What on earth are you nattering about? That thinking (or, rather, reasoning — they are two different things) proceeds from axioms is not an assertion about conservatism, but about reasoning. What these conservative axioms are should be obvious from where the conversation started — the set of moral principles that conservatives state are important to them.
Now, one thing that must be pointed out here is that “conservativism” is not the monolithic set of goose stepping robots you make it out to be. You ask what is the state of conservatism? I answer that it is your own personal strawman. Conservatives are people who act from their own individual combination of principles, drives, and whims. The set of people you call “conservatives” agree on a sufficient number of things that they can act together on a large number of political objectives. When you get to know them as people (hard, I realize, when you try so hard to demonize them) you realize that they often disagree with each other on various points, that they act from slightly different places, and that there is a variety of different opinions within the complex set of people that make up the culture that you call “conservatism”.
I hate to clue you in on this, but there are atheists who are conservatives. There are agnostics who are conservatives. There are Muslims who are conservatives. And, yes, there are Christians who are conservatives.
Since there is no conservative monolith, there is therefore nowhere to be found this “general axiom of conservatism”, since people who work for causes that might be called conservative do so for different reasons.
I point out that you have traveled far from the OP, where you claimed that conservatives in general (again, the false assertion of a monolithic “conservative identity”) mistake obedience for integrity of character (to whom, since all conservatives do this, is an open question).
All this has nothing to do also with my original post, which posited that even assuming someone is moving from a faith based center, his political beliefs come from the moral base and not the other way around. Thus, obedience is not to his political candidate, but to God. And even in this case, the set of axioms will differ depending on the religion believed in.
Except that it does nothing of the sort. Your criticism was that conservatives confuse obedience with integrity. Assuming a conservative monolith that does not exist, and assuming that they do indeed hold such shallow axioms dear to their hearts as their basic beliefs, then you have no right to dictate to them what their beliefs should be. If they act from belief, and not from obedience to their political candidate in a mistaken impression that this is belief, then your criticism is unfounded. The fact that you disagree with the belief, or think it shallow and silly, is irrelevant.
Mind you, I don’t think this the case; I think it is your strawman. But your argument still fails.
You might visit the site of the Issac Walton League, a conservative organization. But that might let light in. You seem to (at least, from what I can extract from your syntax) continue to mistake acting from beliefs with which you disagree with acting from conditioning or propaganda (presumably broadcast by the Evil Head Conservatives, molding all those Right Wing Christians into a mindless block of slavishly devoted robots, thus forming the Right Wing Conspiracy). In fact, conservatives and conservative organizations are just as diverse, and just as diverse in their reasoning, as liberals and liberal organizations. They just disagree.
And also in fact, the labels are frequently less illuminating than it might first appear. Checking out the various causes on which CORE and the NRA agree might shock you.
As a youngster, I used to bring many things to the table as well, then my mom would make me take it back outside and force me to wash my hands.
Capt,
It can be done, but regardless, does it need to be done? Moralizing is based on the negative. A little story: Here in the desert where I live we have a dire water shortage. I once proposed to an acquaintance to think about doing a desert landscaping (Xeroscaping) job on his new house (only part of it). He joked about it, then finally said, “But I believe in grass…so I’m gonna plant grass.” That’s morality. That’s conservative.
dlb,
Nattering? Direct questions to your direct statement? Oh my. That is a bad sign on your part. But, you confuse my terms. I label the people in question “core conservatives”. Conservative is a relative term to what? “Liberal” which means freedom-lover? Surely you are not suggesting that an agnostic or atheist promotes prayer or parochial schools? Or even supports dismantling welfare in favor of churches taking over the job? (That was Newt’s stated vision). Even Barry Goldwater was pro-choice and an environmentalist. Most people can’t see the morality in forcing a baby to be born and denying it welfare at the same time, only a core conservative can make sense of that.
What is a core conservative? You stumbled into your own definition: See your last quote on the issue, about true belief and anti-pragmatism. GW Bush is a good example. Jesus is his favorite philosopher (although all Jesus philosophized about was not caring about tomorrow and disregarding family–the rest had been said before). Bush is now enforcing a conservative idea that a convicted drug offender cannot get loans to go to college. Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury. Punishment is morality is conservatism. (Notice I said conservat-ism).
Substitute, nothing. You own it, it’s yours. How many times has it been pointed out that your offerings are inherently personal in nature? Subjective, rather than objective? Speculative, rather than authoritative? But you continue to propound your crusade against the feeble-mindedness of all things ‘conservative’ and ‘Christian’ and all the while whitewash your efforts in doublespeak and endless rhetoric ad nauseam. But we’ll get to that.
More semantic skullduggery and hedging. Pocket full of posey. Never said dogma was bad. I say you foist your personal dogma upon others, and write it here for all to see—and then assert free-thinkers need not write their ideals down the way those weak, mewling dogma-ridden conservatives do. Hmm.
There’s no “convenience” here, Brian. You have gone on and on through SEVERAL threads now, starting with Christianity, then religion. then faith, now conservatism and dogmatism—do you honestly think people haven’t figured out your agenda? You claim to be a free-thinker, but you beat the same drum endlessly—and you did not address my pointing out of your hypocrisy above, instead trying to shuck off responsibility for your contradictions by once again singing ‘I am a rock, I am an island’ with your fingers in your ears.
Do your efforts fit definition 1a? Yes. You have a definite opinion, established by your continued documentation of it here on these boards. Disagree? Do a Search under your name. Lookitallaposts!
How about 1b? Let’s see: A code? Sure, it could be argued. Unwavering consistency in written offerings, right down to the looking-down-the-nose remarks, repeating variations on the same theme. Funny thing, you chide people for their attitude in one thread while running diarrheic in another…
1c? Oh, most definitely, irrevocably, dyed in the wool and pay the lady Yes. You faithfully (whoops!) *consistently * espouse your beliefs, and just as consistently put down the beliefs of those who do not agree, all the while attempting to pawn intellectual debauchery off as wisdom. But we’ll get to that.
You must mean definition two, because dogma is synonymous with church in your mind. You claim the title of ‘free thinker’, a bastion of the upper echelons of critical thought. Suit yourself. But to what end? What good does it do you? You have incredible difficulty forming cogent sentences that your audience can even assimilate, much less empathize with, due not to your inherent self-actualized genius but out of a seemingly total lack of respect for any view other than your own. You’re an apologist for autonomy, consistently attempting to explain away your nemesis, God. But your communication fails in that you cannot remove your personal contempt for anyone who might try to paint a different picture than the yellowed Polaroid you have in your personal history folder—and this robs you of any objective veracity you may have once laid claim to. Your choir is one of ignorance and hatemongering, and you attempt to build yourself up with the pseudo-intellectual quagmire you drag your readers into with every new post.
(Good thing I spent a lot of time in my thesaurus when I was a kid—but I learned that when I want to use the word “said,” I don’t have to write “ejaculated”—even though I’ll find it as a synonym, it doesn’t necessarily mean what I want it to say, and definitely doesn’t impress people the way I’d like it to.)
Hardly. Cheap trick? Painting you? No, Brian—
You.
Have.
Painted.
Yourself.
The brush is in your hand every time you sit down to type.
You ‘unnerve’ people who have read your painstakingly crafted vitriol again and again and are absolutely sick of seeing your name pop up on their screen in the middle of an intelligent debate with either rhetorically impregnated doublespeak or expletive ridden barbs directed at, gasp, religion/morals/God!
You may not “carry a card,” but you sure do enjoy wielding a big stick, don’t you? You pride yourself in siding with those who put down God, reveling in offering tidbits of choice wisdom such as ‘faith is demonization of knowledge.’—and then cannot support your assertions in a simple, even remedial manner which people who could be your peers would understand.
Your ham-handed intellectual bludgeoning of matters you don’t even understand is appalling. If I were to bash an entire cultural paradigm I had better well understand every facet of said paradigm—and this means more than just my reactions to abuses perpetrated by self-proclaimed members of whatever paradigm I’m attacking. If I do not weigh the words of contrary opinions to mine, I am an ignoramus acting out of stubborn pride. And if I enter the arena, I had better darn well know when to say ‘quit’ after my sphincter has been carved out and handed to me on a tripe necklace.
But you—you don’t seem to realize that your words are serving only to bolster the rapidly expanding consensus that you are obsessed, yes, absolutely stag-in-the-spring-rut-giddy with slamming anything remotely Christian—you might as well replace ‘conservative’ with ‘Christian’ in your posts, Brian, because it’s what you really mean. You want nothing to do with God, and you want to shout to the world that they should have nothing to do with God because YOU can’t understand Him.
And your ‘list’ supports this even moreso—your secular Utopia would remove all traces of moral standing based upon anything but your preconceived notion of what an ‘self-actualized man’ is—namely, your definition of ‘knowledge.’
I really wish I had a faster connection, Brian, because I would LOVE to present the scads of cites that would aid in painting this ‘cheap trick’ of you—but if someone has a faster connection, they might do a search and click on your sage rantings in any thread dealing with Christians, God, Dogma, Faith, Religion, or Conservatives—they’re all there, with a few scattered ‘secular’ topics in between. And by the way, I’m sure the people who can ‘only deal with dogma and superstition’ are tickled to have the majority of your contributions in the very same ‘dogma and superstition’ threads—where, presumably, you wage war against their ignorance.
Here’s an enlightening morsel you tossed to the slavering, unwashed theophytes.
And this, in Great Debates. Not the Pit. Not MPSIMS. But ‘Great Debates.’
No, you’re not a card-carrying anything. You unnerve people who can only deal with dogma and superstition.
Brian, you ‘unnerve’ me. In the same way I am unnerved by a dog that fervently gobbles up the wormy spoor left behind by a poorly maintained housecat. No allusion to you personally, you understand—I’m simply drawing an analogy as to the quality of my own ‘unnervedness.’
My poor, deluded little brain has such a hard time conceptualizing anything beyond the crutch I use God for.
And mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy—another gem from a cornucopia of ambiguity.
But hey, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Support your statement with a cite.
No, Brian, I don’t buy into your circular reasoning. Your agenda is clear, your dogma is apparent, and the evidence lies in your words. You only refute yourself.
You take all those pains to define dogma as: 1a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets
Then say to me:
Do your efforts fit definition 1a? Yes. You have a definite opinion
But that’s not what the dictionary said, was it? Also, Pariah, when did having an opinion different from yours become a crime? Since you became a zealot?
That’s a far as I got, BTW, (I noticed Milosarian like it though). I did notice that your entire post was about me, however, that’s good, because it means the OP kicked your ass and will always kick your ass. Do you really think this Christian dogma horseshit can survive progress forever? Isn’t this slightly provincial thinking? You must think everyone needs to be simpler in the head.
Oh, by the way, as long as dumbshit Republicans have an agenda with God and the 14th century, I’ll have a counter-agenda with both. Welcome to the internet and your tragic flaw.
Hey, neat, the veneer of your psychobabble slipped right off when I called you on it. Good. Now we can see more of your true nature for what it is.
Yeah, actually. I made an effort to prove your ESTABLISHED opinion by drawing attention to your plethora of anti-Christian posting.
Ah, you’re playing the ‘potato/poTAHto’ card. I already called you on this fly in your ointment which you desperately attempt to mask through your artful rhetoric, so now you attempt to flip-flop. “I know you are, but what am I?”
Show me where I said it was a crime, please.
I merely drew attention to your agenda. The one you stated you don’t have when you said you carried no cards. Kinda obvious now, though. Thanks for backing me up there.
And ‘zeal’ isn’t a flaw, in my book, so thanks.
So I’m correct in stating you don’t have time to listen, but you have time to speak.
Interesting defense mechanism you institute there, Brian. Since I spoke to you and called you on your incessant contradictions, hypocrisy and spurious non-logic, then I presented the information which supported my position, your response is to puff out your chest and say “See? He addressed me because I’ve struck an area of vulnerability! I must be right!”
What’s more, your “and will always kick your ass” is reminiscent of the career thug who swings his fists at anything he cannot properly understand. He beats on it because it is the only way he can control it.
Brian, try all you might, but not only will you not ‘beat’ me, but I fear you will never understand me, or people like me—but you’ll go on talking all about ‘people like me’ in big brassy vernacular and eelskin-slippery propositions which no one will be able to pin on you. You’ll slip your five dollar words into as many conversations as you can in hopes people will be awed by your verbosity to the point they won’t actually see that you haven’t got the slightest clue what you’re talking about. And if, perchance, someone pulls off the clown face to see the hideous anger you’re brewing underneath, you’ll show your true nature by trying to besmear their validity as a human being, the credibility of their integrity (there’s that word you brought up) and the veracity of their moral and ethical principles.
You prove this quite nicely here:
Bingo. I was dead on when I asked you to replace ‘conservative’ with ‘Christian,’ wasn’t it?
But to answer your question: Of course I do, Brian. But if you understood Christianity, you wouldn’t ask me such an obvious question, would you?
Why, no, Brian, I believe everyone needs to be ‘free-thinking,’ just like you. Yours is a wonderful testimony to critical thought.
Thank you. That’s exactly what I said.
See? Much easier to type, and you waste a lot less time!
Welcome to communicating with integrity instead of half-truths.
My tragic flaw?
Yeah, you’re right. I should’ve been a shrink.
Thanks for your honesty, Brian.
Take care. Asmodean
Thanks for the advice, but I don’t consider Brian a moron.
I wish I could read you for understanding, but I only like reading the parts in your posts that are in quotes, and their always mine. (I’m ashamed now).
Brian, you may not be directly insulting people, but cheap potshots that make no effort to repond to arguments made and breathtakingly inflammatory and poorly constructed rhetoric can be construed as “jerkish,” and I certainly don’t generally find them a useful addition to my forum. Please take that under advisement. I don’t much care what your opinions are as long as you at least try to back them up with facts and logic, but I’ve seen precious little of either in your recent posts. If you aren’t even attempting a coherent argument, you’re just ranting, and this isn’t the forum for that.
I’ll also like you to point out where you acknowledged that your OP, and other posts to this thread, are wildly overgeneralized and rely on juvenile stereotypes, seemingly derived from The Simpsons and Late Show opening monologues.
That’s just the point; your questions had little relation to my statements, and thus were nattering. Your labeling has little realtion to reality, and is in fact little more than a strawman of your own construction. I am suggesting that different people support different political causes that you label “conservative”; that not all people support them, and that the “core conservative” is a fiction of your own imagining, just as the “feminazi” is a fiction of the imagining Rush Limbaugh (much better to name a specific person).
Nattering; none of this has any relation to what I wrote, nor does any of it have any relation to any reality I can observe. Jesus was not a philosopher; he was a moralist and a religious leader (there is a distinction, and this even ignoring any divine claims). To go from a single issue (with which, by the way, I disagree) to a blanket statement is ludicrous.
Furthermore, I can see no reason to continue this; there is no evidence whatsoever of communication. You are swinging wildly at fantasies of your own making. You seem to think that if you make absurd statements often enough and loudly enough, someone will listen and believe you. By all means continue; I’m done, and probably should have finished several posts ago. An object lesson: I still have the ability to get hooked by a troll.
Please show me a logical post that missed, I think they were all about me after a certain point. Your post itself was wildy inflammatory and insulting.
Your forum? Oh my God, what a terrifying concept. People, I’m outa here. This is Gaudere’s forum. See you, Arl, Spiritus, and maybe one other person.
Asking a philosophical question based on your assertion that all criticism is axiomatic is nattering? What next? Pariah was nattering, then proudly declared himself a zealot, making my entire point. You are nattering, even when you are defending the use of the word nattering with nattering. Perhaps it makes sense to Gaudere.
Points up toward the top of the page See? I even posted it twice [sub]I obviously precognitively knew that you would have trouble seeing it the first time. Where’s Randi? I wnat my million bucks[/sub]
Well, it’s the Chicago Reader’s forum, but Gaudere shares joint custody at the moment. I can’t say that prospect terrifies me particularly.
