Had Bith named such a list, I might have less of a problem with it, but he gave the list he gave, and it’s simply not striking at the root of conservatism. All the foreign policy positions are neocon – old-fashioned isolationist conservatives will have no truck with all that bushwah, and many conservatives are conservationist as well, and quite concerned with the environment – they disagree with liberals about the role of the government in protecting the environment, but not that it ought to be protected.
I’ll repeat it, and maybe you can read a little more slowly this time:
That, you see, was contrast – between the political conservatism that we had been discussing, and the more personal kind that is not informed by events, or history, or even philosophy, but by observation, emotion, and fatigue. Honestly, it’s a strain of conservatism that I associate with you, though of course you are not as naive as that.
You know, I’m going to add to my post above, because it didn’t really aim at the issue. The fact is that a liberal CAN believe all of those things. Most don’t, it’s true, but there was nothing about Bith’s post that implied that his acquaintance was, for instance, opposed to gay marriage, gun control, medical marijuana, or any number of things that modern liberals support. More importantly, there wasn’t a word about his position on social spending or taxes, which are the truly defining issues of modern liberalism.
Hell, I myself am pretty strongly pro-Israel, though I am occasionally dismayed at the incredible clumsiness of their actions (“All those Jews, and not one understands show business?” :rimshot:), and I actually am afraid of modern Islam (of course, I’m also afraid of modern Christianity, but not quite as afraid, on the whole). And from your list, I’m pro-2nd amendment (though open to quite a lot of regulation), and in favor of capital punishment.
Exactly. I’m not saying you can’t define yourself. But don’t think that you have the absolute right to identify yourself as whatever you want to be. Because while you’re calling yourself a Christian, according to your definition of what that means, you have to remember that there are six billion other people out there and they have their definitons of what a Christian is too.
It’s arrogant to say that your definition is the only right one. And if you claim that every definition is right and everyone can decide what a word means to them then what’s the point in having words at all?
And I am saying that personal conservatism, political conservatism, whatever conservatism, rarely if ever constitutes a simple desire to see life stop changing. I’ve seen it said on this board several times before that conservatives oppose change…that this is what ‘conservatism’ means, as a matter of fact - a desire to conserve things the way they are. But this is simply not true, and your post, in whatever sense you wish to couch it, serves to perpetuate that false view.
And if you associate that kind of view with me you’re doubly wrong, because my view is formed both by history, events and philosophy plus observation and emotion. “Fatigue”, I’d quarrel with. ‘Exasperation’ might be a better word. 
You’re shooting off in a dozen different directions, and putting words in my mouth (if you are indeed addressing me; if not please clarify.) Let me see if I can untangle this.
First of all, identity and definition are not the same thing.
I can identify with a descriptor; let’s just say something fairly neutral: tall. But that word in no way defines me. It’s also interesting because, like most of the terms here, it is subjective and open to personal interpretation. I’m 6’4", so most people would call me tall, but someone who is 6’11" and plays in the NBA, has a 6’5" sister, 6’7" dad, 6’9" brothers, and 6’8"+ friends might just call me short.
As for claiming that it’s arrogant to say that your definition is the only right one, well, I really hope that is directed at the OP, and not me, because I have done nothing of the sort.
And I’ve also not claimed every definition of anything was right. That would indeed render most words meaningless. The world just wouldn’t work if I asked you for a spoon and then yelled at you when you handed me a fishing pole. But it is fair to say that every defensible use of a subjective term is valid. If I’m 5’1" and live and work in a community of little people, I can rightfully call myself tall, even if 99% of the world disagrees with me.
If I follow the moral teachings of Jesus while holding the opinion that the whole supernatural mess was added on later, I can call myself a Christian. This one really boils down to whether you believe the central tenet of Christianity is “Love thy neighbor” or that a cosmic water-walking zombie got nailed to a stick so you don’t have to kill goats for his father anymore. It’s a no-contest for me.
And finally, I’d wager that quite a great deal more people believe that penis = man, vagina = woman, than Jesus = Son of God, so by your ad populum argument, can or cannot a transgendered person self-identify as their preferred gender?
Fuck it, I’ll define and label myself any way I want. You got a problem with that? Go pound salt.
Next you people will be telling me that I’m really NOT a Billionaire Playboy Time Travelling Secret Agent.
It dovetails nicely with the lack of true sheep in the world.
Not in this economy, at any rate.
Maybe after we’re done with all the identity debate we can figure out who gets to define what art is.
Actually I wasn’t really specifically addressing my posts in response to yours. Sorry if I gave that impression. I was posting more of a general sense of my views on the subject.
I see several approaches on how the definition of a word can be established. (And hopefully most people would agree that the issue of self-identification is a subset of the broader issue of word definition in general.)
One if the egalitarian solution: everyone can define the word for themselves. But as I said that leads to practical difficulties. You might define a Christian as somebody who follows the moral teachings of Jesus. I might define a Christian as somebody who beleives in the divine nature of Jesus. Somebody else might define a Christian as a small blue fish found in the Caribbean. And the egalitarian idea says all of these definitions are equally valid. But if the word Christian can mean anything then it really has no meaning.
The second approach is the arrogant one I spoke of. This is the idea that a word means what I think it does. Other people are correct if they agree with me and incorrect if they don’t. Now, I think few people would agree with the concept when it’s put as bluntly as that. But unfortunately, a lot of people act as if they believe this assumption is the correct one. They feel that some people have the authority to define words and other people have to fall in line with those definitions.
The third approach is the consensus one. Basically it says a word means what people think it means. Obviously this is not a precise standard - all people do not agree on what words mean (which is the whole point of this thread). And people who think they agree may actually have different meanings. Even some individuals may find their definition of a word can change depending on the context of its use.
But while this is the fuzziest standard it’s also the one that appears to be the most useful. It allows people to communicate by promoting the idea of common definitions. It may not allow anyone to determine what a word means but it does allow everyone to have input into the meaning.
Your egalitarian solution is overly simplistic and dismissive in favor of your consensus solution. There can be flexibility within a broad range while still rejecting wildly different (small blue fish) definitions. And yes, some words have very personal meanings. Contrary to someone’s signature on this board, you’re a writer if you say you’re a writer. See post #47 when you get the urge to tell someone that they’re not.
I’m not seeing that. Either individual meanings are valid or they’re not. I gave the reasons why I found the egalitarian solution to be unworkable.
It seems to me that some people want to embrace the egalitarian solution in principle while not accepting the problems that arise from its application. They want to shade it by saying that everyone is entitled to form their own meanings but those meanings have to have a connection with what other people’s meanings are. To me, this just appears to be the consensus solution in disguise.
Not true. I’ve explained this a few times already. And you haven’t answered my question.
I assume you mean this question:
In my opinion, yes, a person can self-identify themself as their preferred gender. I believe gender is not defined strictly by penises and vaginas.
No one is embracing an absolutely egalitarian solution. To self-identify as a Christian is to place a primary focus on Jesus and his teachings, otherwise it’s absurd. But to embrace–first foremost–the teachings of Jesus while rejecting his divinity, while it challenges the widely-held definition, should not be dismissed outright. Especially given the personal nature of religion.
But that’s a consensus driven distinction. To say that a Christian can mean a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus or it can mean a person who follows Jesus’ moral teachings are acceptable because these are widely held definitions of a Christian but saying a Christian is a kind of fish is not acceptable because this is not a widely held definition of the word is to say that definitions are formed by consensus.
Guys. It’s religion. If you don’t believe in Christ’s divinity then it ceases being religion and becomes philosophy. If I think Gandhi is a pretty cool dude and want to base my life on his teachings I wouldn’t say that I worship him, I wouldn’t say that I’m a member of a religion that’s based around him.
In some posts we’re talking about religious terms. But we’ve also mentioned political and gender identification as well as the meaning of words in general. Most of the points being made about religious terms are also valid about these other terms.