• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Serious or Parody?

Is this serious or parody?


  • Total voters
    24
You are entitled to your opinion. I was just stating mine. Children learn far more from what you actually DO. Little eyes are always watching. In fact if you talk to CC I bet he would confirm this.

Without a doubt. A parent who says one thing and does another is likely teaching a very important lessons, that children should say one thing, and do another. The average kid is a ****ing savant when it comes to learning, compared to adults.
 
Praeger's premise got smoked before it left his brain. He assumes that everyone agreeing with him is in agreement with what conservatism is today, in 2013. I have a neighbor, good guy, far right conservatism who thinks Christie should be deported in the middle of the night. My brother, who is a conservative, thinks Christie represents a return to real conservatism, the conservatism he believed in for many years. My cousin is an ardent supporter of Tea Partisan conservatism. I have another cousin who is a very born again member of the GOP and a former state senator. None of them agree with what conservatism is or what it should be. I can guaran-damn-tee you my brother would not raise his children to be the kind of conservatives my neighbor or my cousins are. Also, aside from all of the above there are beaucoup conservatives who fervently wish to keep religion out of government.

Praeger seems oblivious to the notion that religion isn't something everyone wants in their political party. In fact, Praeger's myopia underscores the GOP/conservatism's inability or unwillingness to recognize other factions under the conservative umbrella. Praeger isn't talking to perhaps the majority of conservatives who are not religious or not that religious or who simply believe that religion is a personal matter and not a political matter.

The GOP is a blazing donnybrook today. A complete mess. Factions in the GOP are almost at war with each other as they wrestle for control. I was once a registered Republican, but when the party left me I said, "Adios" and never invited them back. Conservatism is not today what it once was to me. It will surely not be in the future what it is today. What Praeger is preaching is continued factionalism within the GOP and conservatism and he'd like conservatives to pass it along to their children.
 
Last edited:
is there really a "left" in america ,thats the question

such arguments are always raised by capitalists that use the religion to limit people's resistance to injustice ,not real conservatives
 
If You Want a Conservative Child | National Review Online

A sample:



So, the question: is this supposed to be taken seriously, or is this a Colbert style parody? I really just cannot tell, but the article is good for many laughs.




I found the article at the link laughable but Dennis Prager is not a humorist.

What he has written is a deadly serious piece about how right-wing parents can brainwash their unsuspecting children into becoming right-wing robots without a single independent thought.
 
Like I said before, I know lots of these people and was raised by them. This aint funny, it is very real.
Dennis Prager is not a humorist.

What he has written is a deadly serious piece about how right-wing parents can brainwash their unsuspecting children into becoming right-wing robots without a single independent thought.
 
I should be clear that while I am making fun of the writer of the article and those who think like that, I don't think most conservatives do think like this.




I agree that most real Conservatives don't think like this guy but unfortunately some people on the far right do.
 
Why don't you break down that for which you are actually "making fun of the writer"? I am curious as to what might be so funny, what might not be absolutely serious and what you might think would be a better plan for children being inundated today with all sorts of silliness that either keeps them, or delays them, from being/becoming the good solid citizens that have a sense of right and wrong and just what is a positive direction for them individually, and we as a nation, to pursue?




Children should be encouraged to think for themselves and to give everyone else every right that they claim for themselves.

It would be nice if all adults in the USA would do the same.
 
Once again we have a failed premise. The idea behind raising your children with a moral compass and teaching them to behave fairly to others is not necessarily rooted in religion at all. Further, the author states the purpose as not letting your kids grow up to be liberals, but that kind of misses the point. I don't care how my son will eventually vote. He's 12. He may end up being gay. What do we do then, assume we have failed?

The article aludes to a specific difference between the opposing sides of the political spectrum. I'm not talking about party affiliation here, I'm talking about liberalism vs conservativism. Liberalism tends to teach that personal responsibility is not necessary. In fact, it teaches that whatever you want to do is acceptable. I'm trying to be brief here, so let's not concentrate on every letter of what I am saying but rather the concept as a whole. Regardless, liberalism assumes that the individual is the center of their own universe, and the rest of the universe should bend to the whims of the individual or else it is infringing on individuality. Conservatism teaches that that the individual is responsible to others and is responsibile for their own actions rather than being a victim of environment. This is where religion comes in. It is not the particular doctrine, it is the overall belief in a power higher than yourself. It is not necessary to be religious to understand this. However, if a person prefers to have the freedom to act in any way they like regardless of the affects on others, it is necessary to make the individual the higher authority, and this is the reason for the liberal abandonment of God. Conceptually, the precense of God means the individual can not do whatever they like without consequence.

On the first page of this thread I saw a couple of responses that express the standard liberal perspective. Point, laugh, impune and otherwise minimalize the concept of personal responsibility. BTW for those of you who do this (and you know who you are) keep in mind that as soon as that tactic is employed you are dismissed as irrelevent in the eys of those you denigrate. When I see this my impression of the person employing it is of an individual who has little or no responsibility to anyone else (a wife, kids, etc.) and is instead out to have a good time regardless of what they leave in their wake. Experience usually changes this eventually. if it does not, you end up with adults with deplorable behavior. Think of pro athelets who see themselves as better than others. Think of Kanye West. Think of the broken homes in ghettos. Think of the frequent fliers at abortion clinics. These are people who on the surface seem to be pursuing their own pleasures with relative freedom, but are in fact selfish individuals who are seeking something they can not find. They have no purpose or direction. Kind of takes us back to that "compass", doesn't it?

I've been there before. I was selfish. I had no interest in family. I lived entirely for myself. I drank, I did drugs, I intentionally hurt other people. Coincidentally or not I was an atheist at the time. I was also in my early 20s and didn't much care what anybody else thought about me, or anything else for that matter. I was not really concerned with working hard, because my needs were few and getting what I needed was easy. I went from job to job. I put my recreation ahead of responsibility.

BTW it was not religion that changed any of that. In fact by the time I discovered faith it was more because I had learned responsibilty rather than the other way around. By then, when I was able to listen to opinions different than mine, a lot of things started to make more sense. For me faith was not the reason for my conservatism at all. My conservatism naturally led to faith.

But back to the subject at hand. If your intention is to raise a child to be a conservative, no amount of church is going to do that. In fact, forcing religion will often lead to the opposite. That's how I ended up being an atheist to begin with. And once I decided there was no God, I acted in such a way as if to prove it. I was essentially a young, selfish guy who spent too much time in the gym and looking at mirrors and used to get my kicks beating people up, typically people bigger than I was, the bigger the better. But I was FREE dammit, and I could prove it. Just look at how much fun I was having! For those of you who have "known" me for a while, you'll understand that I am a pretty conservative guy. My father, however, makes me look like John McCain. Sure, I ended up conservative (eventually), my younger brother is pretty much ambivalent and middle of the road, but my older sister went completely the other way. She is extremely liberal to the point of prefering to live in socialist countries. She is a career student, a vegan, currently living in Ecuador teaching English at the University in the capital city. She has been married and divorced a number of times, no kids, and prefers to be "liquid", so that she may pack up and leave whenever she likes. Some call it freedom, others may call it fear of commitment. Regardless, she is unwilling and unable to actually take care of herself. For all of her intelligence she would prefer others make her decisions for her.

There may be more to this later if I feel like revisiting it. For now I have to get back to work.
 
So, the question: is this supposed to be taken seriously, or is this a Colbert style parody? I really just cannot tell, but the article is good for many laughs.

It's probably intended seriously, but clearly, the writer has no clue what being a conservative actually is because it's nothing that article, or the Republicans, actually stand for.
 
From the quoted part, I would say not only is the author serious, but actually has some very, very good and accurate points. However, the assumption that the "religious right' is conservationism, other than socially conservative, is a load of crap. That faction prior to the 1960s and the adoption of the liberal hatred of religion was actually on the "left" and part of the DNC.
However, blaming religion or lack of it for many of the things that are pointed out about the character, or rather the lack of character, on the left is inaccurate. A very large number of Catholics vote to the left. A very, very large number of Black adherents to Southern Baptist and other religions vote the left constantly. So obviously, Religion and an additional year of religious training has absolutely nothing to do with people have sufficient retardation of their brains in certain areas to make the Leftist. The problem is mental retardation not religion.




Your comment is all just, like, your opinion ...man.
 
Like I said before, I know lots of these people and was raised by them. This aint funny, it is very real.

it is my thought too
 
It's probably intended seriously, but clearly, the writer has no clue what being a conservative actually is because it's nothing that article, or the Republicans, actually stand for.

Nor does he have a clue what being a liberal is.
 
Nor does he have a clue what being a liberal is.

That's an unfortunate problem with people trying to use a label to describe a complex system of positions and beliefs, people start thinking the label, in a general sense, is an accurate representation when it rarely, if ever is. In the case of conservatives though, the Republican party does not espouse a conservative perspective, it just uses the label because it wants to attract people who actually are traditional conservatives. Traditional conservatives have absolutely no political representation in the United States today.
 
Then why did you bother to point it out?




Why do you ever post a comment?

If you're looking for an argument you won't get one here.

Have a nice day.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersol
 
Last edited:
So, the question: is this supposed to be taken seriously, or is this a Colbert style parody? I really just cannot tell, but the article is good for many laughs.


As a sometime listener to Prager, I would say he wants this taken very seriously.
The guy is the most pompous, unctuous, self-important talk show host on earth.
Not to mention boring.
He makes his fellow talkers seem modest in comparison.
 
As a sometime listener to Prager, I would say he wants this taken very seriously.
The guy is the most pompous, unctuous, self-important talk show host on earth.
Not to mention boring.
He makes his fellow talkers seem modest in comparison.




People who are full of themselves and think that their **** doesn't stink are usually boring.
 
Children should be encouraged to think for themselves and to give everyone else every right that they claim for themselves.

It would be nice if all adults in the USA would do the same.
Good parents have a duty, to instruct, to assist in finding the better ways, and there are undeniably better ways, there are certainly myriad easy and tempting much worse ones... you may disagree, or agree, parents have, and should have, fairly free rein as it is their child, their responsibility, their initial original choice to bring another into this world. Do your best.



Then set them free.
 
My basis is that these ultra-conservative parents who attempt to force their values onto a child to be the same as them, are ignoring the child's individuality, which is a key part of conservatism. I am aware that other parents with more leftist views may do the same, however due to a likely religious upbringing in a conservative household, they are more likely to "tow in line" so to speak.

His point was to teach a set of religious and moral values before sending them to the secular environment so that they could indeed fairly assess the information instead of being indoctrinated by a university system that is overwhelmingly amoral. This is so they have both sides and can decide for themselves, that's how I read it anyway.
 
Has to be a joke.

Every parent wants their child to have self-esteem.

If they wanted that to make more sense, they should have said that BLIND self-esteem is the issue. As in, self-esteem about things no esteem should be applied to, or about things that do not exist.



Edit: Or something like that...
 
Back
Top Bottom