Philosophy Now Forum

After skimming through the thread I'm glad to see that save for the unions thing, everyone seems to agree that conservatism is crap.

.




...wait a minute...um, union thing?




.

copernico wrote:After skimming through the thread I'm glad to see that save for the unions thing, everyone seems to agree that conservatism is crap.

Well now, since you say that everyone seems to agree that conservatism is crap, why don't you explain in at least a modicum of detail what the hell you think conservatism is, huh?

bobevenson wrote:Spoken like a true socialist, who thinks the fucking government should be the arbiter of the marketplace instead of the consumer!

You appear to be getting confused bob as it's you who said that laissez-faire capitalism needs to be kept in hand due to fraud. From their point of view they're just making a profit selling shoddy goods, caveat emptor I'd have thought, not fraud.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Spoken like a true socialist, who thinks the fucking government should be the arbiter of the marketplace instead of the consumer!

You appear to be getting confused bob as it's you who said that laissez-faire capitalism needs to be kept in hand due to fraud. From their point of view they're just making a profit selling shoddy goods, caveat emptor I'd have thought, not fraud.

Whether goods are shoddy or at the right price are issues that should be addressed by the consumer, not the government.

You appear to be getting confused bob as it's you who said that laissez-faire capitalism needs to be kept in hand due to fraud. From their point of view they're just making a profit selling shoddy goods, caveat emptor I'd have thought, not fraud.

well said

Whether goods are shoddy or at the right price are issues that should be addressed by the consumer, not the government.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
consumers are idiots

i have not been in a macdonalds or Kfc fore 20 years.
im not [no longer] an idiot.

Hjarloprillar wrote:You appear to be getting confused bob as it's you who said that laissez-faire capitalism needs to be kept in hand due to fraud. From their point of view they're just making a profit selling shoddy goods, caveat emptor I'd have thought, not fraud.

A prophet never gets confused over spiritual, political or economic matters, my friend. Just because a product is not well-made does not constitute fraud.

spike wrote:There is no worst philosophy. Just worst thinkers.

Spike, what you wrote here ^ would be a logical topic, rather than a collection of cognitive distortions in attempts to paint over conservative views with broad ugly strokes.
It's a cult-like mentality full of its own bigotry (inability to tolerate other perspectives) that assumes that all reasoning in a perceived group's thought are "the worst philosophy."
It's so common - so perpetuated in media, that often not much thought is given to the ridiculous political party cults.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:What is by far the worst scourge of all scourges in the history of mankind?

It is the philosophy of conservatism.

Is it really the "worst scourge of all scourges" - this conservatism, which is based on conservation ("protection of valued resources: the preservation, management, and care of natural and cultural resources")?
Or are you simply jumping to conclusions, stereotyping, and entertaining other cognitive distortions like polarized (all or nothing) thinking?

Bill, do you have the ideal to spend within your means - "conservatively" & not be too liberal with your money? Do you want the freedom to spend your money as you like, or would you rather be told what to do with your money?
Do you like to have your life respected... to have the "right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness" - even when you were not fully developed & unable to care for yourself without help (legally before 18).
It is logical to support extending this right to others, even children (developing humans) developing in the womb.

Like everyone, you have a mother and father - and may honor them each Mother's and Father's day, if not more often. I doubt you would like the government to legally deny you your mother or father.
It is logical to support extending this right to others, by supporting marriage between a man and a woman, especially since all of society is based on such unions, not on homosexual fetishes.
You probably understand that laws are for the good of society. Would you want to legally encourage behavior, like the practice of homosexual fetishes, that has statistically and medically proven to be harmful?
Still, I want to also point out that we all have weaknesses and to condemn anybody would be hypocritical - and that if 2 people want to create a contract, they are free to do so, but demanding special legal marital recognition just for having homosexual fetishes is not only illogical, but also proves to be a liability to society.

Even Warren Buffet publically acknowledged that the tax system for the most wealthy is unfair - and that he is paying a lower percentage of taxes, now that he is a multi-billionare, than years ago before he was so well off. The way many are able to get away with paying little to no taxes, is by establishing side "nonprofit" companies that are not really companies, but are a way to write off many expenses. And guess who gave corporations more power? Obama, though I imagine it has been bilateral as far as political party representatives.

This world is unfair - there are almost 1 BILLION people chronically hungry. The US has contributed in some cases to such suffering, by causing unjust wars, & taking advantage of others' resources under the guise of "helping them." What can be done? Educating ourselves and then speaking to congress, for a start. It also helps to visit some places, to understand a little more about extreme poverty and how to help others conserve their most valuable resources.

Our country is based on both liberty and respons-ability - not exclusively one or the other.
It's important to avoid group thought, and instead consider multiple perspectives.
But that's often difficult, because paradox is too much work or too many uncomfortable truths to consider.
Also there's such a strong desire to belong that some will give up their ability to think and sense of identity- to please others.

"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduces them.
Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon

"Insanity in individuals is rare—but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs, it is the rule." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Perspective wrote:

Bill Wiltrack wrote:It is the philosophy of conservatism.

Is it really the "worst scourge of all scourges" - this conservatism, which is based on conservation ("protection of valued resources: the preservation, management, and care of natural and cultural resources")?

I seriously doubt that Bill had conservation of natural resources in mind. I don't know where the quote is from, but if it comes from a political source, it is arrant opportunism. What political conservatives wish to conserve is cultural resources, often religious, more generally economic. It is promoted particularly by the powerful, because it is their economic status they wish to conserve. The wonder is that elitists manage to persuade so many that everyone's interests are best served by maintaining the status quo. Fairy tales of monarchy will do for some, religious nonsense will persuade others, trickle down economics might do for others who area bit more on the ball, but unless you are rich and powerful, conservatism will not be doing you any favours.
'Cultural conservatism' is an insidious concept, for all that it sounds worthy, conservatism of this sort is a failure to come to terms with challenging ideas. Generally, while conservatives will insist on the efficacy of market forces, they will not subject their values to the same scrutiny.

"It is promoted particularly by the powerful, because it is their economic status they wish to conserve."

plutocracy.

while i sneer at it, it is far more desirable than a Theocracy.
what is true is that in this day a system rules. 7 billions require management

We of the middle class have time and money to ask such. we own 90% of the worlds net computing power.
social stratification is best explained by G Carlin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko35qhKnRXs

Prill

.




I appreciate all of your opinions and I thank all of you for taking the time to formulate and articulate those opinions.



I do not wish to change anyone's opinion here at the forum.



Having said that and having read each of your opinions I'm even more comfortable with my original post upon this thread.


Conservatism IS the Worst Philosophy in the History of Mankind. Economically and emotionally.





.

Tillingborn,
That definition of conservation is in several online dictionaries...
http://www.google.com/#output=search&sc ... 80&bih=942

So, are you now going to consider dictionaries biased and the worst philosophy?


Bill,
Your response is typical of a refusal to consider new perspective in light of new information.
I agree that some liberal principles are best, but not all. And some conservative principles are best, but not all.
Is that too much for you to comprehend?
What is so bad about conservation... "protection of valued resources: the preservation, management, and care of natural and cultural resources"?

It seems you read some truth which you did not want to accept.
No doubt there are truths like that we all fear or want to avoid.
I personally do not enjoy learning details about abortion murders or extreme poverty.
It makes me feel sad, powerless and somewhat ashamed at my relatively affluent lifesytyle.
Yet, it is a reality and I do feel the need to do something to help - even if it is just a drop in the bucket.

One clarification I wanted to make is regarding homosexual fetishes.
Because of so much media propoganda in white washing homosexuality with broad rainbow happy strokes, some don't see the relevance in the term, "fetish."
Yet, "homosexuality" is actually an oxymoron term.
2 of the same can never have true sexual intercourse - simply because they either lack a penis or vagina.
Yet it's not a platonic relationship - since that applies to many other relationships.
The distinguishing factor in homosexual relationships are sexual substitutes - fetishes.
"Fetish: any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fetish
Anal sex is such a fetish, as are sex toys like dildos, that lesbians use.
Of course homosexual fetish pride parades don't want to focus on the consequences of such fetish as anal sex - anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture & bacterial infection, nor STDs & AIDs.
They also don't explain why of all fetishes, anal sex & dildos are more worthy of such attention.

I imagine that some honest people who have entertained typically liberal ideas and behavior, will even see some harm in it.
Michael Glatze, ex-homosexual and ex "gay rights" leader said, "Homosexuality is death and I choose life."
I imagine that some honest people who have entertained typically conservative ideas and behavior, will even see some harm in it.
To realize the many wars and related suffering and deaths that the US has initiated, is sickening.

Bill, please try to consider the possibility that some liberal principles are best, but not all, and some conservative principles are best, but not all.

.






I don't think in the two divisive concepts and reflective terms you used.


I don't even use them.


I WANT you to believe in the way that you do.


Please don't change.


I wish only that you find yourself in the reality in which you aspire as soon as possible within this lifetime.



All the best to you.




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









.

" as are sex toys like dildos, that lesbians use.:

LOL

you are an innocent boy.

id say 98% of all dildo sales are for the average woman, mother. girl. millions of them. who put these rubber dohicks in while thinking of brad pit or mat damon...
or if older, george clooney .

When a thing becomes a well worn article , used over ad over.. by millions of soccer moms and even their kids [they had to pull the vibrating witch broom 'harry potter' from
sale in us as little girls locked their doors and 'flew like a bird'*]
is it still a fetish?

-----------------
*A mysterious spike in battery sales across the us. Where are they all going..?
parents became suspicious when so many girls aged 9-14 HAD to have one. the stores were literally looted.