55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2008 07:35 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Okay Parados. Since proof seems so important to you and you seem incapable of discussing concepts in any other context

WOW..
What part of a reasoned argument do you not understand?

Quote:
It would be helpful if you would take one of the examples I've given as conservative and show how it is not conservative too.)
I believe I have done that repeatedly.

See 1 - 4 of my earlier posts
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2008 07:36 pm
@Foxfyre,
What previous question was about a "fair wage?"
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2008 07:37 pm
@Foxfyre,
But this is typical.

You listed 4 items. They were responded to and now you change the subject rather than provide a rebuttal.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2008 07:37 pm
@parados,
Your numbered 1 to 4 posts in no way showed how my statements did not describe conservatism All you did is say that I was not describing it.

So let's go to a specific. The fair wage thing. I presume that's what you intended with this statement:
Quote:
It could just as easily be argued that the liberal principle is people should be able to earn a living and the conservative principle is that the rich can pay their workers as little as possible and keep them from earning enough to live on.


1. What would a liberal describe as a fair wage?
2. Is it proper for the government to dictate that? How?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2008 07:42 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

But this is typical.

You listed 4 items. They were responded to and now you change the subject rather than provide a rebuttal.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2008 07:53 pm
@parados,
I responded to all four items. What did I miss? So you don't wish to discuss a specific issue within the scope of conservatism and liberalism? I suggested one that you brought up. I'm not changing the subject unless that is what you were doing when you brought it up. So how about it? Answer my question? I am trying to be accommodating here. You say I am being vague but as yet have not shown how I am being vague. I asked for illustrations there and all you can come up with is that it isn't my prerogative to define consevatism. So whose prerogative is it? Yours? Go for it.

You must have some basis for refusing my definitions. So let's see yours.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2008 08:11 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
I responded to all four items. What did I miss?

This entire post
http://able2know.org/topic/113196-118#post-3498252

Quick recap -
1. (No one can vote for their pay raise.)
No evidence it is conservative. No evidence of conservatives supporting this. That makes it vague. Even you admit your use of New Mexico doesn't prove anything about it. Without evidence it has as much standing as claiming conservatives support the moon being made of cheese. The US constitution specifically gives the Congress the power to raise their pay. Since the conservative principle is to follow the constitution this contradicts the other principle you cited.

2. I specifically pointed out homestead acts as the government giving something for nothing. Your response was to claim the government didn't "own" the land which was pointed out as being false. No rebuttal from you.

3. Contradicted by your first principle on one hand. Vague on the other because NO ONE has proposed the government spend money on items that are not constitutional. All political stripes feel spending should be constitutional. You can't claim conservatives are for constitutional spending as some conservative truth as if no one else believes in it. You have provided no evidence of anyone supporting unconstitutional spending. It is a universal statement you have tried to make a conservative one.

4. Lowering taxes for one person while raising them for another is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The simple fact of life is that any use of government taxes takes money from one person and gives it to another. It is NOT a conservative principle to oppose that unless conservatives oppose all taxation and government.


It is your responsibility to show evidence to support your statement when questioned. Its called a reasoned argument Fox. You continue to fail to meet any burden of proof in your statements.

Quote:
You must have some basis for refusing my definitions. So let's see yours.
A logical fallacy on your part Fox. I have given my reasons. The main reason being your failure to provide any support for your statements.

Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2008 08:25 pm
@parados,
If all you can say is that I have no basis for my opinions, and you refuse to provide any basis for yours or any basis by which you can legitimately challenge mine, then lets stop this nonsense now Parados. You seem to be incapable of discussing anything and will just continue to say that I won't. That is really really stupid in my opinion, and I'll leave it to you to prove that it isn't.

You refuse to deal with anything substantive that you suggest or I suggest, so I won't respond further to you on this unless you have something....anything of substance to say on the subject.

Have a great evening.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2008 08:35 pm
@Foxfyre,
Ah, that's the word I was looking for; your posts do not have "substance." They are generalities without practical application or evidence to support it.

Something you don't understand is that there are laws concerning the ownership of property; they are not based on "conservatism." They are based on common law, and star decisis.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2008 08:44 pm
A personal observation is that Conservatives generally can articulate a principle and explain why they agree with it. They can most often even do it without referencing or criticizing or insulting a single soul.

Liberals, at least in the course of this discussion, all too often seem to be able to offer only critical or insulting opinions about those holding conservative opinions, but cannot seem to find words to explain why the conservative opinion is wrong.

Geez, Parados won't even discuss definitions or offer any rationale for anything, but the best he can say is that I have to prove it is a conservative principle before it can be. Of course he resists providing any foundation for his opinion, but that is apparently not required of liberals.

(Shakes head in amazement, and wonders if the whole country will be like that if liberalism takes over entirely.)
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2008 09:30 pm
@Foxfyre,
Argumentum ad ignorantiam seems to be your only recourse Fox but it is still nothing more than a logical fallacy. Your statements are not true because I haven't disproved them. Your statements are not true because you haven't provided support for them other than your opinion.

I posted a link to a response to your 4 points and you have not responded back on them. Accusing me of not being willing to discuss is hardly supported by your lack of response.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2008 09:37 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Geez, Parados won't even discuss definitions or offer any rationale for anything, but the best he can say is that I have to prove it is a conservative principle before it can be.


"You are an idiot."

Do you agree that my simply saying that means it is true? Or do I have to provide some evidence to support my statement before it has some validity? Are you subject to the same standards as liberals when it comes to supporting statements?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2008 10:41 am
I think maybe Walter Williams zeroes in on your problem here, Parados:

Quote:
Ignorance Reigns Supreme

How about a few civics questions? Name the three branches of government. If you answered the executive, legislative and judicial, you are more informed than 50 percent of Americans. The Delaware-based Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) recently released the results of their national survey titled "Our Fading Heritage: Americans Fail a Basic Test on Their History and Institutions." The survey questions were not rocket science.

Only 21 percent of survey respondents knew that the phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people." comes from President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Almost 40 percent incorrectly believe the Constitution gives the president the power to declare war. Only 27 percent know the Bill of Rights expressly prohibits establishing an official religion for the United States. Remarkably, close to 25 percent of Americans believe that Congress shares its foreign policy powers with the United Nations.

Among the total of 33 questions asked, others included: "Who is the commander in chief of the U S. military?” "Name two countries that were our enemies during World War II." "Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government?" Of the 2,508 nationwide samples of Americans taking ISI's civic literacy test, 71 percent failed; the average score on the test was 49 percent.

ISI findings about cultural illiteracy and academic incompetence are nothing new. A 1990 Gallup survey for the National Endowment of the Humanities, given to a representative sample of 700 college seniors, found that 25 percent did not know that Columbus landed in the Western Hemisphere before the year 1500; 42 percent could not place the Civil War in the correct half-century; and 31 percent thought Reconstruction came after World War II.

In 1993, a Department of Education survey found that among college graduates 50 percent of whites and more than 80 percent of blacks couldn't state in writing the argument made in a newspaper column; 56 percent could not calculate the right tip; 57 percent could not figure out how much change they should get back after putting down $3.00 to pay for a 60-cent bowl of soup and a $1.95 sandwich, and over 90 percent could not use a calculator to find the cost of carpeting a room. But not to worry. A 1999 survey taken by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni of seniors at the nation's top 55 liberal-arts colleges and universities found that 98 percent could identify rap artist Snoop Dogg and Beavis and Butt-Head, but only 34 percent knew George Washington was the general at the battle of Yorktown.

With limited thinking abilities and knowledge of our heritage, we Americans set ourselves up as easy prey for charlatans, hustlers and quacks. If we don't know the constitutional limits placed on Congress and the White House, politicians can do just about anything they wish to control our lives, from deciding what kind of light bulbs we can use to whether the government can take over our health care system or bailout failing businesses. We just think Congress can do anything upon which they can get a majority vote.

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute has one finding that I find both a bit perplexing but encouraging. Roughly 70 percent of Americans, even those who failed the test, agreed that our history, culture and institutions are important and should be taught to our college students. They might even agree with Thomas Jefferson who warned, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/08/IgnoranceReignsSupreme.htm

It is noted that Williams describes himself as a conservative libertarian. It is also noted that he, like I, does not deem it necessary to 'prove' his opinion but rather provides various illustrations as the basis for it. I believe this is a concept understood by conservatives. I personally know and frequently read intelligent liberals who also understand the concept, but alas they seem to be a very small group.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2008 10:50 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

It is noted that Williams describes himself as a conservative libertarian. It is also noted that he, like I, does not deem it necessary to 'prove' his opinion but rather provides various illustrations as the basis for it. ...


So he is a conservative LIBERTARIAN.
I am - to the perhaps "larger half" - a conservative Social-Democrat.

But that doesn't make me nor Williams a CONSERVATIVE.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2008 10:55 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Well I have read a lot of Williams and listened to several hours of him expressing his view of politics, society, education, the economy, and the world. He describes himself as a conservative and I recall mostly conservative views expressed.

What DOES make somebody a conservative if it is not the views that they hold? What do you see in William's essay here that would not be a conservative point of view?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2008 11:02 am
@Foxfyre,
How one individual describes himself/herself has absolutely no bearing to support your thesis about "conservatism." You are an "idiot."
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2008 11:04 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Well I have read a lot of Williams and listened to several hours of him expressing his view of politics, society, education, the economy, and the world. He describes himself as a conservative and I recall mostly conservative views expressed.

What DOES make somebody a conservative if it is not the views that they hold? What do you see in William's essay here that would not be a conservative point of view?



I wasn't responding to what you wrote NOW, Foxfyre, but to your previous post.

Here it is again, a bit larger:
You wrote:

It is noted that Williams describes himself as a conservative libertarian.

Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2008 11:30 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Again, how does that not make Williams a conservative? I also describe myself as mostly a conservative libertarian which is probably why I am usually so sympatico with Williams' concepts. It is not the label we attach to ourselves but the opinions and concepts that we hold that determine our ideology. My sister, for instance resisted labeling herself as a conservative--she wanted to be thought of as liberal--yet she holds few views or opinions that do not fit within the definitions of modern conservatism. So I am asking YOU to explain your apparent view that Williams is not a conservative.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2008 11:35 am
@Foxfyre,
CLUE: It doesn't matter whether Williams is a "conservative." It doesn't matter that you claim to be a "conservative." Still don't get it?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2008 11:37 am
@cicerone imposter,
You are correct that how one describes himself/herself is not necessarily pertinent, but it is sometimes constructive within the scope of the discussion. The concepts people hold and what they do are what is conservative though. Many people describe themselves as liberal but hold some conservative opinions. Many people describe themselves as conservative but behave as liberals.

So it is the concepts themselves that is important. Williams' words in the essay back up the label with which he describes himself.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.85 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 09:40:30