Poly is making me right wing

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp



Can anyone think of the name of that Nazarene bloke from about 2000 years ago who took a relaxed attitude to state taxes and was big on everyone sharing the bread and fish together? It's completely slipped my mind, but I think he might have been a Christian.

Ben already refuted this by claiming that Carnegie was a capitalist.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I should start a new thread "Ben is making me left wing"

Or "Ben is making me check reality far too often".

[Ben Kenobi]

So you admit that being more productive makes someone superior.

No, I think someone who is more productive ought to be compensated more. It's basic common sense.

I'm sure there are other reasons you can give us as well. But does a 50% increase in productivity make someone 300% superior or something like that. Do you measure it somehow, or do you just try to make sure the more productive people get as much as they can get, while the unproductive people eat ****?

Why not read my words rather then twist them?

The question is if they deserve the same amount or a different amount. How to encourage people is a different matter. If they deserve the same amount and you pay them less that's an injustice.

All I am saying is that if someone isn't productive then it isn't fair to reward them with an equal share. I would hope that is basic common sense. It doesn't assert that a) productivity is an essential characteristic of people, or that b) productive people are morally superior to unproductive ones.

So you just said that it's moral to think that you are superior to others and to think that you deserve more.

Compensation!=morally superiority. Again, you are having trouble distinguishing the too.

If you don't think people look down you because you are poor you live in another world.

You said people subconsciously look down on you because you are poor. That is why I am saying that statement is paranoia. Yes it is true that some people look down on poor folks, but it is overt not covert.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by DaShi


Ben already refuted this by claiming that Carnegie was a capitalist.

Given that Ben also claimed the anti-slavery movement in Britain wasn't supported by the Whigs, he's really on a roll in this thread.

[Ben Kenobi]

And O'Connor was a moderate Republican. As was Kennedy (who also was for precedent, which is what moderate Republicans like).

Neither were known entities with respect to abortion when they were nominated and trended left.

Scalia was appointed, far more, for his beliefs on federalism.

'strict constructionist' means nothing to you?

No, apparently you are not.

You feel the Lousiana Purchase had no connection with Manifest Destiny?

He was no liberal. He was, after all, all for conserving the great Southern tradition of slavery... and expanding the Missouri Compromise line all the way to the Pacific.

He was a typical classical liberal, in that he believed in the rights of states, lowered tariff barriers, etc.

The Great Society, you mean the term that was applied to President Johnson's speech made on May 22, 1964?

Kennedy's proposed social programs which did not pass after his assassination.

Let us ask che if he believes that?

Classic liberals are not on the left. Ron Paul, after all, is a Republican. Bob Barr, running for Libertarian chief, was a big guy in the Republican Party.

No, they are less left then radicals, and the statists, that's for sure, however they are still on the left, particularly socially.

So now its "tend to be". As stated before, the original socialists were Christians. Not all socialists are Marxist, not even close. Thomas More's "Utopia" is said to be a huge influence on socialists.

Well then we need to define socialism. I think the elevation of the material world over the spiritual is very much a socialist ideal, and contrary to Christianity. I also think the early Christians defy our current conventions.

[Ben Kenobi]

Given that Ben also claimed the anti-slavery movement in Britain wasn't supported by the Whigs, he's really on a roll in this thread.

Wow, everyone is hating on me here. Totally lame. All I said is that Wilberforce was a Tory, which the article you cited says too.

You are a historian Laz, somehow I expected better from you then being just another liberal hack, and quotes from wikipedia to prove your assertions.

I take it you use wikipedia in your research now Laz?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Wow, everyone is hating on me here. Totally lame. All I said is that Wilberforce was a Tory, which the article you cited says too.

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
He was a Tory. Where were all the liberals and why weren't they calling for the abolition of slavery?

Wilberforce was an independent MP. He was a friend of Pitt, but followed both Tory and Whig issues. On the abolition issue, he worked most closely with Fox- hence my link to the great Liberal abolitionist.

You are a historian Laz, somehow I expected better from you then being just another liberal hack, and quotes from wikipedia to prove your assertions.

I take it you use wikipedia in your research now Laz?

Among many others, yes. Here's some more.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article1563804.ece

http://www.answers.com/topic/william-wilberforce

Trust me- I can get many more. How many more do you want? Let's set a challenge- why don't you see how many sources you find saying that Wilberforce was a member of the Tory party, and that Whigs didn't support abolition?

[Ben Kenobi]

Much better, thanks Laz! Now we can have a real discussion.

Yes, its true that Wilberforce refused to join with Pitt's Tories, and remained independent. However, it has been stated over and over again that Wilberforce's conservative ideals were what guided him to abolish slavery.

I have quotes and citations. His arguments in parliament was that slavery was contrary to what the bible said, and was morally repugnant to any Christian nation. If you want, I can even pull that argument out from your parliamentary records. I did that in a paper I wrote in third year, I discussed his arguments and why he chose the ones he did.

Yes, some Whigs supported, some were his fiercest rivals. It's disingenuous to suggest that ALL Whigs were supportive of the abolition bill, and that the abolition bill was a whiggish document, it was not and was contrary to the interests of many whigs, which would later lead to the destruction of the party.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Much better, thanks Laz! Now we can have a real discussion.

Yes, its true that Wilberforce refused to join with Pitt's Tories, and remained independent. However, it has been stated over and over again that Wilberforce's conservative ideals were what guided him to abolish slavery.

Now explain to me why you're strenuously avoiding these two issues-

1- Why are you still ignoring Fox?

2- If abolition was an inherent Tory principle, why didn't Pitt make any real effort to stop it? He might have made sympathetic noises about it, but he could have ended it at least a decade earlier had he actually acted.

I have quotes and citations. His arguments in parliament was that slavery was contrary to what the bible said, and was morally repugnant to any Christian nation. If you want, I can even pull that argument out from your parliamentary records. I did that in a paper I wrote in third year, I discussed his arguments and why he chose the ones he did.

Ben- why do you keep equating Christianity with the Tories? The 18th/19th century Whigs/Liberals were Christians too.

Yes, some Whigs supported, some were his fiercest rivals. It's disingenuous to suggest that ALL Whigs were supportive of the abolition bill, and that the abolition bill was a whiggish document, it was not and was contrary to the interests of many whigs, which would later lead to the destruction of the party.

It took a Whig government to pass the bill, however. It couldn't get through under the Tories. Thanks to the Grenville/Fox administration, it passed.

Thanks for playing Ben. Game over.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


OK, let's look at the elections in Barking and Dagenham where the BNP won 12 councillors and became the 2nd largest party in the borough then - i.e., their most successful campaign so far...

http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/9-democracy/elections/elections-menu.cfm

yes genius, let us only look at one local authority and ignore the national picture.

i said:

the BNP tends to do well in working class areas which have experienced high levels of immigration. these areas tend to be labour and it is primarily at their expense that the BNP profits.

now this is where the BNP have councillors in england:

united against facism

bradford, burnley, leeds, leicester, stoke. tory bastions for sure. if you look at the votes in the 2005 general election, it is no surprise to see that the BNP gathers most support in, wait for it, working class areas which have experienced high levels of immigration.

it should be fairly obvious where a far right anti-immigration party is going to do well, even before you see the numbers, but feel free to look for yourself.

lest we forget, your original 'point':

Probably why for example that whenever the BNP does well in this country, it is at the expense of the Conservative vote.

which is clearly false. i'll accept your apology.

as for the pathetic strawmen in the second half of your post.

[Agathon]

I'm still waiting for a decent account of what conservatism is. So far it seems like a box of assorted reactionaries.

[Zevico]

I'm still waiting for a decent account of what conservatism is. So far it seems like a box of assorted reactionaries.

If there is no decent account of what conservatism is, I fail to see how it can 'be' an "assorted box" of anything.
As reactionary is just a negative word for an extremist 'conservative', your second assertion is as meaningless as your first.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

There is a decent account of what a "conservative" is. It was coined by Steven Wells, and it's "Dog-bumming vampire".

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Zevico

If there is no decent account of what conservatism is, I fail to see how it can 'be' an "assorted box" of anything.

You're just setting yourself up here. It could easily be understood as an "assorted box" of people with different ideologies who have banded together against a common opponent for various reasons. The term "conservative" would then be an historical term in the same sense that "the Allies" is an historical term, rather than a political term.

But political conservatives often behave as if "conservatism" is a political ideology like Marxism or social democracy. If it is, then they should have no trouble in telling us what it is in a way that doesn't invite obvious and immediate ridicule (as the Burkean formulation of it does).

As reactionary is just a negative word for an extremist 'conservative', your second assertion is as meaningless as your first.

Reactionaries simply oppose the current drift of society and want to return it to some favoured state. That's not a political ideology any more than being a revolutionary is a political ideology. Calling the conservative movement an association of reactionaries was a reference to an earlier post where Ben gave Thomists among others who wish to return to previous ideas as examples of conservatism.

In any case, the fact that these people are reactionaries doesn't prevent them from having a coherent ideology. Thomism is a pretty coherent ideology, as is Classical Liberalism. I'm not attacking those ideas on grounds of coherence, but only the idea that there is some overarching coherent ideology called "conservatism".

[Zevico]

Well, then I've misunderstood you. Thank you for taking the time to tell me so.