@Foxfyre,
Quote:
This says to me that nobody framing anything in religious terms is trustworthy to be logical despite your opinion that your friend arrived at a correct decision despite his religious beliefs.
This sentence doesn't make much sense, and it doesn't address what I said.
If someone comes to the correct conclusion about a political topic, but uses shoddy logic, I'm not satisfied with their conclusion. You don't have to agree with me on this, but you really should.
Nobody - and I do mean nobody - who bases their opinions in any sort of religious thought or teaching can be said to be using logic in order to support said opinions, and I do not respect them. As I said earlier, it's an Appeal to Authority, which is a logical fallacy; I think the majority of Conservatives who understood logic would completely agree with me.
Quote:. It doesn't matter who first thought it up as a good idea. What matters is the principle itself. See, THAT's how one separates the principle from the example used to illustrate it.
You are incorrect. What matters is the process used to support the principle. It's not even a question of 'who thought it up'; the identity of the person is immaterial. What matters is the logic behind the principle, and if the logic is religious in nature, it's not logic.
Quote:Are you honestly arguing that the answer is any less correct or has less value if a person used a different method to get there than the one you used? Tell me you aren't saying that.
Yes, your answer has less value if you cannot show the method of logic you used to create it. This is because we require those who propose answers to be able to explain the reasons they came to those answers. Just like math class, Fox, remember that?
If something is true, you ought to be able to do more than assert it; and truths which are backed up by sound logic are more valuable than those which are backed by assertions. Let us say that two different people wanted to argue that 'murder is wrong.' One uses logic to show why it is wrong, the other uses religious assertion. Clearly we as a society can see that the person who has used logic has presented a superior argument.
Quote:
Hell, you're screwed up just about everything most Conservatives say.
You only think this, because the word 'Conservative' inside your own mind doesn't match the
actual words and actions of
real Conservatives. Nobody on this thread accepts your frame, Fox, because we all know Conservatives and have been surrounded by them our whole lives.
It really dovetails into Frank's earlier posting about Conservatism and Racism; you can say all you want that Conservatism has nothing to do with racism, but the rest of us recall our entire existence of every single racist we've known in our lives being a Conservative. How do we square the large amount of real-world evidence with your opinion?
There's an easy solution to that question, and that's this: we cannot, b/c your opinion of what it means to be a Conservative is not a valid one. It does not match real-world observations. And this once again is funny and telling; I'm sure that you could care less that it doesn't match, b/c you feel that you've found the correct definition. Silly things like expecting actual Conservatives to live up to your definition in order to validate it, well - that's just not how you guys work
Huckabee came in second in your nomination contest and his views represent a
huge section of American Conservatives and the Republican party. For you to somehow pretend that this is untrue is a joke. We all can see, from the votes, that it is true. If the Democrats had an avowed Marxist, Communist candidate, and he won several primaries, surely you would assert that Marxism and Communism are in fact a large part of American Liberalism? And that the votes were evidence of this?
You ought to put in more work reconciling your definition of Conservatism with, yaknow, the reality of Conservatism.
Cycloptichorn
