|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Liberals and conservatives think differently
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
This Washington Post article argues that liberals and conservatives actually think differently; in response to the same data, they will come to different conclusions. The article is written from a liberal perspective - but I think does make a valid point - to put it in an antagonistic way: liberals are blown about by the latest fashions, whereas conservatives stick to the conclusions that they reached over the years. (You can read the article yourself to see how it expresses its disdain for conservatives...) Now given that there is a strong Christian virtue of sticking with what you've heard from God even when the world demands you live otherwise, I guess it's no surprise that Christians tend to be 'conservatives' on this scale - though of course this virtue can go too far!
What I take away from this article is a reminder that other people aren't just curmudgeonly or obtuse - they really do think in different ways, and we need to adjust our arguments accordingly. But yes, ultimately we have to agree to disagree sometimes; the challenge is to work out exactly why the disagreement is occurring.
[ 20. September 2012, 13:32: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
This Washington Post article argues that liberals and conservatives actually think differently; in response to the same data, they will come to different conclusions. The article is written from a liberal perspective - but I think does make a valid point - to put it in an antagonistic way: liberals are blown about by the latest fashions, whereas conservatives stick to the conclusions that they reached over the years. (You can read the article yourself to see how it expresses its disdain for conservatives...) Now given that there is a strong Christian virtue of sticking with what you've heard from God even when the world demands you live otherwise, I guess it's no surprise that Christians tend to be 'conservatives' on this scale - though of course this virtue can go too far!
What I take away from this article is a reminder that other people aren't just curmudgeonly or obtuse - they really do think in different ways, and we need to adjust our arguments accordingly. But yes, ultimately we have to agree to disagree sometimes; the challenge is to work out exactly why the disagreement is occurring.
I might take your last paragraph more seriously if you hadn't thrown the gratuitous insult at liberals being tossed about by every wave of fashion while conservatives are virtuous to a fault.
As far as Christians go I think some of the liberal/conservative debate also goes to basic theology. Social Justice progressive Christians tend to believe in all aspects of society - government and private - assisting the less fortunate where conservatives tend to hold to only private charity. I used to be considered conservative, but times have changed and in the U.S. I'm now considered liberal - and I've got no problem with that as I haven't really changed, the politics has. What I do have a problem with is the animosity between both. Especially now that the politicians can't do anything because "compromise" is a dirty word.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
By holding on to ideas that are demonstrably wrong (and not just the latest fad), conservatives simply compound the error.
This is not to say that chasing after every new thing is good, either - both deny the evidence. We owe it to ourselves to at least evaluate the evidence and come to an honest conclusion.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonathan Strange
Shipmate
# 11001
|
Posted
AFAICS the word 'liberal' in US politics has been the subject of a 30 year campaign to discredit it, so that, when polled, people shy away and opt for conservative. I think it would better to find a poll that looks at opinions on specific policies rather than a binary choice between two very loaded words.
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
progressive
That's the word I thought should have been explored in the article. If I was a politically active US citizen, I'd opt for 'progressive' as my chosen self-description - much less tainted by the mudslinging.
--------------------
"Wrong will be right, when Aslan comes in sight,
At the sound of his roar, sorrows will be no more,
When he bears his teeth, winter meets its death,
When he shakes his mane, we shall have spring again"
Posts: 1327 | From: Wessex | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
AFAICS the word 'liberal' in US politics has been the subject of a 30 year campaign to discredit it, so that, when polled, people shy away and opt for conservative. I think it would better to find a poll that looks at opinions on specific policies rather than a binary choice between two very loaded words.
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
progressive
That's the word I thought should have been explored in the article. If I was a politically active US citizen, I'd opt for 'progressive' as my chosen self-description - much less tainted by the mudslinging.
To prove your point is the assertion by one of our congress critters that liberals in Congress are "communists". This brings back memories of the lunacy of the McCarthy hearings. The author in this article West Calls Progressives Communists assumes West was serious and does a fine job of pointing out how ludicrous this is. I'm more of a cynic and think West is using loaded words just to raise money. The spurious labeling can go both ways, though, and my favorite quote from the article is:
"To equate liberals in Congress with communists is like equating conservatives in Congress with fascists -- something only the most brain-dead Occupy protester would attempt."
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I've known enough ideologically static people from all over the political, economic, social and religious spectrums (spectra?) to think that the article, or at least Ender's Shadow's conclusions, are flawed or plain wrong. My own family is varied and while my brothers are a bit more MoR than they were I'm as much a liberal lefty as ever. Maybe I'll change in my sixties.
It's an opinion piece anyway, so hardly WP editorial policy.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Is this Mr Mooney saying that psychological research says that being open to new ideas and being conscientious are de facto opposites, you are either one or the other. So if you are conscientious, you are bound to have a a closed mind? If you are open to new ideas, you are bound to be unreliable?
If that should turn out to be true, it's quite a disturbing. If it isn't true, does it reduce his article to just another piece of cod psychology? In which case it's surprising it doesn't have a questionnaire you can answer with scores? Or is the Washington Post the sort of newspaper that regards itself as above those?
I'd be particularly uneasy at any reasoning that became a version of, 'because I was born open to new ideas, I can't help it. I'm entitled to let people down'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
So as someone who is both liberal and conservative where do I stand? I am socially and economically liberal, but see the conservative party as the best place to work that out in a way that ensures personal freedom, which is the essence of liberalism.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
By holding on to ideas that are demonstrably wrong (and not just the latest fad), conservatives simply compound the error.
This is not to say that chasing after every new thing is good, either - both deny the evidence. We owe it to ourselves to at least evaluate the evidence and come to an honest conclusion.
The issue in many cases is 'what are the FACTS' in this situation. IMNSHO it's important to note that the 'facts' on the issues of abortion, homosexual practice, sex outside marriage and divorce and remarriage haven't changed, all that's changes is people's opinions about them.
An ideological position: 'it is not the role of the government to provide subsidies for healthcare' - is not subject to challenge by the 'facts'. The bible's claim that God does miracles - and raised Jesus from the dead - can be discussed on the basis of evidence, or on the basis of philosophical presuppositions, but not both.
I think it's fair ask the questions that the article does, and we need to look hard at our own positions: 'why do I conclude X?' The reality is that we may well be conforming to the stereotype - or maybe we aren't. The example of a liberal messup offered in the article - the MMR vaccine scandal - is a good demonstration of the way that 'facts' can mislead; add a dusting of anti-authoritarian prejudice, and you end up with many still believing there is something to fear. Sadly if this article merely encourages 'liberals' to be even more prejudiced against 'conservative' arguments, then it's a shame; if it encourages us all to think harder about why I conclude X, then it's helpful.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, conversely, couldn't also encourage some conservatives to entertain and maintain prejudices against liberals?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
You're ever so binary, Ender's Shadow:
Conservative = good
Liberal = bad
Conservative = Biblical
Liberal = Unbiblical
I really don't think it's as clear-cut as that at all.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
Also interesting is this report (sorry it comes from the Fail) which seems to show right wing people are less intelligent than those on the left.
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, conversely, couldn't also encourage some conservatives to entertain and maintain prejudices against liberals?
You're ever so binary, Ender's Shadow:
Conservative = good
Liberal = bad
Conservative = Biblical
Liberal = Unbiblical
I really don't think it's as clear-cut as that at all.
Yup, the prejudice is blatant. The problem is both sides are now "binary" as you say and can't even talk to each other or see the log in their own eye. This is a huge problem here in the U.S. causing a virtual standstill in Congress as compromise is now a dirty word. Time was the politicians blustered in public but hammered out deals behind closed doors. No more.
[ 16. April 2012, 10:26: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Social Justice progressive Christians tend to believe in all aspects of society - government and private - assisting the less fortunate where conservatives tend to hold to only private charity.
You miss out the main reason why conservatives favour only private charity - namely that they believe it's immoral to force people to assist if they don't want to.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
This Washington Post article argues that liberals and conservatives actually think differently; in response to the same data, they will come to different conclusions. The article is written from a liberal perspective - but I think does make a valid point - to put it in an antagonistic way: liberals are blown about by the latest fashions, whereas conservatives stick to the conclusions that they reached over the years. (You can read the article yourself to see how it expresses its disdain for conservatives...) Now given that there is a strong Christian virtue of sticking with what you've heard from God even when the world demands you live otherwise, I guess it's no surprise that Christians tend to be 'conservatives' on this scale - though of course this virtue can go too far!
What I take away from this article is a reminder that other people aren't just curmudgeonly or obtuse - they really do think in different ways, and we need to adjust our arguments accordingly. But yes, ultimately we have to agree to disagree sometimes; the challenge is to work out exactly why the disagreement is occurring.
The article is fine. The conclusions you've drawn from it about good Christian virtues, aren't.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PS When I say "the article is fine", that's simply because it's old news. This is certainly not the first time I've seen reports that there are innate differences between people in the speed at which they accept new ideas and change.
Where you go horribly wrong is reading some kind of value judgement into the differences. Like any trait, there are advantages and disadvantages in both directions.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Social Justice progressive Christians tend to believe in all aspects of society - government and private - assisting the less fortunate where conservatives tend to hold to only private charity.
You miss out the main reason why conservatives favour only private charity - namely that they believe it's immoral to force people to assist if they don't want to.
Ah, but those who view in the gospel's (actually OT & NT) emphasis on aiding the sick and the poor - to the point God demanded businesses/farmer's give a percentage to them - don't view it as being forced. I didn't when I was working a paying a good chunk of my check in taxes. I would have loved a better auditing system, but I never begrudged anyone who didn't need it assistance provided by my taxes. I gave to charity above and beyond and helped individuals I saw in need as well, which I saw as my Christian duty. Unfortunately, here in the U.S. the dwindling supply of people who remember how inadequate private charity had become during the depression when many of the social programs here came to be along with a rise in "charity fatigue" during the present downturn are making it worse. Almost every charity is hurting and unable to meet the needs during this economic downturn. One of my nephews is a pastor of a local church several hundred families in verifiable need get food supplies every week. Most food pantries I know of are seeing the same and many have income verification and accounting for who receives food and how often now. Families who used to be able to care for members who could no longer work can't due to a myriad of reasons. Do I believe people would give more if they weren't taxed? Nope, because those that give give as much as they otherwise would and many others resent anyone getting any money from them, period. Add to that we've become a society that spends any money we get in our pockets.
After a lifetime of working and paying taxes, I'm presently unable to work and fortunately, some of my tax dollars as well as those others have or are paying are now assisting me. I for one am thankful.
P.S. Y'all at least get basic health care for every citizen for your tax dollars, we're SOL if we don't have employer provided care are insanely wealthy or qualify for one of the social programs - which provide not a lot. Not to mention we get far less bang for our buck and are less healthy than you. Go figure.
[ 16. April 2012, 11:14: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
Aargh, I meant didn't begrudge anyone who needed it getting assistance with my tax dollars.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
PS When I say "the article is fine", that's simply because it's old news. This is certainly not the first time I've seen reports that there are innate differences between people in the speed at which they accept new ideas and change.
Where you go horribly wrong is reading some kind of value judgement into the differences. Like any trait, there are advantages and disadvantages in both directions.
Very true. But do these differences and different ways of coping with change affect our theology? If so then we need to be even more self-aware when we think we're 'right'. The reason a theology or worldview appears right to us could simply be due to our wiring.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
PS When I say "the article is fine", that's simply because it's old news. This is certainly not the first time I've seen reports that there are innate differences between people in the speed at which they accept new ideas and change.
Where you go horribly wrong is reading some kind of value judgement into the differences. Like any trait, there are advantages and disadvantages in both directions.
Very true. But do these differences and different ways of coping with change affect our theology? If so then we need to be even more self-aware when we think we're 'right'. The reason a theology or worldview appears right to us could simply be due to our wiring.
Not sure I buy the "wiring", though I do think our theology affects our way of thinking. My siblings and I all differ in our political viewpoints - and in our theology. We can discuss theology, but politics gets a bit dicey.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Paine's Bones
Apprentice
# 17027
|
Posted
Two very quick points:
(1) I have seen some evidence to suggest that our political views shape our theological views, as much if not more than the other way around. Sorry, no link just now as in a rush. Will try to find it later if anyone requests.
(2) This is very US centric. It deals only with a conservative-liberal scale, mainly dealing with social/lifestyle issues. But there are other scales. In much of Europe, 'liberalism' is the individualist ideology of the political right, while certain forms of socialism can, in terms of their values, be more 'solidarist' and, in a sense, more socially 'conservative'.
Posts: 25 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
[qb] AFAICS the word 'liberal' in US politics has been the subject of a 30 year campaign to discredit it, ...
To prove your point is the assertion by one of our congress critters that liberals in Congress are "communists".
Worth pointing out maybe, it's not just that some scorn the label "liberal" (or "progressive"), they think the policies that tend to be associated with "liberals" are communistic. Free health care for all -- definitely communist. Government mandated access by all to health care is, if not communist, then low on the slippery slope. Welfare payments for the poor -- Marx said government should take from those who have more and give it to those who have less, and any policy that does that is Marxist.
You can discuss a policy with no reference to political parties or labels, and if it taxes the rich to help the poor, it is communistic.
That private charity wasn't (isn't) doing the job is deemed irrelevant, the only valid help for the poor is private charity. (My "friends" who think this way also tend to equate poverty with laziness. They support a family working 12 hour days at Walmart, so should anyone else.)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
[qb] AFAICS the word 'liberal' in US politics has been the subject of a 30 year campaign to discredit it, ...
To prove your point is the assertion by one of our congress critters that liberals in Congress are "communists".
Worth pointing out maybe, it's not just that some scorn the label "liberal" (or "progressive"), they think the policies that tend to be associated with "liberals" are communistic.
This is a stunning failure to understand contemporary conservatism. In fact, they have all become communists. The thing that you need to understand is precisely what Gov. Romney and the SCOTUS have enunciated so clearly -- that corporations are people. The part that is left unspoken is that only corporations are people. Once you understand that, the massive welfare provided to corporations can be seen as the enlightened concern for people that has always characterized liberal society.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You miss out the main reason why conservatives favour only private charity - namely that they believe it's immoral to force people to assist if they don't want to.
Ah, but those who view in the gospel's (actually OT & NT) emphasis on aiding the sick and the poor - to the point God demanded businesses/farmer's give a percentage to them - don't view it as being forced.
The point doesn't need everyone to see it as being forced in order to be valid.
quote:
Almost every charity is hurting and unable to meet the needs during this economic downturn. ... Do I believe people would give more if they weren't taxed? Nope, because those that give give as much as they otherwise would and many others resent anyone getting any money from them, period.
That's not the point though. It's the old "you shouldn't do evil in order to achieve good" thing. Giving money to a beggar is good, but mugging someone else so that you can give their money to a beggar is not.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Marx said government should take from those who have more and give it to those who have less,
Did he really? When?
Geaorge Bernard Shaw or Nye Bevan or FDR might have said something like that, but it was hardly a central plank of Marx's ideas. He wanted the state to "wither away".
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Giving money to a beggar is good, but mugging someone else so that you can give their money to a beggar is not.
Unless the bloke you mug is the Sherriff of Nottingham.
Or perhaps the Marquess of Salisbury or the Duke of Bedford.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The question is whether a society should take care of its own. Conservatives say fuck 'em, progressives say we have a responsibility to take care of one another.
The whole "force" thing is weaselwording. Being in a society at all is being forced to do things you don't want to do. That's the very nature of a governed society. As such it cannot possibly be evil unless living in a governed society is evil, in which case it is most blatantly hypocritical for conservatives to remain in a governed society.
What they really mean is that being forced to pay for things that **I** don't want the government to pay for is theft; being forced to pay for things that **I** would like the government to pay for is not theft.
[ 16. April 2012, 15:24: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Giving money to a beggar is good, but mugging someone else so that you can give their money to a beggar is not.
Unless the bloke you mug is the Sherriff of Nottingham.
Or perhaps the Marquess of Salisbury or the Duke of Bedford.
So you think it's perfectly morally OK to mug some people?
Are there any other legal protections you think should only apply to certain subsets of the population? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
mousethief, shame! Logic and reason have no place in politics.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The question is whether a society should take care of its own. Conservatives say fuck 'em, progressives say we have a responsibility to take care of one another.
The whole "force" thing is weaselwording. Being in a society at all is being forced to do things you don't want to do. That's the very nature of a governed society. As such it cannot possibly be evil unless living in a governed society is evil, in which case it is most blatantly hypocritical for conservatives to remain in a governed society.
What they really mean is that being forced to pay for things that **I** don't want the government to pay for is theft; being forced to pay for things that **I** would like the government to pay for is not theft.
Yes - democracy is evil, but slightly less so than other systems. Anything that is essentially coercive is - even if it is necessary. The weasel words are those trying to pretend that forced taxation is anything other than that even if it necessary.
There is a difference between being made to do something (give money to the government) and not being allowed to do something (kill your neighbour). We are back to J S Mill's idea of liberty and harm theory.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
By your definition, raising children is evil. Being in a relationship is evil. Caring for your elderly parents is evil.
It is nonsense. An ordered society requires compromises. This is not inherently evil. If you benefit from being a member of such, you will accept compromise. There will always be debate about which compromises are acceptable, yes. But the answer none, or only those I like, is unacceptable.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There will always be debate about which compromises are acceptable, yes. But the answer none, or only those I like, is unacceptable.
Bull. Everybody wants only those compromises they happen to like. It's just that the ones who happen to like compromises that mean everybody else has to pay for the things they want to see happening dress their preferences up in language that suggests they will benefit the whole of society rather than just that segment of it they favour.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Ianjmatt -- you make an unwarranted leap from "government" to "democracy." I was talking about ANY government.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Have conservative Christians, who unlike fuzzy liberal Christians don't often have a universalist bent, considered what responsibility they might be bringing upon themselves? Say, they get their way and get to keep a much bigger chunk of change that is now going to health care and other social services, they are free of laws and unions that enforce working wages so there might be more jobs, albeit mostly lower paying jobs. Will the majority of Christians amp up their giving in these areas to help the destitute to the point that voluntary giving helps people that the Acts community seem to have? Can they imagine themselves standing before the Judge, declaring their faith, detailing all the hard work they did in getting rid of the pickpocket government, promoting abstinence, promoting Intelligent Design in classrooms, and fighting against gay marriage.
At that point would most conservative Christians be likely to say, and also I gave the huge majority of my tax break to Christian ministries to feed and heal and encourage the destitute and people on bad paths. Or would they have thrown a certain amount into the hat, and then gone ahead, and, if rich bought that summer home or RV, and if of more poorer means, a new flat screen and xBox? Would Christians of all persuasions step up to the plate to meet the needs of the world at such a conservative fait accompli?
If not, there will be more people suffering and dying. But at least the government won't be stealing so much from the Righteous.
[ 16. April 2012, 16:13: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
ISTM that those liberarian conservative Tea Partiers also want the government to get its hands off THEIR Social Security and Medicare...
without enquiring where the money for SS & M came from and who set them up.
Can you imagine a Social Security system that actually works while being run by that kind of libertarian?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So you think it's perfectly morally OK to mug some people?
Are there any other legal protections you think should only apply to certain subsets of the population?
Well, no actually. But I do recognise that the laws and government we now have are designed to protect great property. They are not neutral. On the whole, with exceptions, they benefit the rich against the poor and property owners against wage-earners. And to some extent they benefit corporations against individuals as well.
Property as we now concieve of it is not a natural phenomenon, its something people invented and designed and something we change the nature of when we change our laws. Somethings that used to not be treated as personal property in law now are (for example trademarks) some things that used to be property that could be bought and sold now are not (for example the right to hold certain government offices)
In our system as we now have it "great property" is treated in a very similar way to ordinary movable personal property. In law, the Duke of Westminster "owns" huge chunks of Westminster - not quite in in the same way that you or I own the shoes on our feet, there are all sorts of unique laws relating to land, but in a similar way.
This legal fiction is very useful to the Duke. It lets him reamain one of the richest men in the world. But its something we collectively set up when we make our laws. I don't think he has any special moral right to all that land. He doesn't live on most of it, he doesn't use it to produce anything, he didn't work to gain it. He didn't work to build all those expensive houses on it, builders did that. He didn't cause it to be so much more valuable than most other land - that is because of its location, which is to say it is because of London, the reason its so valuable is because of the work of all the millions of people who live or work in London or who did live in London in the past making it what it is now.
If we wanted to, that is to say if enough of us collectively wanted to, we could change our laws and our government so that all that value added to the land goes to the people who added it, that is to say the workers who built the houses, or whose rents and mortgages keep them profitable, or whose proximity increases the land values, or who spend their money in the shops and bars and theatres, or who keep the vast complex infracstructure of a great city working, who do the work that keeps business and education and government and health and all the rest of it going.
Or to the descendents of the people who did all that in the past, rather than to the descendents of a few lucky millionaires who used inherited money and connections in Parliament to buy up land just outside London in the 18th century.
Its not a law of nature that most of the land immediately to the west of the City of London is owned by four aristocratic families, making them among the richest people in the world. And its not an accident that the laws and political institutions of this country are designed to protect the great property of people like them. We could change it if we wanted to.
Of course if we did that it would be a sort of revolution, even if not a bloody one.
Seems like a good idea to me but then I am not a liberal, I'm a socialist.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Paine's Bones
Apprentice
# 17027
|
Posted
I hope it is not unacceptable to quote a couple of paragraphs from the original article:
quote:
Perhaps most important, liberals consistently score higher on a personality measure called “openness to experience,” one of the “Big Five” personality traits, which are easily assessed through standard questionnaires. That means liberals tend to be the kind of people who want to try new things, including new music, books, restaurants and vacation spots — and new ideas.
“Open people everywhere tend to have more liberal values,” said psychologist Robert McCrae, who conducted voluminous studies on personality while at the National Institute on Aging at the National Institutes of Health.
Conservatives, in contrast, tend to be less open — less exploratory, less in need of change — and more “conscientious,” a trait that indicates they appreciate order and structure in their lives. This gels nicely with the standard definition of conservatism as resistance to change — in the famous words of William F. Buckley Jr., a desire to stand “athwart history, yelling ‘Stop!’ ”
Maybe if we restrict ourselves to 'cultural' issues, like equal marriage rights for homosexuals, or attitudes towards immigrants, this 'openness' to new things would indeed be a mark of 'liberal' rather than 'conservative' attitudes.
But these issues do not really map onto a left-right political spectrum, at least when it comes to economic matters.
The economic right is not about tradition, conservation, or 'standing athwart history yelling stop!" - it is about rabidly pursuing the self interest of the very rich by the active reactionary destruction of most of the legislative achievements of the 20th century. People who hold such views can be very individualistic (and thus 'open to new ideas') when it comes to cultural matters, and certainly have a no-holds-barred approach to economic and technological innovation.
The economic left is not about being 'open to new ideas' or being 'socially progressive' but about trying to protect the gains of the 20th century - in terms of workers' rights, trade union recognition, social security, pensions, consumer protection, public services, from the 'wrecking crew' of the radical right, from the risks of globalisation, and from the predations of the deregulated financial system. Such views can be held by those who are rather traditional, or at least parochial, on social and cultural matters, and might even tend towards mild 'Luddism'.
For example, in Scotland the leader of the Conservatives is a out lesbian, while the SNP are arguably to the left of Labour on some economic matters, but have a vocal socially conservative wing.
[ 16. April 2012, 16:38: Message edited by: Tom Paine's Bones ]
--------------------
This is the 'Age of Reason'.
These are the 'Rights of Man'.
Posts: 25 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Social Justice progressive Christians tend to believe in all aspects of society - government and private - assisting the less fortunate where conservatives tend to hold to only private charity.
You miss out the main reason why conservatives favour only private charity - namely that they believe it's immoral to force people to assist if they don't want to.
Those same conservatives who claim that it's "immoral" to involve people in Christian norms of alms-giving without their consent will turn around and tell you that it's the place of the state to force conservative standards of chastity on those who want no part of Christianity. How do you square that in a way that makes sense?
And don't give me the argument that we outlaw murder and theft, either. Murder and theft are crimes which endanger life and livelihood. Consensual homosexuality and premarital sex affect no one but (arguably) the participants.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
I like Moral Foundations Theory for a more useful and respectful way of understanding where people are "coming from".
quote:
The current American culture war, we have found, can be seen as arising from the fact that liberals try to create a morality relying primarily on the Care/harm foundation, with additional support from the Fairness/cheating and Liberty/oppression foundations. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, use all six foundations, including Loyatly/betrayal, Authority/subversion, and Sanctity/degradation.
OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You miss out the main reason why conservatives favour only private charity - namely that they believe it's immoral to force people to assist if they don't want to.
Ah, but those who view in the gospel's (actually OT & NT) emphasis on aiding the sick and the poor - to the point God demanded businesses/farmer's give a percentage to them - don't view it as being forced.
The point doesn't need everyone to see it as being forced in order to be valid.
quote:
Almost every charity is hurting and unable to meet the needs during this economic downturn. ... Do I believe people would give more if they weren't taxed? Nope, because those that give give as much as they otherwise would and many others resent anyone getting any money from them, period.
That's not the point though. It's the old "you shouldn't do evil in order to achieve good" thing. Giving money to a beggar is good, but mugging someone else so that you can give their money to a beggar is not.
Is it really evil to require those in the community who are able to kick in to ensure those genuinely in need have at least what they need to survive? God didn't think so and from what we can tell Jesus wasn't negative on the issue of taxes. Frankly, it's in the best interest of community to do so.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There will always be debate about which compromises are acceptable, yes. But the answer none, or only those I like, is unacceptable.
Bull. Everybody wants only those compromises they happen to like. It's just that the ones who happen to like compromises that mean everybody else has to pay for the things they want to see happening dress their preferences up in language that suggests they will benefit the whole of society rather than just that segment of it they favour.
Compromise is the only way the business of the people is accomplished. Here in the U.S. we've gone from a great country that gained prosperity and a decent standard of living and equality for most of it's citizens, through compromise. We now have a Congress that does nothing but draw lines in the sand and refuse to compromise. We're losing our prosperity because of it with increasing acrimony and hatred of both sides towards each other. It's a myth that there are people who don't pay anything in taxes. Sales taxes, property taxes - even those who don't own a home pay the taxes through higher rent and some states here require yearly taxes on cars, boats, etc.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
This may be a tangent, but
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The issue in many cases is 'what are the FACTS' in this situation. IMNSHO it's important to note that the 'facts' on the issues of abortion, homosexual practice, sex outside marriage and divorce and remarriage haven't changed, all that's changes is people's opinions about them.
An ideological position: 'it is not the role of the government to provide subsidies for healthcare' - is not subject to challenge by the 'facts'. The bible's claim that God does miracles - and raised Jesus from the dead - can be discussed on the basis of evidence, or on the basis of philosophical presuppositions, but not both.
Huh?
I'm pretty sure the facts on all those "issues" you've named have changed. Quite a bit in some cases. Unless by "facts" you really mean a particular opinion about them, such as "God says they're all sinful."
And why can't you discuss the Resurrection or anything else using both evidence and philosophical presuppositions? ISTM that the very nature of philosophical presuppositions is that they underlie any discussion, including discussions based on evidence (whatever that might be).
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I have a sneaking suspicion that if that Jesus lad had of gone with 'what we've always believed about God' I would either be a Jew today or worse - a pagan.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
IMNSHO it's important to note that the 'facts' on the issues of abortion, homosexual practice, sex outside marriage and divorce and remarriage haven't changed, all that's changes is people's opinions about them.
The facts re homosexual practice, as you call it, have recently changed in an important respect: nowadays we can easily see and get acquainted with known homosexuals. For hundreds of years prior to our generation, that was a rare opportunity, and the powers-that-be did everything they could to prevent it.
It may still be all too easy to stigmatize a group whose members are observable; but when they are not, it's a cakewalk. When contrary evidence is front of them, most people are good enough to recognize false witness against their neighbors for what it is.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
I would be very grateful to feel that many of the commentariat actually thought for themselves rather than repeated the perceived wisdom of their peer group/adulators.
If they just stopped, reflected and then spoke, I think we would have far less conflict and far less name calling.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The issue in many cases is 'what are the FACTS' in this situation. IMNSHO it's important to note that the 'facts' on the issues of abortion, homosexual practice, sex outside marriage and divorce and remarriage haven't changed, all that's changes is people's opinions about them.
There are barely any 'facts' in those issues, though, other than the facts of definition. Abortion is the termination of foetus. Homosexual sex is sex between two people of the same gender. Sex outside marriage is sex between two people who haven't gone through a wedding ceremony. Divorce is the end of a marriage. Remarriage is getting married and it's not your first time.
That's about it, really. I can't think of any other immutable 'facts' about ANY of these things.
[ 16. April 2012, 22:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The issue in many cases is 'what are the FACTS' in this situation. IMNSHO it's important to note that the 'facts' on the issues of abortion, homosexual practice, sex outside marriage and divorce and remarriage haven't changed, all that's changes is people's opinions about them.
There are barely any 'facts' in those issues, though, other than the facts of definition. Abortion is the termination of foetus. Homosexual sex is sex between two people of the same gender. Sex outside marriage is sex between two people who haven't gone through a wedding ceremony. Divorce is the end of a marriage. Remarriage is getting married and it's not your first time.
That's about it, really. I can't think of any other immutable 'facts' about ANY of these things.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) That's the point I was making. The fact that people look at gay relationships - in the same way as they look at the marriages of people who've divorced and remarried - and say 'That seems to be a good relationship therefore it's a good thing', is making many, many assumptions. Yet down that route the Protestant church has widely gone with the remarriage of divorcees, and the same logic is now being applied to gay relationships. But no - this isn't a 'fact' unless you want to assume that God will automatically curse all relationships that fall short of His commands.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
This Washington Post article argues that liberals and conservatives actually think differently; in response to the same data, they will come to different conclusions. The article is written from a liberal perspective - but I think does make a valid point - to put it in an antagonistic way: liberals are blown about by the latest fashions, whereas conservatives stick to the conclusions that they reached over the years. (You can read the article yourself to see how it expresses its disdain for conservatives...) Now given that there is a strong Christian virtue of sticking with what you've heard from God even when the world demands you live otherwise, I guess it's no surprise that Christians tend to be 'conservatives' on this scale - though of course this virtue can go too far!
What I take away from this article is a reminder that other people aren't just curmudgeonly or obtuse - they really do think in different ways, and we need to adjust our arguments accordingly. But yes, ultimately we have to agree to disagree sometimes; the challenge is to work out exactly why the disagreement is occurring.
There you go equating Christianity with conservative politics. That requires facts not in evidence in Canada.
In English Canada the Christian Left has a longer history with greater number of leaders, for longer terms, and has formed more governments in more provinces than the Christian Right ever has.
The New Democratic Party of the present started as the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in the 1920's, the political arm of the Social Gospel movement. The Christian Left in the NDP is still there, there are a number of United Church clergy that sit or have recently sat as NDP members, the Party Secretary is a preacher's kid (not me, though Ma Preacher did go to divinity school with the PK's father) and Rev. Lorne Calvert was Premier of Saskatchewan in the early 2000's.
The Christian Right formed the government in Alberta as the Social Credit party but while it had strict morality, it was partially left wing in economics (hence the name, though it later turned conservative).
No party has ever been elected in Canada at the federal level that catered excessively to religion. Even today's Tories pay lip-service to the Christian Right but no more, witness the quick amendment to permit Same-Sex Divorce as the Government said they would not make a moral issue out of a technicality, regardless of personal views in the party on the matter.
In Quebec, very French, very Catholic Quebec, the Christian Right was represented by the Union Nationale from the 1930's to the 1950's but after the Quiet Revolution became utterly defunct. Conservative [meaning Protestant] Christian Values get no traction in French, Catholic Quebec. 75 seats worth of people who will ignore you gives Canadian politicians the hint. No government since 1867 has ever been elected at the federal level by being bible-thumpers. It will never happen.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But no - this isn't a 'fact' unless you want to assume that God will automatically curse all relationships that fall short of His commands.
Which would be, basically, all of them.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The issue in many cases is 'what are the FACTS' in this situation. IMNSHO it's important to note that the 'facts' on the issues of abortion, homosexual practice, sex outside marriage and divorce and remarriage haven't changed, all that's changes is people's opinions about them.
There are barely any 'facts' in those issues, though, other than the facts of definition. Abortion is the termination of foetus. Homosexual sex is sex between two people of the same gender. Sex outside marriage is sex between two people who haven't gone through a wedding ceremony. Divorce is the end of a marriage. Remarriage is getting married and it's not your first time.
That's about it, really. I can't think of any other immutable 'facts' about ANY of these things.
That's the point I was making. The fact that people look at gay relationships - in the same way as they look at the marriages of people who've divorced and remarried - and say 'That seems to be a good relationship therefore it's a good thing', is making many, many assumptions. Yet down that route the Protestant church has widely gone with the remarriage of divorcees, and the same logic is now being applied to gay relationships. But no - this isn't a 'fact' unless you want to assume that God will automatically curse all relationships that fall short of His commands.
The point you're making doesn't look at all like the point I'm making. Why do you think that it's only looking at a relationship and concluding it's a GOOD thing that involves all these assumptions? Looking at something and concluding it's a BAD thing involves just as many assumptions. Just different ones. Such as - seeing you mentioned gay relationships - the assumption that because the Bible says something nasty about gay sex in a particular context, the Bible thinks all gay sex is bad. An assumption I lived with for years and which I now think is completely wrong.
Please don't bow to me when I'm disagreeing with you, it's very uncomfortable.
[ 17. April 2012, 00:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
