• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Conservative Skeptics?

If we are talking about the extremists on either side, then (believe it or not) I really do tend to agree with you.

Then perhaps you should take a look in the mirror. Your political self-righteousness is beyond evident all over this board.

By the way, way to welcome a new poster to the board, you self-righteous, pompous...um, person.

AS
 
No disrespect, but I find this comment mind boggling. Disagree with them all you want...it is the people on the Left who tend to be the self-questioners (which is a primary reason they have no power in government anymore).

Well, that's a little misleading, wouldn't you say? In the 1950s, indeed, it was the left-wing that was the self-questioning. But since the 1960s, the left became the orthodoxy in certain circles--esepcially in the American Northeast and in institutes of higher education. Certainly the left-wing professors I have met, and I have met many, are as certain in the correctness of their views as I am certain about anything.

Questioning leftist platitudes is just as hard as questioning, say, christian fundamentalism--if you grow up in a society (such as, say, Ann Arbor or Boston or most American college campuses) where those platitudes are taken as self-evident truths.

As a group, the shining characteristic of conservatives tends to be that they are so certain all the time.

Possibly. But I haven't found left-wingers to be less certain in their beliefs; the acceptance of certain dogmas as self-evident truths that no sane person would possibly question, is just as prevalent on the left as it is on the right. The dogma is "Bush is evil" (for example) instead of "Jesus is Lord" (for example), but is held no less dogmatically and uncritically for all that.

It is just that on the left things tend to be more hypocritical about it: the dogmas are just as dogmatic and held with just as much certainty, but it is pretended that the emotional and uncritical acceptance of left-wing dogmas was reached after some sort of objective, fair analysis and is just held tentatively.

To use an analogy, left-wing dogmatism is like "Intelligent Design", while right-wing dogmatism is like six-day young-earth creationism. Both believe in certain false dogmas for emotional or social reasons, but the "Intelligent Design" movement pretends it's just "objective" and "skeptical".

Richard Dawkins said, quite rightly, that one's religious beliefs are determined, 99% of the time, simply by the accident of birth and upbringing. True. Only he forgot that the same is true, in many cases, for whether one is right-wing or left-wing. Someone growing up in a small town in the south is likely to be right-wing; but someone growing up in, say, Boston or Ann Arbor is no less likely to be left-wing.


Well said, Skeptic. I couldn't agree more.

AS
 
Then perhaps you should take a look in the mirror. Your political self-righteousness is beyond evident all over this board.

By the way, way to welcome a new poster to the board, you self-righteous, pompous...um, person.

AS

Coming from you that was...interesting. ;)

In my own defence, the opening post was, if not trolling, certainly no better than anything I said in response.
 
In my own defence, the opening post was, if not trolling, certainly no better than anything I said in response.

How so? I was making a comment about young liberals, then made a humorous and true observation.

I think trolling looks more like this:

You silly liberal biatches don't know nuthin! How we 'spose to stop terrorism if y'all always huggin' yo trees n' what not?
 
Broadly speaking, liberalism is the impetus, conservativism is the grounding.

For each to do its part well, skepticism is required.

This would seem to imply that liberalism and conservatism are not mutually exclusive, but two tools for the well-rounded skeptic. I'll go along with that.
 
This would seem to imply that liberalism and conservatism are not mutually exclusive, but two tools for the well-rounded skeptic. I'll go along with that.

That would be reasonable!

We can't have any of that now...
 
I tend to be a small government conservative who believes in personal responsibility. Hence, I am not a supporter of the modern borrow-and-spend republicans who are busy-bodying their way into personal lives.

Democrats may be spenders, but at least tax-and-spend is fiscally responsible, and I go for the "liberal" approach on personal issues.
 
I think that the Bush Administration has placed a very unfortunate aura of ignorance over the conservative image. Bush is hardly a Republican in the traditional sense.

Also, many "Republicans" are extremely naive about a great many things, as are many "Democrats". The former, for example, is still convinced that this war is about terrorism. The latter is still convinced that this war is a fascist corporate conspiracy.

Both are miserably wrong, of course.
 
But then again, maybe we should be looking to rehabilitate convicted rapists. I mean, their contribution to society is worth so much more than any risk they pose being out of jail...

I mean, we really do need another bus driver!

Sorry, couldn't resist.
 
Way to read the discussion.

I have. Since conservatism, by it's very nature, is a reliance on and an appeal to the establishment for the structure of society and forming of opinion, it excludes any skeptical criticism of the status quo.
 
But then again, maybe we should be looking to rehabilitate convicted rapists. I mean, their contribution to society is worth so much more than any risk they pose being out of jail...

You must be a fan of the Catholic church and their rape happy ways.
 
Since conservatism, by it's very nature, is a reliance on and an appeal to the establishment for the structure of society and forming of opinion, it excludes any skeptical criticism of the status quo.

Edmund Burke disagreed.

As did Hamilton.

As did Nixon.

As did Winston Churchill.

Nixon opened relations with China.

Reagan changed defense policy and paved a new economic policy based on inflation.

Yeap, we conservatives just live in the stone age.
 
You must be a fan of the Catholic church and their rape happy ways.

Yeah, way to read. I believe I pointed out my disdain for religion on the very first post.
 
How so? I was making a comment about young liberals, then made a humorous and true observation.

I think trolling looks more like this:

You silly liberal biatches don't know nuthin! How we 'spose to stop terrorism if y'all always huggin' yo trees n' what not?

Humorous and biased. here's your quote that I was actually responding to:

My favorite are liberals who actively attack Creationists and then turn around and check their horoscopes.

I like to consider myself a fully rational individual, taking the best elements from each side, trimming the fat, and being realistic. It just seems that when you trim away the fat (religion from conservatives and tree hugging from liberals), the intellectually conservative perspective just has much less ********.

Which I answered with a reminder that the king of the neocons, Ronald Reagan was a perfect example of why your point was silly.

Truthfully, I am not sure why AS found my post offensive...I am tempted to say it is because conservatives have no sense of humor about themselves and their cause...but that would be self-righteous. ;)
 
Edmund Burke disagreed.

As did Hamilton.

As did Nixon.

As did Winston Churchill.

Nixon opened relations with China.

Reagan changed defense policy and paved a new economic policy based on inflation.

Yeap, we conservatives just live in the stone age.

Nixon?!?!?!?!?!

The man kept an enemies list of anyone who so much as disagreed with him! (although the China bit was a good one.)
 

Back
Top Bottom