Do Liberals And Conservatives Literally Think Differently?

[financeguy]

Originally posted by AEON
2) change should happen NOW (ACT! END IRAQ NOW!) There is nothing gradual about their causes

I agree with your first point to an extent, but no true conservative could possibly support the Iraq war.

[AEON]

Originally posted by financeguy


I agree with your first point to an extent, but no true conservative could possibly support the Iraq war.

Did you vote for Pat Buchanan?

[financeguy]

Originally posted by AEON
Did you vote for Pat Buchanan?

Dude, note my location.

[BVS]

Originally posted by AEON


Did you vote for Pat Buchanan?

Read before you post.

[AEON]

Dang - jump all over me...

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by AEON


Did you vote for Pat Buchanan?

Do you have anything to refute his point about true conservatives' opinions on the war?

[melon]

Originally posted by AEON
Really - the Liberals in these parts would disagree with all three.

1) Individual freedom is sacrificed at the alter of political correctness.
2) change should happen NOW (ACT! END IRAQ NOW!) There is nothing gradual about their causes
3) Rule of law? Are you kidding? Laws comes from the "the man" or "the system" simply to keep them down and press them into a sheeple mold

Really, you know that this is a sloppy stereotype, because I can describe "conservatives" in the same mold:

1) Individual freedom is sacrificed at the altar of "Christian morality."
2) Change should happen NOW (ACT! BAN GAY MARRIAGE NOW!) There is nothing gradual about their causes.
3) Rule of law? If judges don't rule MY WAY, then they're obviously "activist judges" who should be impeached (never mind that a sizable percentage of these so-called "activist judges" were Republican appointees, all the way from the "gay marriage" cases to the judge who ordered Terri Shiavo's life support cessation).

There's certainly a couple of conservatives here that I can name off the top of my head who are this reliably hysterical.

[melon]

Originally posted by MaxFisher
Occam's Razor:

"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one."

This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one," or alternately, "We should not assert that for which we do not have some proof."

In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities (although this is not always the same as simplicity). It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

[AEON]

Originally posted by melon


Really, you know that this is a sloppy stereotype, because I can describe "conservatives" in the same mold:

1) Individual freedom is sacrificed at the altar of "Christian morality."
2) Change should happen NOW (ACT! BAN GAY MARRIAGE NOW!) There is nothing gradual about their causes.
3) Rule of law? If judges don't rule MY WAY, then they're obviously "activist judges" who should be impeached (never mind that a sizable percentage of these so-called "activist judges" were Republican appointees, all the way from the "gay marriage" cases to the judge who ordered Terri Shiavo's life support cessation).

There's certainly a couple of conservatives here that I can name off the top of my head who are this reliably hysterical.

I see you're point. However, I was trying to debunk the Liberal myth instead of creating a Conservative myth.

[AEON]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


Do you have anything to refute his point about true conservatives' opinions on the war?

I was once a extremely "conservative" type of isolationsist (like Buchanan). However, I was once reading a biography on JFK and I was inspired to believe that the US could actually make the world a better place for the overwhelming majority of the people on this planet.

[BVS]

Originally posted by AEON


I was once a extremely "conservative" type of isolationsist (like Buchanan). However, I was once reading a biography on JFK and I was inspired to believe that the US could actually make the world a better place for the overwhelming majority of the people on this planet.

By bombing them into democracy?

[AEON]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


By bombing them into democracy?

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge--and more.

- JFK

[Irvine511]

they want our help even if they don't know it and it takes 100,000 dead bodies to get us there!

[BVS]

Yeah, we've had this debate before when you said JFK was a neocon, no reason to bump a 2 week old thread to do it again.

[AEON]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Yeah, we've had this debate before when you said JFK was a neocon, no reason to bump a 2 week old thread to do it again.

Sorry. I didn't know there was a time limit for a good point.

[BVS]

It wasn't a good point the first time around, why would it be one now? You weren't able to answer any of the questions people gave you and you flaked out then, why would it be any different this time around. It's useless.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by AEON
Sorry. I didn't know there was a time limit for a good point.

The quote doesn't discuss going out of our way.

[AEON]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


The quote doesn't discuss going out of our way.

I guess I equate "meeting any hardship" with "going out of our way" - I'm weird like that.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by AEON
I guess I equate "meeting any hardship" with "going out of our way" - I'm weird like that.

I don't equate "meeting any hardship" with "bombing others into democracy." THAT would be going out of our way.

[maycocksean]

Originally posted by financeguy


(1) A belief in the freedom of the private citizen from unjust encroachment by the state

(2) A belief that societal change should be gradually and carefully implemented

(3) A belief in the rule of law, tempered always with mercy

See now these are principles that I can see underscorig genuine debate. I may or may not agree with with all of them, or I may disagree with someone as to the extent of their application, but I can at least see the reasoning.

However I can't see how these principles determine the types of stands that seem be defining "Conservative" in America today. I don't see anything in those principles that inexorably lead, for example, to support of the war in Iraq or implicitly suggest that the United States is a Christian nation and so on. There's nothing particularly simplistic about the principles listed above, but today conservatism seems to be defined (at least in the US) by a simplistic type of thinking. Worst of all, it seems like the most vocal "conservatives" are no longer arguing from these basic principles at all. There seems to be a lot of muscular hyperbole and defamation of those with opposing viewpoints, a lot of really lazy and cynical arguing. I don't find much to respect in that.

I always understood conservatives (in whatever sense) were generally cautious about change, whereas liberals are more open and eager to change. Both viewpoints are absolutely necessary to the health of a nation.

But such a balanced understanding seems to be lost today. It seems the level of discourse in this country hasn't been this low in a long time, and I do believe that simplistic, entertainment-oriented, mindset that seems to be thriving today is a better fit with what's considered "conservative" thinking. Good guys and bad guys. Settling things with your fists instead of being all diplomatic and wussy. Or on the other hand recognizing shades of gray and nuance. Long discussionas around the table of diplomacy. You tell me which makes a better movie.