"Conservatives only use hate & fear while Liberals use logic & reason."

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by MrFun
Any idiot SHOULD know you can't make over-generalizations of any political/ideological group.

DUH

I agree Mr. Fun. Further it takes a real man to admite when he's misspoken. Will Elijah?

[Nubclear]

Oerdin: If we started a thread every time somebody said something stupid here in the Poly OT....Well...I think you know what would happen

Let's all be friends!

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Oerdin: If we started a thread every time somebody said something stupid here in the Poly OT....Well...I think you know what would happen

Let's all be friends!

You are of course right. But he throw mudd at me and then said he could prove it to be true. If he had jsut made an outlandish statement and then disappeared into the wood work like he normally does then I would have looked the other way, but, he choice confrontatin and said he could prove it. Now he's MIA.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Oerdin


You are of course right. But he throw mudd at me and then said he could prove it to be true. If he had jsut made an outlandish statement and then disappeared into the wood work like he normally does then I would have looked the other way, but, he choice confrontatin and said he could prove it. Now he's MIA.

Thats OK, cause were all being friends RIGHT?

[Oerdin]

Nice picture.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Now, it is put up or shut up time and it appears he's going to shut up.

Elijah is from the UK. You posted this thread at gone 3am our time and it's now only 10am. Give him a chance.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Now, it is put up or shut up time and it appears he's going to shut up.

Originally posted by Oerdin
You are of course right. But he throw mudd at me and then said he could prove it to be true. If he had jsut made an outlandish statement and then disappeared into the wood work like he normally does then I would have looked the other way, but, he choice confrontatin and said he could prove it. Now he's MIA.

No, now he's at school college because it's the first day back for UK schools. As FP said, it was 3am over here when you posted this, and Elijah has only just got up, and has some pretty important things to worry about today, such as his future education. I'll text him and inform him of this thread, and he willr espond, but it will take until this evening GMT. Have some patience, not all of us are online when the US is. However he did say in his post that he didn't wish to spam it so if you wanted to continue it do it in PM. I wouldn't be surprised if on principle he ignores this thread, as it's just a blatant insulting thread. I'd like to see him reply, and I'm pretty sure he will, but when soemone says "let's continue this in PM" it usually means don't start another thread about it. Why should he be compelled to answer just because you decided you wanted to start a thread on it, on your terms? Then after a few hours when he is asleep you presume he's not going to reply?

[PLATO]

The good thing to remember about the liberal/conservative debate is that we are all pursuing the same goal...a better human condition. Having two distinct points of view on a subject is what stimulates the intellectual discussion. Most imes, I have found, the answer comes from somewhere in the middle. The conservative needs the liberal and vice versa in order to arrive at a reasonable solution. Most problems need a touch of both to work.

As far as one group being more "intellectual" than the other? That is hogwash. Brilliant people exist on both sides... and we are all better off for it.

[MikeH]

Brilliant people exist on both sides, as do moronic reactionaries.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MikeH
Brilliant people exist on both sides, as do moronic reactionaries.

That's true, but it doesn't take a political philosophy to make a moron. They seem to just happen.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
liberals and conservatives both use logic, reason, fear, and hatred. it's nothing new.

you have idiots on both sides, extremists on both sides, who bring nothing but evil under a guise of progress or morality.

maybe if the hatemongers and the terrorizers, those who like coulter, moore, and savage bring nothing but noxious vitriol would shut the hell up, and let those who used logic form the discussion, america wouldn't be in such a fix.

but gee, i guess us sane middle of the roaders just masochists who like getting sore sitting on the fence.

Exactly.

[Whaleboy]

Achtung Babies!!

Sorry I'm late, I was at college, apparently Oerdin expects me to devote my life to responding to his

Ok my position, and taking account of what Ming said, I'm not wanting to get banned, so I'm going to keep this philosophical and not flaming.

I'm going to use the traditional debate between European Liberals and Neocons in matters of foreign policy. Basically me versus PNAC. The Neocon position is that democracy and Western justice, morals and cultural values should be spread throughout the world. The Liberal position, or rather, mine (which is part of liberalism, but that is a position that is too disperate to use in this case), is that each cultural and moral position is as valid as each other, and that even in a situation such as a society there is much room for tolerance of different moral views.

The neoconservative position in this instance holds that despots, dictatorships, communism etc etc is less valid than democracy, or the Western/American way, and thus we are doing them a great favour by "liberating" them or "giving" them the gift of democracy and all that.

Each position, however, is equally valid, until you apply some means of judging it. I assume you (Oerdin) live in America, and I live in Britain, so we are both going to side with democracy. We are judging between two or more options and choosing, then using logic to back up that position.

The problem is that this renders us as subjective as the position we purport and one subjective judging over an equally valid subjective, is objectively illogical. (I say objective within that context). Consider it like two brothers, and one trying to parent the others children, when the true parent wishes it not.

This is called cultural relativism. It is one of the relativisms that is relatively easy to support. Cognetive relativism, which is largely irrelevant here, is easier to attack, though it is a position I have, it doesn't matter here.

Another is one of moral relativism, probably the easiest of all to maintain. Put simply, my morality is as valid as yours, and that is even the case in a society until of course, ones morality causes a breach of law. As such, imposing moral views on the nation (though influencing, which we all do every day of course, is perfectly fine... so education in other words), is unsatisfactory (so for example, banning polygamy, sodomy or cannabis etc etc). In this case, liberalism tends to lend itself to the libertarian argument, not necessarily as far out as mine, though imo, it adds to consistency.

This use of relativism is key. It is not an easy position for people to work with. I find it hard to constantly uphold relativism, but that is my subconscious, rationally, its not as hard. People familiar with such philosophies, and the notions it spawns tend to be intellectuals, simply because it requires that kind of background, not to mention the immense amount of logic it demands from our minds.

Some people don't have the time to be intellectual and so default to other positions. Each position is equally logical of course, being a relativist for me, means being able to emulate objectivity to the best of my abilities.

I am not saying that liberalism is objectively more logical than conservatism, which uses "hate and fear", because that is simply not true. Conservatism and liberalism are equally logical and equally valid. Having said that, some racist, hating bigots that claim to be conservative of various types do exist, but they represent nothing against thinking conservatives, indeed, many conservatives, including many here, are very intelligent people.

All I am saying is that intellectuals and members of the intelligentsia are more prone to liberalism. It may appear extreme, indeed it was to me when I first thought of it, but think about it for a while, it makes sense. Indeed, all the intellectuals I know are liberal, whereas non-intellectuals (that is irrelevant to intelligence which is a completely irrelevant matter) have a far higher proportion of conservatives, in my experience, the experience of others, and speaking generically. I say again, that is NOTHING on the use of logic of either position. I agree with one and not that other, but we all have our own personally disposition and use of logic that makes us choose. One mans fallacy is another mans religion.

I hope this has clarified my position, and refuted its misrepresentation. I do not hate conservatism, indeed, I adopt many of its aspects into a wider liberalism. I do not believe that conservatism is less intelligent, or a malevolent philosophy as the thread title would seem to suggest. I do not believe conservatives are less intelligent. To each his own, but to me, mine.

[Whaleboy]

I wouldn't be surprised if on principle he ignores this thread, as it's just a blatant insulting thread

I have been insulted (don't worry, I'll live) and misrepresented so I shall respond so as others dont take his misrepresentation as my actual position, or may think that I do not want to fight a hopeless battle. You all know me better than that, though this is very far from a hopeless battle

PLATO, MikeH, Sava:

There are idiots and geniuii on both sides. Neither position is "evil", we all want a better tomorrow. I'm not about to start flaming a perfectly valid ideology, simply because I disagree with it. I will critique it but as part of an intelligent intellectual discussion, not a slanging match.

EDIT: Toned down.

[Verto]

Why are you wasting your time arguing this subject with Elijah?

Actually, why is Elijah wasting his time with this argument? All the non-Liberals are just intellectually challenged.

Don't bring yourself down to our level, Mighty One!

[Whaleboy]

Verto: I'm sure the intelligent and intellectual conservatives here will have something to say about that. I am, and can in this case, only speak in the general context.

Elijah is wasting his time because he has little better to do until the Simpsons come on.

[Japher]

All the non-Liberals are just intellectually challenged.

my mature respose to that:

All politicians are intellectually challenged, IMHO

[Whaleboy]

Japher:

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I agree Mr. Fun. Further it takes a real man to admite when he's misspoken. Will Elijah?

But I just find it incredible that some people do not see the obvious bigotry in such statements as, "Conservatives are cold-hearted, and hate all those who are different."


When I have stated such things in the past, they were for obvious trolling -- but apparently, Elijah wants us to take such statements seriously.

[Whaleboy]

"Conservatives are cold-hearted, and hate all those who are different."

I don't recall saying that! Where did I say that, or what did I say that caused you to infer that this was something I would have as my position?

Elijah wants us to take such statements seriously.

Again, I never said that, don't strawman me. Take what I do say seriously or not if you will, but don't even consider something that is something I didn't say, and use it as if it was.

Conservatives are cold-hearted, and hate all those who are different.

Conservatives can be a lot more than neocons. Indeed, by some economic measures, I am conservative!! (I'm a right-wing (libertarian) liberal). Cold hearted? Some of the nicest people I know are conservatives and I would never go so far to make such an insiduous, offensive and fallacious claim. Hate all those who are different? While I believe that conservatives are more likely to "hate" their "enemies", it would require four of my six senses to be blinded for me not to see that such a proposition is complete idiocy.

Indeed, its possible for conservatives to be relativists, particularly with moral relativism.

[The Andy-Man]

its only logical to expect that people will be afraid and have a tendancy to dislike a group of people that interfere with there old lifestyles.

[Dis]

whoah!

I think some of you are underestimating the positive qualities of hate and fear.

logic and reason can only take you so far when you are dealing with unreasonable people- ie muslims

[The Andy-Man]

logic and reason can only take you so far when you are dealing with unreasonable people- ie muslims

or republicans

[Whaleboy]

Perhaps, but I'm just arguing that to be at the conservative end of the spectrum. Its not a complete correlation, indeed, I bet there are intelligent conservatives here that would not succumb to that.

[Whaleboy]

Its necessary to hate Muslims (or terrorists presumably)? Its necessary to not use logic?

EDIT: Its necessary to hate?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by elijah


I don't recall saying that! Where did I say that, or what did I say that caused you to infer that this was something I would have as my position?



Again, I never said that, don't strawman me. Take what I do say seriously or not if you will, but don't even consider something that is something I didn't say, and use it as if it was.



Conservatives can be a lot more than neocons. Indeed, by some economic measures, I am conservative!! (I'm a right-wing (libertarian) liberal). Cold hearted? Some of the nicest people I know are conservatives and I would never go so far to make such an insiduous, offensive and fallacious claim. Hate all those who are different? While I believe that conservatives are more likely to "hate" their "enemies", it would require four of my six senses to be blinded for me not to see that such a proposition is complete idiocy.

Indeed, its possible for conservatives to be relativists, particularly with moral relativism.

No -- you didn't actually say the words I stated, but you put in so many other words -- or do they call it implications?

[Ben Kenobi]

You want proof that liberals can be destructive?

Start here:

http://www.abortionviolence.com/cana...-columbia.html

[Whaleboy]

No -- you didn't actually say the words I stated, but you put in so many other words -- or do they call it implications?

If you're not reading my words properly, or are trying to string implied, assumed stuff together in a vain effort to discredit a liberal, then yes you may wish my argument to be that. However, if you read the post you quoted, it is not. Reading my previous posts, any misunderstanding is pretty difficult.

Is there a liberal/conservative position on abortion? How are pro-lifers liberals, and how does violence in a small number of people mean liberalism is destructive. Of course, we can be just as destructive as the next man.

[Ben Kenobi]

Prolifers are generally considered to be 'conservative' while the prochoicers are generally considered to be 'liberals'.

Elijah, you are very right. There are hotheads, both liberals and conservates, while the vast majority are well behaved.

The key words is that both sides are guilty of using violence to defend their position, both liberal and conservative.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by elijah


If you're not reading my words properly, or are trying to string implied, assumed stuff together in a vain effort to discredit a liberal, then yes you may wish my argument to be that. However, if you read the post you quoted, it is not. Reading my previous posts, any misunderstanding is pretty difficult.

Is there a liberal/conservative position on abortion? How are pro-lifers liberals, and how does violence in a small number of people mean liberalism is destructive. Of course, we can be just as destructive as the next man.

But ANY kind of generalization you make of any political group is wrong.

And yes -- I see that now you have realized that such generalizations are wrong.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun


But ANY kind of generalization you make of any political group is wrong.

And yes -- I see that now you have realized that such generalizations are wrong.

You've blatantly misrepresented what elijah originally said, and now are saying he has "realized" something he never professed wasn't true in the first place?

How strange...