Liberalism versus conservatism in skepticism

[Mycroft]

Split 'cause I really think it's a different discussion. Also, a fun discussion.

ANd the "skeptical" conservatives here NEVER joust at straw liberalism. No siree, bob. That would be, like, wrong and stuff.

Honestly, I find that partisans on both sides have straw versions of the other side that they love to beat up on.

I think on this board the lunatic left is better represented than the lunatic right.

I think the reason for this is simply that the staunch conservatives such as Manny, BPSCG, Jocko and others are a lot more likely to eviscerate the “Jesus is a Republican” conservative woo woo than the local liberals such as Orwell, Kevin Lowe, Mark or Gnome are likely to do the same to a “America is always wrong” Cindy Sheehan worshiping liberal woo woo.





Pin pulled, grenade thrown, walking slowly away...

 

[DavidJames]

“America is always wrong” Cindy Sheehan worshiping liberal woo woo.

Nice

Then your example is very poor since those conservatives you mention are not religious, while Sheehan and the liberals you mention share similar beliefs regarding the Iraq war.

Any more straw you'd like to throw on the fire?

 

[Mycroft]

Nice

Then your example is very poor since those conservatives you mention are not religious, while Sheehan and the liberals you mention share similar beliefs regarding the Iraq war.

Any more straw you'd like to throw on the fire?

I don't understand the nature of your criticism.

I don't know if the conservatives I mentioned are religious or not, does it matter?

Of course the liberals I mentioned share similar beliefs regarding teh Iraq war, wouldn't you agree that support for the war is divided mainly along conservative/liberal lines?

 

[jj]

Of course the liberals I mentioned share similar beliefs regarding teh Iraq war, wouldn't you agree that support for the war is divided mainly along conservative/liberal lines?

No, rather the position on this faked-up war is being used to decide if one should be tarred with the word "liberal" and forced to wear the mark of the swirley.

I think you have the horse before the cart, personally.

 

[Earthborn]

I think on this board the lunatic left is better represented than the lunatic right.

I agree with you that the lunatic right is somewhat underrepresented on this board. But can you tell us who according to you belongs to the lunatic left, without resorting to strawmen?

I don't think you can.

 

[DavidJames]

I don't understand the nature of your criticism.

I don't know if the conservatives I mentioned are religious or not, does it matter?

Of course the liberals I mentioned share similar beliefs regarding teh Iraq war, wouldn't you agree that support for the war is divided mainly along conservative/liberal lines?

Of course it matters. You used a religious example. I believe those conservatives you mention are not religious (based on reading this board), consequently, when they "eviscerate the “Jesus is a Republican”" it should not be considered surprising (because they do have that in common with them) any more then should they eviscerate Cindy Sheehan. A better example would be seeing if those conservatives eviscerate “Ann Coulter”.

Your liberal example is a reasonable example in that since liberals and Cindy Sheehan have a common basis of thought, it would be noteworthy should they eviscerate her.

Does that help?

ETA: Yes I agree support for the war is divided along those lines. I don't know how that relates to your point though. I think it's also important to note, that the divide, while present, wasn't so great when the war started. It grew and grew as the "facts" upon which the war was based evaporated. Liberals revisited their support. Conservatives support never wavered, they just refocused their reasons for the war.

 

[Mycroft]

I agree with you that the lunatic right is somewhat underrepresented on this board. But can you tell us who according to you belongs to the lunatic left, without resorting to strawmen?

I don't think you can.

I could offer a list of names, but I don’t think that would be polite. If you think the identifiers I named (America is always wrong, Cindy Sheehan worshiping) are straw-men, could you name better identifier issues?

Of course it matters. You used a religious example. I believe those conservatives you mention are not religious…

I picked an obvious example of conservative political woo wooism, but I could have picked an issue that didn’t involve religion. How about if you offer some suggestions?

 

[fishbob]

I could offer a list of names, but I don’t think that would be polite. If you think the identifiers I named (America is always wrong, Cindy Sheehan worshiping) are straw-men, could you name better identifier issues?

The current administration is a bunch of *$$#$@#weasels.

ETA: who claim to be conservative.

 

[kimiko]

Pro-war with the attendant empty machismo.

 

[Chaos]

*snip*
I picked an obvious example of conservative political woo wooism, but I could have picked an issue that didn’t involve religion. How about if you offer some suggestions?

I don´t pretend to speak for DavidJames, but how about this:

- There´s nothing wrong with Gitmo
- We´re the good guys as long as we´re noticeably better than Saddam was
- The Patriot Act is a great piece of legislation
- Bush is the best president in recent history
- All Muslims are anti-semites
- Islam condones terrorism
- Borrow-and-spend is a great policy; screw the deficit
- Criticizing the President in war time means aiding the enemy

How´s that for starters?

 

[Earthborn]

I could offer a list of names, but I don’t think that would be polite.

Then make that list just for yourself. Make the list, and find quotes that show that they belong to the 'lunatic left' and ask yourself whether the list -- if you posted it -- would be convincing to anyone. Convincing to me, for example.

If you think the identifiers I named (America is always wrong, Cindy Sheehan worshiping) are straw-men, could you name better identifier issues?

I think they are fine identifiers, if that's how you want to define the 'lunatic left'. The identifiers are not the issue: the issue is that you'll have to show that people fit those identifiers. If you also come up with a few identifiers for the 'lunatic right' and make a list of them too, you can count which list is bigger and prove whether the lunatic left or the lunatic right (as defined by you) is represented most.

I think however that you'll find that close to nobody on this board has ever shown any Sheehan worship, or has claimed that America is always wrong. Attributing these positions to people who do not believe in them: that would be the strawmen.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

I would just like to state that jesus would be a republican, and the US is always wrong.

Sincerely
Tobias
I am, of course, kidding. doh [/sarcasm]

 

[CFLarsen]

I don´t pretend to speak for DavidJames, but how about this:

- There´s nothing wrong with Gitmo
- We´re the good guys as long as we´re noticeably better than Saddam was
- The Patriot Act is a great piece of legislation
- Bush is the best president in recent history
- All Muslims are anti-semites
- Islam condones terrorism
- Borrow-and-spend is a great policy; screw the deficit
- Criticizing the President in war time means aiding the enemy

How´s that for starters?

Allow me to expand a bit.

- There´s nothing wrong with Gitmo
Gulag, on the other hand...

- We´re the good guys as long as we´re noticeably better than Saddam was
And we can control the press, too.

- The Patriot Act is a great piece of legislation
It sure has the right name! Anyone want to oppose it is, obviously, not a patriot.

- Bush is the best president in recent history
Best since 2000!

- All Muslims are anti-semites
and wear desert clothes and have long beards. Making racial profiling so much easier.

- Islam condones terrorism
We condone "Freedom Fighters".

- Borrow-and-spend is a great policy; screw the deficit
Unless it's the Democrats who are doing it.

- Criticizing the President in war time means aiding the enemy
It means that THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON!! ARRR! ARRR! ARRR!

 

[DavidJames]

I picked an obvious example of conservative political woo wooism, but I could have picked an issue that didn’t involve religion. How about if you offer some suggestions?

I did, in the same paragraph you quoted.

 

[Snide]

I think on this board the lunatic left is better represented than the lunatic right.
size]

I agree. Those "left lunatics" here, while flawed, do a much better job with reason and debate than the "right lunatics" here.

 

[Manny]

...while Sheehan and the liberals you mention share similar beliefs regarding the Iraq war.

Orwell, Kevin Lowe, Mark and Gnome believe that George Bush is a bigger terrorist than Osama bin Laden? That the foreign jihadists are freedom fighters comparable to the Minutemen of the American Revolution? That the Iraq War was the fault of the Jews? I can't say for Orwell, since he's a worthless coward and sock puppet who is on perma-ignore, but I don't think those views can fairly be ascribed to any of the other posters mentioned and I think you are being unfair for saying so.

 

[Darat]

In one sense of the words "sceptics" cannot be "conservatives" because conservatism is about keeping things the same, because that is assumed to be what is best, and sceptics shouldn't be concerned about retaining the status-quo but about whether something is right or wrong.

 

[Mark]

Split 'cause I really think it's a different discussion. Also, a fun discussion.



I think on this board the lunatic left is better represented than the lunatic right.

I think the reason for this is simply that the staunch conservatives such as Manny, BPSCG, Jocko and others are a lot more likely to eviscerate the “Jesus is a Republican” conservative woo woo than the local liberals such as Orwell, Kevin Lowe, Mark or Gnome are likely to do the same to a “America is always wrong” Cindy Sheehan worshiping liberal woo woo.





Pin pulled, grenade thrown, walking slowly away...

What a patheic attempt at a thinly veiled ad hom attack on those you disagree with. So I am part of the "Lunatic Left" am I?

Your argument is severely undermined by 2 points:

A) That while some of your conservatives pals may not like the Religious Right, but they still vote for the Religious Right's candidates. As I imagine you do as well. So much for "skepticism" on the Right.

B) Strawman. I have never said anything in support of Cindy Sheehan's more absurd comments. And have certainly never said anything remotely like "America is always wrong." In fact, you owe me an apology, which I doubt you are polite enough to offer. Attacking the patriotism of your opponents is a cheesy, overused, right-wing tactic.

I found your post absurd and offensive.

 

[brodski]

I don't understand the nature of your criticism.

I don't know if the conservatives I mentioned are religious or not, does it matter?

Of course the liberals I mentioned share similar beliefs regarding teh Iraq war, wouldn't you agree that support for the war is divided mainly along conservative/liberal lines?

The reason it is not an apt comparison is that you are comparing a group would filters their entire worldview though a faith based interpretation of the way physical reality actually works ("this is one nation under G_D" etc), with a group of people who share a broad agreement on specific policies and their merit (or lack thereof). Cindy Sheehan is obviously NOT worshiped in eth same way that fundies worship jeebus.You will find almost as many "America, right or wrong" types here as you will find "blame America" types. And you can certainly find posters who interpret any discussion of American internal affairs by non- US citizens as evidence of rabid anti-Americanism. these positions, both equally flawed, are not in eth same league as the Jesus is a Republican crowd. If you want an equivalent to that reality-impeded world view from the left, pick PoMo, or any of the related brands of intellectual dishonesty.The trouble is, you wouldn't be able to bash many posters here with attacks on post modernist "reasoning".

 

[Mark]

Orwell, Kevin Lowe, Mark and Gnome believe that George Bush is a bigger terrorist than Osama bin Laden? That the foreign jihadists are freedom fighters comparable to the Minutemen of the American Revolution? That the Iraq War was the fault of the Jews? I can't say for Orwell, since he's a worthless coward and sock puppet who is on perma-ignore, but I don't think those views can fairly be ascribed to any of the other posters mentioned and I think you are being unfair for saying so.

Thank you for that. While we aften disagree on political issues, I would never stoop to attacking your patriotism either.