Merged Is Conservatism the New Communism?

Ziggurat said:
There has never been a ban on stem cell research. Bush implemented restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, but 1) that in no way restricted research funded by non-federal sources, 2) funding of adult stem cell research was not restricted, and 3) even the restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research didn't actually prohibit funding such research, but only constrained it to use certain existing stem cell lines.
Click to expand...

What major non-federal (NSF, NIH, CDC, etc) sources of funding do you suppose universities have at their disposal to replace the money they're not getting from the government? And were these restrictions on research with embryonic stem cells (which, unlike adult stem cells, are able to maintain totipotency) not made specifically for purely religious reasons?
 
Limited government and free markets have nothing in common with communism.
 
There are many analogies:

- Demonizing people who disagree or reject their dogma as mentally ill (see: "Liberalism is a mental disorder")

- Revisionist history (see: "christian nation")

- Demonizing and/or purging those with less than orthodox views ( see: "RINO" phenomenon)

- The general belief that they are right and those who disagree are evil or bad or criminal.

- Willing to sacrifice people for the sake of the ideology (see: conservative cries of "let him die" in response to a question about what should happen to a person without insurance who got seriously ill)

- Devoted legions of useful idiots who are unwilling or unable to see the reality of conservatism for what it really is (See: most conservatives on JREF, everyone who isn't white, christian and male who votes conservative)

- Devoted to debunked superstitions (see: creationsim)
 
Last edited:
Good to see that "liberals" don't demonize people who disagree in their little echo chambers. Like um, this thread and ninety billion others.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't use Jonah Goldberg's book as a template for any type of endeavor. It sounds like you're trying to fit the content to your conclusion, much like he did.
 
Tony said:
There are many analogies:

- Demonizing people who disagree or reject their dogma as mentally ill (see: "Liberalism is a mental disorder")
Click to expand...

How is "Liberalism is a mental disorder" demonizing?

There were problems with your other points too. Let's start with this one. How is saying that liberalism is a mental disorder demonizing?

What is more, Savage makes a good argument. Brushing his whole book aside and calling his title "demonizing" unintentionally demonstrates that he is probably correct.

Also reaching all the way into the wacko side of the Right and mentioning creationism also shows the use of bad logic.
 
maxpower1227 said:
What major non-federal (NSF, NIH, CDC, etc) sources of funding do you suppose universities have at their disposal to replace the money they're not getting from the government?
Click to expand...

There are quite a few private foundations which fund research. For example, there are many groups (like the American Heart Association) which fund research into specific diseases or classes of disease. There is also state funding - California allocated quite a bit specifically to the topic.

And were these restrictions on research with embryonic stem cells (which, unlike adult stem cells, are able to maintain totipotency) not made specifically for purely religious reasons?
Click to expand...

The restrictions were made for moral reasons. If your claim is that a person's morality is purely religious, I think you'll find yourself on dangerous ground. I also think that we frequently legislate morality (for example, animal cruelty laws), and that in and of itself is no argument against a law (or even an executive order). Furthermore, whether or not it's influenced by a person's religion is actually fairly irrelevant. The anti-slavery movement in England was very heavily influenced by religion, but I would say it was a good thing.

Furthermore, (and this part is relevant to the context of this thread), the common characterization of the ban as "anti-science" is wrong. Creationism is anti-science, in that it denies the validity of scientific knowledge. The stem cell ban doesn't deny the validity of knowledge, but merely makes moral decisions about actions. And while you and I might disagree with those specific moral decisions, it is in fact proper that we make moral decisions, and those decisions are ultimately never going to be scientific. Science can tell us how much food a person needs to live, but it doesn't require that we actually feed a starving person. Morality does that, and for many people a morality informed by religion.
 
Bill Thompson said:
How is "Liberalism is a mental disorder" demonizing?

There were problems with your other points too. Let's start with this one. How is saying that liberalism is a mental disorder demonizing?

What is more, Savage makes a good argument. Brushing his whole book aside and calling his title "demonizing" unintentionally demonstrates that he is probably correct.
Click to expand...

If you have to ask such a question, it is likely that any explanation would be time wasted on you.

Also reaching all the way into the wacko side of the Right and mentioning creationism also shows the use of bad logic.
Click to expand...

I agree that creationism is wacko, but it is mainstream for conservatives and the Republican party. It is perfectly logical to consider conservatism's support and promotion of creationism. It is the conservatives who accept evolution and science (the useful idiots I mentioned earlier) that are out of touch with the majority of their comrades.
 
SKEPTICALSHAM said:
There's much more. Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism was trying to make a point that didn't exist. Short summary of it: Liberal get their ideas from fascists and there is such a think as "liberal fascism".
Click to expand...

I know there's much more to Goldberg's thesis (and whether or not he's right isn't relevant to my point). I want to know if there's anything more to your thesis.

I'm not saying conservatives get their ideas from communists or or saying that there's such a thing as "conservative communism". I'm saying its the a destructive and influential ideology that has affected a large region of the world. (United States)
Click to expand...

That's... not much more. You can't write a book on that, if you expect the book to be about a comparison between conservatism and communism. There's just not enough material in that statement. And if you just want to write a book about how conservatism sucks, well, the book shelves are already crowded with such fare.
 
Virus said:
Limited government and free markets have nothing in common with communism.
Click to expand...

The similarity to conservatism is uncanny in this regard.

ETA; I see I'm not the only one to note this.
 
Last edited:
hgc said:
I wouldn't use Jonah Goldberg's book as a template for any type of endeavor. It sounds like you're trying to fit the content to your conclusion, much like he did.
Click to expand...

My observation isn't a Goldberg template. Just the oxymoron title of his book got me wanting to write about the opposite case you can make with conservatism and communism. But I don't say conservative communism. I say conservatism is the new communism. My approach to writing about this is not like Goldberg's.
 
Liberalism is just as devoted to bad science as conservatism:

1. Anti-nuclear power.
2. Anti-hydroelectric power.
3. Anti-fracking.
4. Anti-GMOs.
5. Anti-vaccines.
6. Pro homeopathy cranks.

As the Denialism blog notes:

For instance, I’ve found liberals are far more likely to be interested in “greening our vaccines” (note the liberal pull of the label “green”). There are conservative anti-vaxxers but they come to it ideologically as well from the “the guv’mint can’t tell me to vaccinate” standpoint. Liberals are far more likely to buy into altie-med, to believe “toxins” cause all illness, to engage in “big pharma” conspiracy-mongering, to express paranoid delusions about GMO foods or irradiation, to espouse insane theories about food in general, or to believe Bush was behind 9/11.
Click to expand...
 
Brainster said:
Liberalism is just as devoted to bad science as conservatism:

1. Anti-nuclear power.
2. Anti-hydroelectric power.
3. Anti-fracking.
4. Anti-GMOs.
5. Anti-vaccines.
6. Pro homeopathy cranks.

As the Denialism blog notes:
Click to expand...

Whenever I see equivalency tu quoque I like to point out that one, yes those things are bad, and two, how many are actually part of a the platform of the major 'left' political party?

Although in this case we're talking broadly about 'the left' 'communism' and 'conservatism' broadly, so the criticism actually holds. Unfortunately this thread isn't actually about that...

EDIT: Had to insert the 'n't' to make it make sense. As the subject is how Conservatism might be compared to Communism and not the validity of Conservatism, I think the attacks on 'the left' are bizarre. Of course I knew it would be less than academic just because this is the politics board...
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
Limited government and free markets have nothing in common with communism.
Click to expand...

When the rich own everything, it's precisely the same as communism, with the rich as the politburo.

Since that is EXACTLY where we are headed, I think trying to deny it is at least questionably unethical.
 
Tony said:
If you have to ask such a question, it is likely that any explanation would be time wasted on you.
Click to expand...

Give it a shot.

If you find the comment "liberalism is a mental disorder" offensive, it must be true. I know of at least one whole book written to back up the argument. Are there books written to counter this idea?

I think an honest and mature person would be wanting to read such a book if he was a liberal. A mind does not work unless it is open.

Having a mental disorder does not make one evil and if someone things you have one, it is not an insult. If you are insulted, you need to check your ego at the door and go to the library and read.

If you find the comment "liberalism is a mental disorder" offensive, it must be true. Seems like a self evident fact already. Sounds somewhat about that ex-cop that went on a rampage because he was found unfit to be a policeman. It is self evident.

Having a mental disorder is not a sign of weakness or evil. Associating mental disorder with something bad is in itself a poor thought process.

Your bowing out of further discussion reminds me a lot of my Liberal cousins. They think they are right in a debate as long as it is a monologue. When someone shows they are wrong, the discussion is over. It is typical and unsuprising.

Oh, and by the way, Michael Savage was once a Liberal. If he can look back on his life and say that he had a thought disorder, it gives further weight to his argument.

The world is comic to those who think and tragic to those who feel. If "liberalism is a mental illness" is offensive and hurtful, then you are not thinking.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom