Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Take-down of the "cafeteria Christianity" of Kim Davis (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Take-down of the "cafeteria Christianity" of Kim Davis
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
To a Christian or to most anyone that follows a marriage tradition more than a geeration old, a same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms, though not necessarily "icky."
Well, no. I know many Christians for whom this is not the case. The descriptor you're looking for is "elderly bigot."
Not really. The application of retroactive history is hard to avoid, but judging a people who had no notion of a thing as being bigots is incorrect. There is a natural 1-2 generation transition into a big change, and those in the transition period will have an understanding that is a mix of what came before and what is new. Calling someone not fully acclimated a "bigot" is to misunderstand the notion of social change. Unless, of course, you consider every single social change ever as progress towards the True Society, in which case you might feel you're entitled to call literally every generation until the final one a bunch of bigots. After 20-30 years if a person or community shows no sign of recognizing the validity of a change, it's a bit more understandable to conclude that either their concern is valid or that they are, in fact, bigoted.

quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Again, that assumes that the issue is "providing services to sinners. Rather that being obliged to blaspheme against one's faith, or bow down to a false idols.
The people who are raising objections seem to equate these things, and I doubt they would do so if they hadn't been primed to by people who are pushing the narrative that the left's motivation is to destroy traditional values (as opposed to expressing their own values).
Having lived in two ultra liberal cities and being fairly moderate, I don't think it's really accurate to deny that many liberals definitely do want exactly to destroy traditional values. This can range from the view that old or dead people are stupid since they didn't know what we know (a common fool notion found within both academia and urban life), to views such as 'screw Christians and their culture', which I've heard pronounced implicitly or directly by many. To whatever extent it may be a good thing to destroy certain traditional values and traditions (it would be pragmatically idiotic to suggest women shouldn't work, for instance, regardless of one's background) I don't think there's much value in denying that this is, in fact, the goal of many liberals. This point doesn't take away from the efforts of the people who want to improve the world, but don't tell me that large swathes of people aren't gleeful at the prospect of sticking it to the Christians, the the conservative, and whoever else.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
It's only "not discriminatory" by the same spurious reasoning a middle schooler would claim that they're not sicking up their middle finger at someone, they were just counting to 3 on their fingers, one at a time or any other similar disingenuous claim.

The comparable analogy would be a middle schooler sticking up all of the fingers, which in fact may express the same intent, but is not sticking up the middle finger.
No it wouldn't. But, even then, you seem to be conceding the point that the action is actively and intentionally discriminatory, even if only slightly and exceptionally disingenuously whitewashed.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
I get what you're saying, but what if a law was passed prohibiting Christian proselytizing? How about Christian gatherings? Would you say those that violated were arrested for being Christian or merely breaking speech and public assembly laws, that their being Christian had nothing to do with it?

If we pass laws that explicitly violate the religious beliefs of one of the foundational religions of this country, what's the actual goal you think?

If they're being done on the State's dime, using the State's authority, then banning them is upholding that fundamental right, while allowing them is an active violation of religious liberty, because they amount to a state endorsement of the religion that its authority is being used to enforce on the people.

The clerk's signature on paperwork indicated no personal approval, and any argument to the effect that it does goes beyond spurious to suggesting an unacceptable degree of personal intrusiveness on the part of the state. The mere notion that private citizens might need the personal approval of any state official to file paperwork is corrupt and coercive.

She is not being asked to approve of any marriages. She is being asked to do her job and confirm that the paperwork was received and is in order per legal state standards. Nothing more, nothing less. And claims that she doesn't want to do it personally are also disingenuous so long as she prohibits her clerks from doing it as well.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why is it on this site, when referencing acts or beliefs of Muslims people are so carefull to point out that it's radical or extremist Muslims and not all Muslims, but when we refer to Christians this precision seems to disappear? There are entire Christian denominations that are pro-gay marriage, not to mention the enormous overlap between the large Christian majority of the country and the majority in favor of gay rights.
Why is it that you're trying to abstract an argument about a specific individual behavior to all Christians, and then disingenuously trying to say that all Christians are being discussed instead of specific individual behaviors for the sake of creating a false equivalence?

Individual Muslim extremists are just as worthy of criticism as Davis is for trying to use state power to enforce religious dictates on others. Who here do you claim is holding up Davis as an example of all Christians aside from those trying to manufacture a phony case of discrimination against her because she's being penalized for trying to inflict her religion on others via her state legal power?

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Also because we are still tired from the last time we tilted at that windmill and hoped that at least people here got that already.

Taking this comment either or out of the context of this thread is a lingering disappointment about discussion here. I long for the days that drew me here when points were not only made, but taken. A lot (not all) of the to and fro now is more like a 300 level class in rhetoric.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"She could have just resigned, but instead she wants to be a martyr for the cause of gay marriage is icky"

Pulling misattributions out of your ass to create a straw man is "icky." To a Christian or to most anyone that follows a marriage tradition more than a geeration old, a same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms, though not necessarily "icky."

If you have to make up straw man arguments, that's a sign you are on the wrong side of the argument.

Not all Christians. Because, apparently, I still have to do that here.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
To whatever extent it may be a good thing to destroy certain traditional values and traditions (it would be pragmatically idiotic to suggest women shouldn't work, for instance, regardless of one's background) I don't think there's much value in denying that this is, in fact, the goal of many liberals. This point doesn't take away from the efforts of the people who want to improve the world, but don't tell me that large swathes of people aren't gleeful at the prospect of sticking it to the Christians, the conservative, and whoever else.
I bolded part of this that seemed worded a bit oddly. Or maybe I’ll offer some insight on a perspective that has not been considered, though it seems obvious to me.

A lot of liberals feel that “sticking it to the Christians, the conservative, and whoever else”, IS a way to improve the world. It’s not necessarily a spiteful group in one camp looking to strike a blow against their cultural/political opponents and in the other camp a group looking to improve the world. This could be thought of trying to compare a method to an objective rather than two objectives.

As there is a group of people who both delight in sticking it to Christians while promoting cultural acceptance of other religions, so I can’t say that the comparison of World Improvers vs. Anti-Christian is entirely without merit though. But it’s not like the conservative side has a monopoly on bigotry.

[ September 10, 2015, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
D.W., I agree with you completely. As I mentioned in my post, I wasn't addressing whether sticking it to the Christians is a good thing or not (or mixed), but was simply contradicting the notion that the left isn't out to destroy traditional values. In fact this distinction was the central point of my post. It may be the case that "those who want to improve the world" and "those who want to stick it to whomever" overlap to a significant extent. The part you bolded was meant to express that I recognize that despite this overlap the issue of whether changes are positive is one matter, and whether conservatives can rightly assess the changes as targeting conservative values is another. It is possible, therefore, to assert positive value to certain changes while yet accepting that there is to an extent a war on conservative values. In fact, I would even go farther to suggest that by definition a liberal is someone who challenges conservative values at minimum, and at maximum wants change just for the sake of change. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So to you the distinction is about challenging values as opposed to being out to destroy them?

Even with your explanation it still seems you are saying two different things.

I see it as both sides having two groups. Those who seek to do ‘what is right' without regard to the motivations of those who would oppose their measures, and those who see their opponents as obstacles to positive change or agents of negative change (depending on the status quo) who must be eliminated/embarrassed/trivialized if their own goals are to someday be met.

The first group of both sides have a chance at coexisting to some extent even with conflicting versions of ‘what is right’. They are more likely to be pragmatists who would make concessions to achieve their goals. The second group however make for a much messier contest of ideals.

I think for awhile now the liberal side was mostly in the first group. The conservatives probably were as well. To the extent the conservatives were in the second group, society at large was doing their work for them. To the extent the liberals were of the second group the demographics or head in the sand attitude of most of the population kept their numbers small.

I think it was 9/11 that was the changing point for a lot of liberals. The ‘education’ of our population that religious differences could lead to or be a large factor in such violence was, perhaps not new, but startling to most. While conservatives may have rallied against the enemy and become more xenophobic the liberals took away a different message. (though xenophobia wasn’t entirely lost on them) The gulf between western society and Islam had many parallels in Catholic vs. liberal secularism. The war of cultures spread to include all religious extremism and even its non violent cousins faith based moral supremacy.

To many what was once seen as annoying backwards but ignored religious bigotry became a clear and present danger. This was a way to fight back by proxy. A war of ideals rather than violence. Something most liberals will revel in far more eagerly than any military endeavors. After all, the conservatives were also railing against Islam here at home. Many liberals were on board with that as well. But some out there cast their net wider and found reason to condemn those far more familiar to them.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is possible, therefore, to assert positive value to certain changes while yet accepting that there is to an extent a war on conservative values.
There seems to be a war on everything conservatives believe in, apparently. Why don't you think there is a war on liberals? You can see it in the abject opposition to anything and everything Obama proposes.
quote:
In fact, I would even go farther to suggest that by definition a liberal is someone who challenges conservative values at minimum, and at maximum wants change just for the sake of change. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.
This verges on a scurrilous accusation that liberals are in essence nothing more than a delinquent class of adults whose goal is destruction of the civilization that conservatives stand guard over and serve to protect.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In poli-sci terms, IRRC, a Liberal pursues change incrementally or purposefully. Change for change's sake is the domain of the Radical.

ETA: It's not so much a war on conservative values as a war on reactionary ones. Conservatives just tend to get lumped in because they aren't very good at articulating the difference.

It's worth noting that "traditional values" is very rarely well-defined. Some times it's used to mean the Father as the Head of the Household and all others within it subordinate, submissive, and obedient. In which case: burn that ****er down and piss on the ashes.

Other times it means married, straight parents, not getting divorced or pregnant outside of marriage and pretending no one has pre-marital sex or needs contraceptives or abortions. With a side order of preferring conformity over transgression but as a kind of risk avoidance. In which case: don't be dicks about it and put children ahead of respectability. And don't be surprised if the risk avoidance backfires because conformity isn't always a healthy option.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I think it was 9/11 that was the changing point for a lot of liberals. The ‘education’ of our population that religious differences could lead to or be a large factor in such violence was, perhaps not new, but startling to most. While conservatives may have rallied against the enemy and become more xenophobic the liberals took away a different message. (though xenophobia wasn’t entirely lost on them) The gulf between western society and Islam had many parallels in Catholic vs. liberal secularism. The war of cultures spread to include all religious extremism and even its non violent cousins faith based moral supremacy.

To many what was once seen as annoying backwards but ignored religious bigotry became a clear and present danger. This was a way to fight back by proxy. A war of ideals rather than violence. Something most liberals will revel in far more eagerly than any military endeavors. After all, the conservatives were also railing against Islam here at home. Many liberals were on board with that as well. But some out there cast their net wider and found reason to condemn those far more familiar to them.

This sounds accurate to an extent, but I would suggest that the backlash against what used to be common American culture began after the civil rights movement, and in response to a few factors including the evangelical movement, the anti-gay/AIDS fears of the 80's, and a general trend towards atheism/secularism which had been going on for a while already. I agree that 9-11 brought many things to the fore of consciousness, but the resentment towards the older culture was going to come with or without it. And this is one aspect of my distinction that I think is important - namely that being 'against' a cultural element or value can be based both on enlightened consideration as well as less enlightened (but sometimes still valid) ones such as anger, resentment and spite. I include spite in this list because I suspect that many people who personally have not been harmed by Christian culture, for instance, have resentment against it anyhow on principle; I'll call this spite since it's not a reaction to one's bad experiences with a culture but rather a reaction to the mere existence of the culture and the desire to stamp it out.

quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
There seems to be a war on everything conservatives believe in, apparently. Why don't you think there is a war on liberals? You can see it in the abject opposition to anything and everything Obama proposes.

Are you quite sure you aren't lumping in my comments with those others have made? To do so would be to make the same mistake you seem to be implying conservatives make.

quote:
quote:
In fact, I would even go farther to suggest that by definition a liberal is someone who challenges conservative values at minimum, and at maximum wants change just for the sake of change. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.
This verges on a scurrilous accusation that liberals are in essence nothing more than a delinquent class of adults whose goal is destruction of the civilization that conservatives stand guard over and serve to protect.
From the OED on "liberal":

1. Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas: liberal views towards divorce

1.1 Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms: liberal citizenship laws

1.2 (In a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform: a liberal democratic state

1.4 Theology Regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

And here's a few from Merriam-Webster:

: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism

Liberal : of or belonging to the liberal political party in countries like Canada and the United Kingdom

: not opposed to new ideas or ways of behaving that are not traditional or widely accepted


From the OED 1. seems to be a simple and clear statement about openness to the new or different. 1.1 seems a bit vague but I take it to mean that it refers to an open and more relaxed stance on permissiveness. 1.2 is actually quite odd as it expresses two values that in the U.S. are considered to be conservative or libertarian values (liberty and free trade; i.e. non-interference by government). 1.4 seems to pertain to a liberal mindset in terms of religious culture or life, and this is definitely one meaning I have been pointing at.

When you look at the Webster, though, the very first entry jumps right to the idea of political and social change. It may well be telling that an English dictionary should place this lower while an American one should place it right at the top, since I do have the feeling that being a liberal in the U.S. has more to do with advocating for change than it does in the UK, where the Whigs, for instance, are more of a labor party than a progressive party.

And Al, anything about liberals being delinquent, or to do with the "destruction of civilization" is a construction all of your own and has nothing to do with what I said.

quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
ETA: It's not so much a war on conservative values as a war on reactionary ones. Conservatives just tend to get lumped in because they aren't very good at articulating the difference.

Are you sure you haven't put the cart before the horse here? Suggesting that someone who lived in a culture that is being changed and resists that change is a "reactionary" sounds a lot like saying that all changes that are made are both inevitable and good, and that these "reactionaries" are merely short-sighted and on the wrong side of history. I know what you're trying to say, but I don't see how you can actually differentiate between people who resist a change by calling some "conservative" and some "reactionary". Conservatives want to conserve what came before, and the resistance to losing it is what makes them conservative. If they didn't resist then they'd actually be liberals instead (or at best moderates); it's kind of part of the definition of the term "conservative".

But if you think for a minute about the difference between a liberal who looks for the good in what came before with an eye towards improving it, versus someone edging on the side of hatred or despite for 'those bastards who oppressed us in the past' I think you'll get a better sense of what I'm getting at. "To hell with them" may be good in terms of inspiring the desire to change things, but as an active philosophy "to hell with them" is destructive while "how can I improve on where they went wrong while keeping what they did right" is in a constructive spirit.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Most terms that describe individual preferences and beliefs are vague when generalized. How is it that candidates who run on a platform based on "traditional values" run afoul of them as often (or even more often) than candidates who don't base their campaign rhetoric on them?

I think a wonderful traditional value would be mutual respect and empathy, but that's not one of the pillars of what that platform usually rests on. Instead, it appears to rely on the principle that one must resist change, as exemplified by the requirement to conform in public (though not necessarily in private) to the direction the Republican Party's political herd is moving and vote accordingly. It shows that conservatives/Republicans care a *lot* more about political correctness than liberals/Democrats. If you don't agree with the Republican agenda you are an outsider and not a member of the politically faithful.

You see that echoed here in discussions where what Kim Davis appears to believe in is generalized to all Christians and conservatives. Otherwise, those who are carpetbagging on her actions wouldn't be able to declare that forcing her to do her job is yet another front in the war on Christians and/or conservatives. Are those who want her to do her job or quit just liberals who are trying to destroy the so-called values she claims to believe? Or do they just want her to obey and enforce the laws her job requires her to uphold?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Conservative (as I'm using it here) means resisting and slowing change; reactionary means preventing and undoing it. Conservative will discuss possible changes, acknowledging current imperfections but trying to avoid disruption and unintended consequences. Reactionaries prefer a past condition, real or imagined, and attribute current imperfections to any differences between the present and that past.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Conservative (as I'm using it here) means resisting and slowing change; reactionary means preventing and undoing it. Conservative will discuss possible changes, acknowledging current imperfections but trying to avoid disruption and unintended consequences. Reactionaries prefer a past condition, real or imagined, and attribute current imperfections to any differences between the present and that past.

Got it. But you still have the same problem of the definition being applied to real life. After all, if a conservative (as you put it) resists a change he disagrees with and the change goes through, does it not stand to reason that he'll want to change it back if he believes the change was for the worse? To truly make your distinction you'd have to say something like 'a conservative resists change but is a pushover when it happens', whereas a 'reactionary' is more militant about it. What you're trying to get at is the difference between reasoned resistance and merely refusal to change anything for any reason. But might this also not be described by simply referring to a conservative as either being thoughtful or...well...stupid?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In my construction, give a conservative unlimited power and the status quo will persist more or less unchanged. A reactionary would try and achieve a previous status quo and undo recent changes.

If a change occurs, a conservative may become reactionary if they feel the change is perceived to be particularly bad. Or they may accept the change and continue to resist more changes. Likewise, a liberal may become conservative if the desired amount of change is achieved.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If we achieved a social utopia (to today's liberal), then for whatever reason changed society; would those who wanted it back be conservatives? [Smile]

Apparently NH beat me to that observation while I was typing.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can imagine that if you force a conservative to change then when the next change comes along he will resist that one, too [Wink] .
quote:
When you look at the Webster, though, the very first entry jumps right to the idea of political and social change. It may well be telling that an English dictionary should place this lower while an American one should place it right at the top, since I do have the feeling that being a liberal in the U.S. has more to do with advocating for change than it does in the UK, where the Whigs, for instance, are more of a labor party than a progressive party.
You realize you took the definition from the OED and compared it to usage examples in MW. Here's the definition from MW, which sounds a lot like the OED's until you get down to the 6th definition:
quote:
Full Definition of LIBERAL
1
a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education>
b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth

2
a : marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver>
b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal>
c : ample, full

3
obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious

4
: not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>

5
: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

6
a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

quote:
Are you quite sure you aren't lumping in my comments with those others have made? To do so would be to make the same mistake you seem to be implying conservatives make.
Did you not say that while (my emphasis): "It is possible, therefore, to assert positive value to certain changes while yet accepting that there is to an extent a war on conservative values"? I don't believe there is such a war, nor that liberals exist to oppose conservatives.
quote:
And Al, anything about liberals being delinquent, or to do with the "destruction of civilization" is a construction all of your own and has nothing to do with what I said.
I did quote you exactly and interpreted it as it appeared to me to read. Paraphrasing, I think you said liberals only want change because it thwarts conservatives, or they want change for no purpose and have no interest in preserving the integrity of what they are changing. But if you don't mean what I think you did, perhaps you could be a bit more specific about what you think that phrase means. I'm looking to understand rather than attack, but your words do paint a depressing amoral picture of what liberals believe and how they behave.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
If we achieved a social utopia (to today's liberal), then for whatever reason changed society; would those who wanted it back be conservatives? [Smile]

Apparently NH beat me to that observation while I was typing.

An interesting corollary to this question would be that if a liberal achieved every single thing they claimed they wanted would the mentality of wanting change remain, or would the person adjust his views as NH suggested and 'become conservative'? It is my contention that the liberal mindset exists independently of external factors and that the desire for change as opposed to the desire for similarity can be observed all the way down the animal kingdom as essentially genetic traits. You'll have the rabbit that explores far (and risks death but also rewards) and the rabbit that stays near home but risks starvation in times of scarcity. This doesn't address the validity of being either politically liberal or conservative, but I'm not at all sure that if 'all objectives' were met people would all become content and would want to leave things alone. And this doesn't even address the extent to which human beings as a whole may be in part agents of chaos in their deep desires.

quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Paraphrasing, I think you said liberals only want change because it thwarts conservatives, or they want change for no purpose and have no interest in preserving the integrity of what they are changing. But if you don't mean what I think you did, perhaps you could be a bit more specific about what you think that phrase means. I'm looking to understand rather than attack, but your words do paint a depressing amoral picture of what liberals believe and how they behave.

You're somehow reading things into what I wrote that are just not there, and that furthermore I don't believe. I never said that liberals want change *only* to "thwart conservatives." Where did you get that? I said that I think many liberals have it as their agenda to destroy traditional values, but it doesn't follow from this automatically that it's to thwart conservatives. In fact the entire distinction I was trying to make (as I explained to D.W.) is that in some cases of trying to 'destroy' traditional values is because of real belief that there are better ways to do things, and some is based on resentment about the past (note the word: PAST). It's true that those who are resentful of perceived oppression or abuse in the past will typically look to PRESENT people who are of the same culture, and if someone wants to stick it to the Christians because of what past Christians have done then surely many individuals who had no part in that will become entangled in the struggle. I can't even count the amount of times, for example, I've heard "Christianity" in the present tense denounced on account of the crusades or the Inquisition, which obviously no living Christian participated in. This is part of what I'm talking about.

Perhaps this will make it more clear: I am not saying one single thing against liberalism or the idea of change. I'm defending a statement I made which I asserted that it is inaccurate to deny that 'liberals' want to destroy traditional values. Some don't, some do, some a bit of both. Some don't care about traditional values and are uninterested with whether progress destroys them or not, while others have a vested interest in destroying that which hurt them or others. Frankly I don't think this is that contentious, notwithstanding the fact that it doesn't sound complimentary.

[ September 10, 2015, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Where did you get that? I said that I think many liberals have it as their agenda to destroy traditional culture, but it doesn't follow from this automatically that it's to thwart conservatives.
...
I'm defending a statement I made which I asserted that it is inaccurate to deny that 'liberals' want to destroy traditional values.

Now I'm more confused. You say very explicitly that you do think "many liberals have it as their agenda to destroy traditional culture...and traditional values". Those are hallmark positions of the so-called conservative anti-liberal political rhetoric, so how does it not follow that those liberals are trying to thwart conservatives? And what do you "think destroy traditional culture" means? I'm a liberal and I hold and support a great many values that I consider traditional, as I imagine virtually all liberals think about themselves. You're going to have to be specific, or else the claim just sounds like a smear.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
Where did you get that? I said that I think many liberals have it as their agenda to destroy traditional culture, but it doesn't follow from this automatically that it's to thwart conservatives.
...
I'm defending a statement I made which I asserted that it is inaccurate to deny that 'liberals' want to destroy traditional values.

Now I'm more confused. You say very explicitly that you do think "many liberals have it as their agenda to destroy traditional culture...and traditional values". Those are hallmark positions of the so-called conservative anti-liberal political rhetoric, so how does it not follow that those liberals are trying to thwart conservatives? And what do you "think destroy traditional culture" means? I'm a liberal and I hold and support a great many values that I consider traditional, as I imagine virtually all liberals think about themselves. You're going to have to be specific, or else the claim just sounds like a smear.
You've narrowed down the misunderstanding and I think I can answer you better now. It is one thing to thwart the objectives of conservatives, as in, to have opposing objectives as them. Since I am loosely using 'liberal' and 'conservative' as meaning 'for change' and 'against change', respectively, this is therefore a tautology. It is another thing, though, to want to thwart the actual conservatives themselves, as in, to make those individuals feel you've beaten them. The difference here is one of intention rather than effect. If you thwart a conservative value because you don't believe in it then it may follow from this that a conservative person will feel thwarted, even though you had no ill will towards them and may even respect them. If it is the person, rather than the idea, that you want to thwart then while the feeling of 'being thwarted' may be comparable your intent going in is quite different. This is a psychological rather than a political point, and it marks the difference between two factions with a purely philosophical disagreement (which exists now, but not as the rule) and two factions that vie for power, have contempt for each other, and have vested material interest in having their way over the other side (partisan politics and the mentalities that ensue). In the case of conservative values the issues need not be merely monetary political ones, but in a funny way when you look at a political system even the most abstract of disagreements will somehow end up being a struggle over power or money.

The main issue I'm addressing is the notion that liberals going after conservative values is some kind of bogeyman and that conservatives are just blowing smoke about it. I think there really is something to be concerned about in this area for conservatives, but my claim on this in no way implies that I would rather see the conservatives prevail in preventing change. The question is whether they rightly feel threatened, and I think to an extent they are right even though much of it is distorted and politicized nonsense.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The bogeyman, as I see it, is that liberals are out to do things like:

* Destroy the family

* Bring about the end of America's greatness

* Punish hard work and success

I don't disagree that sometimes liberal planks are opposed to conservative values. So my original statement was too vague.

What I mean to say is that liberals rarely want the kinds of things I listed above.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the main conservative position on those topics is not that liberals avowedly want to do those three things (although I think a few really do) but rather that they want to do other things and that these three will be an inevitable result. The argument, then, would be that the liberals are clueless, rather than evil. I think most conservatives know that the idea of welfare, for instance, is about helping people. But the issue isn't the intention but the result, and if someone's intention has an inevitable result (as conservatives see it) then the short way of saying it is that they are trying to make those things happen. It may not be linguistically accurate to put it this way, but it is effectively correct.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The argument, then, would be that the liberals are clueless, rather than evil.
It's quite a statement that conservatives believe that approximately 50% of the adult population is "clueless", even if they generously don't believe they are evil. That is the most banal kind of prejudiced thinking, much worse than consciously believing that they are inferior or indeed evil (which Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others have built their careers insisting is the case). I'm sure that the average FOX network viewer would tend towards that assessment, but you do have to consider that FOX viewers themselves tend to be the most uninformed, misinformed and credulous network regulars compared to the steady viewers of virtually every single network that they themselves consider to be "liberal".
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's quite a statement that conservatives believe that approximately 50% of the adult population is "clueless",
If we are to generalize, I think liberals believe that approximately 50% of the adult population is "clueless".

Hell I'll say it plainly. I believe AT LEAST 50% of the adult population is clueless. I also believe that slants more towards conservatives but is not all inclusive. [Razz]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with DW. A very large proportion of the population is, to put it nicely, grossly misinformed about the political stances that they take. I believe there are more conservatives like that then liberals, but there are plenty of people on both sides. For example, this shining example of stupidity.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dem-rep-on-campus-rape-better-to-expel-more-students-even-if-80-are-innocent/

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's a fair point [Wink] , too. If the average IQ is 100, how do politicians compare to the average? I'm not sure, but I've read that the average IQ of the population of "red" states is significantly lower than the IQ of people in "blue" states (highest red: Virginia/100, lowest blue: Michigan&Oregon/99). I think I don't want to know about politicians, but Mark Twain and Will Rogers revealed the answer over a century ago.

We should take heart that Ornery posters on average score much higher than the national average on quizzes people have posted here. I attribute that to having good reading comprehension skills rather than being more intelligent than the average bear, however. I'll note that we are, by and large, all or almost all products of the public school system...

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We can blame the politicians, sure, but you know as well as I do that there is a portion of our population who would fully agree with what that congressmen was saying.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No DJQuag. "Our congressmen" say what they believe their constituents want to hear. I don't know if politicians IQ's average higher or lower (I expect they average out) but they all share a common trait of knowing how to win people over. If you find they don't win YOU over or are talking like an idiot, ask yourself if there are people willing to hand them money and power for saying what you take issue with. Then reassess how "dumb" they are.

I will agree that those who derive purpose, morals and justice from religious (and sometimes historical) writings are inclined to see the world differently from those who seek knowledge and new experience to form their morals sense of justice and purpose. That may speak more to level of being informed and education rather than IQ however.

But what do I know? I'm apparently from the lowest of the blues and didn't go to college. [Smile]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
It's quite a statement that conservatives believe that approximately 50% of the adult population is "clueless",
If we are to generalize, I think liberals believe that approximately 50% of the adult population is "clueless".

Hell I'll say it plainly. I believe AT LEAST 50% of the adult population is clueless. I also believe that slants more towards conservatives but is not all inclusive. [Razz]

This is more or less my position. But what I said just before is meant to convey that assuming 50% of people are clueless, liberals will probably assume those 50% are the conservatives, and vice versa. In today's clime it's certainly counterintuitive to suggest that people who agree with you are clueless, even though this is doubtless the case. Even more so when those who agree with you do not merely say the same thing you say, but are tangibly on the same side in a political battle; all the more incentive to assume a priori that the idiots are the ones on the other side. It's almost a necessary delusion in a partisan battle, since abandoning those 'on one's side' on account of them saying the right things for the wrong reasons is tactically disadvantageous.

So no, Al, I don't think my remarks are anything revolutionary. It may be that many people employ what you call "banal prejudiced thinking", and if that sounds lousy to you that doesn't make it false.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But what I said just before is meant to convey that assuming 50% of people are clueless, liberals will probably assume those 50% are the conservatives, and vice versa.
Ya know, every time you have an opportunity to fill in a hole you take another spoonful out [Wink] . In general I think that most people think that they are above average and those closest to them are basking in the nourishing glow of their light (but everyone seems to have at least one close relative who is blind to it for some damn reason). The light gets dimmer pretty quickly, so we use code words to locate other enlightened souls farther away. My personal view is that half of the population is below average no matter what you are measuring for, and at least a few of them share some of my political opinions.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh boy:
quote:
Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes announced yesterday that he had reached out to Davis’ lawyers at Liberty Counsel to offer the protection of his group, which he says is already forming a presence in Rowan County, Kentucky, where Davis was recently released from jail after prohibiting her office from issuing marriage licenses. Rhodes said in a statement that his position has nothing to do with gay marriage, but rather his conviction that Davis had been illegally detained by the federal judge who held her in contempt for violating multiple court orders.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was just thinking a couple days ago that this was a situation which could only be improved with the addition of gun nuts.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's just for publicity.

If they'd really wanted to get into a firefight with the feds, they would have shown up day she was originally charged with contempt. Most people figured she would be going to jail then.

Now,her clerks are ignoring her and issuing the licenses. Her office is fulfilling it's duties and there is no reason to arrest her again. Of course now the militia types are going to show up and offer to protect her.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, but sooner or later they're going to show up at one of these flashpoint locations and somebody is going to make a mistake. They show up to provoke a reaction, and they'll get one.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
In my construction, give a conservative unlimited power and the status quo will persist more or less unchanged. A reactionary would try and achieve a previous status quo and undo recent changes.

This is an odd one to let past, as there is no group of "conservatives" for whom this would be true. The position you describe is more of a statis"ist" position. Conservatives with unlimited power would seek to push the country towards the extremes of conservative goals, including some that never were part of the past or current government.
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.
quote:
It's quite a statement that conservatives believe that approximately 50% of the adult population is "clueless",
If we are to generalize, I think liberals believe that approximately 50% of the adult population is "clueless".

Hell I'll say it plainly. I believe AT LEAST 50% of the adult population is clueless. I also believe that slants more towards conservatives but is not all inclusive. [Razz]

Not sure how the math works on that since there are less conservatives than liberals and this would apply to all liberals [Razz]

Joking aside, there are a tremendous amount of people who take positions that ultimately result in circumstances that are contrary to their goals.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Conservatives with unlimited power would seek to push the country towards the extremes of conservative goals...
That assumes that a conservative with unlimited power would not immediately turn into a hypocrite, of course.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Agreed, I think most/all political views are based upon what is possible. We also waste a lot of effort on countering those things we are opposed to. Sacrificing or putting on a shelf our own goals until a threat or obstacle is dealt with.

What Great Leader D.W. would do with unlimited power has little to do with how I'd like to see the real world U.S. government run.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And just for completeness of this topic, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles disagreed with Kim Davis about not issuing marriage licenses:

quote:
Office holders remain free to draw upon their personal beliefs and motivations and advocate their positions in the public square. But when acting as public officials they are not free to apply personal convictions — religious or other — in place of the defined responsibilities of their public offices. A county clerk’s recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle.
Of course, Davis' attorney took it the way you'd expect:

quote:
Any attempt to punish a person for the exercise of conscience is sinful….Kim Davis has a right to represent her county as an elected official without violating her deeply held religious convictions,” Staver said. “Of all religious denominations the Mormon Church should understand the importance of protecting religious freedom. How sad the church officials have forgotten their history and the importance of protecting conscientious objectors.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He's right, and Kim and her attorney are wrong. The problem I have with this is still that its a state issue and the state government/courts should be the ones ordering her compliance and/or removing her from office. The extent of the federal court involvement, if needed, should be to order the State court and/or government to force compliance.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1