We're going to miss Obama

[Belz...]

You say this as if you believe these things are mutually exclusive.

"It was a joke" was used as a counter to me saying that it was factually incorrect. Then "It was serious" was used to counter me saying that it was thus irrelevant. Then "It was a figure of speech" was used when I said again that it was factually incorrect.

Sounds like some posters are trying to make them mutually-exclusive alright, or at least play with the phrase enough that it can't be pinned down and discussed.

 

[jimbob]

It's a joke with a strong element of truth.

 

[thaiboxerken]

"It was a joke" was used as a counter to me saying that it was factually incorrect. Then "It was serious" was used to counter me saying that it was thus irrelevant. Then "It was a figure of speech" was used when I said again that it was factually incorrect.

Sounds like some posters are trying to make them mutually-exclusive alright, or at least play with the phrase enough that it can't be pinned down and discussed.

It obviously can't be a literal fact. It is a joke, and it is also a metaphorical truth.

 

[DavidJames]

Okay, Argumemnon, next time you see that evil phrase, please substitute something like.

Look, another example of where the facts presented, because they support the liberal perspective, are ignored in favor of a conservatives, unsupported by facts, opinion and conjecture.

Sure, a bit wordy, but there you go.

 

[Belz...]

It obviously can't be a literal fact.

I was told that it was. Anyhoo.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Okay, Argumemnon, next time you see that evil phrase, please substitute something like.

Look, another example of where the facts presented, because they support the liberal perspective, are ignored in favor of a conservatives, unsupported by facts, opinion and conjecture.

Sure, a bit wordy, but there you go.

Well put.

Conservative opinions and policies often ignore reality in favor of long held principles and beliefs. A pithy way of expressing this is to say "Reality has a liberal bias."

Contrary to sunmaster14's assertion, this is not dismissive of conservatives. It is a reminder that committing to reality based opinions and policies often means facing the situations where your beliefs and principles may be challenged by reality. By definition, conservatives do not like to move on from long held beliefs or principles, even in the face of compelling evidence, such as reality. That liberal wench.

The very definition of progressive is to continue trying to find a better way to do things while conservatives fight to keep doing the things they see as working. We need that tension, the push to move forward must be tempered by the pull of not forgetting what we already know. But to recognize that progressing based on new evidence is progressive, or liberal in American political parlance, is not revolutionary. And certainly not misleading, even if phrased in a pithy manner.

 

[Tero]

First you speak of Trump, and then of someone with substance.

The non sequitur is very confusing.

Yes. Trump is only as deep as his spray on tan. Nobody knows what is inside. Not even his wife and kids.

 

[sunmaster14]

Well put.

Conservative opinions and policies often ignore reality in favor of long held principles and beliefs. A pithy way of expressing this is to say "Reality has a liberal bias."

Contrary to sunmaster14's assertion, this is not dismissive of conservatives. It is a reminder that committing to reality based opinions and policies often means facing the situations where your beliefs and principles may be challenged by reality. By definition, conservatives do not like to move on from long held beliefs or principles, even in the face of compelling evidence, such as reality. That liberal wench.

The very definition of progressive is to continue trying to find a better way to do things while conservatives fight to keep doing the things they see as working. We need that tension, the push to move forward must be tempered by the pull of not forgetting what we already know. But to recognize that progressing based on new evidence is progressive, or liberal in American political parlance, is not revolutionary. And certainly not misleading, even if phrased in a pithy manner.

I would say that, by definition, liberals keep wanting to try things that have been shown not to work. Conservatives are willing to look to hundreds or thousands of years of human experience to see which traditions and frameworks have promoted stability and prosperity. Liberals want to try whatever stupid thought pops into their head. Which wouldn't be so bad, except that the same stupid thoughts keep popping up again and again. Like socialism, for instance. Or social engineering.

I actually would like to see some examples of conservatives denying reality or science. Please provide some. For my part, I think liberals deny reality when they view human beings as blank slates, on which society and culture can write anything it wants. Conservatives recognize that human beings are programmed by their biology to a large extent, and that society and culture have to respect that biological programming, and in some ways accommodate it, or else make a hash of things.

To give a clear-cut example, conservatives do not expect that women and men are the same in all respects. Or that any differences are entirely, or even materially, due to the "patriarchal structure" of society. Rather the patriarchal society evolved from our biological tendencies.

I actually know somebody who knows two extremely progressive parents who tried to reverse gender roles for their boy and girl in order to "cancel out" the normative bias of society. They gave the boy dolls to play with and the girl toy cars and trucks. For some reason the dolls ended up torn apart in demolition derbies, and the cars and trucks ended up talking to each other and having tea. Go figure. And yet, the progressive myths persist.

 

[Giordano]

I would say that, by definition, liberals keep wanting to try things that have been shown not to work. Conservatives are willing to look to hundreds or thousands of years of human experience to see which traditions and frameworks have promoted stability and prosperity. Liberals want to try whatever stupid thought pops into their head. Which wouldn't be so bad, except that the same stupid thoughts keep popping up again and again. Like socialism, for instance. Or social engineering.

I actually would like to see some examples of conservatives denying reality or science. Please provide some. For my part, I think liberals deny reality when they view human beings as blank slates, on which society and culture can write anything it wants. Conservatives recognize that human beings are programmed by their biology to a large extent, and that society and culture have to respect that biological programming, and in some ways accommodate it, or else make a hash of things.

To give a clear-cut example, conservatives do not expect that women and men are the same in all respects. Or that any differences are entirely, or even materially, due to the "patriarchal structure" of society. Rather the patriarchal society evolved from our biological tendencies.

I actually know somebody who knows two extremely progressive parents who tried to reverse gender roles for their boy and girl in order to "cancel out" the normative bias of society. They gave the boy dolls to play with and the girl toy cars and trucks. For some reason the dolls ended up torn apart in demolition derbies, and the cars and trucks ended up talking to each other and having tea. Go figure. And yet, the progressive myths persist.

Sorry- I have to run off in a second or two, so I will provide only one example that leaps off the top of my head: denial of evolution. Or are those who deny it not True Conservatives?

We can talk another time about good old conservative values rooted in thousands of years of human experience and tradition that liberals, in their weird way, sought to overturn, such as... slavery. And the fact that although I do see a biological origin for certain aspects of human behavior, I also see that a lot of what has been considered biologically based was actually rooted in empty stereotyping (a means of men sequestering power and influence in society) or has become totally irrelevant in modern society (e.g. we don't need big, strong, stupid men to hunt saber-toothed tigers anymore). As women have gradually thrown off centuries of oppressive societal limitations (spurred on by liberals against conservative traditionalists) these women have shown that they, if anything, fulfill the previously barred roles in society better then men do. Look at how successful women have been in veterinary medicine for example: once allowed to practice this profession, women have proven to be very, very good at it, to the point that many vet schools now have switched their affirmative action programs so as to attract men to better gender balance their classes.

I should note that this whole topic is pretty far off the OP. We should move to another thread at some point.

 

[Joey McGee]

liberals deny reality when they view human beings as blank slates, on which society and culture can write anything it wants. Conservatives recognize that human beings are programmed by their biology to a large extent

What a load of crap. The blank slate has been debunked for decades and few scientists actually believe in it. Pinker wrote "The Blank Slate" how many years ago? Just as many conservatives believe in a "blank slate" from a religionist/cultural point of view when compared with liberals. We are talking about the actual policy positions of the political establishment not **** you can throw and make stick to something. Where's the "blank slate" showing up in the modern Democratic platform these days? HMMM??

 

[Joey McGee]

Sorry to double post but...

50% of Republicans don't believe in evolution and we're being told that "Conservatives recognize that human beings are programmed by their biology" Aren't we talking about the American conservative establishment? I guess David Cameron supports gay marriage and climate change action ffs.

That's the stupidest thing in USA politics next to the forum lifers who are voting Trump cause too few people felt the Bern.

 

[DavidJames]

Sorry- I have to run off in a second or two, so I will provide only one example that leaps off the top of my head: denial of evolution. Or are those who deny it not True Conservatives?

We can talk another time about good old conservative values rooted in thousands of years of human experience and tradition that liberals, in their weird way, sought to overturn, such as... slavery. And the fact that although I do see a biological origin for certain aspects of human behavior, I also see that a lot of what has been considered biologically based was actually rooted in empty stereotyping (a means of men sequestering power and influence in society) or has become totally irrelevant in modern society (e.g. we don't need big, strong, stupid men to hunt saber-toothed tigers anymore). As women have gradually thrown off centuries of oppressive societal limitations (spurred on by liberals against conservative traditionalists) these women have shown that they, if anything, fulfill the previously barred roles in society better then men do. Look at how successful women have been in veterinary medicine for example: once allowed to practice this profession, women have proven to be very, very good at it, to the point that many vet schools now have switched their affirmative action programs so as to attract men to better gender balance their classes.

I should note that this whole topic is pretty far off the OP. We should move to another thread at some point.

The problem with your example is you are encouraging women to abandon the "patriarchal society" conservative men love so much to keep women in their place cause, you know, biology.

It's somewhat on topic as Trump may replace Obama, allowing misogynists to think they can regain their power under one of their own.

What's interesting is during the primary, conservatives here mostly refused to talk up their candidate, but now that one has been chosen, have taken to defend him, Pavlovian like.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I would say that, by definition, liberals keep wanting to try things that have been shown not to work. Conservatives are willing to look to hundreds or thousands of years of human experience to see which traditions and frameworks have promoted stability and prosperity. Liberals want to try whatever stupid thought pops into their head. Which wouldn't be so bad, except that the same stupid thoughts keep popping up again and again. Like socialism, for instance. Or social engineering.

I actually would like to see some examples of conservatives denying reality or science. Please provide some. For my part, I think liberals deny reality when they view human beings as blank slates, on which society and culture can write anything it wants. Conservatives recognize that human beings are programmed by their biology to a large extent, and that society and culture have to respect that biological programming, and in some ways accommodate it, or else make a hash of things.

To give a clear-cut example, conservatives do not expect that women and men are the same in all respects. Or that any differences are entirely, or even materially, due to the "patriarchal structure" of society. Rather the patriarchal society evolved from our biological tendencies.

I actually know somebody who knows two extremely progressive parents who tried to reverse gender roles for their boy and girl in order to "cancel out" the normative bias of society. They gave the boy dolls to play with and the girl toy cars and trucks. For some reason the dolls ended up torn apart in demolition derbies, and the cars and trucks ended up talking to each other and having tea. Go figure. And yet, the progressive myths persist.

Hilited: That's a parody, right? I know a guy who knows some guys???? What a shameless argument; one which bears no relationship to what actual progressive parents do (which is to see to it that male and female children are exposed to BOTH stereotypical sorts of toys or make sure that they are exposed to neither). This smacks of Rush Limbaugh's friend of a friend who knows two gay parents who are trying to steer their children to being gay.

 

[sunmaster14]

Sorry- I have to run off in a second or two, so I will provide only one example that leaps off the top of my head: denial of evolution. Or are those who deny it not True Conservatives?

We can talk another time about good old conservative values rooted in thousands of years of human experience and tradition that liberals, in their weird way, sought to overturn, such as... slavery.

Excuse me, but those weren't liberals in the modern political sense of the word. Those people were, what we call today, conservatives. In any case, slavery has existed for as long as humans have been on this Earth, and still does today, just like murder and theft and rape and genocide. Having just as long a history is the belief that such things are wrong, as well as the tradition that freedom from bondage was a goal that all slaves shared. As you well know, the Jewish holiday of Passover celebrates this yearning for and attainment of freedom dating back to the 2nd millenium BCE. Everybody, even the enslaver, knew that slavery was not something that the slave would accept willingly, and that the slave always had the capacity to rebel and turn the tables on the enslaver. There are poignant lessons throughout history. Slaves in Rome constituted 40% of the population around the 1st century BCE, and the dynamics created by that slave population, helped lead to the demise of the Roman Republic and to the rise of the age of emperors.

Anyway, even with the dangers and disadvantages of keeping a population of human beings in bondage, it was only until relatively recently that the economic cost-benefit calculation underpinning slavery moved into the red for most of the world. Economic growth is what facilitated the dramatic decline in slavery as an institution. Similarly, economic growth has facilitated the decline in murder and rape and theft.

And the fact that although I do see a biological origin for certain aspects of human behavior, I also see that a lot of what has been considered biologically based was actually rooted in empty stereotyping (a means of men sequestering power and influence in society) or has become totally irrelevant in modern society (e.g. we don't need big, strong, stupid men to hunt saber-toothed tigers anymore).

Yes, our civilization and culture has advanced much more rapidly than our biological evolution. Yet, our biology, evolved in the crucible of the natural world for tens of thousands of years, is still with us. Being big and strong and aggressive (although not stupid) does not give one as large an advantage as it used to, but it still does have consequences for society that certain groups of people are big and strong and others are not.

As women have gradually thrown off centuries of oppressive societal limitations (spurred on by liberals against conservative traditionalists) these women have shown that they, if anything, fulfill the previously barred roles in society better then men do. Look at how successful women have been in veterinary medicine for example: once allowed to practice this profession, women have proven to be very, very good at it, to the point that many vet schools now have switched their affirmative action programs so as to attract men to better gender balance their classes.

Well, this is a strawman argument. Of course women can do more than have babies and raise them. That doesn't mean, however, that the fact that women earn 78 cents on the dollar compared to men is evidence that women are discriminated against in the workplace. Prominent liberals believe it does. And yet, the claim is utter *********.

 

[sunmaster14]

Oh, I forgot to address the strawman of evolution denial.

Conservatives do not deny evolution. I doubt you can name one prominent conservative intellectual who denies evolution. Do you think Bill Buckley did? Or Charles Krauthammer does? Or Bill Kristol? Or even Ted Cruz or Rush Limbaugh, who would appear to be towards the extreme end of conservatism? No, they do not. What they mostly agree on, however, is that religious people who, for reasons of pride and faith I imagine, don't want to have the teaching of evolution rammed down their throats, should not have it rammed down their throats by the government. The issue is not denial of science, but rather freedom to believe something stupid.

In any case, there is not one practical consequence of the fact that the religious nutjob wing of conservatism doesn't believe in human evolution. It is purely an issue of belief, and yet, even then, liberals can't bear to tolerate such beliefs have to quash and disparage them whereever they turn up.

Interestingly, in my opinion, it is liberals who are the ones who deny human evolution in a meaningful sense. Almost every liberal I know will insist that human evolution stopped tens of thousands of years ago and that the genetic differences between various human populations are immaterial. This belief is almost certainly wrong, and policy constructed on those beliefs (e.g. the use of disparate impact to determine if institutional biases exist) has negative consequences for society.

 

[jimbob]

Sunmaster14, are you claiming that the religious right is not Conservative?

No true Scotsman and all that

 

[jimbob]

Oh, I forgot to address the strawman of evolution denial.

Conservatives do not deny evolution. I doubt you can name one prominent conservative intellectual who denies evolution. Do you think Bill Buckley did? Or Charles Krauthammer does? Or Bill Kristol? Or even Ted Cruz or Rush Limbaugh, who would appear to be towards the extreme end of conservatism? No, they do not. What they mostly agree on, however, is that religious people who, for reasons of pride and faith I imagine, don't want to have the teaching of evolution rammed down their throats, should not have it rammed down their throats by the government. The issue is not denial of science, but rather freedom to believe something stupid.

In any case, there is not one practical consequence of the fact that the religious nutjob wing of conservatism doesn't believe in human evolution. It is purely an issue of belief, and yet, even then, liberals can't bear to tolerate such beliefs have to quash and disparage them whereever they turn up.

Interestingly, in my opinion, it is liberals who are the ones who deny human evolution in a meaningful sense. Almost every liberal I know will insist that human evolution stopped tens of thousands of years ago and that the genetic differences between various human populations are immaterial. This belief is almost certainly wrong, and policy constructed on those beliefs (e.g. the use of disparate impact to determine if institutional biases exist) has negative consequences for society.

There are several examples of more recent human evolution, for example related to metabolism of lactose in people whose ancestors were pastoralists.

There are also mutations that are related to disease-resistance.

I don't think there is much evidence of differential evolutionary pressure on intelligence though. Humans have been competing and cooperating with their peers in all regions where they lived, and I can't see why any particular traditional lifestyle should require significantly less social aptitude than any other.

Variation between groups is far less than the variation within groups. Also 90% of human genetic diversity occurs within the continent of Africa, so any variation would be most likely to be largest within those whose ancestors were in Africa after the end of the last ice age.

 

[Shalamar]

Oh, I forgot to address the strawman of evolution denial.

Conservatives do not deny evolution. I doubt you can name one prominent conservative intellectual who denies evolution. Do you think Bill Buckley did? Or Charles Krauthammer does? Or Bill Kristol? Or even Ted Cruz or Rush Limbaugh, who would appear to be towards the extreme end of conservatism? No, they do not. What they mostly agree on, however, is that religious people who, for reasons of pride and faith I imagine, don't want to have the teaching of evolution rammed down their throats, should not have it rammed down their throats by the government. The issue is not denial of science, but rather freedom to believe something stupid.

In any case, there is not one practical consequence of the fact that the religious nutjob wing of conservatism doesn't believe in human evolution. It is purely an issue of belief, and yet, even then, liberals can't bear to tolerate such beliefs have to quash and disparage them whereever they turn up.

Interestingly, in my opinion, it is liberals who are the ones who deny human evolution in a meaningful sense. Almost every liberal I know will insist that human evolution stopped tens of thousands of years ago and that the genetic differences between various human populations are immaterial. This belief is almost certainly wrong, and policy constructed on those beliefs (e.g. the use of disparate impact to determine if institutional biases exist) has negative consequences for society.

A 'No true Scotsman' with regards to the denial of the science of evolution, combined with a strawman ad hom of 'It's really the liberals who deny evolution!' Amusing.

Especially when you consider the Texas attempts to rewrite or deny evolution in textbooks. Not real conservatives?

 

[jimbob]

At the moment in the US and UK, a lot on the right (the Tea Party and UKIP, for example but there plenty of others) want simplistic analyses and simple solutions.

In most difficult questions, simplistic analyses are not going to be right.

Reality is biased against that.

You hear the stereotype of the "wishy-washy" liberal - that can be a disadvantage where any decision is better than none, but equally, there are many situations where nuance is important.

Left-wing headbangers tend to not be liberal - they are often quite absolutist.

 

[sunmaster14]

Sunmaster14, are you claiming that the religious right is not Conservative?

The religious right has nothing philosophically or intellectually to do with conservativism. They are political allies of conservatives because there are areas where their goals overlap.

No true Scotsman and all that

The refuge of somebody out of arguments is alluding to logical fallacy buzz words which don't apply. I challenged you (or anyone) to give me an example of a conservative intellectual who doesn't believe in evolution. If you can't do that, then you should concede that evolution is not something that conservatives deny.