AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

But Fox, you have NOT shown anywhere where Locke proposed or supported your claim.

Yes, Locke was the basis for the constitution but his being the basis doesn't show where Locke opposed sharing the wealth. In fact, I can find nowhere that Locke says that. If anything Locke opposes someone accumulating more property than he needs to the detriment of others ability to satisfy their needs when you read the chapter on property. Locke also clearly supports taxation. You have admitted that Locke supports charity.

Quote:

have posted sufficient references to illustrate what Locke's views on property were as those views apply to an idea that Citizen B is somehow entitled to any property that Citizen A lawfully and ethically acquired.

You haven't shown a damn thing. You have made up what you think Locke meant but you have only posted one quote from him and then quite clearly tried to misuse it by claiming taxation equals slavery. I realize that you live in a fantasy world sometimes Fox, but it is just a bit ridiculous to claim you have referenced Locke comments to support your outlandish ideas when you quite clearly have not. No thinking person would make an argument and NOT use Locke's words. His words are usually quite clear in meaning.

Quote:

You three seem to want to believe that the government owes you a living if for any reason you do not provide that living for yourself. There is no way that the government can do that without taking property from others and giving it to you.

I don't believe any of us have said that. I earn a living and pay taxes. I don't mind if those taxes go to help the less fortunate. I believe like Locke said, the majority should decide. You accuse us of not discussing the issues and then you turn around and build straw men arguments to try to prove we are wrong on the issue.

Should we discuss your inability to discuss the actual premise Fox? I think I have done that repeatedly. I have provided quotes from Locke that clearly dispute your claim of his meaning. You have not dealt with any of Locke's own words. You run from them. Now you make up a statement about how I think the government owes me a living. I have never said that. You can't show where I have said that. You repeatedly commit the false dilemma fallacy by dividing everything into only 2 possibilities.

You think because I support government charity then I think the government owes me a living. That is a false assumption on your part.
You think because Locke didn't say he was for taking money from A to give to B then he must be against it. Another false assumption on your part.

I get tired of your claims that you as a conservative are more "rational" than liberals. You are an intellectual light weight Fox. You make stuff up. You have a thin skin when your ideas are exposed for being intellectually bankrupt. You are incapable of defending your conservative viewpoint from any logical standpoint. You spend a fair amount of time attacking liberalism rather than showing why conservatism is supposed to be good. You and ican make a great pair and show how silly conservatism can be when practiced by some. The two of you compliment each other on your meaningless comments acting as if you have somehow spoken some great truths. It is ridiculous.

1 Reply

@parados,

And I get tired of you distorting and misrepresenting what I've said and/or argued Parados. So why don't we just let it go at that, okay? You find somebody who wants to nitpick stuff like you do and I'll hope for folks who actually want to discuss concepts and ideas. That way we'll both be happy.

1 Reply

The true meanings of the Declaration of Independence and the USA Constitution as amended are alleged to be debatable. One school of thought says they should be interpreted in terms of the original intent of their writers. A second school of thought says they should be interpreted according to the meaning of their words at the time they were written. A third school of thought says they should be interpreted according to the current relevant dictionary meanings of the words written. A fourth school of thought says they should be interpreted in the context of our current reality. A fifth school of thought says these documents are merely historical documents that are no longer relevant guides for how to to deal with our current situation.

There may be other schools of thought with which I am not familiar.

In any case, I have adopted the third school of thought, because I think it the most objective and least corruptible guide for how to currently determine the powers delegated and not delegated to the federal government. This school of thought is of course as debatable as are the other schools of thought.

In any case, a large part of what we conservatives think is or is not properly conservative is related to our individual interpretations of these two documents. I think that before we can settle the issue of what is or is not actually conservative thought, we must first resolve this issue without letting ourselves be sidetracked by personal attacks--or slanders. Such attacks are best ignored.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

You brought Locke up. Not Parados. Not Cyclop. Not me. You.

You shouldn't have brought it up if you weren't ready to defend it. You.

You have failed to support your arguments RE: Locke and property. Parados seems to have been able to cite Locke more accurately and potently contrary to your claims about his views.

Not that I care about Locke with this stuff. I think we can have a talk about our ideas without the intervention of the long dead and out of context.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

You three seem to want to believe that the government owes you a living if for any reason you do not provide that living for yourself. There is no way that the government can do that without taking property from others and giving it to you.

If you would care to discuss that, it would be good.

Foxfyre - I don't need the government to roll out red carpet for me, I just ask that they don't yank it out from underneath me. It makes zero sense that the less fortunate should be supporting the well off. No sense at all.

I already told you I'm growing tired with your methods. It's hardly worth replying to your posts since you don't take the time to address my points. If you would just like to be ignored, just say the word, and I won't waste my time on you.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

You presented a hypothetical scenario and then when it was questioned we are suddenly distorting and misrepresenting?

You asked if it was moral for Citizen A to be taxed so money could go to Citizen B.
I said based on the social contract it was moral.
Suddenly it seems not agreeing with you is "nitpicking". Rolling Eyes

Based on the way you act, you don't want to discuss concepts and ideas. You want to present your ideas and everyone is supposed to agree with you or they are nitpicking, distorting or misrepresenting. Discussing ideas means you need to refute using actual evidence if you disagree. This should be an opportunity for you to clarify and sharpen your arguments.

By the way, could you tell me how I distorted what you said? I would be glad to apologize if you can show me where I did that.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Having fun?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

By living where he is A has agreed to the social compact that allows his money to be taken. It is moral because A can leave the country and move somewhere else if he doesn't like it.

It's tough to stay current on some of these fast moving threads, but scanning this one I was struck by the above comment by parados.

By this comment, which Cyclo believes is part of a "great summation of our side of the arguemnt", parados is advancing the premise

"American, love it or leave it!"

Laughing

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I am indeed. How about you?

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
You three seem to want to believe that the government owes you a living if for any reason you do not provide that living for yourself. There is no way that the government can do that without taking property from others and giving it to you.

If you would care to discuss that, it would be good.

Foxfyre - I don't need the government to roll out red carpet for me, I just ask that they don't yank it out from underneath me. It makes zero sense that the less fortunate should be supporting the well off. No sense at all.

I already told you I'm growing tired with your methods. It's hardly worth replying to your posts since you don't take the time to address my points. If you would just like to be ignored, just say the word, and I won't waste my time on you.

T
K
O

Well you know what? I suppose I could devote my life to developing methods more to your liking and I could check in with you to make sure that I express myself in a manner satisfactory to you. But I wouldn't hold my breath. You are absolutely free to ignore my posts and not comment on them at all. That would save you a lot of time now expended in effort to complain about my methods whatever those are.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

You presented a hypothetical scenario and then when it was questioned we are suddenly distorting and misrepresenting?

You asked if it was moral for Citizen A to be taxed so money could go to Citizen B.
I said based on the social contract it was moral.
Suddenly it seems not agreeing with you is "nitpicking".

Based on the way you act, you don't want to discuss concepts and ideas. You want to present your ideas and everyone is supposed to agree with you or they are nitpicking, distorting or misrepresenting. Discussing ideas means you need to refute using actual evidence if you disagree. This should be an opportunity for you to clarify and sharpen your arguments.

By the way, could you tell me how I distorted what you said? I would be glad to apologize if you can show me where I did that.

Yes your comment on social contract is what got us into the whole Lockean discussion in the first place. But you didn't like my definition of social contract and I didn't accept yours as accurate either in Lockean ideology or as it pertains to Citizen A's obligation to Citizen B. So we are pretty much at an impasse.

As I do not feel obligated to sharpen my arguments for you any more than I feel obligated to tailor them to whatever TKO deems to be acceptable, I will pass on your generous offer to tutor me, especially since you have several times informed me that I was doing it all wrong--'tortured' I believe was the way you expressed it--while not offering anything to back that up.

You have not explained how it is moral for the government to take Citizen A's property and give it to Citizen B. Just saying that it is the social contract that makes that moral simply doesn't wash. I could as easily say that God wants it to be so as if that was an explanation. It wouldn't be. Saying that Citizen A agreed to is equally incorrect as I clearly illustrated that he did not.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

The true meanings of the Declaration of Independence and the USA Constitution as amended are alleged to be debatable. One school of thought says they should be interpreted in terms of the original intent of their writers. A second school of thought says they should be interpreted according to the meaning of their words at the time they were written. A third school of thought says they should be interpreted according to the current relevant dictionary meanings of the words written. A fourth school of thought says they should be interpreted in the context of our current reality. A fifth school of thought says these documents are merely historical documents that are no longer relevant guides for how to to deal with our current situation.

There may be other schools of thought with which I am not familiar.

In any case, I have adopted the third school of thought, because I think it the most objective and least corruptible guide for how to currently determine the powers delegated and not delegated to the federal government. This school of thought is of course as debatable as are the other schools of thought.

In any case, a large part of what we conservatives think is or is not properly conservative is related to our individual interpretations of these two documents. I think that before we can settle the issue of what is or is not actually conservative thought, we must first resolve this issue without letting ourselves be sidetracked by personal attacks--or slanders. Such attacks are best ignored.

Not only on these two documents, Ican, but on the eleven years of discussion, debate, study, and consideration that transpired between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Do you really go with the third option? I personally go with Options 1 and 2 and see them as inseparable. Without a good understanding of the rationale that went into the Constitution or anything else that was written in that time--if we do not look at it thorugh the eyes of those who wrote it--how can we possibly know the intent of the words for us now?

0 Replies

@blatham,

Yes I am.

Particularly with seeing how many more times you will interject one of your "conservatives are insane bad guys" bon mots.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
You three seem to want to believe that the government owes you a living if for any reason you do not provide that living for yourself. There is no way that the government can do that without taking property from others and giving it to you.

If you would care to discuss that, it would be good.

Foxfyre - I don't need the government to roll out red carpet for me, I just ask that they don't yank it out from underneath me. It makes zero sense that the less fortunate should be supporting the well off. No sense at all.

I already told you I'm growing tired with your methods. It's hardly worth replying to your posts since you don't take the time to address my points. If you would just like to be ignored, just say the word, and I won't waste my time on you.

T
K
O

Well you know what? I suppose I could devote my life to developing methods more to your liking and I could check in with you to make sure that I express myself in a manner satisfactory to you. But I wouldn't hold my breath. You are absolutely free to ignore my posts and not comment on them at all. That would save you a lot of time now expended in effort to complain about my methods whatever those are.

Listen Fox, you need to take your own medicine or zip it. You don't need to answer my questions if you don't feel so inclined, but don't waste mine or anyone else's time running away from my questions and then pretending to be kind by telling us what you'd like to talk about.

It's an incredibility asymmetrical relationship here Fox. You ask questions and make statements that people take time to respond to, and you don't return the favor.

It's reaching the point of intellectual cowardice.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Oh for Pete's sake TKO. You didn't answer my question did you? I am getting more and more stubborn in not getting drawn off course by people who find the original subject uncomfortable. But I'm supposed to answer your different question? What question did you want answered?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Fox

You've fought the good fight, but you are fighting with intellectual blockheads.

If you enjoy the back and forth, have at it, but if you expect to convert then I suggest you give up and move on.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I know you're right Finn. The non sequitur gang mostly wants to divert, sabotage, nitpick, sidetrack, dodge, weave, insult and play gotcha--anything other than discuss the specific issue. A few pass by to throw in the typical juvenile Republican or Bush bashing stuff. But if you look, every now and then somebody actually does post something that is interesting, thought provoking, and/or actually makes (the rhetorical) you think. And that makes it all worth while.

I'll admit though that I'm a glutton for punishment too, and I have hope that every once in awhile somebody will actually cut through the fog and get to some of the more brainwashed young-uns. Hope springs eternal.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Yes your comment on social contract is what got us into the whole Lockean discussion in the first place. But you didn't like my definition of social contract and I didn't accept yours as accurate either in Lockean ideology or as it pertains to Citizen A's obligation to Citizen B. So we are pretty much at an impasse.

An impasse yes.

Except I provided support for my definition and you provided none. Of course you have also claimed that conservatism is rational which would mean you should be able to logically defend your definition but you have not.

Quote:

You have not explained how it is moral for the government to take Citizen A's property and give it to Citizen B.

Except I haven't only said merely because of the social contract. I have used Locke's words to back up my statement.

Now, it is your turn. Is it moral to let people starve in the streets? Yes or no?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I know you're right Finn. The non sequitur gang mostly wants to divert, sabotage, nitpick, sidetrack, dodge, weave, insult and play gotcha--anything other than discuss the specific issue. A few pass by to throw in the typical juvenile Republican or Bush bashing stuff. But if you look, every now and then somebody actually does post something that is interesting, thought provoking, and/or actually makes (the rhetorical) you think. And that makes it all worth while.

You accuse us of weaving and dodging? I have repeatedly quoted Locke to support my opinion. You quoted him ONCE.. Yes that is ONCE and then claimed taxation was slavery in order to make his words support your outlandish claim. I wish you would post something worth while.

Quote:

I'll admit though that I'm a glutton for punishment too, and I have hope that every once in awhile somebody will actually cut through the fog and get to some of the more brainwashed young-uns. Hope springs eternal.

You are the one brainwashed Fox. You argue that you know more about Locke but you can't back up any of your stupid comments. You said you were going to "decimate" my statements about Locke but you have not made any valid arguments using his words.

Now.. let's examine your argument.

Citizen A works. Citizen B doesn't do a thing so must be starving.
You think it is immoral for any of Citizen A's money to go to B.
Therefor you think it is moral for Citizen B to starve.
Do I understand you correctly?

Locke says taxation is to be used for the common good. I say people starving can not be interpreted as for the common good. Therefor Locke's statement would imply that taxation can be used to feed those starving. Your argument implies that it is just fine that people starve.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

By the way, could you tell me how I distorted what you said? I would be glad to apologize if you can show me where I did that.

You still haven't answered this for me Fox. Can you? Will you?

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know