Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-27-2018, 11:01 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,256
I view social progress as the building of voluntary social institutions and decreased initiation of force upon individuals.

In some ways, a liberal’s social progress is actually a regression. In some ways it is not. The state is no longer enforcing segregation, progress. The state is undermining property rights, regress.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 12-27-2018 at 11:01 PM.
  #52  
Old 12-27-2018, 11:19 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You are wrong, but this post is a good example of a point made earlier in this thread that liberals and conservatives disagree about what changes represent "social progress".
Maybe we just need some definition of what "progress" really means. If you believe that mycoplasma, zygotes, and blastomeres are sentient humans -- against all scientific evidence and against all concepts of sanity -- and are deserving of more "rights" than actual human beings who have a life history, family, and children on this earth -- then yes, you are a true "conservative" in the full meaning of the word. Although not exactly an advocate of progress in the practical meaning of the word, which implies improved conditions for ourselves and our fellow sentient life forms on the planet.

But on the bright side of all this, you appear to have an awesome respect for life -- for humanity -- so awesome that your baseline of reverance, basically, extends to any cluster of cells that may or may not develop into something animate. And that's just great, because this will surely give you even more awesome respect for the human rights of actual Central American and Mexican humans desperately trying to apply for asylum in the US, over there on the Mexican border. I believe that they can be shown to be actually and incontrovertibly sentient. You can actually go over and talk to them (except for the ones the died in detention) -- no weird ultrasounds and extrapolatory fantasies necessary. Good to know that you're totally pro-human!
  #53  
Old 12-27-2018, 11:22 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Maybe we just need some definition of what "progress" really means. If you believe that mycoplasma, zygotes, and blastomeres are sentient humans -- against all scientific evidence and against all concepts of sanity -- and are deserving of more "rights" than actual human beings who have a life history, family, and children on this earth -- then yes, you are a true "conservative" in the full meaning of the word. Although not exactly an advocate of progress in the practical meaning of the word, which implies improved conditions for ourselves and our fellow sentient life forms on the planet.

But on the bright side of all this, you appear to have an awesome respect for life -- for humanity -- so awesome that your baseline of reverance, basically, extends to any cluster of cells that may or may not develop into something animate. And that's just great, because this will surely give you even more awesome respect for the human rights of actual Central American and Mexican humans desperately trying to apply for asylum in the US, over there on the Mexican border. I believe that they can be shown to be actually and incontrovertibly sentient. You can actually go over and talk to them (except for the ones the died in detention) -- no weird ultrasounds and extrapolatory fantasies necessary. Good to know that you're totally pro-human!
Rather cute when liberals play pro-human. Elsewhere they are telling us it’s so important to sacrifice for the health of hilarious anthropomorphic “planet” sometimes complete with arms and legs
  #54  
Old 12-27-2018, 11:52 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Rather cute when liberals play pro-human. Elsewhere they are telling us it’s so important to sacrifice for the health of hilarious anthropomorphic “planet” sometimes complete with arms and legs
Cite for this exact claim in a peer-reviewed journal?

No sane person anthropomorphizes the planet. But previous mass extinctions tell us that while the planet can survive almost anything, its fragile ecosystems cannot. The planet will live on, no matter what. We may not. Mass extinctions sometimes result in the eventual emergence of a plethora of new life forms. We may not be among them. Is that clear enough?

Science has no liberal-conservative divide, although to the extent that science is evidence-based, more scientists tend to have a liberal bias than otherwise on the contentious topics of the day. Climate change, evolution, creationism -- conservatives have embarrassed themselves.

On the OP topic of social progress, both parties and ideological extremes have held abhorrent positions, and so has society as a whole. The sad thing is that as societies have progressed, conservatives have generally defined themselves by staying about a century behind, which is pretty much where Republicans are -- if you add about another extra century backwards in time -- in America today.
  #55  
Old 12-28-2018, 12:07 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
... No sane person anthropomorphizes the planet. ... The planet will live on, no matter what. ...
Were you being intentionally ironic with these two sentences?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-28-2018 at 12:08 AM.
  #56  
Old 12-28-2018, 01:28 AM
mikecurtis mikecurtis is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,342
Most (almost all) of the things that live on are not anthropos. And the planet can be considered alive.

mc
  #57  
Old 12-28-2018, 03:20 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Cite for this exact claim in a peer-reviewed journal?

No sane person anthropomorphizes the planet. But previous mass extinctions tell us that while the planet can survive almost anything, its fragile ecosystems cannot. The planet will live on, no matter what. We may not. Mass extinctions sometimes result in the eventual emergence of a plethora of new life forms. We may not be among them. Is that clear enough?

Science has no liberal-conservative divide, although to the extent that science is evidence-based, more scientists tend to have a liberal bias than otherwise on the contentious topics of the day. Climate change, evolution, creationism -- conservatives have embarrassed themselves.

On the OP topic of social progress, both parties and ideological extremes have held abhorrent positions, and so has society as a whole. The sad thing is that as societies have progressed, conservatives have generally defined themselves by staying about a century behind, which is pretty much where Republicans are -- if you add about another extra century backwards in time -- in America today.
Yes scientists are “liberal” in that they support vast sums of taxpayer funding to universities and research for their pet causes. Beyond that, you will find that they are some of the most conservative individuals in American society.
  #58  
Old 12-28-2018, 07:01 AM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
He's the head of the republican party, so are you saying that you do not consider republicans to be conservative?

Is there anyone that you would consider to be conservative, or are all the true scotsmen extinct now?
I don't consider the current Republican party to be conservative. I think it's a radical & regressive party right now, not conservative. It's a crazy party that is itself in favor of big government, without admitting so.

I suppose there are "real" conservatives. But they're not in power in the Republican party right now, nor have they been for a while.
  #59  
Old 12-28-2018, 07:30 AM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
I don't consider the current Republican party to be conservative. I think it's a radical & regressive party right now, not conservative. It's a crazy party that is itself in favor of big government, without admitting so.

I suppose there are "real" conservatives. But they're not in power in the Republican party right now, nor have they been for a while.
I’ll ask again. If the Republican Party isn’t conservative, why do most voting conservatives vote Republican?
  #60  
Old 12-28-2018, 07:44 AM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
I view social progress as the building of voluntary social institutions and decreased initiation of force upon individuals.

In some ways, a liberal’s social progress is actually a regression. In some ways it is not. The state is no longer enforcing segregation, progress. The state is undermining property rights, regress.
Voluntary? I think the vast majority of progress in the US has been involuntary. Was the Emancipation Proclamation and the South being forced to repudiate slavery not progress? What about when Eisenhower sent in the National Guard and 101st airborne to forcibly integrate the public schools in Little Rock? The forces of bigotry are almost always dragged forward kicking and screaming. Sure, there are a few that change on their own, like the aforementioned Robert Byrd who conservatives seem to have a special hate for, but most never personally change.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 12-28-2018 at 07:46 AM.
  #61  
Old 12-28-2018, 08:17 AM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
I’ll ask again. If the Republican Party isn’t conservative, why do most voting conservatives vote Republican?
Not sure I have an over-arching answer. It's probably a complicated thing that goes back decades.
  #62  
Old 12-28-2018, 09:47 AM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Were you being intentionally ironic with these two sentences?
'Planet' is a metonym for 'the only known site of living things, and suitable habitation for humans'. It does not mean an iconic distressed fat blue man wiping his fevered brow.

Similarly 'saving the planet' does not mean that it will physically explode and leave a void in space.

It just means we shouldn't shit on the rich inheritance of life and biodiversity that keeps us alive, without any idea of what would replace it, or how much shitting-on is enough to make that web unravel enough to become inhospitable to us.
  #63  
Old 12-28-2018, 09:50 AM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
I’ll ask again. If the Republican Party isn’t conservative, why do most voting conservatives vote Republican?
Having grown up in the house of a hard-core Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity right-winger of a father who claims to despise the Republican party, yet votes for them every time without fail - it's because their hatred of Democrats overrides everything else. They are positively convinced that the Democratic Party is the embodiment of evil.
  #64  
Old 12-28-2018, 10:39 AM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Having grown up in the house of a hard-core Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity right-winger of a father who claims to despise the Republican party, yet votes for them every time without fail - it's because their hatred of Democrats overrides everything else. They are positively convinced that the Democratic Party is the embodiment of evil.
There is some of that certainly. My father was the same as your father. He didn't have to like the Republicans to vote for them, because he thought the Dems were Un-American.

I think some of them have also been conned into supporting policies that are to their own detriment. They were told that tax cuts pay for themselves, and that too much government spending and government regulations are why this or that recession has occurred...government strangling the private sector, and so forth. They often end up opposing policies that would help their own geographic areas, such as not supporting the Medicaid expansion, because they've been sold on the villainy of government and "socialism". Also, there's some identity politics in play in fear-mongering of certain minority groups, which bought Pubs a lot of votes in the 60's and 70's. Early on, there was a view that Republicans were stronger on foreign policy, too, and that Dems are either weak or anti-American. There's the anti-Hillary and anti-Clinton views as well. I think there's a mix of reasons, including some things I haven't mentioned. It's not an easy question to answer honestly. I used to be Republican myself, mostly because I thought they were more grown-up on foreign policy & I used to buy into their economic supply-side views. I now see them for the frauds that they are. But most people don't switch parties ever. Once they identify with a party, it's set in stone almost forever.

Last edited by survinga; 12-28-2018 at 10:41 AM.
  #65  
Old 12-28-2018, 10:53 AM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
He didn't have to like the Republicans to vote for them, because he thought the Dems were Un-American.
Yep, this is another huge part of it. A common refrain was: "Republicans are terrible, but at least they don't hate America like the Dems!"
  #66  
Old 12-28-2018, 11:03 AM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Yep, this is another huge part of it. A common refrain was: "Republicans are terrible, but at least they don't hate America like the Dems!"
I used to think similar on that "hate America" part.

It's easy to sit in a bubble, and think the worst of the "other", whomever the "other" is.
  #67  
Old 12-28-2018, 11:05 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
Voluntary? I think the vast majority of progress in the US has been involuntary. Was the Emancipation Proclamation and the South being forced to repudiate slavery not progress? What about when Eisenhower sent in the National Guard and 101st airborne to forcibly integrate the public schools in Little Rock? The forces of bigotry are almost always dragged forward kicking and screaming. Sure, there are a few that change on their own, like the aforementioned Robert Byrd who conservatives seem to have a special hate for, but most never personally change.
Let’s not forget that it was the government that propped up slavery for so long in the first place. It was a terrible initiation of force on many individuals. Like I said, some things, like the state ending it’s violence in certain areas, is certainly progress.

The forcible integration was a squabble between state and federal governments, so it doesn’t really bug me. That said, I imagine such a forceful move sowed the seeds for bad things later.

So no, it is not unqualified progress that the state stuck a gun in somebody’s face or that they killed many thousands. Imagine that.
  #68  
Old 12-28-2018, 12:39 PM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
So no, it is not unqualified progress that the state stuck a gun in somebody’s face or that they killed many thousands. Imagine that.
This is very interesting, because I have a fundamentally different interpretation of things like the end of slavery, women’s suffrage, integration of the public school system, and so on. I don’t see the fundamental issue as the government sticking a gun in someone’s face and forcing them to do something. The way I see it is that the federal government is (metaphorically) forcing a private citizen or a state government to put down the gun that they are holding on someone.

In other words, in my view of the world, the federal government is like the Big Brother who is protecting Little Brother from Not Quite As Big Brother. At least it was until Trump came along.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 12-28-2018 at 12:43 PM.
  #69  
Old 12-28-2018, 01:05 PM
nelliebly nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
The forcible integration was a squabble between state and federal governments, so it doesn’t really bug me. That said, I imagine such a forceful move sowed the seeds for bad things later.
Would you have advocated a less forceful move to effect constitutional rights? If so, I'd be curious as to what that would be.
  #70  
Old 12-28-2018, 01:08 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
'Planet' is a metonym for 'the only known site of living things, and suitable habitation for humans'. It does not mean an iconic distressed fat blue man wiping his fevered brow.

Similarly 'saving the planet' does not mean that it will physically explode and leave a void in space.

It just means we shouldn't shit on the rich inheritance of life and biodiversity that keeps us alive, without any idea of what would replace it, or how much shitting-on is enough to make that web unravel enough to become inhospitable to us.
Yeah, that's what it comes down to. I'm not an environmentalist because I give a shit about a species of owl or tree. I am an environmentalist because I care about my own survival and comfort, as well as that of other fellow human beings.

But, conservatives do like to mock liberals when they refer to the Earth, the only planet known to harbor life, a planet where life can be found in every square inch, and even not only in the soil under our feet, but even down in the rock near the mantle, as a living planet. I can only reason that is because they prefer to change that status.

Mars and Venus are (most likely) dead planets. The Earth differs from that. To say that the earth is a living planet is not the same as anthrompozing it, but that can be a subtle nuance that escapes those who read for gotchas, rather than comprehension.
  #71  
Old 12-28-2018, 01:19 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... I can only reason that is because they prefer to change that status. ...
Your reasoning is faulty.
  #72  
Old 12-28-2018, 02:50 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Your reasoning is faulty.
Actually the point is that the reasoning of the conservatives is faulty here about what they think in general about why we should not worry much about our environment.
  #73  
Old 12-28-2018, 03:23 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Your reasoning is faulty.
My reasoning was somewhat tongue in cheek.

But since you are here, would you like to explain why you mock the idea of the Earth being a living planet?
  #74  
Old 12-28-2018, 04:18 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Yeah, that's what it comes down to. I'm not an environmentalist because I give a shit about a species of owl or tree. I am an environmentalist because I care about my own survival and comfort, as well as that of other fellow human beings.

But, conservatives do like to mock liberals when they refer to the Earth, the only planet known to harbor life, a planet where life can be found in every square inch, and even not only in the soil under our feet, but even down in the rock near the mantle, as a living planet. I can only reason that is because they prefer to change that status.

Mars and Venus are (most likely) dead planets. The Earth differs from that. To say that the earth is a living planet is not the same as anthrompozing it, but that can be a subtle nuance that escapes those who read for gotchas, rather than comprehension.
There is no legitimate human-centric rationale for limiting the use of fossil fuel technology. Humans have flourished under the exploitation of fossil fuels like in no other period in human history.
  #75  
Old 12-28-2018, 04:20 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
There is no legitimate human-centric rationale for limiting the use of fossil fuel technology. Humans have flourished under the exploitation of fossil fuels like in no other period in human history.
What if the price we pay for our fossil fuel-based flourishing over the past century is multiple centuries of misery and suffering due to environmental catastrophe?
  #76  
Old 12-28-2018, 04:28 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
There is no legitimate human-centric rationale for limiting the use of fossil fuel technology. Humans have flourished under the exploitation of fossil fuels like in no other period in human history.
I agree absolutely that having a dense and convenient energy source completely changed our lives. Fossil fuels replaced our slave labor and our dependance on draft animals.

OTOH, even if you are not concerned about the effect to the climate that we humans live in, it's gonna run out at some point, so there may be a basic physics and logical rationale for suddenly stopping, as the spigot goes dry. We may want to ween ourselves before that happens.

And then there is the climate. I don't know if you are a climate change denialist, if so, then I don't really care, you are wrong, end of story. If you are not, then you recognize that this is our world that we live in, and we can make it rather uncomfortable, or even inhospitable, if we do not limit our use of CO2 emitting technologies.

Was there any "legitimate human-centric rationale" for decreasing the sulfur acids that were being produced by coal power plants? is there any reasons that humans should care about the ozone layer?
  #77  
Old 12-28-2018, 04:40 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
There is no legitimate human-centric rationale for limiting the use of fossil fuel technology.
Yes, there is.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06827-x
Quote:
Combined country-level costs (and benefits) add up to a global median of more than $400 in social costs per tonne of CO2 — more than twice previous estimates. On the basis of CO2 emissions in 2017, that’s a global impact of more than $16 trillion. The new analysis is based on a set of climate simulations, rather than a single climate model, and the authors calculated future harm using empirical damage functions that were independently developed for that purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Humans have flourished under the exploitation of fossil fuels like in no other period in human history.
And horses and carriages did so before, we dumped them as soon they were seen as not needed, regardless of sentimentalities back then.
  #78  
Old 12-28-2018, 04:44 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
And horses and carriages did so before, we dumped them as soon they were seen as not needed, regardless of sentimentalities back then.
Only because something better came along (mass availability of autos with IC engines).

Has something better than fossil fuels come along that is readily accessible by the masses?

If so, I don't think people will be sentimental about abandoning fossil fuels.
  #79  
Old 12-28-2018, 04:54 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Only because something better came along (mass availability of autos with IC engines).

Has something better than fossil fuels come along that is readily accessible by the masses?

If so, I don't think people will be sentimental about abandoning fossil fuels.
The reply was made because that pleading for that sentimentality is a running and silly point many many many times before by the other poster.

By taking into account the real costs of emitting global warming gases into the atmosphere and the costs of alternative power vehicles the time when they were better was yesterday. But if the environmental costs are perversely ignored we could see alternative energy as cheaper soon.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominic.../#374a39ac4ff2
Quote:
The cost of renewable energy is now falling so fast that it should be a consistently cheaper source of electricity generation than traditional fossil fuels within just a few years, according to a new report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

The organisation – which has more than 150 member countries – says the cost of generating power from onshore wind has fallen by around 23% since 2010 while the cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity has fallen by 73% in that time. With further price falls expected for these and other green energy options, IRENA says all renewable energy technologies should be competitive on price with fossil fuels by 2020.
As for better, just in the area of health alone, ending the idea of treating our atmosphere as a sewer will give us a lot of benefits.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...f-fossil-fuels
Quote:
Decades of research have revealed that air pollution is associated with a wide range of diseases and disorders, including asthma, cancer, heart disease, stroke, and premature birth. There is also emerging evidence that pollution from coal combustion and motor vehicles can cause development delays, reduced IQ, and autism in children. The societal and economic costs of air pollution are multifold. There are costs to the affected individuals, to their families and to society in terms of direct medical costs, costs to healthcare systems, productivity losses, and lower economic growth (not to mention costs resulting from damages to ecosystems).

Yet almost none of these costs stemming from our fossil fuel reliance are included in the majority of cost-benefit analyses of climate mitigation strategies. A recent study estimates that the health co-benefits from air pollution reductions would outweigh the mitigation costs of staying below 2°C by 140–250% globally. Historical evidence paints a similar picture. The EPA estimates that the U.S. Clean Air Amendments cost $65bn to implement, but will have yielded a benefit of almost $2tn by 2020 in avoided health costs.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 12-28-2018 at 04:54 PM.
  #80  
Old 12-28-2018, 06:28 PM
fedman fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
No, really, conservatism is all about allowing the privileged to maintain their privilege while behaving exactly as everyone else does. They fuck whom they want, they cheat, rape, steal. And nothing touches them, because they benefit from conceptual fictions like "legitimacy" that protect their ability to hoard resources.

But anyone else, they behave just as the people at the top, no better and no worse, but their small trespasses are not forgiven, not to mention the large. A ticket for walking in the wrong place from the Ferguson, Missouri, police can send them into a spiral of ruin. Illegitimacy becomes a mark of doom, though it is nothing but the absence of a piece of paper and the lack of money to obtain divorces.

It's all a pageant to hide the ball.
wrong! A 300 hundred lb shoplifter was stopped and attacked cop
  #81  
Old 12-28-2018, 07:09 PM
MortSahlFan MortSahlFan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 156
"A Conservative is someone who believes in change, just not while they're alive."
-Mort Sahl
  #82  
Old 12-29-2018, 04:53 AM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
There is no legitimate human-centric rationale for limiting the use of fossil fuel technology. Humans have flourished under the exploitation of fossil fuels like in no other period in human history.
If humans have flourished under the exploitation of fossil fuels, what do you think will happen when those fuels run out?
  #83  
Old 12-29-2018, 06:49 AM
Sitnam Sitnam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
I’ll ask again. If the Republican Party isn’t conservative, why do most voting conservatives vote Republican?
Because we have a two party system. Come off it, The Democratic Party is far too moderate for me but I still vote for them because of the only two choices I have they’re the better one.

Drop the scarlet letter nonsense.
  #84  
Old 12-29-2018, 07:35 AM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
I view social progress as the building of voluntary social institutions and decreased initiation of force upon individuals.

In some ways, a liberal’s social progress is actually a regression. In some ways it is not. The state is no longer enforcing segregation, progress. The state is undermining property rights, regress.
One area that's tangible progress is in interracial and/or interethnic marriages. They are now something around 17% of new marriages. And it's not just black/white. More common than that is white/hispanic or white/asian. And it's occurring with men and women. I think that's an example where the US is becoming more comfortable with people choosing their own mates, and no one gets punished for it.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/...intermarriage/
  #85  
Old 12-29-2018, 08:04 AM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitnam View Post
Because we have a two party system. Come off it, The Democratic Party is far too moderate for me but I still vote for them because of the only two choices I have they’re the better one.

Drop the scarlet letter nonsense.
If the Democratic Party is too far to the right for you, that puts you in a small minority. Sure, you and voters like you could "take your ball and go home" but that accomplishes nothing because people on the far left are a small minority, even among those who vote Democratic. Unless your view of conservatives is very restrictive, that isn't the case for them. I suspect that you and survinga might be caught up in a True Scotsman fallacy. If conservatives stopped voting Republican, they would basically be able to form their own new major party, let's say the Conservative Party. This wouldn't be like, say, the Green Party splitting of from the Democrats, where the vast majority of the Democratic Party was left intact. All that would be left of the Republican Party in this scenario is a small handful of people, most likely a few rich people that currently vote Republican because they personally benefit but who otherwise don't hold conservative views.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 12-29-2018 at 08:06 AM.
  #86  
Old 12-29-2018, 08:26 AM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,443
Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to add one more thought. The Republican Party came about in this way, when the Whig Party disintegrated and most of them became Republicans. This led to a new two party system, and I agree with you that we will be stuck with two major parties because of the nature of our system. Where I disagree is the numbers involved. If conservatives made their own party, they wouldn't be relegating themselves to the political wilderness. They would be become the new major party, and the Republicans would go the way of the Whigs.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 12-29-2018 at 08:26 AM.
  #87  
Old 12-29-2018, 09:12 AM
MortSahlFan MortSahlFan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitnam View Post
Because we have a two party system. Come off it, The Democratic Party is far too moderate for me but I still vote for them because of the only two choices I have they’re the better one.

Drop the scarlet letter nonsense.
If only they were moderate.. You have two right-winged parties in the US today.
  #88  
Old 12-29-2018, 10:58 AM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
I suspect that you and survinga might be caught up in a True Scotsman fallacy.
Can you give me an example of where I'm doing that?
  #89  
Old 12-29-2018, 11:28 AM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
Can you give me an example of where I'm doing that?
It was the post I quoted in post 59. You mention that the “real” conservatives aren’t in charge of the Republican Party. I took that to mean that you were probably thinking of people like Bill Kristol, David Frum, and George Will. Those people are conservative, and they are not currently in agreement with where the Republican Party is at or going, so on that part we agree. The thing is that the Republicans in power, whether the politicians like Mitch McConnell, John Cronyn, Ted Cruz, and even Trump himself, as well as the news people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Laura Ingraham, all consider themselves conservatives. I doubt that a single Republican senator or congressperson, if asked “are you a conservative” would answer that they aren’t.

ETA. Maybe Rand Paul, with his libertarian leanings, might answer no, but I doubt any of the others would.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 12-29-2018 at 11:30 AM.
  #90  
Old 12-29-2018, 01:32 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Only because something better came along (mass availability of autos with IC engines).

Has something better than fossil fuels come along that is readily accessible by the masses?

If so, I don't think people will be sentimental about abandoning fossil fuels.
We have electric cars coming down the pike. They are still a bit pricey, but their costs are coming down. What will make a big difference is what their resale price is, and how available they are to the used car market.

I am a big proponent of nuclear power, and I keep my fingers crossed for fusion as well. Renewables have their place as well. We have the problem that wind and sun do not always shine when we need peak power, but if we are needing to charge gigawatt hours worth of car batteries everyday anyway, that could even out the load rather well.

We are not going to agree to lowering out standards of living, it's just not going to happen(we may suddenly find our standard of living stripped away from us due to our refusal to lower it, but that's just how we humans roll). But, that doesn't meant that we cannot lower our carbon footprint, while still maintaining or even increasing our standard of living.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
It was the post I quoted in post 59. You mention that the “real” conservatives aren’t in charge of the Republican Party. I took that to mean that you were probably thinking of people like Bill Kristol, David Frum, and George Will. Those people are conservative, and they are not currently in agreement with where the Republican Party is at or going, so on that part we agree. The thing is that the Republicans in power, whether the politicians like Mitch McConnell, John Cronyn, Ted Cruz, and even Trump himself, as well as the news people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Laura Ingraham, all consider themselves conservatives. I doubt that a single Republican senator or congressperson, if asked “are you a conservative” would answer that they aren’t.

ETA. Maybe Rand Paul, with his libertarian leanings, might answer no, but I doubt any of the others would.
The ones in charge of the party are the ones who get to set the standards. A real conservative is someone who agrees with the platform of the current conservative party, in this case, the Republicans.

Someone can claim that they are not the kind of conservatives that they are, they can complain that they would like to see them be conservative in a different way, and they can opine as to what a true conservative *should* be ITHO, but they cannot claim that they are the true conservatives, and that the people who actually have the power to set the conservative agenda are not.
  #91  
Old 12-29-2018, 03:02 PM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
It was the post I quoted in post 59. You mention that the “real” conservatives aren’t in charge of the Republican Party. I took that to mean that you were probably thinking of people like Bill Kristol, David Frum, and George Will. Those people are conservative, and they are not currently in agreement with where the Republican Party is at or going, so on that part we agree. The thing is that the Republicans in power, whether the politicians like Mitch McConnell, John Cronyn, Ted Cruz, and even Trump himself, as well as the news people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Laura Ingraham, all consider themselves conservatives. I doubt that a single Republican senator or congressperson, if asked “are you a conservative” would answer that they aren’t.

ETA. Maybe Rand Paul, with his libertarian leanings, might answer no, but I doubt any of the others would.
OK, well for the record, my main point was that the current Republican party is a radical, crazy party. I think the True Scotsman fallacy is re-defining something to rebut a counterexample....I don't see that in my description of the party. I'm just describing what I think of the party.

I do agree that many of these people you listed - Limbaugh/Hannity/etc - would call themselves conservative, when in my view, they are not any such thing. And in any event, I don't want to be a part of any political movement that they are in. The labels might not matter much at this point.
  #92  
Old 12-29-2018, 06:19 PM
msmith537 msmith537 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,135
My anecdotal observations through life is "no", conservatives do not believe in social progress. That is to say, while they may pay lip service to equality and freedom and whatnot, they only tend to do so as long as a) it doesn't require any societal change and b) doesn't involve annoying protests by hipsters and colored people.

Conservatives seem to operate from either a position of "America is fine the way it is" or anything that is not "fine" about America is probably due to something liberals, Democrats, immigrants, minorities or some other group is doing. This view is likely reinforced by the tendency of conservatives to live in more homogeneous and isolated communities. Rural areas and suburbs and whatnot. Places where, if minorities exist at all, do so in non threatening numbers and are at worst a cultural curiosity.

Anecdotally, many of the conservatives I know come across as "dumb jerks". "Dumb", because they tend to have a narrow world view and simplify complex concepts into logically incoherent self-serving bullet points. And "jerks" because their views on people who don't believe as they do range from "condescendingly dismissive" to "violently hostile".

Taxes to pay for poor people and health care (also roads and schools), allowing immigrants and minorities into their communities, gays and lesbians altering their concept of what a "family" looks like are all threats to their narrative that "America is fine as is" and their position in America is a result of their hard work and industrious nature. Which is why any real change illicit such a hostile response from conservatives.




Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Rather cute when liberals play pro-human. Elsewhere they are telling us it’s so important to sacrifice for the health of hilarious anthropomorphic “planet” sometimes complete with arms and legs
To quote George Carlin, "The planet will continue to be here. WE won't."
  #93  
Old 12-29-2018, 07:12 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
My anecdotal observations through life is "no", conservatives do not believe in social progress. That is to say, while they may pay lip service to equality and freedom and whatnot, they only tend to do so as long as a) it doesn't require any societal change and b) doesn't involve annoying protests by hipsters and colored people.
There seems to be a definitional issue with this thread. If by "social progress" we mean a liberal wish list of ideas that should be present in society, then a fortiori conservatives do not believe in "social progress."
  #94  
Old 12-29-2018, 09:05 PM
msmith537 msmith537 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
There seems to be a definitional issue with this thread. If by "social progress" we mean a liberal wish list of ideas that should be present in society, then a fortiori conservatives do not believe in "social progress."
I think the assumption is that most people believe society should be moving towards greater freedom, more acceptance, less inequality, etc.
  #95  
Old 12-29-2018, 11:43 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,505
What is "greater freedom" for example? Fewer gun restrictions or a freedom to pay less than minimum wage or establish corporate monopolies?

More acceptance of what? Less inequality of what? Outcomes?

Again, these are in need of definitions. If they are just left wing wish lists, then of course conservatives do not support it.

It would be as if I posted a thread asking "Liberals: Do you believe in decency and morality?" and then I define those terms to mean no abortions, same sex marriages, or prayers in school, then I have answered my own question.
  #96  
Old 12-30-2018, 12:40 AM
pompeybear pompeybear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 64
If you honestly want to know how conservatives feel about a topic, this isn't a very good message board to be asking the question given the political makeup. I'm not really sure where the best place to ask would be though. Maybe https://www.reddit.com/r/askaconservative/ ?
  #97  
Old 12-30-2018, 04:41 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by pompeybear View Post
If you honestly want to know how conservatives feel about a topic, this isn't a very good message board to be asking the question given the political makeup. I'm not really sure where the best place to ask would be though. Maybe https://www.reddit.com/r/askaconservative/ ?
Although they're outnumbered, there are still plenty of conservatives and libertarians at SDMB. The numbers are swelled if "conservatives" dissatisfied with Trump or the modern Republican Party more generally are included — are these anti-Trumpists considered "conservatives" or not? And SDMB's conservatives are often happy to share their thoughts.

Unless your concern is that the conservatives here are from "the bottom of the barrel," I'm not sure what another message board would offer. I've gone to the bother of setting up accounts on over a dozen message boards, but SDMB has the broadest debates of general-interest sites I've tried.

Right-wing blather is VERY easy to find on the Internet. If the recommendation for AskAConservative.Reddit was sincere and well-informed, why not post an excerpt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
... greater freedom ... less inequality, etc.
Give conservatives some credit. The smarter ones fully understand that freedom and equality are generally incompatible. My freedom not to serve gays impacts gay equality. My freedom to hire scabs impacts wage equality. A drug company's freedom to maximize profits and wealthy people's freedom to hire many doctors for cosmetic surgery affects equal access to medicine by the less priveleged. My freedom to fire my gun when I feel threatened affects the chance of someone surviving to old age if their skin color seems threatening.
  #98  
Old 12-30-2018, 04:59 AM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,450
It's a matter of pros and cons, costs and benefits. If right-wing bigots can discriminate against gay customers, the right-wing bigots can say "I got my way" and go about their business as if nothing happened, but gay people are now officially second-class citizens unable to procure the same goods and services as straight people. If right-wing bigots cannot discriminate against gay customers, said bigots can say "Boo hoo, I didn't get my way" but still go about their business as if nothing happened, but gay people are not treated as second-class citizens and can procure the same goods and services as straight people. Therefore, in terms of costs and benefits, the second way is better.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #99  
Old 12-30-2018, 09:56 AM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post



Give conservatives some credit. The smarter ones fully understand that freedom and equality are generally incompatible. My freedom not to serve gays impacts gay equality. My freedom to hire scabs impacts wage equality. A drug company's freedom to maximize profits and wealthy people's freedom to hire many doctors for cosmetic surgery affects equal access to medicine by the less priveleged. My freedom to fire my gun when I feel threatened affects the chance of someone surviving to old age if their skin color seems threatening.
How would you rate affirmative action within this equality vs freedom argument? I think that's one area where conservatives very much see it differently from liberals, and I can see their point.
  #100  
Old 12-30-2018, 10:58 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
How would you rate affirmative action within this equality vs freedom argument? I think that's one area where conservatives very much see it differently from liberals, and I can see their point.
At its core, affirmative action is another freedom vs equality matter. But the details are complicated. As a centrist, I have no clear position on this controversial issue.

Obviously there are anecdotes of white males being passed over to give preference to less qualified women, Hispanics or blacks. But only through exaggeration has this issue, framed as "denying whites equality of opportunity," become a hot-button rallying cry for conservatives. On Yahoo and Youtube blogs are whites lamenting that their lives would be easier if they were black. Does anyone take these whines seriously?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017