Conservative Does No Mean Christian.

[PadawanBater]

No it doesn't. Only a fool believes that opinions having to do with politics and social issued can be proved. To believe this, one must be ignorant of the meaning of proof and the abstract nature of social issues and of life in general.

All you have is opinion. That's what I've been saying. When we debate things like sexual orientation, abortion, welfare, the federal government, etc. you state your opinion, which is usually in opposition to the majority of the rest of the community, then even in light of contrary evidence and data, you still hold the same opinion and brush off whatever proof or evidence that was presented against your opinion as "liberal" "biased" "left-wing" "socialist" "communist"..

Opinions are fine, I never said they need to be proved, I said "prove to me your beliefs/opinions are not founded in religion" because you're the one making the claim that "conservatives are no more religious than anyone else" - which is so obviously glaringly false it's almost stupid for someone to make that claim in America. Even foreigners know which party is more religious.

Your inability to see how easily Conservative thinking can occur outside of religion simply demonstrates your inability to think critically and to properly analyze any of life's issues.

And your denial of an atheist - that would be me Rick - admitting he holds conservative values on certain issues contradicts everything you just said. If I held the position your proposing, explain to me exactly how I'd get my "conservative" values without a God.

You are big on repeating your self over and over regardless of how many times you have been shown to be wrong, which is several in this thread alone. Instead of defending my position from childish demands for the impossible, why don't you demonstrate what you are asking me to do. Why don't you prove that your opinions are right.

No need. I never made that claim. I most likely do hold some incorrect positions (oh NOES now it's the end of the world!!).

Really at this point, one must wonder if you have any self awareness at all. You seem not to be able to see that to anyone with any intelligence, you are coming off like a punk with a smart mouth and no ability to think.

Funny how my positions are supported more than yours (or should I make a poll to prove it to your ass again? - that you would probably just dismiss as 'unscientific'...). Funny how that rep system works... keep tellin' yourself that.

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/305652-anti-discrimination-laws-just-2.html#post3829548

I'll post in that thread when I get back.

 

[medicineman]

i guess that's why i can never be a conservative. i just not a team player. the goal of a team is to win and a successful team eventually becomes the mob, pressing its agenda on the individual that refuses to conform. if your goal is the supremacy of the individual, joining a team is self-defeating. better to avoid the deceptions and betrayals of any herd and lead through example. better to be one, the best one possible, and define your goals through personal morality and success. the mob will always have its way until it willingly divides itself into its individual parts and this will never happen as long as the template for individual success is defined by a team. even the most devoted drone may eventually leave the hive when he sees the possibilities of individual potential. instead of grinding one's opponents into the dust, the cultivation of wisdom, patience and charity should be the aim of the proponents of individualism.

no political party will ever advocate the promotion of individualism, only the individual can do that. the republicans long ago betrayed the framework of the constitution, placing the party's success above the liberties that document offered. it was inevitable, it is the natural tendency of the powerful. abandoning them and starting anew is preferable to justifying their corruption by lending them support. better to begin again and form a party that seeks to relinquish power instead of gathering it and to act only when inaction is impossible.

I find myself in agreement with your premis here, It's just that human nature is acting in exact polar opposites to this dreamscape. The fact that the "superior individual" could live alone is fallacious in itself. People need each other to survive. Granted, If one was rich enough, one could survive by keeping slaves and not interacting with them, but the basic human condition screams companionship. The most agregious punishment in our penal system is the "hole", where total isolation is forced upon the individual. After an extended period in this enviornment, prisoners are totally disoriented and very traumatized.

 

[Moldy]

Religion interrupts rational thought processes and has no business in politics.

It appears to me that BOTH parties have their heads so far up their religious asses that they can't think clearly! I see nothing constructive happening in Gov't these days and looking back I think we're all lucky to be alive.

 

[undertheice]

The fact that the "superior individual" could live alone is fallacious in itself.

it is not a matter of being superior or of being alone. it is about holding yourself apart from the desires of the mob and striving for unattainable perfection. the issues of the day may be a pleasant distraction, but they are of little consequence compared to the wisdom, charity, tolerance and myriad other qualities that allow us to become more than grunting beasts, scrabbling for a bigger piece of the pie. our humanity demands interaction, as do many of our more laudable attributes, but interaction does not demand that we confuse the buzz of the hive with the buzzing of our own thoughts. of course it's obvious we will never attain the sort of enlightenment we seek, but that we try is of greater importance than what heights we may reach.

we can delude ourselves into believing that our mob is more just and more intelligent than their mob, but in the end everything will remain the same until we have made ourselves better individuals than we now are. the alternative is to grovel in the mud with the rest of the animals, blindly nodding as the next edict is handed down from on high and mutely waiting in line for gubermint cheez.

 

[ChChoda]

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
Winston Churchill

http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/02/23/take-out-the-dalai-and-the-trash/

 

[ChChoda]

it is not a matter of being superior or of being alone. it is about holding yourself apart from the desires of the mob and striving for unattainable perfection. the issues of the day may be a pleasant distraction, but they are of little consequence compared to the wisdom, charity, tolerance and myriad other qualities that allow us to become more than grunting beasts, scrabbling for a bigger piece of the pie. our humanity demands interaction, as do many of our more laudable attributes, but interaction does not demand that we confuse the buzz of the hive with the buzzing of our own thoughts. of course it's obvious we will never attain the sort of enlightenment we seek, but that we try is of greater importance than what heights we may reach.

we can delude ourselves into believing that our mob is more just and more intelligent than their mob, but in the end everything will remain the same until we have made ourselves better individuals than we now are. the alternative is to grovel in the mud with the rest of the animals, blindly nodding as the next edict is handed down from on high and mutely waiting in line for gubermint cheez.

You mean...?

it is not a matter of being superior or of being alone. it is about holding myself apart from the desires of the mob and striving for unattainable perfection. the issues of the day may be a pleasant distraction, but they are of little consequence compared to the wisdom, charity, tolerance and myriad other qualities that allow me to become more than a grunting beast, scrabbling for a bigger piece of the pie. my humanity demands interaction, as do many of my more laudable attributes, but interaction does not demand that I confuse the buzz of the hive with the buzzing of my own thoughts. of course it's obvious I will never attain the sort of enlightenment I seek, but that I try is of greater importance than what heights I may reach.

You can delude yourselves into believing that your mob is more just and more intelligent than their mob, but in the end everything will remain the same until you have made yourselves better individuals than you now are. the alternative is to grovel in the mud with the rest of the animals, blindly nodding as the next edict is handed down from on high and mutely waiting in line for gubermint cheez.

That last paragraph sounds mildly dictatorial...

 

[RickWhite]

All you have is opinion. That's what I've been saying. When we debate things like sexual orientation, abortion, welfare, the federal government, etc. you state your opinion, which is usually in opposition to the majority of the rest of the community, then even in light of contrary evidence and data, you still hold the same opinion and brush off whatever proof or evidence that was presented against your opinion as "liberal" "biased" "left-wing" "socialist" "communist"..

Opinions are fine, I never said they need to be proved, I said "prove to me your beliefs/opinions are not founded in religion" because you're the one making the claim that "conservatives are no more religious than anyone else" - which is so obviously glaringly false it's almost stupid for someone to make that claim in America. Even foreigners know which party is more religious.



And your denial of an atheist - that would be me Rick - admitting he holds conservative values on certain issues contradicts everything you just said. If I held the position your proposing, explain to me exactly how I'd get my "conservative" values without a God.



No need. I never made that claim. I most likely do hold some incorrect positions (oh NOES now it's the end of the world!!).



Funny how my positions are supported more than yours (or should I make a poll to prove it to your ass again? - that you would probably just dismiss as 'unscientific'...). Funny how that rep system works... keep tellin' yourself that.



I'll post in that thread when I get back.

Blah, blah, blah - now you sound like the adults in the old Charlie Brown cartoons. Now you are going to take a poll of pot smokes to prove that your ideas are more rooted in fact than mine - gee, you are just full of brilliance today.

And you are asking me to prove a negative - another demonstration of your brilliance. If you had half a brain you would know what is wrong with this but as it stands I'm sure you need someone to explain it to you.

Despite being of Jewish heritage, I was raised Atheist and I now consider myself mostly agnostic. I do not accept religious beliefs as a rational approach to anything. I have demonstrated my logical approach to issues numerous times in this thread alone. You may not agree with me, but asserting that my views are religious in nature is just dumb.

It is obvious to me that you are incapable of discussing something rationally. You conduct yourself like a malicious child in all of your conversations and proof aside, I know for a FACT you can not demonstrate that any of your views are rooted in logic and analysis in any way as i have done repeatedly.

 

[jeffchr]

so what's the point of this discussion?

 

[ChChoda]

so what's the point of this discussion?

To answer questions?

 

[RickWhite]

so what's the point of this discussion?

Read the OP for the point - it is one that Padawanbater is proving quite well for me.

 

[ChChoda]

Read the OP for the point - it is one that Padawanbater is proving quite well for me.

I'll take your word for it. I stopped reading his interminable, aggressively nonsensical posts a short while back...

 

[jeffchr]

oh yea, i remember now (after reading the OP) yea well i think we've all agreed the op was an opinion. i think somewhere in this thread Rick agrees that it is opinion and Rick further states that his opinion is well constructed with impeccable logic and reasoning.

but it is opinion. and i think that is Pada's main point.

really the intelligent and polite conversation never really got much farther along the evolution curve then that. the rest of this nonsense is just insults.

so basically rick, your thread is just malicious opinion. thanks for that.

 

[ChChoda]

the rest of this nonsense is just insults.

so basically rick, your thread is just malicious opinion. .

Great way to make a point; using an example. It was very clever of you.

 

[PadawanBater]

oh yea, i remember now (after reading the OP) yea well i think we've all agreed the op was an opinion. i think somewhere in this thread Rick agrees that it is opinion and Rick further states that his opinion is well constructed with impeccable logic and reasoning.

but it is opinion. and i think that is Pada's main point.

really the intelligent and polite conversation never really got much farther along the evolution curve then that. the rest of this nonsense is just insults.

so basically rick, your thread is just malicious opinion. thanks for that.

lol, pretty damn much... +reps to you sir.

 

[RickWhite]

oh yea, i remember now (after reading the OP) yea well i think we've all agreed the op was an opinion. i think somewhere in this thread Rick agrees that it is opinion and Rick further states that his opinion is well constructed with impeccable logic and reasoning.

but it is opinion. and i think that is Pada's main point.

really the intelligent and polite conversation never really got much farther along the evolution curve then that. the rest of this nonsense is just insults.

so basically rick, your thread is just malicious opinion. thanks for that.

Wrong. Try reading it again.

The major claim was that Conservatives do not only think by way of religious dogma as often claimed by Liberals. This is easily demonstrated.

My minor claim was that Liberals believe this because they themselves only think through dogma and project that onto Conservatives. Padawan has done a remarkable job of demonstrating this.

Padawan, claimed that in order for my major claim to be true I must prove the soundness of all Conservative viewpoints - a notion that is clearly absurd.

I pointed out this absurdity by educating him (though I doubt it will take) to the notion that complex and abstract ideas can not be proven in the same way a scientific theory is proven. He is likewise unable to prove any of his opinions.

Furthermore, even if every one of a person's opinions was wrong or "unsound," this would not be fatal to my major claim because one can reach a conclusion that is logical but unsound.

The argument below is valid logically but unsound.

P1 All dogs bark
P2 Besinjis are dogs
C Therefore Besingis bark.

So you see, to demand that one prove all of their conclusions sound in order to prove their overall logic valid is an error in reason.

I see how in your biased, dogma based view of the world you would want to percieve it the way you did though.

More proof of my minor claim.

 

[jeffchr]

Wrong. Try reading it again.
NO - I"M PRETTY MUCH DONE WITH THIS THREAD

The major claim was that Conservatives do not only think by way of religious dogma as often claimed by Liberals. This is easily demonstrated.
OPINION - POSSIBLY TRUE

My minor claim was that Liberals believe this because they themselves only think through dogma and project that onto Conservatives. Padawan has done a remarkable job of demonstrating this.
OPINION

Padawan, claimed that in order for my major claim to be true I must prove the soundness of all Conservative viewpoints - a notion that is clearly absurd.
REITERATION - POSSIBLY SKEWED

I pointed out this absurdity by educating him (though I doubt it will take) to the notion that complex and abstract ideas can not be proven in the same way a scientific theory is proven. He is likewise unable to prove any of his opinions.
REITERATION

Furthermore, even if every one of a person's opinions was wrong or "unsound," this would not be fatal to my major claim because one can reach a conclusion that is logical but unsound.

The argument below is valid logically but unsound.

P1 All dogs bark
P2 Besinjis are dogs
C Therefore Besingis bark.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE LESSON. A LITTLE CONDESCENDING BECAUSE THE POINT IT MAKES IS SO SIMPLE.

So you see, to demand that one prove all of their conclusions sound in order to prove their overall logic valid is an error in reason.
LIKE I SAID, I AM NOT GOING TO SPEND ANYMORE TIME ON THIS THREAD. BUT, I DO NOT RECOLLECT ANYONE DEMANDING THAT YOU PROVE ANYTHING. JUST SITE SOME EXAMPLES.


I see how in your biased, dogma based view of the world you would want to percieve it the way you did though.
INSULT (TYPICAL OF YOU)

More proof of my minor claim.
THE INSULTS PROVE NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

.........................................................

 

[PadawanBater]

Wrong. Try reading it again.

The major claim was that Conservatives do not only think by way of religious dogma as often claimed by Liberals. This is easily demonstrated.

My minor claim was that Liberals believe this because they themselves only think through dogma and project that onto Conservatives. Padawan has done a remarkable job of demonstrating this.

Padawan, claimed that in order for my major claim to be true I must prove the soundness of all Conservative viewpoints - a notion that is clearly absurd.

I pointed out this absurdity by educating him (though I doubt it will take) to the notion that complex and abstract ideas can not be proven in the same way a scientific theory is proven. He is likewise unable to prove any of his opinions.

Furthermore, even if every one of a person's opinions was wrong or "unsound," this would not be fatal to my major claim because one can reach a conclusion that is logical but unsound.

The argument below is valid logically but unsound.

P1 All dogs bark
P2 Besinjis are dogs
C Therefore Besingis bark.

So you see, to demand that one prove all of their conclusions sound in order to prove their overall logic valid is an error in reason.

I see how in your biased, dogma based view of the world you would want to percieve it the way you did though.

More proof of my minor claim.

There's something wrong with your brain Rick, go get a CATscan...

 

[RickWhite]

I consider my point proven.

Liberals like the two above are incapable of thinking by any means other than dogma and project this onto Conservatives.

Padawan has no response and Jeffchr utterly failed to comprehend my last post.

I think my work is done here.

 

[jeffchr]

i consider my point proven.

Liberals like the two above are incapable of thinking by any means other than dogma and project this onto conservatives.

Padawan has no response and jeffchr utterly failed to comprehend my last post.

I think my work is done here.

opinion..................................

 

[RickWhite]

opinion..................................

Yet to be disproven and well exemplified that is for sure. Much thanks to you and padawan.

BTW, look up the word "reiteration." Nothing I said in the post above was a reiteration. Every sentence was in reference to a different component of a larger logical scheme.

Perhaps you were unable to follow it, but nothing was a reiteration or in any way a repetition of a previously made point.

BTW, is there any Liberal position you don't agree with?