The Problem I have with Conservatives - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14679305
The problem I have with conservatives is that they don't seem willing to compromise. They cannot be happy with being one among many, but rather must be THE one and if you give them an inch (out of kindness) they will try to take a mile. In other words, they are unreasonable. They seem like bullies, it is "my way or the highway." Often, the worst thing is that they are JUST PLAIN WRONG. In a sense a lot of their reasoning could be understood IF it were correct, but it just seems disconnected from reality a philosophy of words that is meaningless because it doesn't predict accurately.
#14679308
When you get down to its essence, Conservatism is nothing more than one man bullying another. Liberalism is the complete opposite.
#14679312
“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
#14681316
Rich wrote:When you get down to its essence, Conservatism is nothing more than one man bullying another. Liberalism is the complete opposite.

One woman bullying another woman?
#14681317
I think what he meant to say is: "Conservatism is one man bullying another man. With liberalism, it's the other way around." Lol.
#14681354
Conservatives are all worried about what goes on in your bedroom. Liberals, do not. Liberals put importance upon what goes on in public.

Conservatives also seem to have a lot of trouble dealing with facts, and statistics that prove that their fears are incorrect.
#14681407
Liberals can be guilty of all these things. For example, intelligence is partly heritable (genetic) and correlates across races which is also genetic. Liberals talk about equality and free markets at the same time, but if the market is truly free, not only will people not be equal, the races will also be demonstrably unequal. The whole thing is a shell game for white people to make them feel good about themselves in a post-Christian, hedge-your-bets-in-case-God-exists dynamic and it'll probably disappear the instant less intelligent races are numerous enough to make a real try for economic equality.
#14681471
Ummon wrote:The problem I have with conservatives is that they don't seem willing to compromise. They cannot be happy with being one among many, but rather must be THE one and if you give them an inch (out of kindness) they will try to take a mile. In other words, they are unreasonable. They seem like bullies, it is "my way or the highway." Often, the worst thing is that they are JUST PLAIN WRONG. In a sense a lot of their reasoning could be understood IF it were correct, but it just seems disconnected from reality a philosophy of words that is meaningless because it doesn't predict accurately.

Funny, that's exactly what the Greens are displaying over here.
#14681487
The problem with left-liberals is that they lack common sense. They do make up for that lack with hypermoralism, though.
#14681490
The problem with political discussions is how readily the devolve into petty bickering and name calling.

What ever happened to the great intellectual discussions people used to have when I joined.
#14681503
Ummon wrote:The problem I have with conservatives is that they don't seem willing to compromise. They cannot be happy with being one among many, but rather must be THE one and if you give them an inch (out of kindness) they will try to take a mile. In other words, they are unreasonable. They seem like bullies, it is "my way or the highway." Often, the worst thing is that they are JUST PLAIN WRONG. In a sense a lot of their reasoning could be understood IF it were correct, but it just seems disconnected from reality a philosophy of words that is meaningless because it doesn't predict accurately.

In my experience, liberals and conservatives are willing to compromise on different subjects. It just depends on how important the subject in question is to them/how strongly they feel about it.

Of course, there are some areas where both sides are usually not willing to move even an inch. For example, liberals tend to have too much confidence in the current state of scientific findings, presenting them as absolute facts that cannot be questioned, while conservatives will tend to go too far in the opposite direction. But there are some exceptions to this too where many liberals refuse to go along with the scientific consensus while many conservatives may not have a very strong opinion, e.g. GM food or alternative medicine.

And then there is debating style, whether your experience with conservatives and liberals is representative of the two groups and your own attitude towards the two which may be different depending on who you interact with.

In general, the association of certain personality types or personal traits with political convictions (or anything else) is a priori suspect. Usually - and regardless of who is asserting such an association - this serves the purpose of making self feel better and looking down on the "other".
#14681508
mikema63 wrote:The problem with political discussions is how readily the devolve into petty bickering and name calling.

What ever happened to the great intellectual discussions people used to have when I joined.


Part of the reason we have less than intelligent discussions sometimes is because people attack each other's ideologies instead of attacking each other's arguments.

For example, Rei would often assume that my support for human rights made me a liberal, and thereofre made me a capitalist, which therefore made me guilty of the supposed hypocrisy mentioned by Hong Wu.

Discussing that supposed hypocrisy rather than discussing the subject at hand often detracted from the discussion. And it was incorrect. Likewise, when we discuss issues with conservatives, we should be careful to focus on their arguments and not the inconsistencies we project onto their ideologies.

This would not only lead to more polite discussions, but I think they would be more fruitful as well, in terms of revealing truths about politics.
#14681516
Banning everyone who is into it enough to get irate probably hasn't helped. Young people can't separate anger from passion and some people never learn how to do it.
Image
#14682448
Ummon wrote:The problem I have with conservatives is that they don't seem willing to compromise.

Socialists and communists are the same.
They cannot be happy with being one among many, but rather must be THE one and if you give them an inch (out of kindness) they will try to take a mile. In other words, they are unreasonable. They seem like bullies, it is "my way or the highway." Often, the worst thing is that they are JUST PLAIN WRONG. In a sense a lot of their reasoning could be understood IF it were correct, but it just seems disconnected from reality a philosophy of words that is meaningless because it doesn't predict accurately.

Again, IME this all describes socialists and communists even better than conservatives.
Heinie wrote:The problem with conservatives is that they lack ordinary human compassion.

The right is elitist, the left egalitarian. So as conservatives are on the right, they view the unfortunate as mainly authors of their own misfortunes, and thus unworthy of much compassion, whereas those on the left consider them victims of injustice and thus suitable objects of compassion.

My view has changed over the years, as I've gained perspective. I used to look at the poor and notice how they typically chose behavior that made them poor: violence; use of alcohol and drugs; gambling; luxury consumption; dishonesty; criminality; irresponsible sexuality; etc. Now I have a more nuanced view, and believe that much of the poor's self-defeating behavior results from the doleful effects of generations of relentlessly compounded injustice -- like compound interest -- that makes it hard for them to rise out of squalor. I don't doubt that some portion is due to genetics, some to lack of character, some to bad luck; but I am convinced that most is due to centuries of massive, systematic, institutionalized, and wholly gratuitous injustice.
#14682490
Wow.
Communism vs. Socialism
In a way, communism is an extreme form of socialism. Many countries have dominant socialist political parties but very few are truly communist. In fact, most countries - including staunch capitalist bastions like the U.S. and U.K. - have government programs that borrow from socialist principles. "Socialism" is sometimes used interchangeably with "communism" but the two philosophies have some stark differences. Most notably, while communism is a political system, socialism is primarily an economic system that can exist in various forms under a wide range of political systems.
truth to power wrote:Socialists and communists are the same.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism

Capitalism, Socialism and Communism
Most people have only a vague understanding of the differences between communism and socialism and, incorrectly, these two terms are often used interchangeably. Marx and Engels in their critique of capitalism pointed out that ruthless competition and heartless pursuit of money are immoral as they create exploitation of the masses by the very few privileged ones. As an alternative, they envisioned a classless society, without hierarchy, without currency, without personal property, where people would work in harmony, resolve their problems in friendly discussions, produce enough goods and services, and where each would contribute according to his abilities and receive according to his needs. This community-centered form of social order is called communism.

In the classic view of communism, a communist society was the ultimate goal and destination for humankind. Followers of classic communism realized that it would be impossible to switch to communism directly from a capitalistic system they deemed immoral. They believed that society needed time for transition. During that transition, called socialism, the representatives of people should be in charge of the means of production, and guide the society toward communism. This was the essence of the very existence of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They had their Communist Party of the Soviet Union, but the longer they were in power, the less they talked about transition to communism. In China, their communist party ended up leading the transition to capitalism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/henryk-a- ... 23486.html
#14683102
Godstud wrote::lol: Wow.
Communism vs. Socialism
In a way, communism is an extreme form of socialism. Many countries have dominant socialist political parties but very few are truly communist. In fact, most countries - including staunch capitalist bastions like the U.S. and U.K. - have government programs that borrow from socialist principles. "Socialism" is sometimes used interchangeably with "communism" but the two philosophies have some stark differences. Most notably, while communism is a political system, socialism is primarily an economic system that can exist in various forms under a wide range of political systems.

truth to power wrote:Socialists and communists are the same.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism

Seriously, Godstud?? The context of my post makes it clear I meant socialists and communists are the same AS conservatives in their unwillingness to compromise -- or, for that matter, to know facts that prove their beliefs are false.

< irrelevancies snipped >

@Negotiator , Many populations don't support goi[…]

Cricket

:roll: It's either "I don't care", or &[…]

One would imagine that any sentient being would re[…]

The Central Plaza mall parking lot at opening time[…]