Politically, I find most Liberals intolerant of other's viewpoints.

[Diuretic]

Meanwhile, back on topic.

"None of the higher mental processes are required for conservatism. The advocate of change, on the contrary, must have a certain degree of imagination in order to be able to conceive of anything different from what exists."

But a little further, after a discussion of where opposition to the status quo comes from (in summary it can come from "sympathy with the unfortunate or from hatred of the fortunate.....")

"On the intellectual side, again, there is a tendency for advocates of change to organise themselves into groups, welded together by a narrow orthodoxy, hating heresy, and viewing it as moral treachery in favour of prosperous sinners. Orthodoxy is the grave of intelligence, no matter what orthodoxy it may be. And in this respect the orthodoxy of the radical is no better than that of the reactionary."

Bertrand Russell, "Education and the Social Order."

As usual, Bertie nails it.

 

[tigerbob]

Meanwhile, back on topic.

"None of the higher mental processes are required for conservatism. The advocate of change, on the contrary, must have a certain degree of imagination in order to be able to conceive of anything different from what exists."

But a little further, after a discussion of where opposition to the status quo comes from (in summary it can come from "[Is]ympathy with the unfortunate or from hatred of the fortunate....."[/I])

"On the intellectual side, again, there is a tendency for advocates of change to organise themselves into groups, welded together by a narrow orthodoxy, hating heresy, and viewing it as moral treachery in favour of prosperous sinners. Orthodoxy is the grave of intelligence, no matter what orthodoxy it may be. And in this respect the orthodoxy of the radical is no better than that of the reactionary."

Bertrand Russell, "Education and the Social Order."

As usual, Bertie nails it.

Every now and then on this board, one reads something genuinely interesting. Not often, but every now and then.

 

[mal]

Conservatives and Liberals have very different outlooks on life. In fact liberals have a completely diffferent culture than conservatives. This leads to both sides arguing over subjects as their differing culture leads them to different opinions on the subject.

A big part of the liberal culture is the preaching of tolerance for others. Tolerance and respect for those around the world, tolerance and respect for minorities, tolerance for illegal immigrants, and so on.

However when it comes to dealing with the conservative culture liberals become very ethnocentric. The majority of liberals show very little, if any, respect for the conservative culture. Especially on message boards. In fact on message boards liberals are completely intolerant of conservative culture and values.

This constantly makes me think of hypocracy. The liberals who do this remind me of the conservatives who preach family values then cheat on their wifes, hypocrites.

So liberals next time you get all wound up and ready to bash on some conservative for wanting guns, not wanting abortion, being against radicals in their white house, being wary of who the president surrounds themselves with, or their hate of government involvment in our lives and the taxes that comes along with it....remember it makes you sound like hypocrites to many fair minded individuals.



Another random thought of mine that i decided to post

And then the Liberals Enter and Bash you, Contributing ZERO Substance...

OP Illustrated.



peace...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Meanwhile, back on topic.

"None of the higher mental processes are required for conservatism. The advocate of change, on the contrary, must have a certain degree of imagination in order to be able to conceive of anything different from what exists."

But a little further, after a discussion of where opposition to the status quo comes from (in summary it can come from "sympathy with the unfortunate or from hatred of the fortunate.....")

"On the intellectual side, again, there is a tendency for advocates of change to organise themselves into groups, welded together by a narrow orthodoxy, hating heresy, and viewing it as moral treachery in favour of prosperous sinners. Orthodoxy is the grave of intelligence, no matter what orthodoxy it may be. And in this respect the orthodoxy of the radical is no better than that of the reactionary."

Bertrand Russell, "Education and the Social Order."

As usual, Bertie nails it.

Is he implying that conservatives do not organize into groups with narrow orthodoxy and hating heresy?

please...

 

[bodecea]

Meanwhile, back on topic.

"None of the higher mental processes are required for conservatism. The advocate of change, on the contrary, must have a certain degree of imagination in order to be able to conceive of anything different from what exists."

But a little further, after a discussion of where opposition to the status quo comes from (in summary it can come from "sympathy with the unfortunate or from hatred of the fortunate.....")

"On the intellectual side, again, there is a tendency for advocates of change to organise themselves into groups, welded together by a narrow orthodoxy, hating heresy, and viewing it as moral treachery in favour of prosperous sinners. Orthodoxy is the grave of intelligence, no matter what orthodoxy it may be. And in this respect the orthodoxy of the radical is no better than that of the reactionary."

Bertrand Russell, "Education and the Social Order."

As usual, Bertie nails it.

Is he implying that conservatives do not organize into groups with narrow orthodoxy and hating heresy?

please...

There's this comment, Carb:

"And in this respect the orthodoxy of the radical is no better than that of the reactionary."

 

[manifold]

Nobody owns a monopoly on attitudes of intolerance. It's just that liberals preach tolerance more so it stands to reason that their intolerance comes across as more hypocritical.

And likewise, nobody owns a monopoly on moral values. It's just that cons preach values more so it stands to reason that their immorality comes across as more hypocritical.

Bottom line, both sides are replete with intolerant, immoral hypocrites.

Deal.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Meanwhile, back on topic.

"None of the higher mental processes are required for conservatism. The advocate of change, on the contrary, must have a certain degree of imagination in order to be able to conceive of anything different from what exists."

But a little further, after a discussion of where opposition to the status quo comes from (in summary it can come from "sympathy with the unfortunate or from hatred of the fortunate.....")

"On the intellectual side, again, there is a tendency for advocates of change to organise themselves into groups, welded together by a narrow orthodoxy, hating heresy, and viewing it as moral treachery in favour of prosperous sinners. Orthodoxy is the grave of intelligence, no matter what orthodoxy it may be. And in this respect the orthodoxy of the radical is no better than that of the reactionary."

Bertrand Russell, "Education and the Social Order."

As usual, Bertie nails it.

Golly... It's a rare day when someone trots out the dusty rustlings of Bert...

And that it's being displayed as 'tall-thinkin'' just turns the usually pedestrian appeal to authority (ad Verecundiam) into a delicious rhetorical morsel...

Sadly, for our in-house Australian... Russell's point, as quoted, does not serve the ideological Left on the whole; the forces of "Change' presently afoot, or the point at issue. Worse is that the member failed to post the point which she was implying or taking from the referenced source...

Thus we're left to conclude that this is yet another pedestrian attempt to establish the "Center" as the intellectual high ground. Wherein we find it ironically declared that anyone who takes an emphatic position on any issue; be they left or right of that would-be center is either a Radical or a 'Reactionary'... respectively; thus an extremist; and towards noting the irony... its critical that one not spend too much time considering that the assertion itself is stated rather emphatically...

Sadly, Russel was expounding upon the reasoning left in the wake of the French Revolution; and as the secular Humanist of that period were prone to do; they were considering the poles relevant to European Left-think... Specifically the Advocacy of "Fairness is Equality" OKA: Radical liberalism... AKA: Marxism... and of course that which oppossed such; and this all towards searching for 'the middle way...'

Russell came along at a time after the French Crown had crumbled under the weight of the decadence it had sewn since the "Enlightenment..." thus Reason was realing from the "Terrors" which followed; compelling some to consider the results of this phenomenon... thus earning their bonafides as philosphers... Russell being no exception.

Anywho... the problem was that the new kid on the block; the Radical, needed to be balanced against a foe... otherwise the Radical would appear... out of balance and as a result discredited; so those sympathetic to this insanity were tasked with rationalizing a means to set the Radical into intellectual balance and what they came up with, while such is patently absurd; was the best they could do, given what they had to work with.

Ya see, it wasn't sufficient that the reasoning that "Fairness =/= Equality" was silly... counter to common sense and intellectually untenable... because the idea 'felt good'; it opened the intellectual door for the acceptance of cognitive misfits... and the misfits engaged the opportunity with a zealous crush... so what they came up with was the idea that those who opposed the insipid notions of the Radical... were simply 'reacting' to the Radical... thus the term: REACTIONARY! and PRESTO... the counter balance to the Radical was established... thus somehow legitimizing the lowly Radical.

Of course, one can't consider such reasoning too seriously, as it becomes fairly obvious, fairly soon; that in truth, the Radical was 'reacting' to the circumstances before them... thus making them 'Reactionaries"; but such is the nature of Secular Humanist reasoning... its prone to fatal circular flaws... but suffice it to say that the term is simply a finite point from which to begin such discussions; and one can't delve too deeply into any reasoning of the Humanist... in this case, being no exception; one simply must take it at face value that 'The Radical' exists at one ideological pole and is balanced against 'The Reactionary' at the other end; which naturally provides for one to conclude that neither 'extreme' is suitable for polite company... thus the way is clear... the reasoned path must be down the middle; and PRESTO! Fascism is born...

Any consideration beyond that and the entire notion devolves into unrecognizable minutia; wherein the point devolves back to the original sin; that Fairness simply does not equal equality and that such an unviable notion cannot be sustained... and what fun would that be?

Funny stuff...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Meanwhile, back on topic.

"None of the higher mental processes are required for conservatism. The advocate of change, on the contrary, must have a certain degree of imagination in order to be able to conceive of anything different from what exists."

But a little further, after a discussion of where opposition to the status quo comes from (in summary it can come from "sympathy with the unfortunate or from hatred of the fortunate.....")

"On the intellectual side, again, there is a tendency for advocates of change to organise themselves into groups, welded together by a narrow orthodoxy, hating heresy, and viewing it as moral treachery in favour of prosperous sinners. Orthodoxy is the grave of intelligence, no matter what orthodoxy it may be. And in this respect the orthodoxy of the radical is no better than that of the reactionary."

Bertrand Russell, "Education and the Social Order."

As usual, Bertie nails it.

Is he implying that conservatives do not organize into groups with narrow orthodoxy and hating heresy?

please...

There's this comment, Carb:

"And in this respect the orthodoxy of the radical is no better than that of the reactionary."

Ok I get that now. But unity in purpose and action is essential to change, and change is essential to progress.

So I disagree with Russell's conclusion that one side's 'orthodoxy' is no better than the other.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Nobody owns a monopoly on attitudes of intolerance. It's just that liberals preach tolerance more so it stands to reason that their intolerance comes across as more hypocritical.

And likewise, nobody owns a monopoly on moral values. It's just that cons preach values more so it stands to reason that their immorality comes across as more hypocritical.

Bottom line, both sides are replete with intolerant, immoral hypocrites.

Deal.

Oh... Point of order here...

The Left doesn't just preach tolerance: The Ideological Left uses the concept as their primary weapon of CHOICE! Such is the BASIS on which Left-think rests... They unapologetically bludgeon their opposition as being intolerant of their Cultural trainwrecks... demanding that their opposition lacks compassion for their sacred cow: the Less Fortunate; and they do so specifically to lull that opposition into being tolerant of their insipid policy desires... its a tool of propaganda; and a demonstration of hypocrisy on parade... a complete disregard for the Concept of Hypocrisy in its entirety.

That their position, in and of itself, is a demonstration of INTOLERANCE of the opinions of others, represents A FUNDAMENTAL, SYSTEMIC HYPOCRISY... which discredits the concept on the whole; as it demonstrates a fatal flaw in the intelectual structure of the concept.

Conservatives preach the cultural necessity for intellectually sound, logically valid, well reasoned, sustainable, high moral standards... THAT CONSERVATIVES ARE FOUND FAILING TO LIVE UP TO THOSE STANDARDS; DISCREDITS NEITHER THE REASONING ON WHICH THOSE STANDARDS REST, NOR THE STANDARDS THEMSELVES...

That someone takes a stand that it is immoral to take the life of another human being without a sound moral justification; and is later found to have taken the life of another human being absent a sound moral justification; in no way undermines the logical construct of his original advocacy... nor does the reasoning on which the construct was founded, suffer due to their having violated that immutable principle.

It's not complicated kids... Leftism is a JOKE from it's core OUT and from top to bottom... There is absolutely NOTHING good, valid or true ANYWHERE in the full scope of Left-think... it is a deception... in it's entirety.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Is he implying that conservatives do not organize into groups with narrow orthodoxy and hating heresy?

please...

There's this comment, Carb:

"And in this respect the orthodoxy of the radical is no better than that of the reactionary."

Ok I get that now. But unity in purpose and action is essential to change, and change is essential to progress.

So I disagree with Russell's conclusion that one side's 'orthodoxy' is no better than the other.

Indeed, "Change" is as essential to regress, as it is progress... Thus it is imperative to understand who Russell was... to understand his reasoning.

He was a product of 18th and 19th century European reasoning which came ot be known as Socialism... thus he tended to believe in the irrational view that Fairness is Equality; but he didn't feel comfortable with the extreme nature of the Radical Socialist... He was also a Humanist... a die-hard anti-theist... thus he rejected the concept of endowed, unalienable rights... and his sympathy for the cause of the radical, provided for the rationalization that lead him to become one of the the potential fathers of that intellectual bastard that we know today as fascism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For the opponents of change to win, they only need a lack of zeal on the part of the proponents of change.

But conservatives almost invariably lose. What did conservatives represent 50, or 100, or 200 years ago? What were they fighting to 'conserve' then? What change were they trying to prevent then? Did they succeed?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

For the opponents of change to win, they only need a lack of zeal on the part of the proponents of change.

Exactly... Thus the purpose of "TOLERANCE" as the weapon of choice, for the forces of change to swing against their opposition...

Understand?

But conservatives almost invariably lose.

Well Conservatives do not 'always lose... it only seems that way from our local perspective... but it seems that way because Conservatives are actually TOLERANT... and where tolerance is applied against a determined opposition, the only result that can be realized is the advancement of that opposition...

What did conservatives represent 50, or 100, or 200 years ago? What were they fighting to 'conserve' then?

The same thing they're fighting to conserve today... The recognition of and respect for the immutable principles of Nature... Those principles espoused in the US Declaration of Independence...

What change were they trying to prevent then? Did they succeed?

They were trying to prevent those principles from being dismissed... and yes, they won; and at great cost; and it should never be left unsaid that they only took up the fight, AFTER having been tolerant of the oppressor; or 'opposition' if you will, for Centuries.

 

[rightwinger]

What did conservatives represent 50, or 100, or 200 years ago? What were they fighting to 'conserve' then?

The same thing they're fighting to conserve today... The recognition of and respect for the immutable principles of Nature... Those principles espoused in the US Declaration of Independence...

And the Declaration of Independence was written by Liberals

Thanks for playing

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What did conservatives represent 50, or 100, or 200 years ago? What were they fighting to 'conserve' then?

The same thing they're fighting to conserve today... The recognition of and respect for the immutable principles of Nature... Those principles espoused in the US Declaration of Independence...

And the Declaration of Independence was written by Liberals

Thanks for playing

Well yeah... In the Classic sense of the concept; the Founders of the US were advocates of individual LIBERTY... thus the basis of the word "Liberal"...

It's a concept which stands in diametric opposition to the Left-think... which is the species of reasoning for which and of which you advocate; a species of reasoning which SPECIFICALLY opposses the very principles espoused by those classic Liberals... who sought to conserve the immutable principles espoused in that Declaration.

Your intellectual limitations, which are standard equipment for Leftists... simply preclude you from recognizing this simple distinction.

But don't sweat it dumbass... I'm here to keep ya up to speed.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Meanwhile, back on topic.

"None of the higher mental processes are required for conservatism. The advocate of change, on the contrary, must have a certain degree of imagination in order to be able to conceive of anything different from what exists."

But a little further, after a discussion of where opposition to the status quo comes from (in summary it can come from "sympathy with the unfortunate or from hatred of the fortunate.....")

"On the intellectual side, again, there is a tendency for advocates of change to organise themselves into groups, welded together by a narrow orthodoxy, hating heresy, and viewing it as moral treachery in favour of prosperous sinners. Orthodoxy is the grave of intelligence, no matter what orthodoxy it may be. And in this respect the orthodoxy of the radical is no better than that of the reactionary."

Bertrand Russell, "Education and the Social Order."

As usual, Bertie nails it.

Golly... It's a rare day when someone trots out the dusty rustlings of Bert...

And that it's being displayed as 'tall-thinkin'' just turns the usually pedestrian appeal to authority (ad Verecundiam) into a delicious rhetorical morsel...

Sadly, for our in-house Australian... Russell's point, as quoted, does not serve the ideological Left on the whole; the forces of "Change' presently afoot, or the point at issue. Worse is that the member failed to post the point which she was implying or taking from the referenced source...

Thus we're left to conclude that this is yet another pedestrian attempt to establish the "Center" as the intellectual high ground. Wherein we find it ironically declared that anyone who takes an emphatic position on any issue; be they left or right of that would-be center is either a Radical or a 'Reactionary'... respectively; thus an extremist; and towards noting the irony... its critical that one not spend too much time considering that the assertion itself is stated rather emphatically...

Sadly, Russel was expounding upon the reasoning left in the wake of the French Revolution; and as the secular Humanist of that period were prone to do; they were considering the poles relevant to European Left-think... Specifically the Advocacy of "Fairness is Equality" OKA: Radical liberalism... AKA: Marxism... and of course that which oppossed such; and this all towards searching for 'the middle way...'

Russell came along at a time after the French Crown had crumbled under the weight of the decadence it had sewn since the "Enlightenment..." thus Reason was realing from the "Terrors" which followed; compelling some to consider the results of this phenomenon... thus earning their bonafides as philosphers... Russell being no exception.

Anywho... the problem was that the new kid on the block; the Radical, needed to be balanced against a foe... otherwise the Radical would appear... out of balance and as a result discredited; so those sympathetic to this insanity were tasked with rationalizing a means to set the Radical into intellectual balance and what they came up with, while such is patently absurd; was the best they could do, given what they had to work with.

Ya see, it wasn't sufficient that the reasoning that "Fairness =/= Equality" was silly... counter to common sense and intellectually untenable... because the idea 'felt good'; it opened the intellectual door for the acceptance of cognitive misfits... and the misfits engaged the opportunity with a zealous crush... so what they came up with was the idea that those who opposed the insipid notions of the Radical... were simply 'reacting' to the Radical... thus the term: REACTIONARY! and PRESTO... the counter balance to the Radical was established... thus somehow legitimizing the lowly Radical.

Of course, one can't consider such reasoning too seriously, as it becomes fairly obvious, fairly soon; that in truth, the Radical was 'reacting' to the circumstances before them... thus making them 'Reactionaries"; but such is the nature of Secular Humanist reasoning... its prone to fatal circular flaws... but suffice it to say that the term is simply a finite point from which to begin such discussions; and one can't delve too deeply into any reasoning of the Humanist... in this case, being no exception; one simply must take it at face value that 'The Radical' exists at one ideological pole and is balanced against 'The Reactionary' at the other end; which naturally provides for one to conclude that neither 'extreme' is suitable for polite company... thus the way is clear... the reasoned path must be down the middle; and PRESTO! Fascism is born...

Any consideration beyond that and the entire notion devolves into unrecognizable minutia; wherein the point devolves back to the original sin; that Fairness simply does not equal equality and that such an unviable notion cannot be sustained... and what fun would that be?

Funny stuff...

ROFL... I just adore the last word...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I really enjoyed reading your interpretations and opinions Publius, wow theres a lot of reading i have to do in this thread now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For the opponents of change to win, they only need a lack of zeal on the part of the proponents of change.

Exactly... Thus the purpose of "TOLERANCE" as the weapon of choice, for the forces of change to swing against their opposition...

Understand?

But conservatives almost invariably lose.

Well Conservatives do not 'always lose... it only seems that way from our local perspective... but it seems that way because Conservatives are actually TOLERANT... and where tolerance is applied against a determined opposition, the only result that can be realized is the advancement of that opposition...

What did conservatives represent 50, or 100, or 200 years ago? What were they fighting to 'conserve' then?

The same thing they're fighting to conserve today... The recognition of and respect for the immutable principles of Nature... Those principles espoused in the US Declaration of Independence...

What change were they trying to prevent then? Did they succeed?

They were trying to prevent those principles from being dismissed... and yes, they won; and at great cost; and it should never be left unsaid that they only took up the fight, AFTER having been tolerant of the oppressor; or 'opposition' if you will, for Centuries.

That's a lot of nonsense in one post.

What did the Conservatives in America support in 1860?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Left-think

Oh joy, where did this inane term come from? Most progressives are independent thinkers and heavy readers. There is no one source for information. Most do not think one particular way - but question and ponder many ways. You obviously don't know anyone of the "lefty" political persuasion... They are not the ones with "talking points" like the above.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

For the opponents of change to win, they only need a lack of zeal on the part of the proponents of change.

Exactly... Thus the purpose of "TOLERANCE" as the weapon of choice, for the forces of change to swing against their opposition...

Understand?



Well Conservatives do not 'always lose... it only seems that way from our local perspective... but it seems that way because Conservatives are actually TOLERANT... and where tolerance is applied against a determined opposition, the only result that can be realized is the advancement of that opposition...




The same thing they're fighting to conserve today... The recognition of and respect for the immutable principles of Nature... Those principles espoused in the US Declaration of Independence...

What change were they trying to prevent then? Did they succeed?

They were trying to prevent those principles from being dismissed... and yes, they won; and at great cost; and it should never be left unsaid that they only took up the fight, AFTER having been tolerant of the oppressor; or 'opposition' if you will, for Centuries.

That's a lot of nonsense in one post.

Well that's a fine baseless opinion... although I can't imagine what value you find in posting such, but I suppose you're entitled to it... whatever it may be.

What did the Conservatives in America support in 1860?

The Immutable principles of Nature... and that goes for both sides engaged in the War of Northern Aggression... OKA: the US Civil War... a title which is a bit if a misnomer; given that the Southern States were not attempting to control the Union, just to secede from it. But let's not get bogged down in that one...

The fact is that American Conservatives seek to conserve the recognition of and respect for the founding principles of America; and this without regard for those who advance baseless assertions hoping to contest that fact...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Left-think

Oh joy, where did this inane term come from?

"Left-think" is derived from the merging of two concepts... grammatically, it's commonly referred to as compounding words... It's purpose is typically description... in this case combining the Ideological Left with the cognitive process: think... to describe the 'thinking common to ideological Leftists...'

Most progressives are independent thinkers and heavy readers.

All progressives are cognitive deficients; their reasoning relies purely upon group-think, which is why they spend so much time reading... they cloister their limited intellectual means in the reasoning of others within that group.

There is no one source for information.

"Source? True... Left-think does not depend upon one source of information; those limited to such reasoning will accept any source which echos their 'feelings' on a given issue... what they will not accept is a source which challenges those 'feelings'...

Most do not think one particular way

Left-think is a non-linear, disjointed, mono-dimensional species of reasoning which evolves around and relies upon any of a litany various fallacious appeals...

There is not a single valid principle to be found within the full scope of Left-think; and there is not a single instance in the history of the human species where a person who has been found engaging in such, who has advanced such through an intellectually sound, logically valid, well reasoned construct...

This a position I have formed through 30 years of emperical observations garnered through the intellectual interaction and debate with THOUSANDS of would-be Independent, Moderate, Centrist, Progressive halfwits... such as yourself.

You obviously don't know anyone of the "lefty" political persuasion... They are not the ones with "talking points" like the above.

Yes, that is PERFECT! A wonderful demonstration of precisely what my experience shows... a conclusion which is based upon absolutely nothing but supremely delusional conjecture wherein it is said that Leftism is an undefinable ideology of distincy, high independent intellectuals, whose educated and quite sophisticated perspective determines that it is impossible to group then through base generalities...

Here's the thing about that... you people are idiots; there isn't a dimes worth of difference from what you believe, than what King Hussein believes and the mounds of disjointed drivel flapping around in Chomsky's resin soak noggin...


It doesn't matter WHAT the specifics of your given individual 'perspective' may be... the fact is that NEITHER, A single individual amongst you, nor the collective whole of your summed intellectual means can support a DAMN THING you claim to believe about ANYTHING. And this is because your BELIEFS ARE NOT FOUNDED IN ANY SORT OF VALID PRINCIPLE... it is just random emotional triggers which flitter into disconnected strings of drivel; which at the end of the day cannot HOPE to be substantiated through ANY known form of objective analysis.

Now that's the good news...

The bad news is that there is no known cure for this affliction; education only seems to make it worse... but some people do seem to just 'snap out of it...' usually if that happens, it happens when they find some success... and as a result simply come to recognize that everything that they learned from other leftists, was simply not true.

But... the best of luck to ya, in working your way through it.