User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 47

  1. #31
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,540

    Comparing the USA, Ireland and Australia

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Or delusional lying. I mean diplomacy.
    It's literally true. In gaining our independence from Britain not one person lost their life. And in uniting a whole Continent into a Federation not one person lost their life.

    For instance, we had no Indian Wars, and we had no War of Independence, and we had no Civil War, and their was no violent insurrection here as there was in Ireland against the British.

    Of course those who accuse us of delusional lying say, what about the aboriginees. Well aboriginees did loose their lives at settlement, mainly because of lack of immunity to common diseases carried unknowingly by the settlers.

    America had their Indian Wars but we had no war against aborignees.

    And indeed no aboriginee lost their life in gaining independence from Britain; and no aboriginee lost their life in uniting a whole Continent into a Federation.

    It is telling that violent, hate filled countries like the USA and Ireland accuse us of the very crimes they have committed against each other.

  2. #32
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    It's literally true. In gaining our independence from Britain not one person lost their life. And in uniting a whole Continent into a Federation not one person lost their life.

    For instance, we had no Indian Wars, and we had no War of Independence, and we had no Civil War, and their was no violent insurrection here as there was in Ireland against the British.

    Of course those who accuse us of delusional lying say, what about the aboriginees. Well aboriginees did loose their lives at settlement, mainly because of lack of immunity to common diseases carried unknowingly by the settlers.

    America had their Indian Wars but we had no war against aborignees.

    And indeed no aboriginee lost their life in gaining independence from Britain; and no aboriginee lost their life in uniting a whole Continent into a Federation.

    It is telling that violent, hate filled countries like the USA and Ireland accuse us of the very crimes they have committed against each other.
    There are those who say Americans would have treated their aboriginal people better had they remained under the British. It is not a surprising statement if you look at world events then and later.

  3. #33
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    It's literally true. In gaining our independence from Britain not one person lost their life. And in uniting a whole Continent into a Federation not one person lost their life.

    For instance, we had no Indian Wars, and we had no War of Independence, and we had no Civil War, and their was no violent insurrection here as there was in Ireland against the British.

    Of course those who accuse us of delusional lying say, what about the aboriginees. Well aboriginees did loose their lives at settlement, mainly because of lack of immunity to common diseases carried unknowingly by the settlers.

    America had their Indian Wars but we had no war against aborignees.

    And indeed no aboriginee lost their life in gaining independence from Britain; and no aboriginee lost their life in uniting a whole Continent into a Federation.

    It is telling that violent, hate filled countries like the USA and Ireland accuse us of the very crimes they have committed against each other.
    But would it have been possible if a post colonial world had never emerged because the united states hadn't rebelled? One domino and all that
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  4. #34
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Should a President be the President of America or only the President of the rich?
    Should a president be the president of the poor?

  5. #35
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    @bluemoon123123 etc. often conservatives accuse liberals of their own groupthink and restriction of individual liberty such as when trying to increase taxes on cigarettes for public health or with the health care law as an illegitimate tax on the populace, etc
    To quote Clive Crook from Bloomberg regarding Obama's Inaugural:

    If you cast all your policy ideas as moral imperatives, what does that say about people who disagree with you? Obama made it plain he thinks Republicans are not just wrong but morally impaired.

  6. #36
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,540
    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    But would it have been possible if a post colonial world had never emerged because the united states hadn't rebelled? One domino and all that
    We loved the British Empire but the USA cut the throat of the British Empire at the Suez Canal in Egypt in 1956.

    And the British Empire has been replaced by the American Empire. The Americans deny they are an empire. But they are a particular kind of Empire.

    There are territorial empires, religious empires, military empires and merchantile empires. The USA is a merchantile empire and the proof is the US dollar is the Reserve Currency of the world, the ultimate aim of a merchantile empire. This enables the USA to print money.

    The USA does have the world's largest military but this is secondary to the merchantile empire of the US. And the US does have up to 1,000 military bases in foreign countries, but the US is not essentially a territorial empire. And although Americans spread thoughout the world evangelising religion, even this is secondary to the merchantile empire of the US.

    So the USA was not opposed to colonialism, only British colonialism.

    And of course the USA is a colonist of a different stripe than the British. The British didn't want to be loved, but often were. While the Americans want to be loved, but it seems to elude them.

  7. #37
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    But would it have been possible if a post colonial world had never emerged because the united states hadn't rebelled? One domino and all that
    Look at South America.
    Back to Teheran, December 1943.
    Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.

    Roosevelt said to Stalin, explicitly:
    We are not a colonial power. Therefore you and I have a common ground. There will be a new world order. Britain will come around.

    In spite of the protests of Churchill, FDR gave half of Europe to the man he feared and admired.
    After the war, the rest of Europe gave up the colonies, one by one.
    America inherited more than half of them.
    Kissinger says: I do not discuss these events.

  8. #38
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Should a president be the president of the poor?
    Should a President be the President of America or only the President of the poor?

  9. #39
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Those terms would need to be defined, to be honest I dont seem them as dichotomous, ie care is not the opposite of authority (although care and control could be contrasted).
    These terms are not dichotomous, we all value all five of the moral principles that they represent, but conservatives and liberals differ with respect to how much value they ascribe to each of them.

    The challenge of providing a comprehensive and a precise definition of these terms by far exceeds the scope of inquiry of this threat. However, I will provide a crude, working definition for each one.

    1.Care- Moral value exhorting individuals to treat others with kind regard.

    2. Justice- The obligation to behave consistently with the universal principles of morality, it is generally not specified what school of thought these principles derive from. However, they're typically Utilitarian, Deontological or Virtue Ethic-oriented.

    3. Authority- The moral ethos of obeying an individual or an institution who was deemed to have been a legitimate authority, the specific standards for discerning legitimacy are not specified and tend to differ from community to community.

    4. Loyalty- The duty to stay committed to fulfilling the interests of one's group members, to repress self-interest when the interests of the group command that and to refrain from making commitments to other groups that will undermine one's fidelity to the chosen group.

    5. Sanctity- The moral onus to preserve certain phenomena that can be deemed to be representative of the most noble aspects of human nature or behavior. Most conservative cultures sacralize the feminine body, certain foods, religious rituals or ceremonies that honor culturally significant practices of events within the community.



    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Some of the better political (Orwell) and psychological (Fromm) analysis of authority and authoritarianism has been able to demonstrate how differential understandings of words, the distortion of meanings, and the positive association with particular labels can hide a myriad of sins.
    The topic of how rhetoric can be employed as a vehicle of subjugation of the public to an oppressive authority is extraneous to the principal themes of Haidt's discourse. It is best that we reserve this digression from my topic for another thread.




    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    In my experience liberalism is more controlling and authoritarian on moral issues than caring or fair, when its decided they are not prepared to tolerate or co-exist with conta opinions, in the UK they've used the state to introduce and further some pretty intolerate perspectives upon religious expression or matters of conscience, effectively they have over ridden the sovereignty of businesses, employees and service providers as to who they will provide services to in good conscience or in determining who are their target markets and why.

    Conservatism in contrast, although perhaps it is a matter of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, has defended sovereignty, and fairness is the watch word of political conservatism in the UK presently, perhaps the reasoning on fairness is very simplistic and flawed but it is also very popular.
    Can these examples be generalized to explain the outcomes of how Liberals and Conservatives act on their convictions in all of the UK in most cases? If so, can the same generalization be made with respect to how representatives of these ideologies act in most other nations? The answer to that question is far from clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by freeekyyyy View Post
    I think it's a bit foolish to say that a way of thinking will without a doubt result in certain attitudes. Different people can believe the same thing for very different reasons.
    Haidt's contention was that the moral beliefs of conservatives tend to be founded on different premises than that of liberals. Your contention that what the beliefs reveal the believer is beside the point. You may well believe in most of the things conservatives believe in without being one of them, but that does nothing to undermine Haidt's position.

    Quote Originally Posted by freeekyyyy View Post
    I tend to think of traditional conservatism as a bit different from the philosophy that the term describes today. Traditionally, many of these things mentioned by the OP do apply; however, many modern conservatives are more in line with the classical liberalism that you mentioned, or mainstream libertarianism. The problem is imprecise communication; people thinking they are discussing the same philosophy when they really aren't.
    The doctrines that American conservatives believe in are different from those that are commonly endorsed by their counterparts in Asia, Europe and Africa. However, the moral foundations for their beliefs are similar. Countries have traditions of their own that underline their unique national identities and conservatives of all nations strive to preserve these collective identities. Because these identities differ, the ideologies, philosophical tendencies and socio-cultural values of conservatives from two different countries are rarely the same or even remarkably similar.

  10. #40
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    I think a significant elements of being conservative or progressive is how fortunate one is. I find there's quite a lean toward conservative amongst the privileged. Rich vs the poor, or demographic categories like white and male vs black and female. It makes perfect sense, really. Conservatism at it's most basic is about preservation. It's about keeping things they way they are instead of changing. Why wouldn't those who are most fortunate now resist change?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] NTs and their Perception of the Golden Rule
    By CuriousFeeling in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 02-11-2010, 02:48 PM
  2. Typical Work and Social roles of the types
    By BlackCat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-04-2009, 10:08 PM
  3. So in Star Wars: Episode VI Return of the Jedi...
    By swordpath in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-14-2009, 11:55 AM
  4. Ghost Stories (and Other Tales of the Uncanny)
    By Oberon in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 12-30-2008, 01:08 AM
  5. The Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria of the mind
    By Thursday in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-22-2008, 01:42 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