Four Good Reasons Why I Am A Conservative

[Dr Adequate]

Free Markets

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should regulate some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

Libertarianism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should intervene in some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

Literal Conservatism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should change some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

Opposition To Statism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should do some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

[Random]

I can't think of any liberal who would disagree with any of that. Liberals usually split ways with conservatives when it comes to what is or is not a "good reason".

Despite conservative talking points, liberals do not support "big government". We believe that government should do certain things then figure out what size government needs to be to achieve those things. Deciding that government should be bigger (or smaller) and working backwards from that premise is silly.

[Alt+F4]

Liberals usually split ways with conservatives when it comes to what is or is not a "good reason".

Exactly. Conservatives have lots of "good reasons" for regulating and intervening in marriage, abortion, education, and medical research. To bad their "good reasons"....aren't.

[KingMerv00]

I understand why people feel the need to classify themselves as "conservative" or "liberal" but the definitions are so flexible it isn't really that interesting. Instead, tell me where you stand on the individual issues.

[Dr Adequate]

I understand why people feel the need to classify themselves as "conservative" or "liberal" but the definitions are so flexible it isn't really that interesting. Instead, tell me where you stand on the individual issues. When I've told you my ideology? Can't you just work it out from that?

Let me give you another clue: I think that government should be no bigger than it ought to be. That's another conservative principle, and I stand by it.

[Random]

Let me give you another clue: I think that government should be no bigger than it ought to be. That's another conservative principle, and I stand by it.

That's also a liberal principle. The disagreement is usually about how big government "ought" to be.

No one wants a bigger government just for the sake of having a bigger government.

[Arcade22]

In Sweden my views are seen as being Strongly Conservative, but in America i would be pretty liberal. :eusa_think:

[Cleon]

In Sweden my views are seen as being Strongly Conservative, but in America i would be pretty liberal. :eusa_think:

I find that unlikely.

[KingMerv00]

When I've told you my ideology? Can't you just work it out from that?

Let me give you another clue: I think that government should be no bigger than it ought to be. That's another conservative principle, and I stand by it.

"No bigger than it ought to be" is subjective so I have no idea where you stand on the issues.

[KingMerv00]

I find that unlikely.

Seconded. Whatever side he's really on, I'd doubt they'd want to associate with him.

[Elaedith]

Free Markets

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should regulate some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

Libertarianism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should intervene in some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

Literal Conservatism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should change some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

Opposition To Statism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should do some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

And if you do have some good reason.......?

[Bikewer]

The Devil is in the details as stated....Some folks idea of "good reasons" tend to be wildly differing. One fellow's "growth stifling regulation" may be a life-saving health/safety concern to another...

[Arcade22]

Seconded. Whatever side he's really on, I'd doubt they'd want to associate with him.

Actually most Conservatives i have talked to agree with my on issues like Immigration and Multiculturalism. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b2d51a947b60.gif

[Dr Adequate]

And if you do have some good reason.......? Well if you have a good reason, then you have a good reason.

Obviously my conservative inclinations wouldn't stand up against the facts. That would contravene the very principles that I have listed and upon which I stand.

[Thunder]

Obviously my conservative inclinations wouldn't stand up against the facts.

you can say that again.

[fishbob]

Obviously my conservative inclinations wouldn't stand up against the facts. That would contravene the very principles that I have listed and upon which I stand.

Get off the poor things before they go all flat and distorted.

Oops - to late.

[Random]

That would contravene the very principles that I have listed and upon which I stand.

You haven't really taken a stand you know. You have listed a bunch of extremely broad priciples that nobody disagrees with, and declared them "conservative".

[Dr Adequate]

You haven't really taken a stand you know. You have listed a bunch of extremely broad priciples that nobody disagrees with, and declared them "conservative". So you are unable to disagree with my conservative principles?

[Thunder]

You haven't really taken a stand you know. You have listed a bunch of extremely broad priciples that nobody disagrees with, and declared them "conservative".

yup.

for the most part, very few people in this country would disagree with the principles set forth in the OP.

[KingMerv00]

Actually most Conservatives i have talked to agree with my on issues like Immigration and Multiculturalism. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b2d51a947b60.gif

That's because most people won't talk to you I imagine.

[Random]

So you are unable to disagree with my conservative principles?

I disagree that they are "conservative", except in the broadest, "I don't want to do something for no reason" sense.

[Arcade22]

That's because most people won't talk to you I imagine.

Whats the matter, why are you acting so aggressively? Didn't you have a good Christmas? :rub:

[Dr Adequate]

yup.

for the most part, very few people in this country would disagree with the principles set forth in the OP. So why did they vote for the party of not-conservatism? Answer me that ...

[KingMerv00]

Whats the matter, why are you acting so aggressively?

Because bigotry is not the sort of thing one should comfort.

[Thunder]

So why did they vote for the party of not-conservatism? Answer me that ...

honestly, the OP did not list ANY strict current-day conservative principles.

[Ladewig]

Libertarianism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should intervene in some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.


What "good reason" do you or other conservatives have for outlawing marijuana?

[Piscivore]

Traditional Values
Appeal to tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition), also known as proof from tradition,[1] appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem, false induction, or the "is/ought" fallacy,[2] is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."[3]

An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions:

The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced. In actuality this may be false — the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.
The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present. In cases where circumstances have changed, this assumption may be false.

Partisanism
"Choosing a side"- any side- to me is to some degree forsaking skepticism in favour of embracing a conclusion based on other, primarily emotional, factors.

[Piscivore]

So why did they vote for the party of not-conservatism? Answer me that ...

Because the people claiming to be "conservatives" were not adhereing to those principles?

[Arcade22]

Because bigotry is not the sort of thing one should comfort.

Am i bigot because i want a stable and harmonious country free from foreign welfare leeches and criminals who have absolutely no intentions to work towards my country's welfare?
Or is it because i would want Sweden to be the country for the Swedish people and our culture?

Perhaps its just because i note that different cultures with conflicting values will eventually clash?

[AWPrime]

So why did they vote for the party of not-conservatism? Answer me that ...Because your principles can match the liberal principles of Micheal Moore.

[Arcade22]

Because your principles can match the liberal principles of Micheal Moore.

Or Stalin for that matter.

[Dr Adequate]

honestly, the OP did not list ANY strict current-day conservative principles. No, honestly, the OP did not list ANY strict current-day Republican practice.

[Dr Adequate]

What "good reason" do you or other conservatives have for outlawing marijuana? Vague and tenuous reasons that do not stand up to rational scrutiny.

[Dr Adequate]

Actually most Conservatives i have talked to agree with my on issues like Immigration and Multiculturalism. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b2d51a947b60.gif Which reflects on your choice of people whom you choose to talk to.

[Piscivore]

Am i bigot because i want a stable and harmonious country free from foreign welfare leeches and criminals who have absolutely no intentions to work towards my country's welfare?
Since you only specified foreign "leeches and criminals", yes. Because this implies that a "stable and harmonious country" means "full of people like me".

Or is it because i would want Sweden to be the country for the Swedish people and our culture?
Yes. See "segregation".

[Arcade22]

Yes. See "segregation".

Are saying that Sweden was 'segregated' around year 1950?

[Skeptic]

The problem is what "good reason" means. One might as well say that we are all pacifists, since none of us would go to war without "good reason".

[Eyeron]

Free Markets

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should regulate some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

Free Markets were tried. They led to snake oil salesmen, things like mercury in the food and drink, and to unions and to corporations.

Libertarianism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should intervene in some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.


Whenever you leave people to their own devices, it always leads to a big huge tyrannical government, which is a why a government is needed to protect people's rights and liberties.
Literal Conservatism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should change some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

Leaving people to their own devices is generally not a good idea either. If there is no incentive to do something, however small or large, people just will not do things such as charity or things that are good. That means some people will be left out in the cold because there will be left out in the cold. There needs to be a third option, and there's nothing wrong with government providing a third option for people. However, like anything, that ideal can be abused as well.

Opposition To Statism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should do some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

First of all, define statism.

One of the problems that Libertarianism has is that it does not seem to acknowledge certain aspects of human nature. There are those who are envelope pushers, that is they purposefully test the boundaries of society's rules to see what they can get away with. Other people just feel that rules of society just don't apply to them.

For example, take the libertarian ideal of mediation. The only thing the people have to enforce an agreement is their word. And in the first place, if there is a conflict, and one person feels they are right no matter what, what rules and laws are there in place to handle such a situation? That's how laws are created, and that's what eventually leads to an ever more encroaching government as more and more legislation is created to micro manage a person's life.

Plus, that's a very loose definition of statism.

Added:

That in a nutshell, is the inherent weakness to libertarianism and how libertarianism is defeated. Because it cannot and will not be able to prevent a government from growing large and powerful without it's own set of rules to cover the situations that would create the new legislation that gives government its power. In order to do so, you can't just say "well, this government isn't going to get any bigger", you have to have a system in place to prevent it the government from growing bigger, and that in itself is another kind of big government.

[Myshkin]

Free Markets

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should regulate some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.


Good reasons exist. Even Conservatives agree with them. They are called "market failures" - when goods or services cannot be efficiently delivered via free markets without harming the economy or nation at large.

Police, fire depatments, public roads, military, national parks, regulatory agents for things like public health (e.g. CDC) are all not only regulated, but fully socialized. Socialism! Oh noes!

Another market failure is long-term investment in science or technology that are difficult, if not impossible to turn a profit in human time frames, e.g. NASA, NIH.

[Dr Adequate]

Free Markets were tried. They led to snake oil salesmen, things like mercury in the food and drink, and to unions and to corporations.



Whenever you leave people to their own devices, it always leads to a big huge tyrannical government, which is a why a government is needed to protect people's rights and liberties.


Leaving people to their own devices is generally not a good idea either. If there is no incentive to do something, however small or large, people just will not do things such as charity or things that are good. That means some people will be left out in the cold because there will be left out in the cold. There needs to be a third option, and there's nothing wrong with government providing a third option for people. However, like anything, that ideal can be abused as well.


First of all, define statism.

One of the problems that Libertarianism has is that it does not seem to acknowledge certain aspects of human nature. There are those who are envelope pushers, that is they purposefully test the boundaries of society's rules to see what they can get away with. Other people just feel that rules of society just don't apply to them.

For example, take the libertarian ideal of mediation. The only thing the people have to enforce an agreement is there word. And in the first place, if there is a conflict, and one person feels they are right no matter what, what rules and laws are there in place to handle such a situation? That's how laws are created, and that's what eventually leads to an ever more encroaching government as more and more legislation is created to micro manage a person's life.

Plus, that's a very loose definition of statism. Well, do you remember how I always added as a caveat the phrase: "If you don't have some good reason"?

For example, I agree totally that there should be regulation of markets --- where any good reason can be provided.

[Piscivore]

Are saying that Sweden was 'segregated' around year 1950?

I have no idea. But "Sweden for the Swedish" and the anti-"foreigners" sentiments you expressed reflect a desire for segregation.

[Random]

Well, do you remember how I always added as a caveat the phrase: "If you don't have some good reason"?

For example, I agree totally that there should be regulation of markets --- where any good reason can be provided.

But this was the main problem with the OP. The repeated phrase “good reason”. Within those mere two words lies enough wiggle room to justify every policy from government cheese to mass murder. Everyone has a different opinion of what constitutes a “good reason”.

Some prior “good reasons” from history that influenced policy:

National security
Feeding the hungry
Maintaining social order
Religious taboos
Maintaining racial purity
Equal rights
Reducing inflation (by reducing employment)
Increasing employment (increasing inflation in the process)
We were here first
Preventing exploitation of the working class
The natural inferiority of women
The divine right of Kings
Bringing people to the one true church/synagogue/mosque/temple/stone circle, etc.

With those two words, there is nothing in the OP to object to, since anybody can fit their personal belief structure into the “good reason” exception. The version of “conservative” in the OP can stand for anything.

[Arcade22]

I have no idea. But "Sweden for the Swedish" and the anti-"foreigners" sentiments you expressed reflect a desire for segregation.

Nonsense, i don't want to segregate immigrants. Hell, segregation is what the current government is doing right now.
They are shuffling immigrants into ghettos like Rinkeby and the like, where the amount of immigrants are well over 50%.

Crime, social upheaval and extreme poverty are the results.

And besides, are you saying that Sweden must give anyone the right to live in Sweden no matter how much they differ from us either culturally or ethnically?
And please help me understand whats so objectionable with the belief in 'one country - one people'?

[Dr Adequate]

But this was the main problem with the OP. The repeated phrase “good reason”. Within those mere two words lies enough wiggle room to justify every policy from government cheese to mass micurder. Everyone has a different opinion of what constitutes a “good reason”. Well, I get to vote on that issue. So do you. I agree wholeheartedly that democracy has sometimes screwed things up, but there you go. As Winston Churchill said, it's the worst political system imaginable except for all the others.

But to take my first point again as an example, I should say that I need a good reason why the government should interfere in the market --- whereas a follower of Lenin would assume that government control of markets was the best idea, and would want a good reason why not.

Now I myself seek a good reason why the government should interfere with anything. I will freely confess that I as a voter might be duped by a bad reason --- I do not claim to be perfect --- but my point is that at least I wish to be provided with something that I believe to be a good reason.

[Dr Adequate]

Nonsense, i don't want to segregate immigrants. Hell, segregation is what the current government is doing right now.
They are shuffling immigrants into ghettos like Rinkeby and the like, where the amount of immigrants are well over 50%.

Crime, social upheaval and extreme poverty are the results.

And besides, are you saying that Sweden must give anyone the right to live in Sweden no matter how much they differ from us either culturally or ethnically?
And please help understand whats so objectionable with the belief in 'one country - one people'? On this thread you will either be ignored or mocked.

Go away.

[Piscivore]

Nonsense, i don't want to segregate immigrants. Hell, segregation is what the current government is doing right now.
They are shuffling immigrants into ghettos like Rinkeby and the like, where the amount of immigrants are well over 50%.
And you just want them thrown out of the country. No difference.

And besides, are you saying that Sweden must give anyone the right to live in Sweden no matter how much they differ from us either culturally or ethnically?
No. But not doing so is segregation.

And please help me understand whats so objectionable with the belief in 'one country - one people'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Opposition_and_critique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#As_state-sponsored_activity

[Thunder]

And please help me understand whats so objectionable with the belief in 'one country - one people'?

you know, the USA let in thousands of Swedish immigrants. perhaps this was a mistake.

[Piscivore]

you know, the USA let in thousands of Swedish immigrants. perhaps this was a mistake.

You got that right. That damn chef still doesn't know how to speak English.

[Skeptic]

Wake up people! We are living in a socialist nightmare! (http://www.kossan.se/roliga-filmer/the_daily_show_the_stockholm_syndrome.htm)

Er... you do know the "Daily Show" is a comedy show... don't you?

[Random]

But to take my first point again as an example, I should say that I need a good reason why the government should interfere in the market --- whereas a follower of Lenin would assume that government control of markets was the best idea, and would want a good reason why not.

A follower of Lenin would still fit into the OP. If government control of markets is the best idea, then that is a "good reason" to have government control of markets.

Honestly, I have been hanging around liberals for a decade or more now, and I have never found a single liberal who would support government intervention without a "good reason". Liberals are not in favor of the expansion of government per se, just policies that might lead to the expansion of government.

If I punch a man in the face, I might injure my hand. I really want to punch Glenn Beck in the face. Does this mean I want to injure my hand?

A new car might cost $10k. I want a new car. Do I want to spend $10k?

A Universal Healthcare system will lead to an increase in the size of government. I really want a Universal Healthcare system. Do I want an increase in the size of government?

It's amazing how this simple concept eludes many conservatives.

[Arcade22]

On this thread you will either be ignored or mocked.

Go away.

:cry:

[Arcade22]

And you just want them thrown out of the country. No difference.

Straw man. The only immigrants i want to throw out are those who have no intention on embracing Swedish culture, those who are committing crime and those who are specifically here to parasite on the Swedish people.

No. But not doing so is segregation.

seg·re·ga·tion (sgr-gshn)
n.
1. The act or process of segregating or the condition of being segregated.
2. The policy or practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups, as in schools, housing, and public or commercial facilities, especially as a form of discrimination.
3. Genetics The separation of paired alleles or homologous chromosomes, especially during meiosis, so that the members of each pair appear in different gametes.

How exactly is not letting in people who are extremely different from the Swedes 'Segregation'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Opposition_and_critique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#As_state-sponsored_activity

Absolutely Brilliant, Argumentum ad Wikipedia!

[Arcade22]

[/B][/URL]

Er... you do know the "Daily Show" is a comedy show... don't you?


What?! Are you serious?! http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b2d52bc5d842.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18511)

[KingMerv00]

:cry:

Damn elves infecting us with their borg-like socialism. GO WORSHIP YOUR RED MASTER ELSEWHERE! FIND A NORTH POLE SERVER!

[KingMerv00]

Am i bigot because i want a stable and harmonious country free from foreign welfare leeches and criminals who have absolutely no intentions to work towards my country's welfare?
Or is it because i would want Sweden to be the country for the Swedish people and our culture?

Perhaps its just because i note that different cultures with conflicting values will eventually clash?

I'd answer you but it would be a derail. This thread isn't entitled "Four Good Reasons You Are a Bigot".

[Dr Adequate]

A follower of Lenin would still fit into the OP. If government control of markets is the best idea, then that is a "good reason" to have government control of markets. You miss my point. Such a person would take government control as the default position, and would need to be persuaded into free-market economics like Lenin was persuaded into his New Economic Policy. They would be persuaded in general that the government should control the economy, and ask for a good reason why this should not apply in some particular case. Whereas I am persuaded that in general free-market economics is best, and ask to be supplied with one good reason why the government should intervene.

The question I am raising is --- what is the default position?

Honestly, I have been hanging around liberals for a decade or more now, and I have never found a single liberal who would support government intervention without a "good reason". Then apparently all the liberals you've been hanging around with were conservatives. Like me.

[Arcade22]

I'd answer you but it would be a derail. This thread isn't entitled "Four Good Reasons You Are a Bigot".

Perhaps one of the Mods should split the thread?

[David Wong]

Then apparently all the liberals you've been hanging around with were conservatives. Like me.

And the people you've been calling liberals are actually conservatives. President Obama, for instance, is a conservative by your definition.

So? What now?

[Dr Adequate]

:cry: Inappropriate content removed.
Now please stop posting on my thread. If you want to gibble out racist tripe, start your own thread.

[KingMerv00]

And the people you've been calling liberals are actually conservatives. President Obama, for instance, is a conservative by your definition.

So? What now?

It seems the only people who meet this definition of "liberal" live in Oceania.

[Arcade22]

Moderated content removed.
This is a point to consider.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b241ee211b12.gif

Is that some form of threat?

[KingMerv00]

Moderated content removed.
Now please stop posting on my thread. If you want to gibble out racist tripe, start your own thread.

Partially my fault.

[Dr Adequate]

And the people you've been calling liberals are actually conservatives. President Obama, for instance, is a conservative by your definition. So it would seem.

So? What now? Oh, I'll leave that up to you.

[Dr Adequate]

Is that some form of threat? It's an observation.

Now please stop posting on my thread.

[David Wong]

Well, it obviously doesn't change how anybody votes, since all you're talking about changing is how we use the terms. For instance, if based on this thread I decide to vote conservative, then I'll vote for Obama. Since he's a conservative.

You seem to be in favor of changing political labels, though I'm not sure what the point would be.

[Dr Adequate]

You seem to be in favor of changing political labels ... No, I don't think so. Unless someone has a better definition of conservatism.

But this, of course, is a question that must be left up to my fellow-conservatives, and not some sort of flaming liberal like you.

No offense intended.

[Random]

You miss my point. Such a person would take government control as the default position, and would need to be persuaded into free-market economics like Lenin was persuaded into his New Economic Policy. They would be persuaded in general that the government should control the economy, and ask for a good reason why this should not apply in some particular case. Whereas I am persuaded that in general free-market economics is best, and ask to be supplied with one good reason why the government should intervene.
This seems to be more of a chicken and egg thing. Did the revolutionaries believe that government was the default and only adopting less controlling policies when confronted with reality, or did they believe that they had "good reasons" for government control over everything at the start and then drop specific items later on?
The question I am raising is --- what is the default position?

Good question. It’s not government intervention, that’s for sure. Never met anyone in my life who thinks that is the default, and I honestly don’t think they exist. I don’t think it is a question of government intervention anyway, probably something more vague like “something should be done” vs. “nothing should be done”.

[Dr Adequate]

This seems to be more of a chicken and egg thing. Did the revolutionaries believe that government was the default and only adopting less controlling policies when confronted with reality, or did they believe that they had "good reasons" for government control over everything at the start and then drop specific items later on? As I understand it, if we're still talking about Lenin, the former.

Good question. It’s not government intervention, that’s for sure. Never met anyone in my life who thinks that is the default, and I honestly don’t think they exist. Hooray. Apparently everyone you've ever met is a conservative. Unless perhaps my more doctrinaire conservative brethren would like to argue with my definition.

[GreyArea]

Free Markets
If you don't have some good reason for...

Dr. Adequate, are you making a distinction between the "good reason" approach and an "under no circumstances" approach?

[Dr Adequate]

Dr. Adequate, are you making a distinction between the "good reason" approach and an "under no circumstances" approach? I'm not sure that I know exactly what you're getting at, but those do sound like two different questions, yes.

[Earthborn]

The question I am raising is --- what is the default position?Your default position of "give me a good reason for government intervention" isn't particularly conservative. It's Classical Liberal. A Conservative would rather ask "give me good reason to change the way we are doing things now."

[Dr Adequate]

Your default position of "give me a good reason for government intervention" isn't particularly conservative. It's Classical Liberal. A Conservative would rather ask "give me good reason to change the way we are doing things now." If you read my OP, that was my third good reason.

[Darth Rotor]

Your default position of "give me a good reason for government intervention" isn't particularly conservative. It's Classical Liberal. A Conservative would rather ask "give me good reason to change the way we are doing things now."
Raining on the parade, are you? ;)

[Dr Adequate]

No. See my previous post.

I'm way ahead of you.

[Random]

Hooray. Apparently everyone you've ever met is a conservative. Unless perhaps my more doctrinaire conservative brethren would like to argue with my definition.

My father wants a highly progressive tax rate (anyone over 250K a year is looking at a 95% tax bracket), universal healthcare, the abolition of credit card companies, and a massive reduction in our nuclear arsenal. I would be hard pressed to call him to call him a conservative, yet under your definition he would be, since he views no government action as the default.

[Dr Adequate]

My father wants a highly progressive tax rate (anyone over 250K a year is looking at a 95% tax bracket), universal healthcare, the abolition of credit card companies, and a massive reduction in our nuclear arsenal. I would be hard pressed to call him to call him a conservative, yet under your definition he would be, since he views no government action as the default. There you go.

That's a British term meaning c'est la vie.

[Piscivore]

Straw man. The only immigrants i want to throw out are those who have no intention on embracing Swedish culture, those who are committing crime and those who are specifically here to parasite on the Swedish people.
You didn't mention that.
...i want a stable and harmonious country free from foreign welfare leeches and criminals...

...i would want Sweden to be the country for the Swedish people...

...different cultures with conflicting values will eventually clash...
...ghettos like Rinkeby and the like, where the amount of immigrants are well over 50%.

Crime, social upheaval and extreme poverty are the results.


seg·re·ga·tion (sgr-gshn)
n.
1. The act or process of segregating or the condition of being segregated.
2. The policy or practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups, as in schools, housing, and public or commercial facilities, especially as a form of discrimination.
3. Genetics The separation of paired alleles or homologous chromosomes, especially during meiosis, so that the members of each pair appear in different gametes.

How exactly is not letting in people who are extremely different from the Swedes 'Segregation'?
It is a "practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups"- Swedes in, not-Swedes out.

Absolutely Brilliant, Argumentum ad Wikipedia!
That's not an argument, it is fulfilling your request for information.

I'm done with this, unless you want to start/split to a new thread.

[Earthborn]

If you read my OP, that was my third good reason.Just not your "default position" you claimed later. I think a better title for this thread would have been "Four Mutually Exclusive Reasons Why I Am A Conservative".

[GreyArea]

I'm not sure that I know exactly what you're getting at, but those do sound like two different questions, yes.
I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. Let me try again.

It sounds like you are making a distinction between your views and those of self-described conservatives who think that government shouldn't do any regulating, intervening, changing, or "doing" * at all.



* To take your four points in order.

[Dr Adequate]

Just not your "default position" you claimed later. I think a better title for this thread would have been "Four Mutually Exclusive Reasons Why I Am A Conservative". N ... o ... o ...

Read it again.

I gave this "default position" as an example of my attitude towards point one of my OP, the one about free markets. I am opposed to government regulation of markets unless there's a good reason.

Point three is my opposition to change. I am opposed to change unless there is a good reason.

I don't see why you consider these points to be "mutually exclusive".

[Dr Adequate]

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. Let me try again.

It sounds like you are making a distinction between your views and those of self-described conservatives who think that government shouldn't do any regulating, intervening, changing, or "doing" * at all. But I have tried to make a clear distinction between me and them. This is why in my OP I said about every point: unless you have a good reason.

A good reason always trumps an abstract principle: that's what makes it a good reason rather than a bad one.

[Arcade22]

Just a question Dr Adequate, are there any good reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry? If so, what are these good reasons?

[Piscivore]

Just a question Dr Adequate, are there any good reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry?
Yes.

If so, what are these good reasons?
It's a non-bigot thing; you wouldn't understand.

[KingMerv00]

Just a question Dr Adequate, are there any good reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry? If so, what are these good reasons?

Equal application of the law is always a good reason.

[Dr Adequate]

Just a question Dr Adequate, are there any good reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry? If so, what are these good reasons? Because it would annoy you. That's an excellent reason. Now get off my thread.

[Arcade22]

Yes.

Such as?

It's a non-bigot thing; you wouldn't understand.

Now now.

I actually support giving homosexuals the right of civil marriage but only as long churches have the right to not wed homosexuals if the choose.

[Random]

Now now.

I actually support giving homosexuals the right of civil marriage but only as long churches have the right to not wed homosexuals if the choose.

Churches in the US already have the right to refuse to perform wedding ceremonies for couples they do not approve of.

[AWPrime]

Now please stop posting on my thread. I don't think its your thread anymore, your noted principles were so empty/meaningless that something else filled the void in this thread.


In short: It's your fault.

[Piscivore]

Such as?
Instead of me giving you reasons you can contradict or argue against, why don't you try and think of good reasons someone might hold that view?

I actually support giving homosexuals the right of civil marriage but only as long churches have the right to not wed homosexuals if the choose.
Why?

[KingMerv00]

I actually support giving homosexuals the right of civil marriage but only as long churches have the right to not wed homosexuals if the choose.

Now that you've said it, I'm considering changing my position.

[Dr Adequate]

I don't think its your thread anymore, your noted principles were so empty/meaningless ... * drums fingers lightly on desk, waits *

[Snide]

Just a question Dr Adequate, are there any good reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry? If so, what are these good reasons?The distinction between your question and Dr. A's questions is of course that yours does not ask for a good reason why the government should intervene, but rather it asks, in effect, for a good reason why the government should not intervene.

[Arcade22]

Instead of me giving you reasons you can contradict or argue against, why don't you try and think of good reasons someone might hold that view?

That's not the way it works.

Why?

Primarily because i don't want an largely ineffective form of sexual morality to decide who can marry.

[Arcade22]

The distinction between your question and Dr. A's questions is of course that yours does not ask for a good reason why the government should intervene, but rather it asks, in effect, for a good reason why the government should not intervene.

Sure, the Conservative question is 'well we haven't allowed gays to marry before so why should we allowed to marry now?'.

[Piscivore]

That's not the way it works.
Not if one is committed to never changing one's mind, no. So if you are unwilling to consider my point of view, I'm disinclined to tell you about it.

Primarily because i don't want an largely ineffective form of sexual morality to decide who can marry.
What do you mean by "ineffective form of sexual morality"? Ineffective to what end?

What is the difference to you between "marriage" and a "civil union"?

[Dr Adequate]

The distinction between your question and Dr. A's questions is of course that yours does not ask for a good reason why the government should intervene, but rather it asks, in effect, for a good reason why the government should not intervene. Someone got this thread back on topic!

[Arcade22]

Not if one is committed to never changing one's mind, no. So if you are unwilling to consider my point of view, I'm disinclined to tell you about it.

I'm not a mind reader. Just give me your reasons.

What do you mean by "ineffective form of sexual morality"? Ineffective to what end?

Ineffective in the sense that it isn't related to what human beings really are and thus is ineffective in generating healthy family's, or at least not as effective as the religious are trying to make it out to be.

For example, if i remember correctly, 'atheistic' family's had lower divorce rates than Christan ones. So much for the god-fearing nuclear family.

What is the difference to you between "marriage" and a "civil union"?

Where have i discussed civil unions? Personally i am against the whole concept.

[Dr Adequate]

I'm not a mind reader. Just give me your reasons.



Ineffective in the sense that it isn't related to what human beings really are and thus is ineffective in generating healthy family's, or at least not as effective as the religious are trying to make it out to be.

For example, if i remember correctly, 'atheistic' family's had lower divorce rates than Christan ones. So much for the god-fearing nuclear family.



Where have i discussed civil unions? Personally i am against the whole concept. If you go on trying to divert this thread into a discussion of your obsessions I shall break the habit of a lifetime and report you to the moderators.

[Arcade22]

If you go on trying to divert this thread into a discussion of your obsessions I shall break the habit of a lifetime and report you to the moderators.

The thread is actually about conservatism. Besides, i have actually reported this thread already.

[Dr Adequate]

The thread is actually about conservatism. But not about your bizarre and unpleasant obsessions. If you were to decide that hitting aardvarks with hockey-sticks was part of conservatism according to your definition of the word, then that subject would not magically become relevant to my OP.

Besides, i have actually reported this thread already. Let me know how that works out for you.

[Piscivore]

Where have i discussed civil unions? Personally i am against the whole concept.
Really?
Just a question Dr Adequate, are there any good reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry? (Note that I suggested you present some, you remain unwilling to do so. This suggests you oppose it)

I actually support giving homosexuals the right of civil marriage but only as long churches have the right to not wed homosexuals if the choose.

This also wants its own thread.

[Random]

But not about your bizarre and unpleasant obsessions. If you were to decide that hitting aardvarks with hockey-sticks was part of conservatism according to your definition of the word, then that subject would not magically become relevant to my OP.

Unless there was a "good reason" for it.

[GeeMack]

Besides, i have actually reported this thread already.

Let me know how that works out for you.


Here's how it worked out. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=163382)

[KingMerv00]

Here's how it worked out. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=163382)

Woah.

[recursive prophet]

The thread is actually about conservatism. Besides, i have actually reported this thread already.
Let me know how that works out for you.
:dl: Well, now you know drad. Looks like it worked out fine for Arcade. Is it working out for you? Perhaps you should have been a little more conservative with your insults, eh? :D

[David Wong]

I never did figure out what this thread was about.

[Piscivore]

:dl: Well, now you know drad. Looks like it worked out fine for Arcade. Is it working out for you? Perhaps you should have been a little more conservative with your insults, eh? :D

That's just classy.

[Fiona]

:dl: Caw Caw Caw Caw :d

ftfy

[lionking]

That's just classy.
Dancing on someone's grave is always a good look. Well done RP.

[recursive prophet]

You haven't really taken a stand you know. You have listed a bunch of extremely broad priciples that nobody disagrees with, and declared them "conservative".
:id: Ah yes, such ambiguity in our terminology. Conservative is the handle embraced by those who fight any actual conserving at every turn.

Reagan and Bush both cut taxes while dramatically increasing spending. They also fought all attempts at confronting overpopulation, which is the greatest problem facing us and the root cause of global warming and countless other issues. Our current debacle is their legacy. Only under our newspeak version of conservative could either be considered as such.

While I disagree with the decision to ban drad, I'm about as sad to see him gone as he would have been if I were banned. (And I'm certain he would have taken a parting shot.) The very fact so many in FM have voiced their dismay over his departure, along with the disparaging, OT comments made in response to my reply in this thread, simply reconfirms my impression there is a cult of incivility on this forum. Surely none would argue drad was known for his civility or humility. :p

[KingMerv00]

The very fact so many in FM have voiced their dismay over his departure, along with the disparaging, OT comments made in response to my reply in this thread, simply reconfirms my impression there is a cult of incivility on this forum.

Way to rise above your own conceptions of incivility:

:dl: Well, now you know drad. Looks like it worked out fine for Arcade. Is it working out for you? Perhaps you should have been a little more conservative with your insults, eh? :D

[Darth Rotor]

Way to rise above your own conceptions of incivility:
King, it is actually funny as hell, in a macabre sort of way, that Dr A was done in by Arcade22's bait.

See "The Mouse That Roared" for a somewhat similar story.

DR

[KingMerv00]

King, it is actually funny as hell, in a macabre sort of way, that Dr A was done in by Arcade22's bait.

See "The Mouse That Roared" for a somewhat similar story.

DR

Please don't tell me the Swedes have a nuke.

[KingMerv00]

King, it is actually funny as hell, in a macabre sort of way, that Dr A was done in by Arcade22's bait.

See "The Mouse That Roared" for a somewhat similar story.

DR

If recursive prophet is going to call the forum a "cult of incivility" and then be uncivil, the classy thing for him to do is to don the cult robes.

[Darth Rotor]

Please don't tell me the Swedes have a nuke.

No, but it was a small mind/nation that was the victor over a larger mind/nation, as I tried to apply that coarse analogy.

Also, if the Swedes have nukes, good. Makes the game far more interesting.

DR

[recursive prophet]

If recursive prophet is going to call the forum a "cult of incivility" and then be uncivil, the classy thing for him to do is to don the cult robes.
I didn't say the forum constituted a "cult of incivility" KM. I said there IS one here. Big difference. And would you really compare the level of incivility in my reply regarding a non-member as even approaching that regularly exhibited by drad during his tenure? If you went back to my first posts on this site you would find some unprovoked comments by him directed at me far more uncivil than anything I have stated in this thread. And I'm a member.

Might I suggest any who have similar comments as those made by Fiona, LK and KM, post them on the FM thread started to discuss drad's banning? I'm not part of the 'in crowd' at JREF. Therefore I won't respond to any further insults wrt my initial post based on rather droll, melodramatic presuppositions, less I get an infraction for doing so. :boxedin:

[KingMerv00]

I didn't say the forum constituted a "cult of incivility" KM. I said there IS one here. Big difference. And would you really compare the level of incivility in my reply regarding a non-member as even approaching that regularly exhibited by drad during his tenure?

It was still uncivil. I'm sure I've been uncivil at times but at least I don't get on my high horse and act like I am outside of the "cult".


If you went back to my first posts on this site you would find some unprovoked comments by him directed at me far more uncivil than anything I have stated in this thread.

Wouldn't surprise me.

[GreyArea]

Please don't tell me the Swedes have a nuke.

No (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapon_program), they chose a fighter jet instead.

[whatthebutlersaw]

Damn elves infecting us with their borg-like socialism. GO WORSHIP YOUR RED MASTER ELSEWHERE! FIND A NORTH POLE SERVER!

Oh, this guy is NOT red. By any standard known in Sweden. -Brownshirted more like.

I find him just as stupid as you do, but kindly do not lump myself and other decent Swedes in with him, even if you get angry. With my background in antiracist organisations I actually feel quite hurt when you - and other people in this and other threads - do that.

[KingMerv00]

Oh, this guy is NOT red. By any standard known in Sweden. -Brownshirted more like.

I find him just as stupid as you do, but kindly do not lump myself and other decent Swedes in with him, even if you get angry. With my background in antiracist organisations I actually feel quite hurt when you - and other people in this and other threads - do that.

I wasn't being serious. I was parodying him by being racist against the elf he posted. ("Red Master"...North Pole...get it?)

I have nothing against Swedes I promise. :D

[Whiplash]

Dancing on the grave is not a very classy move. I agree.

But at the risk of completely contradicting myself from my recent questioning as to whether the hypocrisy game actually amounts to anything, I still feel it's necessary to point out that there was no shortage of people, on these forums, who felt differently when the grave was holding Ronald Reagan, or Charleton Heston. I'd say what RP did here was about as mild as you can get, by comparison. And this is just about someone who got himself banned, and was known to be a prick most of the time.. vs people who actually were dead. Hell, the assault on both of them was in full force before their bodies were even cold.

I guess there is a point to the hypocrisy game, if it can possibly help to make people think.

[KingMerv00]

Dancing on the grave is not a very classy move. I agree.

But at the risk of completely contradicting myself from my recent questioning as to whether the hypocrisy game actually amounts to anything, I still feel it's necessary to point out that there was no shortage of people, on these forums, who felt differently when the grave was holding Ronald Reagan, or Charleton Heston. I'd say what RP did here was about as mild as you can get, by comparison. And this is just about someone who got himself banned, and was known to be a prick most of the time.. vs people who actually were dead. Hell, the assault on both of them was in full force before their bodies were even cold.

I guess there is a point to the hypocrisy game, if it can possibly help to make people think.

It is one thing to attack a dead person based on the far reaching policies they enacted while alive.

It is another to attack a helpless living person based on your petty personal disagreements.

When Peter Popoff kicks the bucket, I'm buying a cake and getting shamelessly drunk.

[Darth Rotor]

When Peter Popoff kicks the bucket, I'm buying a cake and getting shamelessly drunk.

How do you drink a cake? Don't you already need to be drunk to try that? :D

[KingMerv00]

How do you drink a cake? Don't you already need to be drunk to try that? :D

I find you lack of faith disturbing, Darth.

[Darth Rotor]

I find you lack of faith disturbing, Darth.

Right, batter can be chugged. :cool:

[Piscivore]

How do you drink a cake? Don't you already need to be drunk to try that? :D

Rum cake, duh. :)

[Darth Rotor]

Rum cake, duh. :)
Set and match to the fish.

*leaps over net to shake Pisci's hand*

[Arcade22]

With my background in antiracist organisations I actually feel quite hurt when you - and other people in this and other threads - do that.

And what 'anti-Racist' organizations would that be? AFA? eXpo? UV? SSU?

[funk de fino]

And what 'anti-Racist' organizations would that be? AFA? eXpo? UV? SSU?

Have you no shame?

[Darth Rotor]

Have you no shame?
At least he isn't suggesting that we lemmings all plunge over the cliffs and into the sea, eh? :D:D

[Whiplash]

It is one thing to attack a dead person based on the far reaching policies they enacted while alive.

It is another to attack a helpless living person based on your petty personal disagreements.

When Peter Popoff kicks the bucket, I'm buying a cake and getting shamelessly drunk.


I'm not attacking him. I've stated in one of the threads that I think this sort of ban is a bit over-reactive, and I voted for his reinstatement.

I've only questioned how people reach the firm conclusion that he was in fact NOT advocating suicide. I'm still not convinced by what most have said in response. But I will let it go.

And frankly, I take issue with the line "It's another to attack a helpless living person based on your petty disagreements". That strikes me as some major spin. The guy was quite often a total prick. Far from some poor helpless victim. Sometimes you reap what you sow, you know? He's not some poor helpless baby. And some can genuinely dislike him and things he has said without being petty, based on his own actions.

EDIT: removed political comments that could lead to derail. I didn't mean for that to happen.

[KingMerv00]

I'm not attacking him. I've stated in one of the threads that I think this sort of ban is a bit over-reactive, and I voted for his reinstatement.

Read my post again. I didn't say you were attacking Dr. A. I was referring to your apparent defense of RP.

I've only questioned how people reach the firm conclusion that he was in fact NOT advocating suicide. I'm still not convinced by what most have said in response. But I will let it go.

If you read the forum managment thread, I said I understand how it could be seen as an invitation to suicide and in fact that is how I read it when I first saw it. After some thought, I am now unsure.

And frankly, I take issue with the line "It's another to attack a helpless living person based on your petty disagreements". That strikes me as some major spin. The guy was quite often a total prick. Far from some poor helpless victim. Sometimes you reap what you sow, you know? He's not some poor helpless baby.

I wasn't defending Dr. A on a personal level.

I think the idea that someone like Reagan or Heston warrants personal attacks before they are in the ground, but someone like Dr.A doesn't... I can't imagine how someone could be more ideologically biased.

You are reading too much into my post. I didn't say Reagan or Heston deserved to be attacked. I meant to suggest that it is more understandable to attack a politician you see as spreading evil than it is to attack some guy you hate on the internet. The former can do serious damage to society; the latter just involves a bruised ego.

[recursive prophet]

FWIW I signed the petition to reinstate drad, as did Arcade. Drad didn't really annoy me that much after the thread the mods split off based on a question by me in the sci-forum died. I even let him have the last word after some 10 pages of replies, rather than respond and continue what had become a meaningless discussion on evolution thanks largely to him and his future bride.

I still find him getting banned the way he did quite funny, (though unjustified) along with the melodrama that has ensued in the wake of that event. But any ill will I might have harbored against him ended when he married artic. As far as I'm concerned, being banned here is nothing compared to that punishment. :D

It is likely a mistake for me to respond to the comments here, as it seems we've drifted pretty far from the OP. (which was banal and ambiguous anyway.) I do consider myself a conservative, but of a totally different stripe than most who embrace this handle. :cool:

[New Ager]

In Sweden my views are seen as being Strongly Conservative, but in America i would be pretty liberal. :eusa_think:

This is a thread about America, an important country.

Perhaps, you could take comments about an inconsequential country to another thread. :)

[New Ager]

So why did they vote for the party of not-conservatism? Answer me that ...

Because the conservative party didn't have a conservative plus he was a terrible candidate.

Looks like next election the Dems will have the terrible candidate.

[New Ager]

What "good reason" do you or other conservatives have for outlawing marijuana?

Hmm, let's see.....It's really bad for you, it dulls the senses, it's a drug and we really don't need more inebriated people on the streets or in cars.

And with liberals lack of sense, do we really need to dull what little sense they do have? :)

[Thunder]

In Sweden my views are seen as being Strongly Conservative, but in America i would be pretty liberal. :eusa_think:

not in this lifetime.

[Thunder]

Hmm, let's see.....It's really bad for you, it dulls the senses, it's a drug and we really don't need more inebriated people on the streets or in cars.


cigarettes kill hundreds of thousands every year.

alcohol kills thousands on the road every year.

do you support prohibition or making tobacco illegal?

and if not..why not?

[Ladewig]

Hmm, let's see.....It's really bad for you, it dulls the senses, it's a drug and we really don't need more inebriated people on the streets or in cars.

And with liberals lack of sense, do we really need to dull what little sense they do have? :)

The conservatives I encounter on Sunday morning news programs and on weekday radio call-in shows seem exceptionally proud of their aversion to a nanny state. Why should the government decide which products you may use?

Just as driving while impaired by alcohol is outlawed, there is no reason while driving under the influence of marijuana cannot be prohibited. While marijuana can skew one's judgement, it does not harm anyone but the user. The opening post assumed the position that things should be legal unless the government has a good reason to pas a law against it. I cannot consider the reason you gave to be good ones.

The example of The Netherlands shows that legalization does not lead to a breakdown of the social order.