View Poll Results: Does this video portray conservatism accurately?

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    9 47.37%
  • No

    7 36.84%
  • Why isn't this guy president?

    1 5.26%
  • Dude, f*** this guy

    4 21.05%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 119

Thread: Does this video explain conservatism accurately?

  1. #61
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,749

    Re: Does this video explain conservatism accurately?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    I repeat #57. I know what you're trying to say but I think we are talking past each other.
    No, I'm pointing out that faith is pointless. If all you're going to argue is faith, then you cannot have a rational debate.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Does this video explain conservatism accurately?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Tell a Christian to go to Iran and openly practice their religion and tell me how inalienable it is.
    That doesn't mean it's not an inalienable right. That just means there are some countries which suppress certain inalienable rights, such as the example you offer.

    And I don't know about you, but I'm in the U.S. where I'm free to exercise my religion without worries of government interference because that is an inalienable right and the U.S. respects that.

  3. #63
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Does this video explain conservatism accurately?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    No, I'm pointing out that faith is pointless. If all you're going to argue is faith, then you cannot have a rational debate.
    Natural and inalienable rights are the basic philosophical underpinnings of free societies. They have to be asserted and defended by the people, but there is no way to present some sort of empirical evidence to you that "proves they exist." They're not empirical, by definition, really.

    I want this country to be a relatively free society, I think it was established with that in mind, many Americans seem to pride themselves in their national heritage that emphasizes liberty, et cetera. I believe people have natural rights to life, liberty and property even when their government is abusing those rights, causing them to live as though they do not have them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Tell a Christian to go to Iran and openly practice their religion and tell me how inalienable it is.
    It is inalienable even if governments are abusing people because of it. You are seeing rights only as an outcome provided by government, rather than as inherent to our nature.

    Think about it this way: some children in this country are being sexually abused. Does their right not to be sexually abused depend on whether they are being victimized or not? Do some children (the ones getting raped) have no right to protection from sexual abuse, or do they have that right but it's being trampled?

    It's that notion that rights originate entirely with whatever that day's government says that causes people to constantly look to government to solve all their problems. Government defines what it means to be human, for these people.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 04-21-13 at 07:56 PM.

  4. #64
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,749

    Re: Does this video explain conservatism accurately?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    That doesn't mean it's not an inalienable right. That just means there are some countries which suppress certain inalienable rights, such as the example you offer.

    And I don't know about you, but I'm in the U.S. where I'm free to exercise my religion without worries of government interference because that is an inalienable right and the U.S. respects that.
    You are free to exercise your religion because the society where you live has given you that right. In Iran, for example, they do not have that right. Unfortunately, some people confuse their own desire for people to have the rights with which they are familiar and comfortable with the expectation that every actually has it, whether they do or not. Rational people need to be able to set aside their emotional desires and deal with the factual reality that surrounds us all. Claims of natural law do not do that.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  5. #65
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,749

    Re: Does this video explain conservatism accurately?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Natural and inalienable rights are the basic philosophical underpinnings of free societies. They have to be asserted and defended by the people, but there is no way to present some sort of empirical evidence to you that "proves they exist." They're not empirical, by definition, really.
    Which really says nothing. The basic philosophical underpinnings of religions require the existence of gods, that doesn't actually demonstrate that gods exists. Natural rights is an idea. You might want it to be true, that doesn't mean that it actually is true. If you're basing your entire philosophy on something you desire to be true rather than something that is true, then your philosophy has problems.

    I want this country to be a relatively free society, I think it was established with that in mind, many Americans seem to pride themselves in their national heritage that emphasizes liberty, et cetera. I believe people have natural rights to life, liberty and property even when their government is abusing those rights, causing them to live as though they do not have them.
    You're free to believe whatever you want. As the saying goes though, you're welcome to your own beliefs, you are not welcome to your own facts. So long as you are clear that you're only talking about your opinions, fine. The second you claim that your opinions represent fact, then you need to back it up.

    It is inalienable even if governments are abusing people because of it. You are seeing rights only as an outcome provided by government, rather than as inherent to our nature.
    Says who and how do you know? I also think that the libertarian view of government is bizarre. Government is not some alien construct imposed on society, the government we have is what is put in place and maintained by society. If you don't like the government, don't go looking for our alien overlords, look at society.

    Think about it this way: some children in this country are being sexually abused. Does their right not to be sexually abused depend on whether they are being victimized or not? Do some children (the ones getting raped) have no right to protection from sexual abuse, or do they have that right but it's being trampled?
    Yes they do, often by religious clergy. And we, as a society, determine that people under a certain age cannot legally engage in sexual activity. That age has changed dramatically over the years, it wasn't that long ago when girls of 13 could get married. Today, that's no the case. So did the age of sexual conduct change because society decided it should, or because "natural law" changed? These are things libertarians never bother to think about.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  6. #66
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Does this video explain conservatism accurately?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Which really says nothing. The basic philosophical underpinnings of religions require the existence of gods, that doesn't actually demonstrate that gods exists. Natural rights is an idea. You might want it to be true, that doesn't mean that it actually is true. If you're basing your entire philosophy on something you desire to be true rather than something that is true, then your philosophy has problems.
    This could be said about literally anybody's idea of how societies/governments should operate. True/false does not apply to people's philosophies.

    Says who and how do you know? I also think that the libertarian view of government is bizarre. Government is not some alien construct imposed on society, the government we have is what is put in place and maintained by society. If you don't like the government, don't go looking for our alien overlords, look at society.
    I do look at society, and I think to myself that they are abdicating their lives to government by thinking of government as a god-like or parent-like provider of needs and originator of rights.

    Yes they do, often by religious clergy.
    (?) More often by their own addict parents.

    And we, as a society, determine that people under a certain age cannot legally engage in sexual activity. That age has changed dramatically over the years, it wasn't that long ago when girls of 13 could get married. Today, that's no the case. So did the age of sexual conduct change because society decided it should, or because "natural law" changed? These are things libertarians never bother to think about.
    Yes they have. The child sexual abuse example was just one example, but really it could apply to anyone, because adults also have a right not to be raped. Those who get raped anyway nonetheless have the same rights as anyone else. They're just being trampled by someone. Even if a majority of Americans elect a bunch of representatives who all agree (and put it into law) that Sally Smith of Tulsa, Oklahoma can be legally raped and the Supreme Court upholds it... Sally Smith still has a right not to be raped or abused, regardless of whatever twisted laws were passed or however many twisted voters supported it.

  7. #67
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Does this video explain conservatism accurately?

    I really don't need a silly youtube video to explain the meaning of political terms I studied decades before there was even an internet.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  8. #68
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,749

    Re: Does this video explain conservatism accurately?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    This could be said about literally anybody's idea of how societies/governments should operate. True/false does not apply to people's philosophies.
    There's a difference between saying "this is my opinion" and saying "this is a fact." And yes, true and false absolutely applies to people's philosophies when they make claims about reality. If someone's opinion is that elephants can fly, their opinion is wrong.

    I do look at society, and I think to myself that they are abdicating their lives to government by thinking of government as a god-like or parent-like provider of needs and originator of rights.
    That's what happens when you hold a minority political view. Instead of just acknowledging that your side doesn't have the political power to make the changes you wish could be made, you want to invent a set of your own facts so that anyone who disagrees with you is just factually wrong. Sorry, that's not how it works.

    (?) More often by their own addict parents.
    Pedophile priests are rampant in the Catholic Church and sex abuse among the clergy is widespread across virtually all religions.

    Yes they have. The child sexual abuse example was just one example, but really it could apply to anyone, because adults also have a right not to be raped. Those who get raped anyway nonetheless have the same rights as anyone else. They're just being trampled by someone. Even if a majority of Americans elect a bunch of representatives who all agree (and put it into law) that Sally Smith of Tulsa, Oklahoma can be legally raped and the Supreme Court upholds it... Sally Smith still has a right not to be raped or abused, regardless of whatever twisted laws were passed or however many twisted voters supported it.
    Tell that to women in the Middle East where rape is rampant and the rapist is rarely punished. In fact, rape is often blamed on the woman. I'm not saying I agree with it, I personally consider it immoral, but I'm not foolish enough to think that my morals somehow apply planet-wide. You, on the other hand, think that your opinion automatically apply to everyone, everwhere, without their consent, just because you want it to.

    You might want to rethink that.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  9. #69
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Does this video explain conservatism accurately?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    There's a difference between saying "this is my opinion" and saying "this is a fact." And yes, true and false absolutely applies to people's philosophies when they make claims about reality. If someone's opinion is that elephants can fly, their opinion is wrong.
    I'm not stating this stuff as "fact." I'm stating it as something I believe. I believe people have a natural right to their own lives, their liberty, and property they rightfully have or obtained. You believe differently or something?

    That's what happens when you hold a minority political view. Instead of just acknowledging that your side doesn't have the political power to make the changes you wish could be made, you want to invent a set of your own facts so that anyone who disagrees with you is just factually wrong. Sorry, that's not how it works.
    Can you find where I presented my statements about natural rights as "fact?" I don't think that was my angle. If you can find me saying that I'll address it.

    Pedophile priests are rampant in the Catholic Church and sex abuse among the clergy is widespread across virtually all religions.
    Okay cool, but more kids happen to be raped by their parents than by religious leaders. Why are we even arguing about this small point anyway?

    Tell that to women in the Middle East where rape is rampant and the rapist is rarely punished. In fact, rape is often blamed on the woman. I'm not saying I agree with it, I personally consider it immoral, but I'm not foolish enough to think that my morals somehow apply planet-wide. You, on the other hand, think that your opinion automatically apply to everyone, everwhere, without their consent, just because you want it to.
    I get it. I would say those women have a natural right not to be raped, because they are humans and humans have human rights. It seems you would argue that those women have no right not to be raped, because humans only have rights when their governments say they do. You seem to not grasp the difference here because you keep saying the same types of things, which causes me to keep saying the same types of things.

    And lastly, it is not foolish to suggest that it simply is immoral to rape women and blame them for what just happened to them (not just immoral in your personal individual opinion, but immoral as recognized universally). The same way it is universally considered immoral to kill (deprive of life) and steal (deprive of property). These things are not just wrong according to some and okay according to others. They're wrong, whether governments sanction it or not.

  10. #70
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Does this video explain conservatism accurately?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Okay cool, but more kids happen to be raped by their parents than by religious leaders. Why are we even arguing about this small point anyway?
    His entire point is that the existence of things like rape, murder, theft, etc is proof that natural rights is wrong. It's the same argument people like him always make and have been making since the 18th century.

    I doubt they will ever see that it was largely the point.

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •