Bitter and Twisted I: Liberalism vs Conservatism

[Whaleboy]

Ah! Thats the problem here. Unless you can base your arguments on something unequivocably canonical, it is not necessarily correct, and another comparable argument in contradiction is also correct. We are dealing with views of qualitative logic which is far more ambiguous than qualitative logic. An analogy like "liberals are arguing 2+2=5" and "conservatives are arguing 2+2=4" simply does not hold. If things were that simple, the erroneous views would simply not exist and be regarded as intellectual waste-paper. And whatever remarks some smart-arse is thinking of posting, that is not the case with either.

You can't prove either position to be correct, unless you can get 100% understanding of all human conditions, all economic conditions, all political conditions, all philosophical conditions and all logical conditions. That is required to say that conservativism or liberalism are inherently correct, and as we are all aware, there are myriad flaws in the myriad interpretations of both theories. Since that level of understanding is implausible at the current time, and I dare say impossible by definition, then we are left to conclude that liberalism and conservativism are both equally right and wrong. Different theories may provide better answers in certain situations, but not all.

I may see something as wrong, but someone obviously disagrees, and who is more true? In the absense of a set means of judging, paramaters etc, or even a canonical basis for qualitative logic, neither of us are more correct than another. All I can do therefore is communicate my idea, attempt to undermine (in a critical and civil way) the other, advocate it, explain the logic behind it and compare it to others. Such is the nature of the debate.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Dissident
I'm a liberal conservative

I am liberally Conservative.

[Whaleboy]

Whaleboy, and a Merry Christmas to you as well!

And you Ned! I expect you to get wasted in my honour...

[Sandman]

How do conservatives reconcile claiming to be individualistic with their support of religion, family, patriotism and the military?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

How does that stop them being individualistic?

[Sandman]

Because they're collective institutions. And conservatives tend to blame social ills on the family, or religion, or patriotism not being strong enough. And the military is hardly run on individualist grounds.

If they were truly individualistic, they wouldn't care one way or the other about religion, family, patriotism or the military. But they tend to actively promote these things.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Sandman
How do conservatives reconcile claiming to be individualistic with their support of religion, family, patriotism and the military?

the conservative side of me doesn't support religion, family, patriotism, or the military.

christianity is just a cult.

my family is crap. I hated my childhood.

Patriotism is just dumb

And I admit I don't really support the military. Sure I support them emotionally, and I wish them the best. But I don't support them by any useful means (monetary or something like that)

[Dis]

Originally posted by Sandman
Because they're collective institutions. And conservatives tend to blame social ills on the family, or religion, or patriotism not being strong enough. And the military is hardly run on individualist grounds.

If they were truly individualistic, they wouldn't care one way or the other about religion, family, patriotism or the military. But they tend to actively promote these things.

in any case I think you are confusing libertarians with conservatives. They aren't the same.

conservatives aren't that individualistic. On the contrary. They support organized relgion for some strange region. They believe in supporting each other through charities, not goverment handout programs.

[Az]

Originally posted by Sandman
Because they're collective institutions. And conservatives tend to blame social ills on the family, or religion, or patriotism not being strong enough. And the military is hardly run on individualist grounds.

If they were truly individualistic, they wouldn't care one way or the other about religion, family, patriotism or the military. But they tend to actively promote these things.

They aren't they want the society to be strong. Only the form of society be with more classes and more subordination.

[Whaleboy]

Libertarianism is part of conservatism and liberalism, indeed, it forms the root of the word liberal. Conservative economics tend to be libertarian, yet that word in the familial sense also means totalitarian!

The labels are completely messed up. I bet half of the self-proclaimed conservatives and liberals here are a complete mixture, if not the complete opposite in reality!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Japher
Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one and they always stink.

That is the diff between libs and repubs, neither can be technically wrong though some can be more wrong than others. Yet, when it's an opinion it becomes a pain to attempt to predict the future and that is generally where arguments arise. I think the two party system does a good job to keep the majority happy on a majority of the issues by this bickering...

Heck, if Sava and I can agree on certain issues than nothing is impossible.

Actually it IS possible to be wrong on some issues. For example, which is better for the economy, capitalism or communism

[Az]

gee, skywalker, I never knew you were a communist.

[Whoha]

Providing for defense is one of about 4 basic things that Government HAS to do.

How do you reconcile the effects of Gravity with the belief that Freon/CFC's causes the destruction of the ozone?

Oh, the real reason it was banned "Many people may be unaware of both Du Pont and ICI's vested financial interest in the banning of CFCs. These two corporations have worked together for decades, maintaining their dominance in the world chemical market.[31] The Du Pont Corporation's monopoly patent on CFCs was about to expire and become public domain. It was therefore in Du Pont's interest to sponsor the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit conference, and surprise, surprise; Du Pont secured the patent on the replacement HFC 134a gas.[32] The Montreal Protocol to limit CFCs was revised and on 11th February, 1992, President Bush announced a ban on CFCs by 1995.[33]"

and a refutation of the fake reason:"Dr. Ray also pointed out that "CFC molecules are four to eight times heavier than air." And poking fun at the ridiculous claim that CFCs have caused a "hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica," she wrote: "We do not know how these heavier-than-air molecules cross the equatorial counter currents to accumulate at the South Pole and do the most ozone damage there." In point of fact, as Dr. Ray explained, "The regular, annual ozone 'hole' that appears over Antarctica was first measured in 1956-57, long before CFCs were in common use. The 'hole' appears at the end of the dark, cold Antarctic winter [a period of reduced incoming ultraviolet radiation], lasts about three to five weeks, and then disappears." "

[Whaleboy]

Actually it IS possible to be wrong on some issues. For example, which is better for the economy, capitalism or communism

Assume you to be correct. Thus communism is ultimately wrong and not debateworthy?

[Verto]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Thus communism is ultimately wrong and not debateworthy?

Thanks Captain Obvious.