CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?

When I write, from a conservative-libertarian-individualist-hedonist perspective
I endeavor to be CLEAR and PRECISE in my writing.

David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

When I write, from a conservative-libertarian-individualist-hedonist perspective
I endeavor to be CLEAR and PRECISE in my writing.

David

"Clear and precise" seems to be relative.

Making up your own rules for spelling and grammar is hardly a step toward being "clear and precise" in any classic sense of writing.

You could well be right in conservatives and liberals being alien to one another but the reasons you think may not be accurate. Liberals and conservatives seem to have different views of reality. The problem is when viewed from any educational standard that has been used for the last 100 years, your viewpoint isn't the normal one that has been taught and relied upon.

R conservatives n liberals so ALIEN
to one another in their respective mentalities
(like oil n water)
as to render logical communication and understanding between them
absolutely IMPOSSIBLE ?

Is it HOPELESS ?

When I write, from a conservative-libertarian-individualist-hedonist perspective
I endeavor to be CLEAR and PRECISE in my writing.

Too frequently,
responses that I get (or that I see in response to other folks' posts)
from liberals just make very vague emotional statements such as:
"that is sad" or "a very sick puppy" with no factual analysis of the subject matter
of the message upon which thay r commenting.

It may be that the answering liberals R NOT INTERESTED
in addressing the subject matter,
but then Y bother to post at all ?

Is it deeply inherent in the mental processes of collectivist-authoritarians
to be vague, when thay actually believe that thay r being clear n specific ?


I wonder.

I expect vague n abusive answers from liberals,
judging from their posting history.




David

The problem with the education system and the bad teaching that goes on in schools is worthy of vigorous condemnation, it is not however grounds to ignore logical reasoning and the facts that support conclusions that you have not heard before.

In answer to the op, it is not possible for two sides to come together if both sides don't want to come together. We in America have long lost the desire to work towards the common good, we would much rather advance the agenda of our club. Until that changes we are in the ditch.

hawkeye10 wrote:

The problem with the education system and the bad teaching that goes on in schools is worthy of vigorous condemnation, it is not however grounds to ignore logical reasoning and the facts that support conclusions that you have not heard before.

In answer to the op, it is not possible for two sides to come together if both sides don't want to come together. We in America have long lost the desire to work towards the common good, we would much rather advance the agenda of our club. Until that changes we are in the ditch.

When you can't even agree to the standard that has stood for over 100 years as being the best way to communicate then there isn't really a good way to communicate let alone converse about the difference in ideas.

When I write, from a conservative-libertarian-individualist-hedonist perspective
I endeavor to be CLEAR and PRECISE in my writing.

David

"Clear and precise" seems to be relative.

Making up your own rules for spelling and grammar
is hardly a step toward being "clear and precise"
in any classic sense of writing.

You could well be right in conservatives and liberals being alien to one another
but the reasons you think may not be accurate. Liberals and conservatives
seem to have different views of reality.

The problem is when viewed from any educational standard
that has been used for the last 100 years, your viewpoint isn't
the normal one that has been taught and relied upon.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

R conservatives n liberals so ALIEN
to one another in their respective mentalities
(like oil n water)
as to render logical communication and understanding between them
absolutely IMPOSSIBLE ?

Is it HOPELESS ?

When I write, from a conservative-libertarian-individualist-hedonist perspective
I endeavor to be CLEAR and PRECISE in my writing.

Too frequently,
responses that I get (or that I see in response to other folks' posts)
from liberals just make very vague emotional statements such as:
"that is sad" or "a very sick puppy" with no factual analysis of the subject matter
of the message upon which thay r commenting.

It may be that the answering liberals R NOT INTERESTED
in addressing the subject matter,
but then Y bother to post at all ?

Is it deeply inherent in the mental processes of collectivist-authoritarians
to be vague, when thay actually believe that thay r being clear n specific ?


I wonder.

I expect vague n abusive answers from liberals,
judging from their posting history.




David

surely you are talking about neo-conservatives NOT conservatives


Justin Raimondo is a Conservative

He has written the book
Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement

And is a contributing editor for The American Conservative

I have found myself over the last four years coming to highly respect him for his tireless work trying to inform the American public of the dangers of neo-conservatism.

If i was holding a conversation with Mr Raimondo - i do believe we would agree on a great many issues. Particularly those of human rights.


The problems we have talking to each other are not political

They are ETHICAL

parados wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

The problem with the education system and the bad teaching that goes on in schools is worthy of vigorous condemnation, it is not however grounds to ignore logical reasoning and the facts that support conclusions that you have not heard before.

In answer to the op, it is not possible for two sides to come together if both sides don't want to come together. We in America have long lost the desire to work towards the common good, we would much rather advance the agenda of our club. Until that changes we are in the ditch.

When you can't even agree to the standard that has stood for over 100 years as being the best way to communicate then there isn't really a good way to communicate let alone converse about the difference in ideas.

Quote:

onsigdavid's lack of consideration for and disrespect of the reader
is not connected to education. He is being an ornery old coot.

Yes; most discerning, but I was not disrespectful.
Rather, I had confidence in readers to easily understand
if I write U instead of you
or r instead of are
or vu instead of view
or enuf instead of enough
or tho instead of thoUGH.
I have CONFIDENCE that u r ALL smart enuf to easily figure it out
and once u do, its like riding a bike: its with u forever.

I 'm hoping that it will accelerate dragging down
the inefficient, anti-logical old paradime.

Quote:

I choose to ignore this (having run across many of his kind in the past)

This is an admirably logical response.

Quote:

but I can see going the other way also. The first five lines in the OP was
speaking generally, and here he has a good point. The later part when he
talks about how he personally is responded to he has less of a point,
because of how he chooses to communicate.

Please note that I did not
complain that people fail to answer me; thay OFEN do.

Quote:

I am not talking about all of this tone aversion BS we have at a2k
(taking offense to tone of posts), tone is part of substance and if somebody
does not like the substance of a post

then they should respond with substance and not whining).

I sure agree with THAT.

Quote:

I am talking about David refusing to use the common form of writing,
and for this it is justice for him to suffer consequences.

"... from every mountainside, let freedom RING ...."

Educational standards must improve
and thay DO improve; the geocentric theory of the universe
is no longer taught (tawt) in astronomy classes, as being true.

Chaucer 's time has come n gone.

Yes; most discerning, but I was not disrespectful.
Rather, I had confidence in readers to easily understand
if I write U instead of you
or r instead of are
or vu instead of view
or enuf instead of enough
or tho instead of thoUGH.
I have CONFIDENCE that u r ALL smart enuf to easily figure it out
and once u do, its like riding a bike: its with u forever.

Educational standards must improve
and thay DO improve; the geocentric theory of the universe
is no longer taught (tawt) in astronomy classes, as being true.

Sure, standards can improve but they must remain standards or there
is no basis for any communication.

Your refusal to not submit to the standards undermines any argument you try to make

because it shows you don't believe in communication standards

and puts in question your ability to use any standards for rational thought.

Chaucer 's time has come n gone.

Yes, Chaucer's time of no rules for language has come and gone.

Too bad you don't understand what the lack of rules were then compared
to your attempt to not adhere to any rules of standardization today.

By the way, I know full well how to phonetically write the spoken word.

But you don't even use the phonetic alphabet which is the standard
for writing words phonetically. Handbook of Phonetic Alphabet

Nor do you understand seem to understand that dialects mean that words
are pronounced differently in different places.

Correct spelling is the best way to communicate between those dialects.

You aren't even consistent within your own attempts.

Not only do you not apply any rules created by society,

you don't even make up rules that you follow consistently.

And yet in spite of your inability to understand these basic things about
language you want us to take anything else you say seriously.

Communication is the key to discussing ideas.

If you can't communicate then you can't get your point across.
You consistently undermine your attempts at communication.

Then you blame others for your own failings.

People are within their rights to think you are incapable of making
a coherent argument because you reinforce that with your language abuse.

Which takes us back to your original argument.
If you see yourself as a conservative and your ideas as conservative
then of course liberals and conservatives can never see things on the same level.

But the problem lies not with the liberals in that case.
When you depart from reality, it doesn't make other people crazy
because they can't hear the voices you do.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Yes; most discerning, but I was not disrespectful.
Rather, I had confidence in readers to easily understand
if I write U instead of you
or r instead of are
or vu instead of view
or enuf instead of enough
or tho instead of thoUGH.
I have CONFIDENCE that u r ALL smart enuf to easily figure it out
and once u do, its like riding a bike: its with u forever.

ouryay useyah ofay omethingsay ouyah inkthay isay easyyah otah understandyah oesn'tday akemay itay easyyah orfay ethay eaderray. isthay isay easyyah otay understandyay utbay iyah ouldn'tway expectyay oeoplepay otay aketay emay eriouslysay ecausebay ymay useyah ofay igpay atinlay ilewhay easyay otay understanday ifay ouyah areay artsmay enoughay otay igurefay itay outay, itsay ikelay idingray aay ikebay, itay etractsday omfray ethay ommunicationcay.

It is interesting that the only person to agree with OmSigDAVID's unusual
and strange way of using spelling and grammar is OmSigDAVID.

He certainly marches to a different drummer.

And, some may think, reside on a different planet.

IMO, it's a symptom of malignant narcissism.
He enjoys the negative attention.

My use of fonetic spelling is my effort to accelerate the rejection
of the old, anti-logical traditional orthografic paradime,
to the slite and limited extent that it is not already fonetic.
I put in front of peoples' eyes images of easier and faster ways to write.

Quote:

Chaucer 's time has come n gone.

Quote:

Yes, Chaucer's time of no rules for language has come and gone.

Gone except for some few residual
paleo-Germanic forms like adding UGH for no good reason
to the word "tho".

Please note that this thread
is not personal about ME.
I was inquiring into whether other conservatives can effectively
communicate with liberals, or whether substantive differences
of ideology and of the foundational psychology r such as to render
that impossible.

Quote:

Communication is the key to discussing ideas.

Yes

Quote:

If you can't communicate then you can't get your point across.
You consistently undermine your attempts at communication.

I have CONFIDENCE in your ability to understand
when I write u instead of you or vu instead of view.

Quote:

People are within their rights to think you are incapable of making
a coherent argument because you reinforce that with your language abuse.

Indeed thay r.
Thay have the right to believe that the moon
is made of gold or green chese (regardless of moonrocks);
thay r sovereign n autonomous between their ears.

Quote:

Which takes us back to your original argument.
If you see yourself as a conservative and your ideas as conservative
then of course liberals and conservatives can never see things on the same level.

Is it possible
that thay can UNDERSTAND one another ?

Quote:

But the problem lies not with the liberals in that case.
When you depart from reality, it doesn't make other people crazy
because they can't hear the voices you do.

With regard to some issues, liberals agree with me
(e.g., womens' autonomy qua reproductive freedom and sovereignty over their own bodies).
I observe NO COMPLAINTS when I post things
that liberals LIKE to see.
Its only a question of whose ox is gored.

Please note that altho I am perfectly willing to discuss fonetic spelling
on this thread, if u like, the purpose of the thread was to inquire
into whether the minds of conservatives and liberals (their thought processes)
r so alien to one another as to render impossible enuf of a
rappor to enable reconciliation of our differences.

We communicated with the commies and the nazis.
So far as I know, thay both understood us.

Can we communicate with the politically correct ?

I 'm not sure about this.

David

P.S.:
I call upon all of u
to recognize that u 'd not be complaining
about fonetic spelling IF U HAD BEEN TAWT
TO SPELL CORRECTLY IN THE EARLIEST YEARS OF YOUR LIVES,
as the Spanish r.

parados wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Yes; most discerning, but I was not disrespectful.
Rather, I had confidence in readers to easily understand
if I write U instead of you
or r instead of are
or vu instead of view
or enuf instead of enough
or tho instead of thoUGH.
I have CONFIDENCE that u r ALL smart enuf to easily figure it out
and once u do, its like riding a bike: its with u forever.

ouryay useyah ofay omethingsay ouyah inkthay isay easyyah otah understandyah oesn'tday akemay itay easyyah orfay ethay eaderray. isthay isay easyyah otay understandyay utbay iyah ouldn'tway expectyay oeoplepay otay aketay emay eriouslysay ecausebay ymay useyah ofay igpay atinlay ilewhay easyay otay understanday ifay ouyah areay artsmay enoughay otay igurefay itay outay, itsay ikelay idingray aay ikebay, itay etractsday omfray ethay ommunicationcay.

I am a member of the American Museum of Natural History.
I love that museum. It is one of the best in the world.
On the first floor there is an exhibit concerning Teddy Roosevelt.
He was a very popular President, held in hearty admiration, if not adulation.
The exhibit shows, inter alia how he was taunted in the press
for his efforts to end non-fonetic spelling, regardless of his huge popularity.
He was mocked and subjected to ridicule in the press.
I knew this b4 I began to advocate use of fonetic spelling.
I don 't give a dam; I doubt that he did either, robust fellow that he was.




David