Politics associated with academic subjects?

Post Reply New Topic

It is like trying to herd squirrels. It cannot be done.

ruveyn

Not so.

Squirrels gladly follow nuts.

It's sort of out of character...

Sorry if that offended you.

What's 'essence'? You can't say a person has an 'essence' and this 'essence' is something. It is always up to certain probability. If a conservative thing is always a stupid thing to do, you can trust conservatives on doing stupid things - or they are not conservative.


Yeah, it would be false if at least one intelligent conservative existed, but they don't. Simply by the way a conservative think they could not be intelligent. Claiming existence of an intelligent conservative is like claiming existence of a positive number that is less than zero - it is nothing short of collision of definitions. There's actually nothing to dispute about.

So you're saying they don't exist makes it so?

Do me a favor - try your powers in making hunger in Somalia not exist, that'd be a nice touch to lend the world and if that works we can move on to even bigger and better things.

As I said: they were brilliant for their time. If a person with exactly same ideas appeared today, they will be just another pious property-owning racist sexist slaver bigot that the world already has way too much of.


You are obviously idealizing the US society in those dark ages. Actually, it kinda reminds me of Soviet Union - there also many people were (and still are) idealizing the times of Stalinism, denying obvious atrocities of the regime. Maybe in the end of the day it is true - the ways of state propaganda and how it influences on the minds of the people don't really change from one regime to another.

Goren, if the issue is probability then ruling something out as impossible doesn't seem to work. Probabilities usually suggest that things are rare, not impossible. In order to get to impossibility one has to argue from essences. That things are essentially X or things are essentially Y and that X and/or Y are incompatible with Z. Otherwise we just have 1 out of 10000000000000 chance, which still means that such a thing could occur.


Goren, you do realize that you have just contradicted yourself, right? This is an issue of "definition" but it is "probability"? I mean, you've essentially invoked empirical justifications saying that logical justifications are crap, and THEN you invoke a logical justification. I mean, that's STUPID! And you're the one saying that conservatives are stupid?

Additionally, the fact that you keep on weaseling around makes me think that you're really the one who has incompetence, not necessarily any conservative. I don't call myself conservative, but I do respect some basic conservative ideas, and maybe I am somewhat wrong to do so, but honestly you have proven yourself both stupid, and insulting as you've basically offended anyone who is conservative or who has any respect for any idea that is generally considered conservative.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 24 Jan 2010, 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oh, I am not offended. I was just sort of curious.

Well, he apparently agrees with their ideology and considers those people more competent than himself. Agreeing with people who agree with you certainly isn't stupid, but rather the opposite is dumber. And accepting the opinions of those smarter also isn't stupid, but rather the opposite is stupid.

Now, I don't see anything that zer0netgain has said to promote anything atrocious. I mean, you attacked the founders for being "pious property-owning racist sexist slaver bigots that the world already has way too much of", but I doubt that the racism, sexism, slavery, and bigotry are the parts that people consider important about the thoughts of the Founding Fathers, and what they seek to emulate. And if someone had the admirable parts of those ideas today, then they would probably still be somewhat of an American conservative, but they would also likely have intellectual output that would be thought provoking.

Not to be mean towards you, but frankly, your position reeks of elitist ignorance.

How are we wiser today? Show me how abandoning the principles the Founding Fathers laid down has preserved freedom and economic opportunity? Short of the flaw of slavery (which was practiced GLOBALLY, not just in the US), every "improvement" has resulted in ever increasing government control over personal liberties, heaver taxation, disastrous fiscal policy, the elimination of individual sovereignty, the discouragement of self-reliance, entanglement in foreign affairs resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans purely for political ends...never mind the number of non-combatants who died in the actual theater or war, etc., etc., etc.

I could go on, but for any improvement your "enlightened" modern thinkers may have actually pulled off since America was founded, I could easily detail a dozen disastrous choices those same thinkers have supported.

The Founding Fathers did not create perfection, but they did a remarkable job. They designed the system to be able to grow and change if it was needed, but such change came only after an extensive amount of work because they knew the whim of the masses could not be trusted. If a change was needed and it was pervasive enough, it could happen slow enough for the nation to stand strong against the ebb and flow of public opinion.



Again, elitist ignorance.

To even compare the foundation of America to Stalinist Russia is an insult. Stalin overthrew an existing and corrupt government (which I could agree with), but he went further and became worse of a butcher than the power he overthrew. He did NOTHING to improve the welfare of the people he was leading. The socialistic policies were the antithesis of what the Founding Fathers handed to the American people.

America, by contrast, did rebel against the British Crown, but a key reason was that the King demanded loyalty and resources but provided next to nothing to the American colonies. We were self-sufficient and didn't need England. The colonists came to America to start a new life free from the oppression of the British Crown, and they finally had enough. The Founding Fathers wanted to preserve liberty and freedom for every American. They refused to give us a king. They did not seek to maintain power in a handful of elite leaders.

That you say "pious property-owning racist sexist slaver bigot" shows your bias.

Understand this of the men who created this nation.

1. Pious. Whether you regard them as "Christian" or just "deists," the Judeao-Christian ethic was the core of what they founded America on. They gave Americans "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion." The government is prohibited from establishing a state religion. There is no requirement that religion and politics never touch each other. The Founding Fathers (and this is clearly documented) believed that apart from "God's guidance," it was impossible to create a new nation, and their deliberations were led with prayer every morning led by whatever preacher was willing to come in and lead them in prayer.

2. Property-owning. There is a reason why only land owners were allowed the right to vote. People who have nothing to lose will easily support any agenda that promises them gain from another man's pocket. Land owners ultimately, through the seizure of land and taxation, bore the burden of supporting the government. As they were the most affected by what government did, the Founding Fathers felt they were the ones who's voice should be heard. Anyone could save and buy land, so it was not so exclusive others could not gain the ability to vote. Extending voting rights to non-land owners was a major step in destroying the republic. It allowed people to vote their self interest at the expense of others, and since non-land owners were a majority, catering to their demands resulted in a massive expansion of government power, influence and spending.

3. Racist. As I pointed out, slavery was a global fact of life. In fact, it extends back to before Biblical times. Even modern employer-employee relations are based on what used to be called "MASTER-SERVANT LAW." Trying to smear the Founding Fathers for what was openly practiced by people around the world for centuries is a lame duck, and you know it.

4. Sexist. That land owners happened to be men is just a reality of the times. Again, you're throwing out a lame duck argument.

5. Bigot. As you use it, this is a redundant attack. If "bigot" means, "thinks he's better than others," well, let's answer these questions....

A. Did YOU pick up a rifle and fight to free your country from an oppressive regime?

B. Did YOU commit treason against the ruling government knowing you'd be executed if the rebellion failed?

C. Did YOU commit yourself to crafting a replacement government that would secure liberty and the hope of prosperity for your children, grandchildren, etc.?

I didn't think so.

I'm amazed how judgmental and self-righteous people of today are about what kind of people the Founding Fathers were when they have no comprehension of what those people went through to give us the nation we have. If they were like other men of their day, they would have made themselves noblemen and lords over everyone...preserving political power for their blood heirs. Instead, they worked to give us something the world really has never seen such as they crafted it.

America is waging how many wars to "spread democracy"...something the Founding Fathers condemned as a failed experiment (which is why they gave us a republic). So much for the enlightened modern thinkers we have today.

That you accept to propaganda that the USA is in the Middle East to spread democracy instead of butchering the locals to control the natural resources is an indication of the depth of your analyses.

We could do a lot better of a job butchering the locals. In any case, I really do think that the US is in the Middle East to spread democracy. The reason being that I think that an ideology that had some sway in the Bush administration was Democratic Peace Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory So, the idea was that we wanted to swoop in, civilize these people(so to speak), and then leave being lauded as heroes for this act that also benefited our own interests.

Maybe you'll consider that not deep enough, but I doubt that the Bush administration was full of evil people who just wanted to butcher poor Middle Easterners. I think that is as credible as holding that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim and a socialist.

(or wait, is this more about the basic target areas? I dunno, still, Islam became the big boogieman after 9/11, and before that one of the major conflicts that we were all aware of was Desert Storm)

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 25 Jan 2010, 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Please invest more time in reading comprehension. The Founding Fathers would condemn the practice of "spreading democracy" and since we were not talking about the wars in the Middle East specifically, I thought the would convey my thought on the matter. I know full well that it's all about the oil.