. I asked you about your own falliblity. Knowing the answer to that means that I know the answer to the other.
What's real is a person that doesn't question their values as experience tempers them is a fool. I'm no fool.
You see me as holding liberal positions in relation to your own conservatism. What you see is that I don't hold conservative views. In your eyes that makes me a liberal by default. I'm certainly not a libertarian am I. (I've read Hayek, and actually read 4 of Ayn Rands novels including the two huge books, Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. It appealed to me the way a comic book appeals to a young kid) I take a Pancrtical rationalist perspective. I work from the premiss that you get closer to the truth by stripping away the things that are false. You do that not through trying to justify your positions. But to hold them up to criticism. Including your own. That means that every time I come across some absolutist comment I question it. And that...makes me a Liberal, at least in the eyes of a conservative that I'm directing the questions toward. Those that make those kind of statements tend to be conservatives, because they see their ideology as right. Infallibly right. They cannot ever ever ever be wrong. In fact they are so certain of their ideology, they'd be willing to tank the US credit and toss it in the trash rather than compromise on that absolutely certain idea that what they think IS the only way to do anything.
Yeah, Im not making those sorts of statements, you seem to be. I question your ability to be self critical, its lacking from what I can see.
Incorrect views dont hold to one political philosophy. Thats a narrow, shallow view you have there.I have no objections to being called a liberal.Look at my posts. I call myself that. I like being a source of irritation to conservatives. And have you considered that you and the others sound like conservative water carriers that lurk around here in my view? I don't need to carry water for anyone Mr. Owl. Like I said, I don't work off of talking points. Your friend Fenton...now theres a water carrier. When a liberal starts to tell me, "there can be no dout, no debate" "We know with complete certainty..." then I'll be more than happy to rip him a new one. Because no liberal knows with absolute certainty...anything. What we're dealing with are theories on how to govern. Not some utopian idea of perfection. That can't be done by either party. At least the liberals know that. As I said, " the difference between the conservative and the liberal is the conservative KNOWS he's right. The liberal knows he could be wrong. Which in your view is closer to the truth?
How clever. You use the word sacred ground, then pretend as though I used it to refer to something I said when I did not bring it up. I prefer to learn from history, not repeat it.Yes. It would seem that way to a conservative. I'm not a conservative. That probably has something to do with it. But more to the point, I don't consider anything as sacred ground. I'm liberal because I'm open to change. That's all it is. Being open to change. Maybe I'll change if something convinces me that I should. So far I haven't seen that from either conservatives or libertarians, or fascists, commies or theocrats. The point is that I'm open to it. If it brings me closer to the truth, great. At my age, I'm tired of hearing bull****. I'd like truth and if it means chopping up some baseless ideology, I'm happy to do it. Conservatism won't do that. It's flawed, and truth isn't flawed. It won't compromise the ideology even when it conflicts with the truth. That brings us to liberalism doesn't it. It doesn't make claims of infallibility. It already accepts that it might make a mistake. The difference is that when you're open to the fact that your ideas didn't work, you can make the needed changes to correct that mistake. It takes a little more guts because you don't know the outcome until you try something. The conservative doesn't want to try something because it wants certainty. It wants to know the outcome before hand. But you'll never know that. You can't predict the future by looking at history. That's historicism and that's Karl Marx to the core. Marx was wrong about that. But being an ideologue he couldn't accept that. I'm not afraid of being wrong. But the conservative is. The conservative doesn't even acknowledge that there is a mistake, and despite the impact of reality on every good idea...they continue down the same path of pounding a square peg into a round hole for the sake of staying conservative. I find that dumb. It's like beating your head against the wall because it feels good when you stop.
This entire post is an incredibly lame verbose attempt to prove something that has not been asserted. As I said, kitchen sink approach.
That's not circular logic. If what you just said were in fact true, then it would be called a Straw Man. Not circular logic. A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted.That's what it would be IF your premiss was true...which it isn't. I never assumed this: "I believe conservatism is infallible . I asked you if you thought you could be wrong. I may have even asked you if you thought conservatism could be wrong, however I never assumed that you thought that which is why I asked you specifically IF you thought you could possiblly be wrong? I don't make assumptions on people. I'm experienced enough on these forums and in touch with my own philosophical views to never make a positive assertion about people or things. I don't define people. I let them define themselves. When they do, (conservatives seem to like defining people) that definition can be criticized for it's truth. Whats the definition based on? What makes me a liberal, is that I dare to question a conservative. I'll challenge the premiss of their arguments. They don't like being on the defensive. I don't have any ideology to defend. They do.
I don't need to know what you believe. That's totally irrelevent to what I'm saying. Whatever it is that you believe...The moon is made of green cheese, there are pink unicorns on Mars... it doesn't make any difference. "" If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on? What is your belief in the Moon and green cheese based on? What do you base the belief of pink unicorns on Mars on? I don't have to know what it is. That's totally up to you. But if you actually have any interest in the truth...then you must examine your ideology and ask yourself what is this belief based on??? If you don't do that, you are operating on the assumption that this ideology that you believe in IS the truth based on itself. And THAT is circular logic.
Either you follow that justification spiral into that black hole of infinite regress looking for the next justification for the next base...OR you stop the search for any justification and say that the ideology is based on itself. That is the definition of circular reasoning.It's called the dilemma of infinite regress vs dogma. If you hold to the dogma, you need bases to justify that to keep rationalizing your ideology. The more you are pressed for justification, the deeper into that hole you go looking for a base and that goes on forever as long as you hold the dogma of the ideology. You have two choices then. Dump the ideology becaise it is unable to demonstrate what makes it true, or take the leap into circular reasoning using the ideology to justify itself. And that is an irrational position to hold. Again...I haven't assumed that you hold these position. I asked you if you did. You dodged that question several times. I don't act on assumptions Mr. Owl. IF you hold those positions, this is what you would have to look forward to. If you don't, then you have no problem. But being a conservative isn't just a fashion statement. People beat each other to a pulp these days trying to out-conservative the other guy. I already know where a guy like Fenton is at. Same with Conservative. Maybe you aren't a conservative after all. We both know you know you and conservatism could be wrong, dont' we. We even know that you could be wrong about liberals.
There you go. First of all, I'm not a Democrat, so that may or may not be true. There is nothing to demonstrate that as true. It's just another absolute statement. Democrats are this. Democrats are that. Define, define, define. Assume assume assume. As a liberal, I do not. Furthermore, I don't see that minorities are treated as voting blocks. They are treated like real life human beings, no different than you or I. which is exactly why those minorities form voting blocs and turnout for democrats. But they aren't monolithic as you suggest (voting bloc) On the other hand, the conservatives DO in fact treat minorities as voting blocs. That very idea has already been articulated by Sean Hannity, and many others that recognize that they'll need to get serious on immigration if they want to attract Latinos.Treating them as a bloc. Where the Latino vote is concerned, Barack Obama crushed Mitt Romney. CNN’s exit poll shows Obama winning 71% of that vote, and the polling organization Latino Decisions measured even bigger gains for Obama, showing that Obama beat Romney by a whopping 75% to 23% among Latinos. In the electoral college, the Latino vote was crucial to Obama, particularly in the battleground states of Colorado and Nevada, which Obama won, and Florida. You won't get their vote if you see them as illegals or good enough to mow your lawn.
There you go again. You have a lot more invested into labeling me than the other way around. What you are missing is that people dont adhere 100% to a political bent, they tend to support some ideas more than others. YOU want to toss the entire set of ideas at them and personalize it directly to them. Its a pretty dishonest way to debate.Racism is racism. Thats a pretty weak and simplistic definition for a person that likes defining people. There is a predisposition to why people hold the views they hold. They don't just randomly pop into a persons way of life with no reason. I've laid out a few things about conservatives that come from them. Not from me. I don't define them. I let them define themselves. Basic to conservative thinking is the preservation of existing institutions.Tradition. that's core to the belief.
In his lecture on “The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement” given to the Heritage Foundation in 2003, Dr. Lee Edwards cited Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind as providing the central idea upon which American conservatism is essentially based, calling it ordered liberty.
Kirk described six basic “canons” or principles of conservatism:
1. A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society;
2. Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity;
3. Civilized society requires orders and classes;
4. Property and freedom are inseparably connected;
5. Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason; and
6. Society must alter slowly.
Edwards states that “the work established convincingly that there was a tradition of American conservatism that had existed since the Founding of the Republic. With one book, Russell Kirk made conservatism intellectually acceptable in America. Indeed, he
gave the conservative movement its name.
Kirk was Reagans ideological guru. Lest we minimize the writings of Kirk, we should point out that one of his biggest supporters
was “Mr.Conservative”, President Ronald Reagan. Reagan said this of Kirk:
“As the prophet of American conservatism, Russell Kirk has taught, nurtured, and inspired a generation. From . . . Piety Hill, he reached deep into the roots of American values, writing and editing central works of political philosophy. His intellectual contribution has been a profound act of patriotism. I look forward to the future with anticipation that his work will continue to exert a profound influence in the defense of our values and our cherished civilization.”
—Ronald Reagan, 1981
Kirk is really warmed over Burke. If you've read Burke you know that. Mark Levin loves to quote Burke. Burke was an aristocrat and the leading anti-Enlightenment voice in history. Levin also wrote his own Manifesto for Conservatism. ( Can't get more ideological than that...the Conservative Bible according to Rush Limpballs)
So what does all this have to do with racism? The US Constitution set up this country as a White Supremacist nation. That racism is embedded into our constitution in Article 1.sec 2, Article 1 sec 9, and Article 4 sec 2. Slavery was an institution in this country. It flourished in the south which was our only true American aristocracy. Obviously slavery couldn't last, however the abolition of slavery would have an impact on the eonomy and lifestyle of southerners. The conservative South fought to maintain that institution. They lost. But here was Mississippi's reasoning for secession:
Deleted the seccession because the post was so wordy it wont even allow for replies without redaction, its hitting the charcter limit
A pretty solid example of the reluctance to let go of existing institutions. The other states had very similar reasons all based on racism. Since that time, the very notion of a race of people that was; at our beginnings as a country, only considered to be 3/5’s of a human being, now having equal footing with those that actually believed in this idea, is a direct challenge to a long held social concept. It denied the idea of white supremacy as legitimate. It’s surprising how many people still cling to this idea, and will go to extreme lengths to perpetuate it.
The idea that a person that could have been your slave at one time, could today be your boss, or even President of the United States, is more than some people can deal with on an emotional level. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order. These are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. “Sure, life is tough. But at least I’m White.” They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including those that proposed it and passed it. Which is why we see the Voting Rights Act being challenged right now in the Supreme Court by two conservative Senators from Alabama, sponsoring Shelby County Alabama in the court. And with a conservative Court...looks like theres going to be a problem. I can tell you that African/Americans that have lived through this and bled and died and been lynched all for the sake of the simple right to vote...to have come this far...they aren't going to accept having their voting rights compromised. But then, conservatives didn't want their votes anyway. Did they? Liberals aren't doing this Mr. Owl. This is the conservatives. The same mentallity that never got over losing the war 120 years ago. States Rights!
These aren't conservatives. At least not in the mold of Reagan. He couldn't have gotten nominated today. These are extreme ideologues. If they seen as working with the President, they'll get primaried. And they all know it. Look at Christi. The C-Pac snubbed him, and he has 72% approval rating in blue state New Jersey. But then he has no time for their nonsense. He has a state to rebuild. So they say what's on their mind, and the next day, they're on the phone genuflecting to Rush Limbaugh. A drug addict with a microphone and no class. What a pretty picture.
Did I say you were a Teabagger? No.All I know is that you take the conservative line. Do you disagree with him? Do I hear anybody from that group telling Grover to take a hike? No. How do the Teabaggers see government? No tax increases. All tax cuts. Shrink the size of Government. And Grover would take it down to the size of a bathtub and drown it.
Other pearls of wisdom from Grover:
"Our goal is to inflict pain. It is not good enough to win; it has to be a painful and devastating defeat. We're sending a message here. It is like when the king would take his opponent's head and spike it on a pole for everyone to see." from the National Review, quoted in The Republican Noise Machine by David Brock, Crown Publishers 2004, pg. 50
"Bipartisanship is another name for date rape." Farrell, John A., "Rancor becomes top DC export: GOP leads charge in ideological war", The Denver Post, 26 May 2003, p. A-01.
"The president was committed; elected on the basis that he was not Romney and Romney was a poopy head." quoted in "The Slatest" Blog Post, Josh Voorhes, November 12, 2012 [1]
"Don Sherwood’s seat would have been overwhelmingly ours, if his mistress hadn’t whined about being throttled.” quoted in Caroline Daniel et. al., Financial Times, November 10, 2006 [2]
"We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals -- and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship." quoted in John Aloysius Farrell, "Rancor becomes top D.C. export: GOP leads charge in ideological war," Denver Post, May 26, 2003
"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
URLs are required.
9. Copyrighted Material - All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 US CODE: Title 17,107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
I can see it went right over your head. I admit it was a lot to digest, but it wasn't intended for you. In your case I'd keep it REALLY simple. Mr Owl, doesn't seem to need the talking points. At least he posts from his own mind which is a plus, and wins points on that alone. Opinion based on a "total lack of understanding"?? :lamo The only lack of understanding here is you not understanding what was posted. I have a feeling most of the rational posters here, just might disagree with you. Your ideology ain't rocket science pal. It's all a rehash of garbage we've seen before. As for your "talkin points" addiction you should really get together with Fenton. Oh yeah...we ignore your results because, we've seen them already. That's why you lost the last two elections. People have longer memories than you think and nobody wants to go backward. We rejected stupid and voted for smart this time...again.
You quoted yourself......on purpose ?
You quoted yourself......on purpose ?
NAH...he always does that when he don't get his proper rest.
More kitchen sink approach. Ahh joy.
Again, you have not provided proof of your assertions. You have supposition. Im not saying I have proof either. Im saying I offered my view. Your entire proof is based upon a logical leap, one you cannot prove conclusively.
What I've proved is that by Atwaters own admission, that coded language and dog whistle's are part of his approach to reaching the emotions of racists. States Rights is code for segregation. Reagan called for States Rights in the kick off to his campaign...in the very spot where three civil rights workers were murdered. In a state that believes in segregation. Nothing is ever proved in politics. All of it is theory. None of it is scientific. You're left to your own conclusions based on the evidence you have. Do I think that Reagan and Atwater were appealing to the lowest element of humanity in their launching a presidential campaign in Neshoba County Mississippi? Absolutely. Out of every location in America to choose...what was the reason for choosing that one? Throw darts at a map? No. Politics, if anything is always calculated to appeal to the sentiments of particular voters. I'll grant you that this doesn't prove their motives. But it does bring them into question.
Its wrong because its circular reasoning. You set your thesis without proof other than your own assertions.
It's not circular reasoning at all. The acceptence of any ideology depends on circular reasoning. When I say this: "The problem is when you accept that ideology you accept it all. And that means that when it comes to the truth or the ideology...the truth loses, because the ideology cannot be wrong. If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on?"...it's a criticism of ideology, and conservatism is an ideology. What you're suggesting here is that the criticism itself is a matter of circular reasoning, which of course it is not. First of all understand that when I say, YOU...I'm referring to the general you, and not you personally. You seem to have the idea that I'm putting you personally into the comment. I'm not. I don't know your positions on things other than your conservative claim. If an ideology is spelled out, and you accept it, you are accepting a premiss, and you are doing that as a result of an appeal to an authority. You believe in it. And beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (usually the source of the belief in question) and this justification by an appropriate authority makes the belief either rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it. However this is a requirement that can never be adequetly met due to the problem of validation or the dilemma of infinite regress vs. dogmatism. That's the criticism, and that is NOT circular reasoning. So if you're going to criticize the criticism through logic, you'd best find something that applies. Circular reasoning does not.
What's real is a person that doesn't question their values as experience tempers them is a fool. I'm no fool.
Fine. I'll take that as a yes. Then knowing that, you must conclude that conservatism itself as an ideology is flawed. Your own experience can't be projected on the rest of society since it's totally subjective. What you find through your experience is quite different from my own. So why should the subjective experiences of people be packaged into a manifesto or ideology that we know is inherently flawed and prone to error, and then reject anything that offers to modify, or change a flawed concept or solve a pressing problem? Conservatism is a reaction to a challenge to the status quo. What justifies that reaction?
Yeah, Im not making those sorts of statements, you seem to be. I question your ability to be self critical, its lacking from what I can see.
Then you haven't been reading my comments. Nor have you even noticed my own self critical appology to Conservative for my mistake in accusing him of a comment made by Fenton. I've told you repeatedly on this thread that I can be wrong. When I am, I accept that and I make a change. Can you? I don't claim to have all the answers to lifes problems. I don't know what works because I already know that I'm fallible. What I can do is determine what doesn't work. I can determine if a statement made can be demonstrated as being true. Are the premises true? If they can be proven as true, the conclusion must be true.We use two forms of reasoning. Inductive and deductive. My own observations indicate that conservatives tend to rely on inductive reasoning more often than deductive. They draw general conclusions. Fine. We all do that every day. The problem is that those never prove anything. They say that because this happened before it will predict what will happen in the future. That doesn't prove the case, but they act as though it has. The only thing that proves something infallibly correct is a deductive syllogism. If the premises are true, then the conclusion is infallibly correct.
1.All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
The conclusion contains one or more of the premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion MUST infallibly be true.
Incorrect views dont hold to one political philosophy. Thats a narrow, shallow view you have there
That statement tells me that either you didn't read what I said, or are avoiding the issue. I didn't say that incorrect view are the held by any one political philosophy. I'm saying that one is more open to modifying their views than the other. That's the most fundamental difference between a conservative and a liberal. A conservative approach is to maintain what exists. A liberal approach involves change. But you already know that, so why would you pose that comment?
How clever. You use the word sacred ground, then pretend as though I used it to refer to something I said when I did not bring it up.
Good. Then you are willing to compromise your beliefs? Is that what you're saying?
I prefer to learn from history, not repeat it.
Then you should be wide open to change. A modification of a long held belief is a liberalization of those long held beliefs. Are you saying that you accept liberalism?
Talking points? LOL, results don't matter to people like you who buy rhetoric and ignore substance. Your liberal compassion is showing.
Oh, by the way, tell me which "talking point" isn't accurate and cannot be verified?
Just popping in Adaigo. All of your post show up on my profile page so I always glance at them.
Sorry for the thread drift, but I've noticed how often those on the left keep using the word "wingnuts" as a noun instead of an adjective ?
In my career I have purchased wingnuts that have a reverse thread. Have you ever noticed on heavy duty trucks like Peterbilt and Kenworth semi tractors that on one side the lug nuts for the tires/wheels have right threads and the other side are left threads ?
Please inform us when you are referring to wingnuts if your referring to right wingnuts or left wingnuts.
I'm willing to bet that left wingnuts are reversed thread wingnuts.
Have a good one.
Later.
those on the left keep using the word "wingnuts" as a noun instead of an adjective ?
Probably all of them. There is a site called PolitiFact, that is devoted to checking out claims made by both sides. I'd suggest you go to them. They're non-partisan and will debunk claims made by both sides.
What you don't seem to understand is Obama has no plan to put 22 plus million Americans back to work full time, lower the 16.6 trillion dollar debt, reduce the numbers of people on taxpayer assistances, and grow the private sector economy. Moving forward in your world is high debt, lower economic growth, high unemployment, and greater govt. dependence. Congratuations, you are getting the govt. you want.
Of course he does. But when pointed out, you call it no plan. When we're in recovery, you say, " you call that a recovery". So nothing is ever going to meet your partisan satisfaction. You have no interest in any of that. Now, because of Sequestration, we're going to see unemployment go higher. Congratulations. A plan that was put in the hands of congress that would be appalling to both sides, will now go into effect. $1.5 Trillion in cuts against $600 Billion in revenue, and you said no. Better to gut defense than to cut loopholes for yachts and jets.
Of course he does. But when pointed out, you call it no plan. When we're in recovery, you say, " you call that a recovery". So nothing is ever going to meet your partisan satisfaction. You have no interest in any of that. Now, because of Sequestration, we're going to see unemployment go higher. Congratulations. A plan that was put in the hands of congress that would be appalling to both sides, will now go into effect. $1.5 Trillion in cuts against $600 Billion in revenue, and you said no. Better to gut defense than to cut loopholes for yachts and jets.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about as usual for facts always get in the way of your ideology. There are no cuts, simply reductions in growth, but then again the Senate hasn't passed a budget in 4 years now so how do you know there are cuts and that unemployment will go higher. We didn't have those cuts the last four years and unemployment is higher, millions have left the labor force, over 6 trillion has been added to the debt, and GDP growth last quarter was .1%. Over 100 million Americans receive some form of taxpayer assistance. Congratulations, that is the country you want. Bet those people who build jets and yachts love your support.
Number one: my name on this forum is Opportunity Cost, use that name and that name only.
Agreed. If you have no objections, I'll shorten it to Cost.
Yet you repeatedly linked me, over and over again to conservatism. You seem more keen on labeling me. You are most definitely showing an ideology, you just aren't being honest about it.
That might have something to do with the fact that you call yourself a conservative. You've labeled yourself to that ideology. Perhaps you should change that on your profile. If you don't label yourself as a conservative, then why do you do that very thing? It says Lean...conservative. What ideology are you saying that I'm showing and how am I not being honest about it? What you need to do when you say something like that is demonstrate it. Don't just say it, as if that makes it so. Because it doesn't.
I also know your posts are full of arrogance, pomposity, and lecturing tones. You aren't very good at acknowledging others as equals. You also arent within the margin of error on turning your self critical eye on yourself.
As opposed to the baiting and ad hominem personal attacks that I get from those on the right? That's the way I respond to absolutists. I'm sure they don't like it, but that's the territory they staked out for themselves. They, nor you should be concerned over how I choose to respond to nonsensical statements that they make. As for turning a critical eye on myself, I challenge my own thinking every day, and I hold it up to logic since there is no bias involved. As I said, my concern is with the truth of things. Not stroking my own ego. I got over that many years ago. If somebody points out an error, as you are attempting to do, then I leave it to logic to determine if what you're saying is valid. So far, I've seen no reason to accept what you are saying as true. When you point to circular reasoning, I find you're in error. It's a complete misuse of the term. But what's just as important, is pointing out why it's a misuse of the term, which I've done.
Did you actually just assert that I back up an opinion that I said liberalism is racially motivated, then say you arent one to dispute my answer? Then as soon as you were done denying you were a democrat use WE to refer to me as a republican, and in the same paragraph say I engage too much in labeling? So much projection and hypocrisy.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. My response was to your suggestion that Democrats see minorities as voting blocs rather than people. I disputed that claim and gave reasons why I find that false, and in fact find that it's Republicans that do that very thing. I even cited examples from people like Hannity. That strikes me as projection on your part. The word WE doesn't even exist in the post you're referring to. As for the word I, that isn't there. I do refer to YOU when it comes to labeling, since you did suggest that minorities are viewed by Dems as "voting blocs", rather than human beings. That's an assertion on your part, which I don't think is demonstrably true. I'm sure you're trying to make a point here. But I don't know what it is.
There you go again. You have a lot more invested into labeling me than the other way around. What you are missing is that people dont adhere 100% to a political bent, they tend to support some ideas more than others. YOU want to toss the entire set of ideas at them and personalize it directly to them. Its a pretty dishonest way to debate.
Then stop labeling yourself as a conservative. Change your profile. Don't tell me and everyone else by raising the flag of conservative on your profile and then say that you don't accept conservative dogma. If you buy into Kirk, and Burke and Reagan, and Buckley, or the Tea Party, or whatever it is that is some extreme version of what defined conservative thinking by the people that actually founded the conservative movement that we are seeing today, and use them as the authority of your political views...you're labeling yourself, and people like me will challenge your self-proclaimed conservative views. Maybe your a "fiscal conservative" and a "social liberal". Maybe your some hybrid? But you don't say that. You call yourself a conservative. I'm telling you what my criticism is toward the conservative ideology. If you call yourself a conservative, which you do, then what I'm doing is challenging the conservative ideology itself. If you don't subscribe to that definition that is not mine, but that of those that codified it, then say so. Welcome to the world of the Free thinker. Criticize everything. Force any and every ideology to demonstrate why it's true. If it can't, then be careful what you align yourself to. That's my advice. :twocents: You don't have to take it at all. That's up to you.
LOL thats your thesis? That conservatism is rotten to the core and racist because slavery was in the constitution...over 200 years ago? And you call ME an absolutist?
My "thesis" is that there is no logical justification for conservatism. You haven't given me one argument that does justify it. It can't justify itself, so what is it based on? Conservatism isn't racist because it was in the constitution. It's racist because it wanted to maintain that position, at all costs. Unless you can tell me that conservatism is NOT concerned over maintaining existing institutions, (which would contradict the very essence of what it is) then it's you that will have to convince me that keeping a totally racist policy in tact, even to the point of a civil war, Jim Crow, and Segregation is not part of that ideology. If you see that as absolutist, then I would say that you're simply ignoring every obstruction to progress made by conservatives over our entire history as a nation. The justification for that obstructionism is empty. No liberal ever killed anybody that wanted the right to vote. Can a conservative say the same thing?
I'm sure you've heard of Emmett Till. One of the two men that murdered him was named Milam. When he sold his story to Look Magazine after he was acquited by an all white jury, knowing that he couldn't be prosecuted for double jepordy, he said this: ""Well, what else could we do? He was hopeless. I'm no bully; I never hurt a n***** in my life. I like n******-- in their place -- I know how to work 'em. But I just decided it was time a few people got put on notice. As long as I live and can do anything about it, n****** are gonna stay in their place. N****** ain't gonna vote where I live. If they did, they'd control the government. They ain't gonna go to school with my kids. There is something inately wrong in that kind of thinking. It's a deep rooted desire to keep things as they are or were. Emmett Till represented a challenge to that orthodoxy, and he was murdered for it. The same thing goes for Schwerner, Cheney and Goodman when they were murdered by the Klan. They were killed for registering blacks to vote. Of course both incidents took place in Mississippi, where they don't like changes to their views on the world
Benjamin Tillman, a South Carolina governor and senator, speaking on the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1900:
“We of the South have never recognized the right of the negro to govern white men, and we never will. We have never believed him to be the equal of the white man, and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him.”
Old ideas are hard to shed for some people.
You going to square that logical circle or did you miss that movements, people and ideas can change over time?
No. I haven't missed it at all. That's exactly what liberalism does. It recognizes change and doesn't fear it. It doesn't resist it. Conservatism does. And it's always a losing battle, because change is inevetible. Conservatism is a reaction to progressive movements that challenge orthodoxy. And that goes back to Edmund Burke. The Enlightenment was a drastic change in orthodoxy. Burke was the leading voice of the Anti-Enlightenment.
In his own critique of Conservatism, Freiderich Hayek, said this; In his words: “Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the
direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments.”
He went on to say this: "This brings me to the first point on which the conservative and the liberal dispositions differ radically. As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of
change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces.
Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles, it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are coordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously
lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal."
This is from the guy that conservative Mark Levin, loves to quote. Your very own comment, "people and ideas can change over time?" is an appeal to liberalism. So why do you label yourself a conservative? You did that long before I came on the scene.
What I've proved is that by Atwaters own admission, that coded language and dog whistle's are part of his approach to reaching the emotions of racists. States Rights is code for segregation. Reagan called for States Rights in the kick off to his campaign...in the very spot where three civil rights workers were murdered. In a state that believes in segregation. Nothing is ever proved in politics. All of it is theory. None of it is scientific. You're left to your own conclusions based on the evidence you have. Do I think that Reagan and Atwater were appealing to the lowest element of humanity in their launching a presidential campaign in Neshoba County Mississippi? Absolutely. Out of every location in America to choose...what was the reason for choosing that one? Throw darts at a map? No. Politics, if anything is always calculated to appeal to the sentiments of particular voters. I'll grant you that this doesn't prove their motives. But it does bring them into question.
It's not circular reasoning at all. The acceptence of any ideology depends on circular reasoning. When I say this: "The problem is when you accept that ideology you accept it all. And that means that when it comes to the truth or the ideology...the truth loses, because the ideology cannot be wrong. If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on?"...it's a criticism of ideology, and conservatism is an ideology. What you're suggesting here is that the criticism itself is a matter of circular reasoning, which of course it is not. First of all understand that when I say, YOU...I'm referring to the general you, and not you personally. You seem to have the idea that I'm putting you personally into the comment. I'm not. I don't know your positions on things other than your conservative claim. If an ideology is spelled out, and you accept it, you are accepting a premiss, and you are doing that as a result of an appeal to an authority. You believe in it. And beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (usually the source of the belief in question) and this justification by an appropriate authority makes the belief either rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it. However this is a requirement that can never be adequetly met due to the problem of validation or the dilemma of infinite regress vs. dogmatism. That's the criticism, and that is NOT circular reasoning. So if you're going to criticize the criticism through logic, you'd best find something that applies. Circular reasoning does not.
Fine. I'll take that as a yes. Then knowing that, you must conclude that conservatism itself as an ideology is flawed. Your own experience can't be projected on the rest of society since it's totally subjective. What you find through your experience is quite different from my own. So why should the subjective experiences of people be packaged into a manifesto or ideology that we know is inherently flawed and prone to error, and then reject anything that offers to modify, or change a flawed concept or solve a pressing problem? Conservatism is a reaction to a challenge to the status quo. What justifies that reaction?
Then you haven't been reading my comments. Nor have you even noticed my own self critical appology to Conservative for my mistake in accusing him of a comment made by Fenton. I've told you repeatedly on this thread that I can be wrong. When I am, I accept that and I make a change. Can you? I don't claim to have all the answers to lifes problems. I don't know what works because I already know that I'm fallible. What I can do is determine what doesn't work. I can determine if a statement made can be demonstrated as being true. Are the premises true? If they can be proven as true, the conclusion must be true.We use two forms of reasoning. Inductive and deductive. My own observations indicate that conservatives tend to rely on inductive reasoning more often than deductive. They draw general conclusions. Fine. We all do that every day. The problem is that those never prove anything. They say that because this happened before it will predict what will happen in the future. That doesn't prove the case, but they act as though it has. The only thing that proves something infallibly correct is a deductive syllogism. If the premises are true, then the conclusion is infallibly correct.
1.All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
The conclusion contains one or more of the premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion MUST infallibly be true.
Because your critical thinking is only being applied to one school of thought. Thats an ideologue speaking.That statement tells me that either you didn't read what I said, or are avoiding the issue. I didn't say that incorrect view are the held by any one political philosophy. I'm saying that one is more open to modifying their views than the other. That's the most fundamental difference between a conservative and a liberal. A conservative approach is to maintain what exists. A liberal approach involves change. But you already know that, so why would you pose that comment?
Your reading comprehension needs work.Good. Then you are willing to compromise your beliefs? Is that what you're saying?
LOL Ive heard that sort of quote before, its usually applied to religious practices.Then you should be wide open to change. A modification of a long held belief is a liberalization of those long held beliefs. Are you saying that you accept liberalism?
URLs are required.
9. Copyrighted Material - All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 US CODE: Title 17,107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Those quotes all contain the source and page numbers, as well as the dates they were published. But you want to quibble over the technicallity of a URL? :roll:
Agreed. If you have no objections, I'll shorten it to Cost.
A critical thinker would be able to READ this and realize I want to be referred to as Opportunity Cost. Use OC if you want a shorter monicker.Number one: my name on this forum is Opportunity Cost, use that name and that name only.
Those quotes all contain the source and page numbers, as well as the dates they were published. But you want to quibble over the technicallity of a URL? :roll:
You quoted yourself......on purpose ?
No junior. But it's nice to know you're trying to follow my posts. It came from a post FROM Conservative which I included in one of mine. Here it is in its entirety. "Project much? Your opinion is noted but that is all it is an opinion based upon lack of total understanding. Further this is a thread about the Obama SOU rhetoric vs. results. You ran quickly when confronted with actual results as you continue to buy the rhetoric. You confuse posting actual results for hatred of the person which raises the question, what is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty that buys rhetoric and ignores results?
I'm not quoting myself as even you can clearly see. Within that quote you'll find "opinion based upon lack of total understanding." Try to be less disingenuous.
No junior. But it's nice to know you're trying to follow my posts. It came from a post FROM Conservative which I included in one of mine. Here it is in its entirety. "Project much? Your opinion is noted but that is all it is an opinion based upon lack of total understanding. Further this is a thread about the Obama SOU rhetoric vs. results. You ran quickly when confronted with actual results as you continue to buy the rhetoric. You confuse posting actual results for hatred of the person which raises the question, what is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty that buys rhetoric and ignores results?
I'm not quoting myself as even you can clearly see. Within that quote you'll find "opinion based upon lack of total understanding." Try to be less disingenuous.
Why would you want to post yourself ?
You never say any thing substantial. Just lines and lines of drek and nonsense.
Crap like this...."he acceptence of any ideology depends on circular reasoning."
Is this why you got kicked out of politico ?
Thats one interpretation. Since they waited until Atwater was DEAD before they released this....well, you know.
So he didn't say what he said, and his being dead changes that? This response strikes me as a desperate, no...make that pathetic attempt at plausable deniability.
Flawed initial logic in bold renders the rest moot. Very few people accept an entire ideology, they accept portions of it.
So you're a conservative, except when you aren't. Then why do you call yourself a conservative? Do you not accept conservative dogma? Fine, then it may not apply to you. What parts of conservatism do you, a self proclaimed conservative reject? This statement is true "The acceptence of any ideology depends on circular reasoning." There is no rational justification for any ideology. Conservative or otherwise. There is no basis. If you hold to any ideology you hold to the authority from where it's derived. What is the basis for that authority. Appeals to authority are all invalid. Even an expert can be wrong. (Fallibalism again.) If you don't accept the ideology then say so. As for this: "The problem is when you accept that ideology you accept it all." what you're telling me is that you don't accept the ideology as stated by those that defined it. You're cherry picking what you like and disregarding the rest. So you don't hold to the "canon" of conservatism. Then why on earth do you label yourself as something that you don't subscribe to?
I did not offer a "yes". You are projecting again.
Ok. You said this, "What's real is a person that doesn't question their values as experience tempers them is a fool. I'm no fool." That was in response to this: "So lets keep it real here ok? I never asserted that you think conservatism is infallible. I asked you about your own falliblity. Knowing the answer to that means that I know the answer to the other." You already agreed that it's possible that you and the conservative ideology could be wrong. Are you now reversing that position? What am I projecting here?
Assumption of ignorance in 1st bolded, conclusions without logic are not infallible, kind of like people.
Then what are you basing your statement on?? "I question your ability to be self critical, its lacking from what I can see."
And this: "conclusions without logic are not infallible, kind of like people" as a response to what? This? The conclusion contains one or more of the premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion MUST infallibly be true. Conclusions without logic? You're arguing against the deductive syllogism as logic? :shock: You bolded that statement. You disagree with logic as being logic? Are you saying that you don't think that logic is logical? What are you trying to say here because you aren't making any sense. If the premises are true in a deductive syllogism, then the conclusion Must infallibly be true. Do you deny that? yes or no? It's really that simple. Yes or No?
Because your critical thinking is only being applied to one school of thought. Thats an ideologue speaking.
The very idea of critical thinking is criticism. It's taking an idea to see if it passes logic. To determine if it is foundationalist and if it is, what is the foundation based upon. You're saying that my critical thinking shouldn't use criticism of any assertion? What would critical thinking use instead of criticism??? What would you call it? And what makes you think that my critical thinking isn't applied elsewhere? Critical thinking IS the whole idea here. The reason that you seem to think that it's only applied to one school of thought probably has to do with the fact that it's conservatives that make absolutist statements of opinion as if they were fact. Example: " Evolution is a theory straight from the pits of Hell". That's from a conservative member of the House that's running for the Senate. They marinate in absolutes. I already told you that I'm more than willing to turn that on any liberal that would do the same thing.
Your reading comprehension needs work.
Really? You said this: "How clever. You use the word sacred ground, then pretend as though I used it to refer to something I said when I did not bring it up." That's in response to what I said here; "But more to the point, I don't consider anything as sacred ground. I'm liberal because I'm open to change." The term "sacred ground" is just a metaphore for the things that we believe in. So you aren't willing to compromise the "sacred ground of your beliefs". But I thought that you already agreed that you know you could be wrong. That you know that you are fallible, and of course you could be wrong about a host of things, including your conservatism. After all, it's just as fallible as you are. In fact, there's no basis to it. Does that not concern you? Are you saying that you are unwilling to challenge those beliefs, by turning your own critical eye toward your own beliefs? How do you know if they're true? If you already know that you are fallible and could be wrong, you must conclude you could be wrong about conservatism itself. Can you be as critical of it as you are of me? Or your own beliefs assuming that you are?
LOL Ive heard that sort of quote before, its usually applied to religious practices. Stop assuming. Your responses aren't nearly as thought out and clever as you think they are.
I didn't assume anything. I asked a question: "Are you saying that you accept liberalism?"
A critical thinker would be able to READ this and realize I want to be referred to as Opportunity Cost. Use OC if you want a shorter monicker.
I didnt read the rest of your crap, quit wasting my time and yours. Your posts are becoming pathetic time wasters.
Why would you want to post yourself ?
You never say any thing substantial. Just lines and lines of drek and nonsense.
Crap like this...."he acceptence of any ideology depends on circular reasoning."
Is this why you got kicked out of politico ?
Nobody got kicked out of politico, fool. It closed. You have nothing of value to add here. It's way over your head. You were dismissed long ago. :smash:
URLs are required.
9. Copyrighted Material - All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 US CODE: Title 17,107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
| Moderator's Warning: |
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?