The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say
[QUOTE=OpportunityCost;1061521095]More kitchen sink approach. Ahh joy.
What I've proved is that by Atwaters own admission, that coded language and dog whistle's are part of his approach to reaching the emotions of racists. States Rights is code for segregation. Reagan called for States Rights in the kick off to his campaign...in the very spot where three civil rights workers were murdered. In a state that believes in segregation. Nothing is ever proved in politics. All of it is theory. None of it is scientific. You're left to your own conclusions based on the evidence you have. Do I think that Reagan and Atwater were appealing to the lowest element of humanity in their launching a presidential campaign in Neshoba County Mississippi? Absolutely. Out of every location in America to choose...what was the reason for choosing that one? Throw darts at a map? No. Politics, if anything is always calculated to appeal to the sentiments of particular voters. I'll grant you that this doesn't prove their motives. But it does bring them into question.Again, you have not provided proof of your assertions. You have supposition. Im not saying I have proof either. Im saying I offered my view. Your entire proof is based upon a logical leap, one you cannot prove conclusively.
It's not circular reasoning at all. The acceptence of any ideology depends on circular reasoning. When I say this: "The problem is when you accept that ideology you accept it all. And that means that when it comes to the truth or the ideology...the truth loses, because the ideology cannot be wrong. If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on?"...it's a criticism of ideology, and conservatism is an ideology. What you're suggesting here is that the criticism itself is a matter of circular reasoning, which of course it is not. First of all understand that when I say, YOU...I'm referring to the general you, and not you personally. You seem to have the idea that I'm putting you personally into the comment. I'm not. I don't know your positions on things other than your conservative claim. If an ideology is spelled out, and you accept it, you are accepting a premiss, and you are doing that as a result of an appeal to an authority. You believe in it. And beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (usually the source of the belief in question) and this justification by an appropriate authority makes the belief either rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it. However this is a requirement that can never be adequetly met due to the problem of validation or the dilemma of infinite regress vs. dogmatism. That's the criticism, and that is NOT circular reasoning. So if you're going to criticize the criticism through logic, you'd best find something that applies. Circular reasoning does not.Its wrong because its circular reasoning. You set your thesis without proof other than your own assertions.
Fine. I'll take that as a yes. Then knowing that, you must conclude that conservatism itself as an ideology is flawed. Your own experience can't be projected on the rest of society since it's totally subjective. What you find through your experience is quite different from my own. So why should the subjective experiences of people be packaged into a manifesto or ideology that we know is inherently flawed and prone to error, and then reject anything that offers to modify, or change a flawed concept or solve a pressing problem? Conservatism is a reaction to a challenge to the status quo. What justifies that reaction?What's real is a person that doesn't question their values as experience tempers them is a fool. I'm no fool.
Then you haven't been reading my comments. Nor have you even noticed my own self critical appology to Conservative for my mistake in accusing him of a comment made by Fenton. I've told you repeatedly on this thread that I can be wrong. When I am, I accept that and I make a change. Can you? I don't claim to have all the answers to lifes problems. I don't know what works because I already know that I'm fallible. What I can do is determine what doesn't work. I can determine if a statement made can be demonstrated as being true. Are the premises true? If they can be proven as true, the conclusion must be true.We use two forms of reasoning. Inductive and deductive. My own observations indicate that conservatives tend to rely on inductive reasoning more often than deductive. They draw general conclusions. Fine. We all do that every day. The problem is that those never prove anything. They say that because this happened before it will predict what will happen in the future. That doesn't prove the case, but they act as though it has. The only thing that proves something infallibly correct is a deductive syllogism. If the premises are true, then the conclusion is infallibly correct.Yeah, Im not making those sorts of statements, you seem to be. I question your ability to be self critical, its lacking from what I can see.
1.All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
The conclusion contains one or more of the premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion MUST infallibly be true.
That statement tells me that either you didn't read what I said, or are avoiding the issue. I didn't say that incorrect view are the held by any one political philosophy. I'm saying that one is more open to modifying their views than the other. That's the most fundamental difference between a conservative and a liberal. A conservative approach is to maintain what exists. A liberal approach involves change. But you already know that, so why would you pose that comment?Incorrect views dont hold to one political philosophy. Thats a narrow, shallow view you have there
Good. Then you are willing to compromise your beliefs? Is that what you're saying?How clever. You use the word sacred ground, then pretend as though I used it to refer to something I said when I did not bring it up.
Then you should be wide open to change. A modification of a long held belief is a liberalization of those long held beliefs. Are you saying that you accept liberalism?I prefer to learn from history, not repeat it.
Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.
Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.
Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.
Agreed. If you have no objections, I'll shorten it to Cost.Number one: my name on this forum is Opportunity Cost, use that name and that name only.
That might have something to do with the fact that you call yourself a conservative. You've labeled yourself to that ideology. Perhaps you should change that on your profile. If you don't label yourself as a conservative, then why do you do that very thing? It says Lean...conservative. What ideology are you saying that I'm showing and how am I not being honest about it? What you need to do when you say something like that is demonstrate it. Don't just say it, as if that makes it so. Because it doesn't.Yet you repeatedly linked me, over and over again to conservatism. You seem more keen on labeling me. You are most definitely showing an ideology, you just aren't being honest about it.
As opposed to the baiting and ad hominem personal attacks that I get from those on the right? That's the way I respond to absolutists. I'm sure they don't like it, but that's the territory they staked out for themselves. They, nor you should be concerned over how I choose to respond to nonsensical statements that they make. As for turning a critical eye on myself, I challenge my own thinking every day, and I hold it up to logic since there is no bias involved. As I said, my concern is with the truth of things. Not stroking my own ego. I got over that many years ago. If somebody points out an error, as you are attempting to do, then I leave it to logic to determine if what you're saying is valid. So far, I've seen no reason to accept what you are saying as true. When you point to circular reasoning, I find you're in error. It's a complete misuse of the term. But what's just as important, is pointing out why it's a misuse of the term, which I've done.I also know your posts are full of arrogance, pomposity, and lecturing tones. You aren't very good at acknowledging others as equals. You also arent within the margin of error on turning your self critical eye on yourself.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. My response was to your suggestion that Democrats see minorities as voting blocs rather than people. I disputed that claim and gave reasons why I find that false, and in fact find that it's Republicans that do that very thing. I even cited examples from people like Hannity. That strikes me as projection on your part. The word WE doesn't even exist in the post you're referring to. As for the word I, that isn't there. I do refer to YOU when it comes to labeling, since you did suggest that minorities are viewed by Dems as "voting blocs", rather than human beings. That's an assertion on your part, which I don't think is demonstrably true. I'm sure you're trying to make a point here. But I don't know what it is.Did you actually just assert that I back up an opinion that I said liberalism is racially motivated, then say you arent one to dispute my answer? Then as soon as you were done denying you were a democrat use WE to refer to me as a republican, and in the same paragraph say I engage too much in labeling? So much projection and hypocrisy.
Then stop labeling yourself as a conservative. Change your profile. Don't tell me and everyone else by raising the flag of conservative on your profile and then say that you don't accept conservative dogma. If you buy into Kirk, and Burke and Reagan, and Buckley, or the Tea Party, or whatever it is that is some extreme version of what defined conservative thinking by the people that actually founded the conservative movement that we are seeing today, and use them as the authority of your political views...you're labeling yourself, and people like me will challenge your self-proclaimed conservative views. Maybe your a "fiscal conservative" and a "social liberal". Maybe your some hybrid? But you don't say that. You call yourself a conservative. I'm telling you what my criticism is toward the conservative ideology. If you call yourself a conservative, which you do, then what I'm doing is challenging the conservative ideology itself. If you don't subscribe to that definition that is not mine, but that of those that codified it, then say so. Welcome to the world of the Free thinker. Criticize everything. Force any and every ideology to demonstrate why it's true. If it can't, then be careful what you align yourself to. That's my advice. You don't have to take it at all. That's up to you.There you go again. You have a lot more invested into labeling me than the other way around. What you are missing is that people dont adhere 100% to a political bent, they tend to support some ideas more than others. YOU want to toss the entire set of ideas at them and personalize it directly to them. Its a pretty dishonest way to debate.
My "thesis" is that there is no logical justification for conservatism. You haven't given me one argument that does justify it. It can't justify itself, so what is it based on? Conservatism isn't racist because it was in the constitution. It's racist because it wanted to maintain that position, at all costs. Unless you can tell me that conservatism is NOT concerned over maintaining existing institutions, (which would contradict the very essence of what it is) then it's you that will have to convince me that keeping a totally racist policy in tact, even to the point of a civil war, Jim Crow, and Segregation is not part of that ideology. If you see that as absolutist, then I would say that you're simply ignoring every obstruction to progress made by conservatives over our entire history as a nation. The justification for that obstructionism is empty. No liberal ever killed anybody that wanted the right to vote. Can a conservative say the same thing?LOL thats your thesis? That conservatism is rotten to the core and racist because slavery was in the constitution...over 200 years ago? And you call ME an absolutist?
I'm sure you've heard of Emmett Till. One of the two men that murdered him was named Milam. When he sold his story to Look Magazine after he was acquited by an all white jury, knowing that he couldn't be prosecuted for double jepordy, he said this: ""Well, what else could we do? He was hopeless. I'm no bully; I never hurt a n***** in my life. I like n******-- in their place -- I know how to work 'em. But I just decided it was time a few people got put on notice. As long as I live and can do anything about it, n****** are gonna stay in their place. N****** ain't gonna vote where I live. If they did, they'd control the government. They ain't gonna go to school with my kids. There is something inately wrong in that kind of thinking. It's a deep rooted desire to keep things as they are or were. Emmett Till represented a challenge to that orthodoxy, and he was murdered for it. The same thing goes for Schwerner, Cheney and Goodman when they were murdered by the Klan. They were killed for registering blacks to vote. Of course both incidents took place in Mississippi, where they don't like changes to their views on the world
Benjamin Tillman, a South Carolina governor and senator, speaking on the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1900:
“We of the South have never recognized the right of the negro to govern white men, and we never will. We have never believed him to be the equal of the white man, and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him.”
Old ideas are hard to shed for some people.
No. I haven't missed it at all. That's exactly what liberalism does. It recognizes change and doesn't fear it. It doesn't resist it. Conservatism does. And it's always a losing battle, because change is inevetible. Conservatism is a reaction to progressive movements that challenge orthodoxy. And that goes back to Edmund Burke. The Enlightenment was a drastic change in orthodoxy. Burke was the leading voice of the Anti-Enlightenment.You going to square that logical circle or did you miss that movements, people and ideas can change over time?
In his own critique of Conservatism, Freiderich Hayek, said this; In his words: “Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the
direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments.”
He went on to say this: "This brings me to the first point on which the conservative and the liberal dispositions differ radically. As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of
change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces.
Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles, it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are coordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously
lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal."
This is from the guy that conservative Mark Levin, loves to quote. Your very own comment, "people and ideas can change over time?" is an appeal to liberalism. So why do you label yourself a conservative? You did that long before I came on the scene.
Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.