User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 61

  1. #31
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Thank you for exemplifying the ugly uncompromising hubris of progressive idealism.

    How quickly can you get that guillotine ready?
    The enemy of ignorance is not killing, it is knowledge

  2. #32
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Here come the assholes to shit all over my thread.
    I'm kind of past wondering how you get away with posts like that when it'd be an infraction for anyone else.

    Maybe you're not looking to post a thread, maybe you meant to post a blog post instead.

    But were afraid no one would read it.

  3. #33
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    And I've been past given one flying fuck for months.

    Leave.

  4. #34
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    The enemy of ignorance is not killing, it is knowledge
    Yes, well, you haven't dropped any knowledge in this thread, only Your naked moral assertions that you want to force upon everyone via the destruction of your opposition.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  5. #35
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,412

    Default

    After all these years, some people still don't know thread ownership does not exist.
    Salome used to post: "Get the fuck out." It doesn't work that way, people.
    If you don't like what someone posts you can do the following:

    1. Cry.
    2. Ignore it.
    3. Insult the fuck out of them.
    4. Await your infraction. ( Refer to #3)

  6. #36
    Senior Member ms.behaving's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    eNFJ
    Posts
    235

    Default

    Let me simply declare I'm a conservative. *peace my liberal brothers*
    - MB

  7. #37
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    After all these years, some people still don't know thread ownership does not exist.
    Salome used to post: "Get the fuck out." It doesn't work that way, people.
    If you don't like what someone posts you can do the following:

    1. Cry.
    2. Ignore it.
    3. Insult the fuck out of them.
    4. Await your infraction. ( Refer to #3)
    It never hurts to ask.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    The biggest issue I take with Kirk's list is the inclusion of property as a central principle, instead of as a derivative of some other central principle (such as social roles or privileges). The existence of (real) property itself is a deeply radical notion, one that necessitates the imposition of arbitrary human force over others in the form of a government.
    In the anthology of conservative writings I've got, of which Kirk is the editor, and in Nisbet's book on conservatism I've been surprised at just how militant the stand with regard to property is.

    I think Nisbet describes how a conservative columnist attacked a mine owner who had his hired men shoot striking miners not because he'd authorised the action but because he'd not authorised it sooner. A serious point is made about this by Nisbet, whether the original columnist was being vitriolic or not is besides the point for him, because property is enduring, while people are not. In this sense, for these conservatives, property could be more important than social institutions, which are less tangible but considered of high importance also, and historical or familial legacies, also less tangible, because the important point is the bridging of the generational gap and what endures and is preserved with time.

    Its consistent with the first principles, its even consistent with the less ideological fiscal conservatism which is about defending dreams of avarice (something Kirk pointed out himself), whether it seems disgusting or not. Its not like liberalism or libertarianism were property and proprietorship are supposed means to ends or lesser principles reflecting greater principles, such as say self-ownership or individual sovereignty.

    Its worth noting though that there are conservatives, who would have typified themselves as economically left wing (I dont even mean relative to todays standards, I mean left wing full stop) who had a view of property resembling this but which envisaged redistribution of a radical sort as a precursor, like Hilaire Belloc or GK Chesterton and their "three acres and a cow" distributionism. In some cases, particularly Belloc and Chesterton, property is seen as the positive to the negative of pure finance, Belloc thought property was fine but finance was based on usury made possible by the reformation and rise of capitalism.

  9. #39
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    Denying a person a medical procedure and denying someone their civil rights are both highly immoral. I would say that supporting the rights of others is something to be championed and applauded, regardless of political alignment. If there is a political alignment that stands against these ideals, it ought to be destroyed by any means, the only remnants serving as a testimony to barbarism and dark times long abandoned by a civil society.
    Fine sentiments! I'm sure anyone would agree! How could they think it in the first place?!

    My problem with this is there's no attempt to see the other side of the argument, its just good vs. evil of the most basic and simplistic sort. It has its right wing alternative too but I think its equally indefensible.

    No one is a barbarian, living in dark times, just as I'm sure no one really sets out to be wrecker, tearing up every script handed down to them by longer suffered and hard fought battlers from yester year.

  10. #40
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    In my experience, core conservative principles shared by those of all flavors:

    - The essential role of law is to ensure that people can trust one another
    - In most circumstances, stasis is preferable to change
    - Traditions and practices have developed in response to conditions or challenges that may not be easily perceivable in the present
    - These should therefore not be overturned without consideration
    - Humans are not perfectible, and have certain tendencies that no amount of social conditioning will change
    - Consequently, efforts at creating utopias are invariably folly
    - The best we can hope from government is one that is minimally pernicious
    - Those with power are generally scoundrels, even (especially?) those with the best interests of others in mind
    - Mitigation of the consequences of personal decisions on a societal scale generally leads to unforeseeable societal harms
    - Socially unacceptable behavior must be punished as a deterrent to others
    - All roles in society are of equal dignity, provided that they contribute to social well-being as a whole
    - Some roles will entail greater privileges, as a consideration toward the greater responsibilities commensurate with those roles
    - Humans are essentially tribal, and the primary goal of foreign policy should therefore be to prevent attack from other countries
    - The primary social unit is the family, no matter how families are defined in a country
    - Policy should therefore promote the formation and perpetuation of families, or at least refrain from harming them
    - Structures should ensure that those with authority over others are suited to the role
    - Authorities should be respected and obeyed, but only if legitimate
    - There are things that are sacred by their very nature, and ought to be outside of human control

    I'll modify if I think of more
    Did you create this?

    Its really very good, although it reminds me of another writer, the one which said that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    If this thread has illustrated anything for me its that DB isnt sure what conservatism is, he was on surer footing when consider what he was against, ie liberalism, which is pretty much the case for most right wing Americans I've known.

    Citing Kirk one moment, who is a writer I admire too albeit I think he was seriously, seriously in error to align himself with free market capitalism, but then later suggesting that abortion and same sex marriage are fine doesnt really display much in the way of real consistency.

Similar Threads

  1. What does it mean to be "open minded"?
    By Grayscale in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 01-24-2012, 11:51 PM
  2. [NF] What does it mean to be an idealist?
    By am_i_evil666 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 06-29-2011, 07:16 PM
  3. What does it mean to be truly evil?
    By Tamske in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 10-21-2010, 06:35 PM
  4. What does it mean to be a human being?
    By raz in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-01-2009, 06:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO