Discussion in 'Politics' started by madanthonywayne, Mar 20, 2007.
People make conservatism sound like a good idea Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
In case 'Prince' James hasn't noticed yet, science is anti-conservative because it is constantly changing.
Hence creationists have so much trouble with accepting science. They want definite answers that will never ever change.
I dont understand conservatism. Well most of it. Bits of it I can understand. Lets have a look at the word 'conservatism'... to 'conserve', but when I look around me in the world whereby we waste everything, we kill each other, we kill each other over who's god has the biggest imaginary penis, co2 emissions, cfc`s, snuff movies, etc... I can see a lot that needs change. A real lot if we wish to become better humans, and move off this rock.
I see more room for change than I do for stuff that needs to stay the same.
I can only assume that those who disagree with moving forward, have no intention of becoming better human beings so are therefore lacking in ability.
Is this Dutch for "I don't know what the Hell I am speaking about"?
Political conservatism doesn't require a lack of change.
You're rather abusing the meaning of the words when you apply "conserve" to "conservatism" (political).
The "left-wing indoctrination factories" theory has been put forward for a long time.
Why? Universities scrutinize reality and develop educated opinions while at the same time sustaining freedom of speech. There's really nothing more than that.
Far enough to the Right, what's Left? Everybody else.
It's English actually. If I would write Dutch you would see something like this.
jij bent toch ook zo'n zotte lambik! tis gewoon om je een scheur te lachen.
it is also one of the premiere medical schools in the united states.
My Dad went to med school there, fine school indeed.
Better to be crazy than to be incapable of even elaborating one's hatred of a political doctrine.
Seriously, learn something called "rationality". It's useful.
On this forum, if self-identification as "conservative" is accepted as reasonable.
We have a vocabulary problem, of course, in that American self-described "conservatism" often includes traditionally liberal ideas such as laissez faire capitalist economic structure. But that would come under the "ignorance" rubric, no?
Accepting the self-definitions, a political faction whose most prominent and/or widest-read intellectual proponents are Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity (Ann Coulter is the best selling "conservative" non-religious author) is rife with reflexive bigotries
and one whose most representative news outlet is Fox News Television (whose percentage of viewers believing famous known definite falsehoods is double the national average) is rife with ignorance.
Which network do you think is least "rife with ignorance?"
Dona nobis pacem
That's all you got from reading it?
I used a specific example for a specific reason. If you would be so kind as to consider:
- Is it "politically correct" to note the original histories and source materials?
- Is it "politically correct" to teach blatantly false histories in order to avoid teaching something perceived as unpleasant or unsettling?
- Is it the undue influence of "political correctness" to attempt to persuade public institutions to cease promoting propaganda as historical fact?
That's the reason I used the Columbus example. Really. It's not about beating up the hero. It's about how he came to be a hero in the first place. Nobody made up the horrible charges against them; they are written in his own hand.
Not only is there a shock for so many students when they realize the "history" in which they've invested effort and emotion is simply a myth, but, as Loewen's book points out, presenting myths in lieu of history deprives students and, eventually, communities, of the opportunity to learn from the complexities of the human endeavor.
There are some modern revisions that are absolutely appalling, pure shite.
But how can we expect that young students spoon-fed simplistic myths won't eventually find out about the evidence of history, such as what the original sources say? Ah, there the answer is simple: accuse the practice of considering original histories of being "politically correct".
Additionally, given that both left and right are absolutely infested with crappy historical revisions, we might also look at the Columbus affair to point out that it's not necessarily a liberal conspiracy behind the illusion of "left indoctrination factories". Rather, whether or not you like what liberalism does with the facts, at least on those occasions it deals with facts. That the conservative outlook should align so well with the myths breaking down beneath the scrutiny of collegiate scholarship should surprise nobody. The preservation of certain myths is at the core of conservatism.
As for American conservatism being rife with ignorance and reflexive bigotries, look some of the headline issues:
- Creationism as a science: It is not a liberal conspiracy that holds down creationism; as I have repeatedly pointed out, ID advocates, in order to be taken seriously in a scientific context, need a testable hypothesis. Evolution as a hypothesis is valid and reliable; when the data suggest something else, then there will be a question.
- Traditional marriage: It's hard to mount a rational response to the conservative attack against homosexuals because it's just a blistering wind coming from the homophobes. If it is important enough to enshrine gender discrimination in the Constitution, fine: go ahead and try. But the rest of society should not be expected to lie. The rhetoric is stupid and hateful and obsessive.
- Judicial activism: Could someone please explain to me how the Supreme Court might "legislate from the bench" in finding no compelling argument to overturn a state (Missouri) Supreme Court decision? The conservative outcry in Roper v. Simmons bemoaned the passing of an apparently beloved practice: executing children. It struck me that some accused the U.S. Supreme Court of "legislating from the bench" when its decision upheld that of a state Supreme Court. Missouri, need I remind, is not exactly a famed liberal bastion. But it's a great example. There's the myth: "Legislating from the bench!" And then there's the historical record: refusing to overturn a state court finding. You'll find more of what conservative pundits call "judicial activism" among conservative judges seeking ways around the Constitution.
The list goes on. I won't take everyone's fun. Like, I'll spare my analysis of the Schiavo debacle. And I'll let others go on and on about the Bush Wars. Er, I mean, the Pax Americana.
And I wanted to note, also, Prince James, that even by your definition--
--it still applies as delivered.
Academics aren't the only paid thinkers on the planet. They're not even the best remunerated thinkers on the planet -- even in a free market place. They're not even automatically the best communicators on the planet.
But they do think they're pretty hot shit.
I know. Been there, done that.
I'm fairly confident that my shit has been hotter longer than all you upstarts'.
Funny how contempt works with a seemingly special symmetry.
We have a rare point of agreement, Mr. G.
You can have your hot shit, by the way.
From where I stand, your interpretation of "realty" is as egregious an intellectual affront to the rest of us as is the Right's interpretation of reality.
After all, so much of your reality is defined as being not-Right -- more precisely, not not-Left.
I'm a huge heavy metal fan. But what I find most disconcerting about the genre's practitioners is that their lyrical identities are founded on being against what they say they deny being possibly real.
If one can intellectually rationalize the non-existence of something, why the need to obsess over it?
You spend an awfully great amount of your time trying to convince others that conservatives are vacuous, brain-dead idiots who subscribe to patently obvious brain-dead ideas.
So, why would the patently obvious need you as a cheerleader?
Having preceded you in actual fact, mine is not yours to grant.
I shall leave you with yours, however.
And growth aways means moving to the Left, correct?
Your post is clear evidence of the fact that it is the left that is narrow minded and bigoted.
You liberals are so damned arrogant you honestly think that intellectual growth equals moving to the left. Anything else is clear evidence of a mind saddled with "ignorance and reflexive bigotries".
Where do you get such patently absurd ideas? From your bigoted, left-wing professors, no doubt.
What US conservatives are trying to conserve is the ideals of the Founding Fathers. Freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, capitalism, freedom of religion, etc.
In other words, classical liberalism. What American liberals want is statism (be it communism or socialism, it all sucks).
So please check your facts before calling others ignorant.
Separate names with a comma.