10 most rightist posters on poly

[Kidlicious]

Adam Smith can't be considered conservative in the sense of preserving the status quo though.

[Urban Ranger]

My, Agathon pulled an MtG.

[DaShi]

I'm envious of Darkcloud. I wish more people would put that much thought into responding to my points. That's probably why I enjoy debating with Aggie, even though he's usually wrong.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Feel free to buttress the tottering outhouse of your assertion with a few facts, Ned.

So far you've been on what appears to be an information fast.

The problem I have discussing issues with you is that you do not respond to what I say, but to a strawman instead. I gave you the anology of a bomb and a fuse to illustrate the problem with your responses to my posts. I said that Britain was a fault for helping to cause WWII in both the East and the West, cause the the Mid East conflicts that we see today, and touch off wars between Hindu and Muslim in the subcontinent. What Britain did in all these events was to take historical antagonists and place them in conflict by one means or another. In this, Britain lit the fuse. You respond with, well Britain didn't create the bomb, then claim victory in your argument with me.

So, I give up talking to you until you get reasonable.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned


The problem I have discussing issues with you is that you do not respond to what I say, but to a strawman instead. I gave you the anology of a bomb and a fuse to illustrate the problem with your responses to my posts. I said that Britain was a fault for helping to cause WWII in both the East and the West, cause the the Mid East conflicts that we see today, and touch off wars between Hindu and Muslim in the subcontinent. What Britain did in all these events was to take historical antagonists and place them in conflict by one means or another. In this, Britain lit the fuse. You respond with, well Britain didn't create the bomb, then claim victory in your argument with me.

So, I give up talking to you until you get reasonable.

Well, I guess that it isn't impossible that Molly some day may think that facts isn't worth using, so your debate can continue, but if I was you, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Dauphin
The classical liberal is different to the modern US liberal.

I'm not Ned, I realize that. However, the classical liberal was not a conservative in that era. In that era, a conservative would have been a monarchist who backed mercantalism.

It was underscoring how conservativism and liberalism are vastly different in Europe compared to the US.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Republicans, not conservatives.

Well, he's right. A great deal of the Republican party seem to be reactionary rather than conservative.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I'm not Ned, I realize that. However, the classical liberal was not a conservative in that era. In that era, a conservative would have been a monarchist who backed mercantalism.

There can only be one Ned (and an apprentice) - the meaning of conservative an liberal has certainly changed through the last centuries.

It was underscoring how conservativism and liberalism are vastly different in Europe compared to the US.

You are quite right and I guess that it is a source of many confusions and unnessecary quarrels - an eouropean conservative would typically by an american be considered as a pinky leftist commie (have I forgot a stereotype ?) where an american conservative wouldn't survive for many seconds if she tried to act in european policy.

[Wycoff]

I'm pretty right wing (though I post too sporadically for people to remember).

People have mentioned old right wing posters. Does anyone remember Nationalist? He was more of a Fascist than Speer. Haven't seen him post here for a long time.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Agathon


That is patently absurd. It's been a long time since I've seen someone so obviously ignore reality. There are all sorts of things that change extremely quickly. Information technology is one reason why this has accelerated. The introduction of effective and cheap contraception in the 20th century was another.

Humanity simply has no time for people who want us to wait and wallow in tradition. New problems are appearing all the time – problems that demand new solutions, which in turn create new problems. Relying on tradition will in many cases get us nowhere, and relying blindly on tradition will most likely lead to disaster. The example of sex education in my previous post is a particularly egregious example of the conservative mentality – you guys are like King Canute trying to stop the tide.

First- Facts of basic human psychology never change. All humans desire the same basic things: security, relationships, food

Second- Conservatives like to preserve things that will lead to a 'productive and safe life' Therefore they will support things such as marriage and be agaisnt fornication/adultery becuase they break up marriages which leads to people becoming distressed- and therefore preoccupied- and less productive. When people are less productive, they tend to become anti-social and therefore dangerous to society.

Conservatives believe these problems can best be solved through regulation and enforcement.

In your lubbock example, though apparently therew was some minimal regulation, there was very little enforcement. A true conservative would have supported the sexual education in order to educate the people enough to persuade them that premarital sex is a bad idea, because a true conservative would have realized that morality can only be determined through experience.

Since you noted that many conservatives are allegedly hypocritical in that they may have 'sinned' in the past and are now attempting to prevent others from sinning, it would seem that the most effective method to do so would be to give practical examples of what sinning is- even the bible presents this- the only problem is that examples of how god smites people for transgressing laws appears to not be effective in today's society.

Therefore, it would initially seem that people's psychology and thoughts have changed since they no longer believe in the literal truth of the bible and the existence of God. However, at a minimal level, people still believe in the existence 'of some other' a force of nature, etc. whatever it may be for basic security. Conservatives merely need to tap in to that 'other' to convince people to carry out a force of life, rather than tying people to an outmoded concept of god.

Now, once again, this method initially appears as liberalism and revisionism, because the conservatives are no longer supporting a Moselm or Christian or Jewish god, but are supporting basic human urges. However, the well-researched Conservative who realizes that there are MANY conservative traditions, wehther they be conservative Islamists, Christians, JEws, etc- would realize that he can appeal to a basic conservative appeal inherent in everyone- and go back to the FOUNDATION of his conservative beliefs and cause people to respond to their basic needs for survival.

Therefore, the elightened Conservative does not so much have to react to a changed human psychology (which does not exist), or even to a changed pluralistic society (which does exist)... Instead, the Conservative must merely examine WHY he hold XX and XX tradition and then return to the roots.

And that is why Conservativism is attractive.

While this is a more convoluted definition than I had given before, and thus more arguable since it provides many more words which must be defined and nuanced out in points, It DOES provide a possible working definition where conservativism does not overtly oppose itself, and could theoretically exist as a plausable theory of life for the new millennium.

[DarkCloud]

Wycoff
Nationalist was banned, wasn't he?
--
As an interpretation of what Imran agreed upon by how the reublican party is now more reactionary than conservative I think we may as well define reactionary again here:

Reactionary: Seeking to return to past times and reset the OLD order.. not merely preserve the established order, but return things the way they were (example: Metternich at the Council of Vienna 1815)

---
Agathon
It may take some time, but I'll get to your whole post eventually As you can see, my initial reply to just one point was very long- but I'll try to keep it concise now.

[DarkCloud]

Another note that should be restated, since you seem to have lost track of it agathon- enlightened conservatives aren't for tradition for tradition's sake- they're for tradition because tradition WORKS. There is no need to twist the words that I am saying and misinterpret, then attack that misinterpretation. The fallacy of persuasive definition will not serve you well in this debate.

The law is the law is the law. What's right is right. That's the way that conservatives see it. And frankly, that's the best way to look at it.

It's revealing that you claim this is the way that conservatives look at it when you have just proposed two tautologies. FYI a tautology is a statement that conveys no new or useful information. Laws are in constant need of reform because the world is changing all the time. Sometimes it is better to engage in mild reform, sometimes more extreme measures are required, and sometimes we have to take risks. An ideology which attempts to hamper us by an unexamined worship of tradition is of little or no use in solving the practical problems that human communities face.

Laws are more in need of reform becuase it is near-impossible for human beings to anticipate every single situation that may arise before the law. At one time I was for the elimination of juries and the estabilshment of criminal law courts composed completely of computerized evaluation of all the crimes' variables- however that is impossible because there are a few variables always at work.
1.) Is X lying?
2.) specific instances surrounding each crime/alleged crime.

Therefore, laws need to be reformed not becuase they are bad- but because they were not correctly written the first time.

Conservatives are required to agree with the laws' principles... they don't have to agree with the implementations.

Personally though, I'm for changing the law- but only because it was badly written in the first place. But then again, I NEVER claim to be a social conservative. I'm a social liberal. I personally don't believe in good or bad. I believe in what pragmatically works I don't care if something is 'inherently' evil or not.

Well this contradicts your earlier statement. I can't see any reasonable distinction between being a social and ecnomic conservative or liberal anyway. Social issues and economic issues are too intertwined to make for a clean distinction.

No. They're not.

As a further personal statement- according to the politicalcompass.org site I was only .14 social conservative and a .28 economic conservative (that was 3 years ago) I figure that I've moved more toward social liberalism since then, though. But none of my economic ideas have changed (to my knowledge) Thus, if you really want- then don't call me an overall conservative- I'm a centrist, more so than most people. Everyone who knows me in real life and has debated with me finds me very disturbing in that: "I never know whether you're going to agree with my ideas or rip them apart- some of the things you say are very common and well-tested ideas, but others- they're out in left field- I don't know when you're going to be a Liberal, a Conservative, a Socialist, a Communist, a Statist, a Fascist, a Republican or a Democrat."

And yet, my synthesis of these ideas is, as far as I know- logically consistent, even though it is under constant revision whenever a person manages to knock down one of its provisions. It's all based on pragmatism, whatever works- not what might work, but whatever DOES work. And that, my friend, is neither conservative nor liberal- because as we all know- we do not live in a perfect world and no society has perfectly implemented ideas.

Conservatives never say that- they say that it's more likely to be right than wrong because it didn't destroy society when it was implemented. It has a track record. New ideas most certainly DO NOT.

Again, that is irrelevant. If a social more works in 1950, there is no reason to think that the same more will work in 1990. People change, culture changes and society's expectations change.

To say that it is the best choice because it worked in the past is to implicitly ignore the possibility that we can and often must make educated guesses about how to solve new problems, and that we should consider ideas on their own merits not on their longevity or traditional stature. Slavery and witch burnings are good examples of traditions that were absolutely repugnant, yet your version of conservatism would have us refrain from abolishing them or at least slow down the process.

Actually, as terrible as this might sound- I think that it is POSSIBLE that without a civil war, slavery should have been ended by the 1890's-1900's due to intl. pressure and lack of economic benefits. Then, blacks would gradually have been assimilated, and by the 20's/30's have been considered more 'citizen' than they were in our real world. They would have been equal fully by the 40's at the very least and there would have been no need for the civil rights movement, and persecution would have lasted less time. Through a gradual evolution, people would have come to respect each other, etc. and indeed, full equality would have been assured at LEAST 20 years before it truly was.

then again- I could be wrong in the above, but slavery would NOT have survived into the 20th century, regardless and I think that If people had orgianicaly assimilated together, then there could have been less strife.

That being said, I'll repeat a disclaimer- i definately do not support slavery. And frankly, I don't believe in the existence of races, merely ethnicities, threfore it is impossible for me tobelieve in the inherent superiority of one group to another due to physiological reasons.

Says the man who supports the policies that led to Nazism, Communism, and everything else that's good and bad under the sun

But I'm not the one offering up absurdities, platitudes or tautologies as a political ideology.You have not provided one decent response to my argument. Instead you have simply repeated your original claim.

Either you haven't been reading closely enough or you failed to state your argument clearly enough.

Again, why does it make better sense to say that we must always prefer tradition instead of dealing with each issue on its own merits. You can't say that it has always been better that way, because it hasn't. Sometimes rapid changes have made things better, sometimes slower ones and vice versa.

I think you're attacking a strawman here.
Conservatives use traditional procedures to figure out new implementations when new situations arise. If, however, it's an old situation they utilize pre-established statutes...

Imagine for a moment if you will, a legal system based on no precedents... well, that's a non-codified system right there where arguments can just be made in a vaccum and the judge has full discretion. It MIGHT work for a time, but since judges are individuals, they can abuse their power and there will be corruption.

Admittedly, some regulations are outdated or terrible, but at least they are codified and can be examined or repealed. In a system where rules aren't codified or standardized, then everyone can pretty much do as they please and some people are going to get burned.

And no, it's not an excuse for not thinking. Admittedly it isn't as creative as liberalism, but it's also not likely to lead to the self-implosion of a society either.

You are ignoring the same problem once more. You say that it is not likely to lead to the self implosion of a society. That is a completely unfounded generalization which is completely at odds with recent historical experience. Sticking to tradition in the dynamic age we live in is far more likely to be a recipe for disaster, as the attitude of conservatives towards sex and marriage shows.

Yes, of course. *sarcasm* I'm sure that if america doesn't legalize gay marriage that there'll be a revolution, etc.

*rolleyes* people lived for years without it. IT didn't destroy society then, it won't destroy society now.

*note: Personally I don't care whether gay marriage is legalized or not. It doesn't affect me, and in my mind, hurts no one. But pragmatically-- legalizing it may upset a good deal of people, leading to further hate crimes, etc, thus legalization should be proceeded with a great deal of caution.

And frankly the definition I give is THE definition of Conservativism.

And if it is, it exposes the intellectual poverty and sheer absurdity of the position.

I suppose I'm not the only one here who allegedly provides statements without arguments to back them up, statements which are merely personal opinions and not true arguments.

*To be continued...

[DarkCloud]

The Liberal will say we must change slowly when our best guess is that this will be more beneficial and more quickly when our best guess is that that will be more beneficial – we must be open to either possibility.

Now either the conservative agrees with the liberal on this, or he is forced into the absurd position of stating that it is better to change slowly no matter what our best guess is.

So either conservatism is daft, or it is no different from liberalism or to tell the truth, common sense.

So this is your point here?

Your main argument with conservativism is that it is self-contradictory?

I would argue, however, that conservativism states to keep the same policies when the SAME SITUATIONS are at stake, or to utilize the same procedures always when reacting to changes or different situations.

A liberal would like to revise those procedures, sometimes beneficially, sometimes disastrously (as American education reform has had with its many failed experiements in the past 30 years and declinign reading/math scores, etc)

There. Is that sufficient for your understanding?

[DarkCloud]

It is simply ridiculous to prejudge the matter or make a useless generalization about it. Even if it did turn out that slower change was generally better, that would not mean that we should adopt that as our principle, We would still be better to decide each case on its own merits, even if it turned out that we decided for gradual change in a majority of cases.

Of course, that's only common sense.

But that's not what the main argument was. The main argument was what a conservative and what a liberal was.

I dispute the fact that a liberal is only for small change, etc.

Liberals, like conservatives may be for small changes- but both groups' definitions of changes are different.

To abolutise each groups postions:

A Conservative ALWAYS wants to stay the same
A Liberal ALWAYS wants to change

would be ludicrous as was already agreed upon. Their attitudes, however is more along the lines that:

A conservative agrees that the same will usually work.
A liberal argues that change may be for the best.

And that, I think, makes sense to all.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Wycoff
Nationalist was banned, wasn't he?

That would explain why I haven't seen him post for a long time. Still, he was the furthest right wing, as he was unabashedly Fascist.