OK, EVIL WON. NOW HOW FAR DOWN IS BOTTOM ?

@dyslexia,

Here are some examples...

http://www.lifenews.com/state4164.html

Quote:

A Pennsylvania teenager has been charged with attempting to kill the unborn child of the girlfriend of one of his friends. Jonathan Keith Imler has been charged with attempted criminal homicide and aggravated assault of an unborn child, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person

So how can he attempt to kill something that doesnt exist?

And here is a ruling from your own state...

http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/crimjustice/29772res20070309.html

Heres more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080801/drug-using-moms/

And lets not forget the case in Ca where Scott Peterson was convicted of killing his wife (1st degree murder) and of killing his child (2nd degree murder).

How could he have been convicted of killing a child if that child didnt exist as a child?
How do you kill something that doesnt exist?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

you're absolutely right MM, the legal issues are very confusing and seem, to me, to be reactive to public/popular opinion.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

And IMHo that is the worst kind of law.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

MM said

Quote:

Are you saying that WHEN a child is born makes all the difference?

I am saying that when a fetus undergoes human birth a child is born.

Quote:

Roe v. Wade held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes viable.’"

The Court defined viable as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.

Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1]

The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. These rulings affected laws in 46 states

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
MM said

Quote:

If, as you say, a fetus is not yet a human life, you have boxed yourself in.
A fetus born after 7 months gestation can survive on its own, so you would agree that it is a child.

No, until the fetus exists outside the womb it remains a fetus. A child must, by necsssity be born. Until it is it remains a potential life.

I think that most anti abortion folks have never actually read Blackmun's decision and fail to appreciate the balance it shows towards medicine, morality and rights.

Quote:

The decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests against the abortion right.

The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health", and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

now a thought experiment for you.........

while you are visiting a fertility clinic you see three young children sitting in the lobby and while touring the facility are shown to you test tubes that hold one hundred human blastocysts, a pin head in size. Tell me what you would do if a fire broke out and began to comsume the facility; would you grab the three young children you saw in the lobby and flee the burning building, or would you attempt to save the test tubes with one hundred human blastocysts and flee the burning building?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

finn said

Quote:

I tend to believe that there are a fair number of people who choose to believe a fetus is not a human life because it enables their advocacy of a procedure that, compared to the alternatives, does away with a very big personal dilemma, but only the people who profess the belief can know the level of their own sincerity.

But I am not one of those. I consider birth itself to be the determinator. Birth and death historically have always been viewed as the bookends of life. Which btw, ought to be held up as the background for your following remark;

Quote:

Post-modernist moral relativity is intellectually alluring, but societies can not survive on such a shifting landscape.

Since you consider yourself a conservative, implying cultural consistency of ideas and concepts, how is it that you no longer accept the historical conception of the beginning of life or “personhood?” Until recently, and going back millennium, there was never any question or doubt about “the beginning of life.”It was always birth that started a human life, the Pope notwithstanding.

Now, using scientific data from ultra sound imaging about how a fetus moves and feels pain, truly a “post-modern” technique, you no longer accept the old way of looking at the beginning of human life. That makes your morality relative. If you use the tools of modernity to shape and defend it, newer tools could undermine today’s conceptions simply with newer technologies.

I am not an advocate of abortions. I consider the operation horrible. I would never have one if I were a woman unless I would die otherwise. It is not so much that I think that I would be killing a human life but because of the loss of the potential for sentience. That is the tragedy.

Sentience is the most valuable thing in the universe. The cosmos has a lot of atoms and chemical compounds, less, a lot of life, but very little sentience. I would side with sentience as the purpose of the universe, reality being creation looking at itself. So I think that reducing the potential for sentience as a bad thing.

However I live in a society with sets of conflicting values and I recognize that as a simple man I cannot put myself into a woman’s mind and appreciate her circumstances while she is pregnant. I do not have the faith that my perspective towards abortion and why I think it is a bad thing ought to be transformed into abortion restrictions.

Lincoln, as usual said it best: “As I would not be a slave, I would not be a master.”

1 Reply

@kuvasz,

Quote:

But I am not one of those.

I'll take your word for it.

I don't know that I accept that sonograms are in any way (other than strict chronological order) "post-modern," but just as "Less government" doesn't mean "No government," "an affinity for preserving traditional values" doesn't mean "absolute adherence to long standing concepts and beliefs"

Some form of creationism has been the widely held belief of mankind for a hell of a lot longer than the concept of evolution has even been contemplated, and yet I have no reluctance at all in accepting the reality of evolution. Does this disqualify me as a conservative?

Obviously I don't think so.

Conservatives, clearly, can accept new ideas. To suggest otherwise is silly, just as suggesting that progressive beliefs are only as steadfast as the duration of the popularity of the latest theory.

These "labels," to the extent that they are of any value, enable us to identify a common tendency of thought that can, to some extent, be relied upon in a general sense. Admittedly, this doesn't speak to a significant value, but we do like taxonomy.

I can understand your position (as described) on abortion. In fact it is pretty similar to the one I have held for most of my life.

For whatever reason (although I maintain it is the gathering of wisdom) I have come to believe that such a position is an intellectual cop out, and one that has been foisted upon us by either the allure of post-modernism, or the indoctrination by those who have succumbed to the allure. (The latter being the far greater driver for most people).

Your valuing the promise of sentience is not really far afield from my valuing human life.

The primary difference in our positions is that you believe there are unique considerations which you cannot know that legitimize the destruction of what you so strongly value, and that you have no right to even attempt to impose your beliefs over those with which you disagree, but which might possibly have a legitimacy you can't understand.

The reality is that neither you nor I can decide this issue, but we can add our opinions to the collective voices debating the matter. It seems to me that you have decided that your opinion has no right to be counted.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

finn said

Quote:

Conservatives, clearly, can accept new ideas. To suggest otherwise is silly, just as suggesting that progressive beliefs are only as steadfast as the duration of the popularity of the latest theory.

Conservatives of the day could not except the abolition of slavery and fought it, (republicans being more liberal than democrats or whigs in the 1850's).

Liberals ended slavery, liberals got woman the right to vote, liberals created Social Security, Medicaid and a minimum wage, they wrote the Civil Rights Act, , the Voting Rights Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, they have done all of those things in at every moment, for every one of those things in this country, what did conservatives do, they opposed every one of those things. History shows that conservatives have to get drug into the future and rarely accept new ideas. They are constitiutional opposed to change and fear it.

btw you actually don't think that a conservative ought to get kudos for believing in the reality of evolution do you? that 's just common sense.

3 Replies

@kuvasz,

Not only that, but Conservatives of the day did not accept evolution. Modern Conservatives do, but this is because the idea was taught to them as a pre-existing 'approved' one.

If the theory of evolution were discovered and promulgated today, none of the Conservatives here would believe in it, none of 'em.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@kuvasz,

Quote:

btw you actually don't think that a conservative ought to get kudos for believing in the reality of evolution do you? that 's just common sense.

Not any more than a progressive should get kudos for recognizing the societal value of nuclear families.

My point is that the thesis you insist on trotting out, that conservatives should all believe in whatever can be identified as the original idea on a given subject is ridiculous, and I suspect you know it.

In any case, while I've enjoyed the better part of our exchange, I think it's run it course.

Thanks though.

2 Replies

@kuvasz,

Kuvasz must have bad vision or, perhaps, inability to read. His effort to demonize conservatives does not work.

He( and the far left wing Cyclops from the city of Berkeley-( from which Roman Catholics are afraid they will be expelled) either has not kept up on his reading or is a vicious liar!

Note:

Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church: (a summary, see below for more detail)

The Roman Catholic Church in 1950 under the leadership of Pope Pius XII, in the papal encyclical Humani Generis, stated that the "Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter" with the stipulations that souls are direct creations of God, and all true humans are descendants of particular historical individuals, Adam and Eve. This doctrine is known as "monogenism" versus "polygenism."
In October 1996, Pope John Paul II stated that "new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis" and restated from Humani Generis that "if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God." However, as John Paul II recognized in his Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "In his Encyclical Humani generis [1950], my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points." Thus, as a practical matter, evolution had been taught in Catholic primary and secondary schools, not to mention universities, for decades before 1996.

In July 2004, the International Theological Commission published a statement titled "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God" on creation, evolution, and God's providence. The president of the commission was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, then head of doctrine in the Catholic Church, who the following year became Pope Benedict XVI. The statement made explicit the Church's support of the findings of modern science and biological evolution, calling universal common descent "virtually certain," and that "even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation." (See especially paragraphs 62-70).

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

btw you actually don't think that a conservative ought to get kudos
for believing in the reality of evolution do you? that 's just common sense.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:

Not any more than a progressive [??] should get kudos
for recognizing the societal value of nuclear families.

My point is that the thesis you insist on trotting out,
that conservatives should all believe in whatever can be identified
as the original idea on a given subject is ridiculous, and I suspect you know it.

FIND ABUZZ:

Please note my exception to your use of the word "progressive"
inasmuch as it assumes, but does not prove, that changes from
the conservative original r improvements.
For instance, that is like saying that because time had progressed
from the Weimar Republic to the 3rd Reich that the latter was
more "progressive" i.e. better, a concept from which I dissent.

Find Abuzz, speaking as one who worked in Barry Goldwater 's
Presidential election campaign and who voted for him,
and as one who whole heartedly supports the American Originalist
concepts of libertarianism, Individualism and laissez faire free enterprize,
I earnestly identify myself as a conservative.

As a conservative, I was a little shocked n distressed to read (above)
your rejection of the concept that conservatism inheres in believing
an original belief: "that conservatives should all believe in whatever can be identified
as the original idea on a given subject is ridiculous. . ."

I don 't know what Kuvasz said because I have had him on Ignore
since his descent into obscene incivility toward someone a few months ago,
but your rejection of the indicated concept is egregiously in error.
Conservatism absolutely DOES inhere in the inflexible adherence
to a prior idea. Conservative = orthodox.

For instance, if a conservative mathematician is asked to deviate
from the idea that 2 + 2 = 4, he will refuse to accomodate no matter
the intensity of the emotion with which he is importuned.

If he is intimidated or seduced into admitting that 2 + 2 = 2.7,
then by so doing: he has rejected conservatism
and he has deviated into liberalism, which cannot exist,
except in the presence of deviation from SOMETHING.
For example,
a desperate poker player might take a liberal interpretation
of the rule that 5 cards of one suit are required to claim a flush,
when rakes in the pot with 4 clubs and a spade.
If liberalism had a motto, it woud be: "that 's close enuf."
If he were even MORE liberal, he 'd claim the flush
with 3 clubs, a spade and a heart. If he were radical,
he 'd just throw away the deck and rob the players of the pot.

Anyway, please note my dissent
from the assertions of your post.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Please note my exception to your use of the word "progressive"
inasmuch as it assumes, but does not prove, that changes from
the conservative original r improvements.
For instance, that is like saying that because time had progressed
from the Weimar Republic to the 3rd Reich that the latter was
more "progressive" i.e. better, a concept from which I dissent.

My use of the word "progressive" does not at all assume the way of thinking I intend for it to represent is an improvement over anything. You are investing it with the connotation which "Progressives" wish for it to have but which is by no means a given.

The days of your life or mine progress without fail until we die, but while each day represents a change from the last it does not necessarily represent improvement. Certainly there are those who believe that progression inherently leads to improvement, but these are people who also tend to believe that preservation inherently leads to stagnation. I refer to these people as "progressives", valuers of change for the sake of change.

The idea that change leads to improvement is hardly irrational, because there can't be improvement without change, but a blind faith in the value of change is unreasonable, and the belief that everything can and should be improved through change is as well.

I don't necessarily believe that all progressives have such a unreasonable attitude toward change, but a tendency to mentally default to the position. The same can, I think, be said about conservatives.

Quote:

Find Abuzz, speaking as one who worked in Barry Goldwater 's
Presidential election campaign and who voted for him,
and as one who whole heartedly supports the American Originalist
concepts of libertarianism, Individualism and laissez faire free enterprize,
I earnestly identify myself as a conservative.

A reasonable and common and somewhat expansive definition for the term "conservative."

Quote:

As a conservative, I was a little shocked n distressed to read (above)
your rejection of the concept that conservatism inheres in believing
an original belief: "that conservatives should all believe in whatever can be identified as the original idea on a given subject is ridiculous. . ."

Sorry David, I do reject the concept since I repudiate the idea that conservatives abhor and fear change to the extent that they will discount what is true.

Kuvaz was suggesting that conservatives somehow violated their credo by accepting or building on new ideas. By his suggestion, conservatives should not believe the theory of evolution to represent truth, but cling to the earliest beliefs concerning the origins of life.

A conservative scientist would be one who would not seek a new theory if the existing one continued to satisfy the questions it originally sought to answer, but it would be a pig-headed and failed scientist that refused to believe conclusive evidence supporting a new theory simply because it meant a change in the way of looking at the world.

Quote:

Conservative = orthodox

Conservative does not equal flat-earther.

Quote:

Anyway, please note my dissent
from the assertions of your post.

I don't know that we really disagree, but your dissent is noted.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

David wrote:

Quote:

Please note my exception to your use of the word "progressive"
inasmuch as it assumes, but does not prove, that changes from
the conservative original r improvements.
For instance, that is like saying that because time had progressed
from the Weimar Republic to the 3rd Reich that the latter was
more "progressive" i.e. better, a concept from which I dissent.

Find Abuzz wrote:

Quote:

My use of the word "progressive" does not at all assume the way of thinking
I intend for it to represent is an improvement over anything.
You are investing it with the connotation which "Progressives" wish
for it to have but which is by no means a given.

From yourdictionary.com:
prog⋅ress . . .
"noun 1. a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage:
the progress of a student toward a degree.
2. developmental activity in science, technology, etc., esp.
with reference to the commercial opportunities created thereby or
to the promotion of the material well-being of the public through the goods,
techniques, or facilities created.
3. advancement in general.
4. growth or development; continuous improvement:
He shows progress in his muscular coordination.
5. the development of an individual or society
in a direction considered more beneficial
than and superior to the previous level.
[emfasis added by DAVID]

Find Abuzz, please note that:
He who defines the nomenclature and adopts the applicable semantic
terminology of an argument, usually controls and wins that argument.
I refuse to concede the allegation that leftists are moving toward
an admirable goal, and I assert that thay are moving away
from personal freedom and moving toward worse economics.
Their engine of change is propelled by deception and lubricated by fraud.

Find Abuzz wrote:

Quote:

The idea that change leads to improvement is hardly irrational,
because there can't be improvement without change,

That is a non-sequitur, because change is as likely
to lead to deterioration or to something equal -- a lateral move.
Some change leads to improvement; some change leads to loss.

Find Abuzz wrote:

Quote:

but a blind faith in the value of change is unreasonable, and the belief that everything
can and should be improved through change is as well.

The folks who describe themselves as "progressives"
mean change TO THE LEFT, toward collectivism, toward authoritarianism
and away from "the cult of the Individual" as Hitler put it, and away from liberty.
I object to that.

David wrote:

Quote:

Find Abuzz, speaking as one who worked in Barry Goldwater 's
Presidential election campaign and who voted for him,
and as one who whole heartedly supports the American Originalist
concepts of libertarianism, Individualism and laissez faire free enterprize,
I earnestly identify myself as a conservative.

Find Abuzz wrote:

Quote:

A reasonable and common and somewhat expansive definition
for the term "conservative."

David wrote:

Quote:

As a conservative, I was a little shocked n distressed to read (above)
your rejection of the concept that conservatism inheres in believing
an original belief: "that conservatives should all believe in whatever
can be identified as the original idea on a given subject is ridiculous. . ."

Find Abuzz wrote:

Quote:

Sorry David, I do reject the concept since I repudiate the idea
that conservatives abhor and fear change to the extent that
they will discount what is true.

The issue in front of us is not one of emotion -- neither abhorence nor fear.
The issue in front of us is one of pure fact, to wit:
there either IS or is NOT deviation from a concept,
be it founded in a contract, a statute, a constitution,
a custom or any body of rules. That concept is dealt with
conservatively if there is NO deviation. It is dealt with liberally
if there IS deviation.
Conservative = non-deviant.
Liberal = deviant.
Conservative = paradigmatic.
Liberal = anomalous.
For instance: 2 men attend a formal social event,
both dressed in black tie and tails. One wears black patent leather shoes,
whereas the other wears red sneakers.
The first fellow is conservatively dressed.
The second fellow is dressed like a clown.

Find Abuzz wrote:

Quote:

Kuvaz was suggesting that conservatives somehow violated their credo
by accepting or building on new ideas. By his suggestion,
conservatives should not believe the theory of evolution to represent
truth, but cling to the earliest beliefs concerning the origins of life.

That allegation requires examination of the credo in question.
First, it raises the question of "conserving WHAT ?"
When that is identified, we must decide whether it is worth conserving.
If it is FALSE, then it is not worth keeping, and there is nothing to keep.
The reason that u keep it is that u believe that the truth of the matter exists.

Find Abuzz wrote:

Quote:

A conservative scientist would be one who would not seek
a new theory if the existing one continued to satisfy the questions
it originally sought to answer, but it would be a pig-headed and
failed scientist that refused to believe conclusive evidence supporting
a new theory simply because it meant a change in the way of looking at the world.

We do not
conserve things out of pig-headedness.
We conserve them because thay are WORTHY of being kept.
Our rights under the Constitution and our personal freedom
are WORTH keeping. If u give your word in a contract,
that is worth keeping; your honor is at stake.
Tho we be accused of pig-headedness,
conservatives need to be sure that the truth justifies
the stability of our stance.

David wrote:

Quote:

Conservative = orthodox

Find Abuzz wrote:

Quote:

Conservative does not equal flat-earther.

The REASON that it does not equal that, Find Abuzz, is that
upon reflection and due consideration, we have decided
that this belief is NO LONGER WORTHY OF CONSERVATION;
therefore (like a worn out pair of shoes) we hurl it into the trash,
the same way that Boris Yeltsin rejected his conservation of
his former communist ideology and resigned from the Party.
That rejection was a good riddance.
Our earlier rejection of the flat Earth idea was also a good riddance,
in vu of Columbus' findings.

We conserve something for as long as it is WORTH being kept.

Let us take note of something
in defining conservatism and liberalism:
in a country where individualism is not held in hi esteem
and its inhabitants have created a social contract, a constitution,
whereby individual freedom is subordinated to the general well being
(like under communism or nazism) a judge who applied principles
favoring individual freedom, by that act becomes a liberal
and if he exalts the general well being over individual freedom,
then he is applying that constitution conservatively.

David

1 Reply

David--Your exegesis is perfect. I read it twice and find that it expressed several ideas that I had not wrapped up as well as you did.

I am going to post a viewpoint on PROGRESSIVE which I think is in concordance with much of your post< David--

***********************************************

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

David

Reading your response I have no idea why you felt compelled to do so.

Except for the pejoratives you devote to liberals, you've basically restated what I wrote.

0 Replies

Re: kuvasz (Post 3675486)
Kuvasz must have bad vision or, perhaps, inability to read. His effort to demonize conservatives does not work.

He( and the far left wing Cyclops from the city of Berkeley-( from which Roman Catholics are afraid they will be expelled) either has not kept up on his reading or is a vicious liar!

Note:

Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church: (a summary, see below for more detail)

The Roman Catholic Church in 1950 under the leadership of Pope Pius XII, in the papal encyclical Humani Generis, stated that the "Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter" with the stipulations that souls are direct creations of God, and all true humans are descendants of particular historical individuals, Adam and Eve. This doctrine is known as "monogenism" versus "polygenism."
In October 1996, Pope John Paul II stated that "new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis" and restated from Humani Generis that "if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God." However, as John Paul II recognized in his Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "In his Encyclical Humani generis [1950], my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points." Thus, as a practical matter, evolution had been taught in Catholic primary and secondary schools, not to mention universities, for decades before 1996.

In July 2004, the International Theological Commission published a statement titled "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God" on creation, evolution, and God's providence. The president of the commission was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, then head of doctrine in the Catholic Church, who the following year became Pope Benedict XVI. The statement made explicit the Church's support of the findings of modern science and biological evolution, calling universal common descent "virtually certain," and that "even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation." (See especially paragraphs 62-70).

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

finn said

Quote:

Not any more than a progressive should get kudos for recognizing the societal value of nuclear families.

can you show me instances of where progressives belly ache about not getting kudos on this?

My point is that the thesis you insist on trotting out, that conservatives should all believe in whatever can be identified as the original idea on a given subject is ridiculous, and I suspect you know it.

my remark centered on your criticism of moral relativity. i just pointed out that even a conservative like you engages in it.

moral relativism is an expression of the basis of the scientific method where new data undermines theories based upon old data.

0 Replies

@genoves,

see, massy you just proved my point to finn, by citing the RCC with

Quote:

"new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis"

yes the RCC has come a long way since they burned bruno at the stake for writing about how the earth revolved around the sun, in 1600.

but considering your post was a reply to mine that listed the new things conservatives fought against you obviously don't comprehend english.

btw you have posted now nine times since i offered you the chance to articulate a conservative agenda for a post-modern 21st century america. instead of delivering you continue to filibluster and post your typical bullshit.

you really are quite an example of wingnut behavior. i warned you about how the rightwing nuts avoid the issues and instead attack the messenger because they cannot attack the message and you continued to sally forth with gorilla dust while avoiding the issue at hand.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

finn said

Quote:

Kuvaz was suggesting that conservatives somehow violated their credo by accepting or building on new ideas. By his suggestion, conservatives should not believe the theory of evolution to represent truth, but cling to the earliest beliefs concerning the origins of life.

I guess that it is easy to win an argument if all it takes is to put words in the mouth of your adversary.

So I would like you to show the readers of this thread direct, and not indirect evidence where I accuse conservatives of violating their "credo of conservatism," by not accepting evolution. My suggestion was that based upon history, conservatives fail the test in siding with the new ideas about the progression of civil rights, social programs, and evironmental protection.

You guys still don't get it. You have no basic philosophy. Its just as I stated before.

In dealing with the Right, even the most articulate, and reading their most articulate essays I'm constantly impressed with their lack of substance.

Conservatives seem to be without principles, calling what guides them a philosophy, let alone Hobbesian seems to be giving them far more distinction than they deserve. Rather their thought seems to be nothing more than crumbs and shards raked together from various sources-- Hobbes, Locke, Smith (invisible hand leading towards utopia), Marx (economic determinism), Freud (where they get their constant urge to play on middle class fear) and numerous others -- and shaped together into a formless mass which they mold to the desired situation. There is no philosophical system on the Right, rather only cynical opportunism mascarading as coherent thought, a fig leaf of virtue to hide their whoring ways.

I have no respect for them because they have no sense of shame. They are more akin to the Bolsheviks of Russia than to anything American (that is the reason that "Busheviks" appeals to me so much). For them everything comes down to attaining and retaining power and cashing in, nothing more.

It is not that the Right, or “conservatives” is a dirty word, rather that it exemplifies a position of no coherent philosophy, except pure, unbridled greed.

And since over a dozen posts have been submitted by alledged conservatives since I ask them to articulate a conservative philosophy vis a vis modern America it appears from their silence on this matter that they have no coherent philosophy, or none that they can articulate.

0 Replies

Kuvasz wrote:(with no supporting evidence or documentation)

So I would like you to show the readers of this thread direct, and not indirect evidence where I accuse conservatives of violating their "credo of conservatism," by not accepting evolution. My suggestion was that based upon history, conservatives fail the test in siding with the new ideas about the progression of civil rights, social programs, and evironmental protection.

You guys still don't get it. You have no basic philosophy. Its just as I stated before.

In dealing with the Right, even the most articulate, and reading their most articulate essays I'm constantly impressed with their lack of substance.

Conservatives seem to be without principles, calling what guides them a philosophy, let alone Hobbesian seems to be giving them far more distinction than they deserve. Rather their thought seems to be nothing more than crumbs and shards raked together from various sources-- Hobbes, Locke, Smith (invisible hand leading towards utopia), Marx (economic determinism), Freud (where they get their constant urge to play on middle class fear) and numerous others -- and shaped together into a formless mass which they mold to the desired situation. There is no philosophical system on the Right, rather only cynical opportunism mascarading as coherent thought, a fig leaf of virtue to hide their whoring ways.

**********************
Kuvasz says:

Conservatives fail the test in siding with the new ideas about the progression of civil rights, social programs and environmental protection.

Kuvasz complains about the lack of substance. He is the one who has no substance. Where is his proof for the sentence above ?

Doesn't Kuvasz know that ( and here is some substance for him) Conservative Republicans were in the forefront of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? It was the Democrats from the South who were the main opposition.

Social Programs? Doesn't Kuvasz know that the Welfare reform during the Clinton years( He signed the bill) was one of the best social programs in years.

Environmental Protection?
Is Kuvasz talking about the Cap and Trade Bill? If he is he will find that the major opposition to that bill will come from Blue Dog Democrats who are worried that the Cap and Trade will destroy the jobs in their districts.

Doesn't Kuvasz know that the so called environmentalist movement will fall apart in December when the Chinese and India refuse to become part of the effort UNLESS developed nations fill thier coffers. Doesn't Kuvasz read anything?

Kuvasz must be confused.

He says that conservatives have no philosophy> He hasn't read very much.

Here is a set of conservative principles for him to ponder:

CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES
The Constitution contains everything we need right now to enable us to run this nation properly. This includes the provision for making Constitutional Amendments to deal with new technology and foreign relation changes. But an Amendment MUST NOT violate or fundamentally re-write the Constitution.

If you want peace, prepare for war. The best way to have order and peace in the world is for the United States to be the world's mightiest military power. War should always be our last resort--but when we must resort to it, we must be prepared to be as deadly as possible so as to win and to win as soon as possible.

The predominant religious tradition--Judeo-Christianity--of this nation is to be respected, even by those who do not adhere to it. An attack on the right of Judeo-Christian practices to exist is to be considered an attack against the United States and is cause for declaring treason or going to war.

Rights are not privileges. Rights are rights and cannot be taken away from free citizens by the judiciary or anyone else. Likewise, privileges are not rights. Nobody has the "right" to drive a car or live the life of a wealthy man, for instance.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Fundamentalist Muslims and Socialists are enemies of the state and must have no power or public influence on any law or custom in this nation.

There may be times when "interference" in foreign nations' affairs is necessary to American security. After all, they do or intend to interfere with our affairs. Or do pirates now do something mysterious?

Marriage is strictly a heterosexual institution. There are gay Conservatives and they must have equal rights under the Constitution. But homosexual unions cannot be state-sanctioned any more than a mother marrying her own son can be sanctioned.

Private industry understands how and why do to things in a superior and more cost-effective way than anything the government can do, with the exception of military and law enforcement protection, emergency protection (such as local fire departments), and handling foreign affairs including immigration regulations. Therefore, private industry and private initiative must be allowed to run all affairs in this nation, including education and health care, with the exception of those few things enumerated here.

Illegal immigration is an abomination and must be treated as such.

Most of the time, when someone commits a crime, it's his own fault, and he must be made to pay for it.

The federal government as it currently is, is a bloated joke. Conservatives must immediately begin screaming for it to be shrunk by not less than 75%.

The welfare state is to be abolished. People who are down on their luck can look to charities

*****************************************************************

I hope that Kuvasz is trying to be funny when he names some of the people he thinks are in line with conservative principles.

hOBBES? How does he fit? Which conservative has cited him? Hobbes is much closer to the philosophy of Soviet Russia than our entreprenurial capitalism.

Locke?

1 Reply

OK, EVIL WON. NOW HOW FAR DOWN IS BOTTOM ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know