Social Conservatism
I'm trying to formulate a coherent understanding of what this position entails and would like some feedback. I haven't read many of the 'classics' on this topic, but instead have arrived at my opinions based upon experience and intuition. I probably hold a very idiosyncratic blend of progressive and conservative positions that I feel are, or can be, complementary rather than contradictory. To me, being a social conservative is bound up with an overall way of thinking and being that can be expressed in particular beliefs and positions. Some basic guidelines would include:
The idea that the good of the community takes precedence over individual freedom. The opposite of libertarianism I guess. Or, more properly perhaps, the belief that genuine individuality thrives best when undertaken in collaboration with others for the sake of larger social goals that benefit everyone. In other words, there's a symbiotic relationship between ourselves and our community and the failure to understand this - or to deviate too far to one extreme or the other - has had a disastrous impact upon both.
The idea that life - especially human life - is sacred, for lack of a more sophisticated way of expressing this view. My personal views have tended towards anti-abortion in recent years, for example, despite the fact that I'm not an overtly 'religious' person. War, and the use of violence generally, should also be undertaken only as a last resort. A further consequence of this position, for me at least, is a very progressive (almost socialist) economic agenda that would tax the shit out of the extremely wealthy and redistribute it to the less fortunate while also investing in schools, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. It's a sincere attempt to implement the notion that people are ends in themselves and should be treated accordingly, unless of course they forfeit that dignity through egregious displays of anti-social behavior like excessive greed or violence.
The idea that schooling is of vital importance in shaping the opinions of the young, and should be understood as much more than mere preparation for a career inspired by money making. It should also involve some humanistic aspects with an emphasis on inculcating certain character traits that, once again, benefit both the community and the individual. To shun consumerism and be civic-minded is a good thing which can alleviate the alienation inherent in a capitalist system. Again this does not IMO necessarily mean that a particular religious worldview must dictate and dominate others. I would also include an appreciation for the classics of the Western tradition here, in conjunction with a thoughtful and respectful engagement with other non-Western cultures, as long as this respect was reciprocated. I'm not sure that ISIS deserves any respect.
The view that we are stewards of the planet rather than masters who can recklessly appropriate it in order to satisfy our desires. Things will be seen as more than mere resources to be exploited at will. This world can be disclosed in myriad ways and the current narratives are becoming a threat to the psychological health of individuals, not to mention physical health and well-being. Seeking out a deep connection with our natural surroundings in all of its power and beauty is another important element in the process of overcoming our estrangement and malaise.
The individual is sacred. The community is sacred. The environment is sacred. Life has become cheap and meaningless. Basically what I've intuited in my brand of 'conservatism' is a fusion between the 'spiritual' and the material. Traditional (at least Western) religions seem to separate these aspects into distinct realities, whereas the more secularly-inclined seem to reject the notion of a spiritual aspect to life altogether. Obviously many of these views can be found in some form or another amongst the Romantics who reacted against what they felt were the excesses of Enlightenment rationalism. I think they were correct on many points, but I also appreciate much that came out of the Enlightenment (e.g. emphasis on social justice, the elimination of hierarchies based upon inherited title or wealth, challenge to narrow and dogmatic and hypocritical religiosity).
Anyhow these are the broad outlines that I understand to underlie my social conservatism. This view is clearly not exclusive to any particular race or ethnicity and could cut across party lines. It is not at all nationalistic either. In fact, I think a rejection of politics in favor of a grassroots movement spearheaded by artists and intellectuals is the more viable option over the next, say, 30-40 years if we can make it that long. Once people start to freely reject the idea that their personal worth should be assessed by their bank account, or that a life well-lived is one spent in a dreary job that allows them to buy stuff they don't need, etc. things may begin falling into place. The collective realization that our time on this planet would be better spent working 25-30 hours a week doing something challenging and enjoyable - I see the two as related - as long as it can cover our (now modest) expenses. The realization that entering a committed relationship and having children is much more rewarding than buying that extra house or car or taking that extra vacation. These and other sorts of things could slowly percolate through society and ultimately lead to some sort of 'spiritual' revolution which would, in turn, give rise to political and economic changes. I take the bottom up rather than top down approach.
Craziness? Hopeless romanticism? Conservative? Progressive? Both? Neither? I feel that many people know some of the things outlined above to be true - although I'm sure there are many who also disagree, especially here - but we've grown so cynical about life and this collective insanity has been normalized to such an incredible extent that no other possibilities seem realistic. To change the world we first need to understand and perceive it differently (pace Marx). This, I would contend, is precisely where a genuine social conservatism can gather strength and lead to a new dispensation of history. The details are murky, but I do believe that's the general mindset that will precipitate real change if it does eventually come.
The idea that the good of the community takes precedence over individual freedom. The opposite of libertarianism I guess. Or, more properly perhaps, the belief that genuine individuality thrives best when undertaken in collaboration with others for the sake of larger social goals that benefit everyone. In other words, there's a symbiotic relationship between ourselves and our community and the failure to understand this - or to deviate too far to one extreme or the other - has had a disastrous impact upon both.
The idea that life - especially human life - is sacred, for lack of a more sophisticated way of expressing this view. My personal views have tended towards anti-abortion in recent years, for example, despite the fact that I'm not an overtly 'religious' person. War, and the use of violence generally, should also be undertaken only as a last resort. A further consequence of this position, for me at least, is a very progressive (almost socialist) economic agenda that would tax the shit out of the extremely wealthy and redistribute it to the less fortunate while also investing in schools, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. It's a sincere attempt to implement the notion that people are ends in themselves and should be treated accordingly, unless of course they forfeit that dignity through egregious displays of anti-social behavior like excessive greed or violence.
The idea that schooling is of vital importance in shaping the opinions of the young, and should be understood as much more than mere preparation for a career inspired by money making. It should also involve some humanistic aspects with an emphasis on inculcating certain character traits that, once again, benefit both the community and the individual. To shun consumerism and be civic-minded is a good thing which can alleviate the alienation inherent in a capitalist system. Again this does not IMO necessarily mean that a particular religious worldview must dictate and dominate others. I would also include an appreciation for the classics of the Western tradition here, in conjunction with a thoughtful and respectful engagement with other non-Western cultures, as long as this respect was reciprocated. I'm not sure that ISIS deserves any respect.
The view that we are stewards of the planet rather than masters who can recklessly appropriate it in order to satisfy our desires. Things will be seen as more than mere resources to be exploited at will. This world can be disclosed in myriad ways and the current narratives are becoming a threat to the psychological health of individuals, not to mention physical health and well-being. Seeking out a deep connection with our natural surroundings in all of its power and beauty is another important element in the process of overcoming our estrangement and malaise.
The individual is sacred. The community is sacred. The environment is sacred. Life has become cheap and meaningless. Basically what I've intuited in my brand of 'conservatism' is a fusion between the 'spiritual' and the material. Traditional (at least Western) religions seem to separate these aspects into distinct realities, whereas the more secularly-inclined seem to reject the notion of a spiritual aspect to life altogether. Obviously many of these views can be found in some form or another amongst the Romantics who reacted against what they felt were the excesses of Enlightenment rationalism. I think they were correct on many points, but I also appreciate much that came out of the Enlightenment (e.g. emphasis on social justice, the elimination of hierarchies based upon inherited title or wealth, challenge to narrow and dogmatic and hypocritical religiosity).
Anyhow these are the broad outlines that I understand to underlie my social conservatism. This view is clearly not exclusive to any particular race or ethnicity and could cut across party lines. It is not at all nationalistic either. In fact, I think a rejection of politics in favor of a grassroots movement spearheaded by artists and intellectuals is the more viable option over the next, say, 30-40 years if we can make it that long. Once people start to freely reject the idea that their personal worth should be assessed by their bank account, or that a life well-lived is one spent in a dreary job that allows them to buy stuff they don't need, etc. things may begin falling into place. The collective realization that our time on this planet would be better spent working 25-30 hours a week doing something challenging and enjoyable - I see the two as related - as long as it can cover our (now modest) expenses. The realization that entering a committed relationship and having children is much more rewarding than buying that extra house or car or taking that extra vacation. These and other sorts of things could slowly percolate through society and ultimately lead to some sort of 'spiritual' revolution which would, in turn, give rise to political and economic changes. I take the bottom up rather than top down approach.
Craziness? Hopeless romanticism? Conservative? Progressive? Both? Neither? I feel that many people know some of the things outlined above to be true - although I'm sure there are many who also disagree, especially here - but we've grown so cynical about life and this collective insanity has been normalized to such an incredible extent that no other possibilities seem realistic. To change the world we first need to understand and perceive it differently (pace Marx). This, I would contend, is precisely where a genuine social conservatism can gather strength and lead to a new dispensation of history. The details are murky, but I do believe that's the general mindset that will precipitate real change if it does eventually come.
Comments (162)
I don't think a self-labelled conservative in this or any other era has any business talking about a "new dispensation of history." You are a liberal.
Imagine a bunch of hunter-gatherers who over time have learned (sometimes the hard way) all sorts of things about what berries and mushrooms are edible, the best way to make leather, and so forth.
The people in the group who are most devoted to preserving those skills and passing them on to the next generation are the conservatives in the group. The guy over there trying to put up a tent in a way nobody's ever done it before.. he's a liberal. He thinks "changing the world" is important.
So though you may hold some views in common with conservatives, that alone doesn't make you a conservative. The beliefs that make up liberal vs conservative morph and change. There can be 180 degree shifts in a single lifetime. There can be periods of moderateness where it's hard to tell the difference between liberals and conservatives by their beliefs. Look at general demeanor. Conservatives tend to be somewhat afraid of change. They clearly see the risks in doing things differently.
Liberals come to the foreground of human life when the old ways aren't working. We have to try something new even if it's risky. That's obviously you.
Chickens are are so dumb a Missouri judge legally declared them walking vegetables, and their memory centric systems logic is the default way for them to organize and is the same way our own neurons organize. In fact, a chicken's behavior is not significantly different from any one of their individual neurons precisely because they are relying so heavily upon their memories. By pecking at one another they ensure that those with the better memories become the higher ranking chickens by default again because, obviously, those who can't remember who to peck and who to avoid learn to avoid pecking anyone or suffer the consequences.
Anyway, conservatives adopting the same default systems logic reflects the fact they are a largely rural population continually struggling to fend off the encroachment of civilization. Already the family farm is all but history in places like the US and the rise of terrorism among both Christians and Muslims can be attributed to their simply defending their lifestyle using whatever low tech approaches actually work. The IRA in Ireland, for example, defended the largely working class poor and won serious concessions before abandoning their fight.
Perhaps you have elevated to sacredness a bit too much. Privileging the good of the community over the individual conflicts with the sacredness of the individual. If the individual, human life, the community, and the environment are all sacred, how does one prioritize? If we are stewards and not masters of the earth, then perhaps humanity is not quite sacred. (Besides which, earth has other stewards, like Nature, whose final decision on human beings hasn't been revealed.) If we are stewards of the earth, we are doing a bad job of it.
I agree with Mongrel that your platform makes you much more of a liberal than it does a conservative, at least in the common parlance of the day. And I agree 100% with your education plank and the essential importance of the individual plank. Does that make me a conservative?
Would you be willing to remove human beings from their pedestal of sacred preeminence to one species among many others, who also have a claim on existence? Would you be willing to say that the good of the human community has to be compatible with the good of other plant and animal communities? (We can't live as a human community without a healthy community of varied species.) Would you be willing to demote human beings from "steward of the environment" to a "a stupid species that is screwing up the environment"?
Individual vs. Community is a difficult problem, since we can't really exist as individuals without the community, yet communities often destroy individuals.
The deduction of Conservative positions toward societal issues based on traditional laws, customs and fundamental concepts that all ready exist.
I think that the distinction between Conservative and Liberal, as it is spatially described, "Left & Right" falls short of encapsulating either position, especially when we are talking about an individual who can have several separate positions that might be categorized as belonging to either side. I like Disraeli's distinction.
Give me a break. If that's what counts as a liberal, then I too am a liberal, and the biggest kind of liberal possible. Look at this. If I want to conserve that white post in front of my house is it sufficient to keep it as it is? No - because if I keep it as it is, it will turn black over time. If I want to conserve it, I have to do something to it - I have to change it. And I'm (well really, G.K. Chesterton, whose example I plagiarised, even though he affirmed he was a liberal) not the only one who dispelled with this strawman before. The father of conservatism, Edmund Burke said it much better:
"A state without the means of some change, is without the means of its own conservation"
Quoting Mongrel
This is again false - especially with regards to social conservatism.
Quoting Mongrel
This isn't true for all conservatives. For reason-skeptical conservatives like Burke yes. For reason-friendly conservatives like myself, certainly not. There is a difference between the two forms of conservatism, which is quite well explained here - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ - esp. Burkean vs Rational conservatism.
Quoting Mongrel
If the old ways aren't working, it may be possible, that just like the post in front of my house, they have become black due to the passage of time, and so need to be re-painted once again. So again, it's not necessarily true that this makes one a liberal.
Quoting Bitter Crank
So BC, does the fact that I want to change society make me a conservative or a liberal? :P
Quoting Bitter Crank
This is again assuming some liberal biases. Now, there is no such thing as absolute sacredness of the individual. This is always bounded by the community. For example, an individual whose passion is discovering new ways to break into people's homes and stealing from them - or whose passion is discovering new ways to murder people - such an individuality isn't to be prized or respected, and liberals agree. But now when we get to something like adultery - liberals suddenly are like "Oh but we have to respect their individual choices!". Conservatives have a wider sense of what is included in morality and civic life - something that liberals lack. For liberals, it's all about let everyone do as they wish provided they don't harm others - of course we will exclude such harms as committing adultery, etc. These aren't really harms, because everyone is a free individual and should be allowed to make their own choices - that's how the argument goes. So conservatives go a step forward and value community bonds over individual selfish desires. It is important for people to become individuals - but becoming an expert thief or an adulterer - that's not becoming an individual from a conservative point of view, because becoming an individual involves fulfilling certain objective criteria which are demanded by the process of individuation. These criteria are very general - so they allow for example one to find their individuality in painting, and another in leadership, and another in building houses. But - they demand fulfilment of those general standards by everyone for them to be individuals.
Trick question?
Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Day
I rarely use the term "straw man" but your depiction of liberals calls for the term.
First, serious liberals have a wide sense of what is included in morality and civic life. Liberals and conservativesI may not agree on the positions taken--but that is another matter. [In the many posts on adultery we have made, I can't remember anybody saying "Adultery is a good thing, and everybody ought to do it as often as possible." The differences in opinion concerned how much scorn and manure should be heaped on the heads of adulterers. Preferring less scorn and manure might be more typical of the liberal, and it is just as morally sensitive and civic minded as some conservatives' desire to see them severely punished.]
Serious liberals would expect citizens to participate in civic life perhaps more than conservatives. Liberals' morality covers the same territory as conservatives: Liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels are as little liked by liberals as conservatives. Liberals are not against free enterprise, capitalism, wealth, and so on -- they share these values with conservatives. Far-Left-Beyond-Liberals like me dream about workers losing their chains and gaining a world--not liberals, and of course not conservatives.
There are extremists who liberals and conservatives can not accept. People who view the federal government as their enemy are far afield of both liberal and conservative thinking as they can get. How large the government should be is a bone of contention; the government as evil enemy isn't.
Indeed, one of the frustrations of radicals like me is viewing the squabbling in congress and seeing no substantive grounds for differences. Control of the House, Senate, and White House is worth the parties time to fight over, but ideologically there is little difference in the parties who represent "liberal" and "conservative" positions.
It's probably the case that party leaders are scarcely concerned with ideology: they are all about power apart from ideology. I don't think either serious conservatives or serious liberals think that is a good thing. Party members, party nominated representatives, and the parties themselves should hold and pursue a fairly clear ideology. Then the electorate can decide whether they want a disestablishmentarian in office, or whether they want vigorous social benefit programs.
The election of 1964, where the Republicans had to sort out Rockefeller (relatively socially liberal) from Goldwater (very socially conservative) Republicans, and Democrats had a social benefit planner, was an exceptionally clear election. 2008 was a clear election too -- an idealistic black candidate vs. an old white experienced politician and war hero (who was heavily burdened with a laughably nitwit running mate).
I don't even know what social conservatism is, myself, let alone who might be social conservative thinkers. If there is such a thing as social conservatism, is there such a thing as social liberalism?
A check of the internet indicates somebody, at least, thinks the man called Confucius in the West was one; also Cato the Elder. Not the other Cato, Caesar's enemy, but the Cato who wrote a treatise on agriculture--Cato the Censor, who condemned Scipio Africanus, who defeated Hannibal, for having fancy-schmancy Greek philosopher friends. He was, I think, the chairman of the Senate's Committee on Un-Roman Activities.
Of course there is such a thing as social liberalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism).
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Yes these folks certainly did have social conservative elements in their philosophies, as did, I might add, MOST of the Ancients.
I don't think the terms have much relevance beyond political cheerleading. As terms I don't think they say much at all. Policies and values are where substance lies, not whether one is called "liberal" or "conservative." The whole notion of: "X is the most liberal" or "X is the most conservative" is politics by ignorance. It tries to do it by speaking a label which people can trust rather than talking about polices and values.
Missing the point, Agustino. The point is doing politics through the "liberal" or "conservative" label is lazy. It's trying to use a (frequently inaccurate) shorthand to specify who ought to be trusted by name, rather than on the basis of policy and values.
If we bother to check values and policy (as we should), there is no general framework. We know the candidates, we know the values, we know the policies in each case. The "general" is not needed becasue we know who we are talking about and what they stand for.
How is it missing the point? I'm saying social conservatives should be trusted. This means that these values - namely policies which are generally anti-abortion, pro-family, pro-monogamous, long-term marriage, etc. should be trusted.
Laws that would significantly simplify divorce procedures would likely appeal to liberals more than conservatives, but both might see benefits applying to people across the board. Perhaps increasing the per-child deduction on the 1040 tax form would appeal to conservatives more than liberals, but again -- both groups could see advantages.
It wasn't back in the Pleistocene epoch when conservatives and liberals were able to find common ground to govern effectively. The problem became serious during Bush II and has gotten worse over the following 16 years.
Because if you are talking about policy, then it's those you trust. The "conservative" label does nothing to make a point. It's just an excuse to be lazy in thinking about society. Instead of talking about what matters, you will just say "trust the conservatives." Politics is turned into a contest about names rather than an understanding of policy and value.
You mentioned Edmund Burke, who I would also say makes the grade. It's interesting that you see him as espousing a form of conservatism with which you do not agree, as I find many of Burke's suggestions acceptable and I'm more like what people call a progressive or liberal.
I can't think of any modern-day conservatives that are of similar intellectual distinction to these. But maybe you can suggest some.
There's a moderate Muslim public intellectual in Australia named Waleed Aly, who describes himself as a conservative. Most people would peg him as a liberal but Aly says that that's because the term conservative has been hijacked by extremists. He says he's the real conservative and they (the shock jocks and flag wavers) are not.
In the present day, Roger Scruton.
What's the "etc."? An opposition to same sex marriage? An opposition to the theory of evolution (as given here)? Promoting Christian values? Promoting the Second Amendment? Limiting welfare?
How much of this is needed to count as a social conservative? I wonder, if two people each support a different half of these things, would they both count as socially conservative even though they disagree on everything?
That's the problem with labels.
Roger Scruton is definitely one of the foremost conservative philosophers today, but his (British) conservatism is a fairly different animal to its American cousin, of which he sometimes takes issue with.
For example, he criticises the symbiosis of big business with government because it undermines the sovereignty and allegiance of democratically elected officials - though he admits regrettably that our own conservative party have sold their souls too. He also believes one cannot be a conservative without being so on environmental matters; the planet is a resource like any other which we must preserve and enhance for the benefit of future generations. He thinks this point is entirely lost on American conservatives, due to their pro-business leanings and rejection of climate change.
This isn't exactly true. Social conservative values in Europe (especially Western Europe) are quite a rarity in politics. Sure, you may see issues such as anti-abortion laws (like in Poland recently), but the attitudes and beliefs of those running Christian Democrat parties (for example, look at Merkel's CDU in Germany) are quite liberal and progressive. They pretend to uphold social conservative values, but hypocritically so. Europe is by far more progressive than the US - that's why when folks on this forum say when they are on the political spectrum they go like "far left in US", "left in EU". Progressive biases have infiltrated the European intellect to the point that the Christian Democrats have become just "Christian" Democrats.
In Eastern Europe for example, you can very easily find people hating gays. Everyone does that. Just a prejudice really, they don't have any reason for it. This "oh the Church says so", that's just an excuse. People just do it for fun. Most of the common people have those attitudes. But when it comes to abortion - all those common people are for it. When it comes to cheating - they don't really care - even less than people in the US care (and if they care, they are most often women). In the US if a President cheats, it's a big deal. In the EU nobody cares - just look at Berlusconi. He even did rude gestures to women in public. In the EU people who cheat or commit adultery face very few consequences, if any (especially if they are men - and lately also women in Western Europe). Quite the contrary, you'll often find yourself admired and respected for it.
So no - by far Europe has less social conservative resources than the US. Issues such as abortion, adultery, etc. aren't even on the table in Europe.
Well yes but this has to do with economic policies - certainly not social conservatism - and Roger Scruton was named by jamalrob as a "social conservative" thinker. As I've said quite often, it is very possible for there to be left-leaning social conservatives. G.K. Chesterton was one - so was Russell Kirk. So is Scruton.
You're right, we were talking specifically about social conservatism. But I'm not sure Scruton is a left-leaning social conservative. He opposes gay marriage, is pro fox hunting (which is a non-issue everywhere else, but since something like 90% oppose it in the UK, you are so far to the right on the scale if you support it) and believes the church should be the central institution for social cohesion and derived meaning in life. By today's standards these are not at all left leaning.
Left and right has, at least in my mind, to do only with economic positions. That's how I tend to use it, as it simplifies things and makes them easier to understand. So you're on the left if you are a socialist when it comes to economy. And you're on the right if you're a capitalist when it comes to economy. Other non-economic issues - such as fox hunting, gay marriage, church involvement - these are SOCIAL issues. Hence on the social scale one is either a liberal or a conservative. So we have right-left for economics, and liberal-conservative for social issues. That's why I said Scruton is a left-leaning conservative - as are the other folks I've mentioned.
What? I thought we weren't talking about economics? I understand the distinction between social and economic issues, but you claimed Scruton was a left leaning social conservative. I said he's not because xyz. Now you're saying he's a left-wing conservative, as if that was where the disagreement was in the first place. He's not a left-wing conservative in any sense either, unless you want to make the case.
Thing is with the labelling, as TheWillowOfDarkness has said, is they are so nebulous and undefined that they really are meaningless concepts if you want to have a meaningful discussion about such things. They make things easier to talk about, as you say, but that is the problem. There are so many variations to each concept that to simplify them into two camps is useless. Even now we're arguing about spectrum's and what left/right even means because they mean different things to different people in different parts of the world. You even said what these things mean 'to you'. Unless you want to get into specific beliefs and policies, it's not going to be a very fruitful conversation.
If you want to talk about a particular thinkers conservatism or liberalism (even that word doesn't have much meaning in the UK) then you need to talk about them at least within the context of their own country. Scruton is as right as they come in the UK. Compared to radically right US conservatives, he's closer to the centre. Similarly, the left in Europe is further so than the left in the US. This is why labels don't carry much meaning - even when speaking about the labels locally. There is no way of knowing where they lie on the global spectrum.
Edit: left/right means so much more than simply economics to everyone though. There's no reason to have this conversation within the confines of how you prefer to think of these terms and what they mean to you. There is leftism and rightism in more than just the economy, but as I said, that says practically nothing about what that means. It's specifics or nothing, I'm afraid.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Yes we aren't. However you said that Scruton isn't left-leaning because of his positions on gay marriage, fox hunting, and church involvement - and that he is right-leaning. I drew attention to the fact that I wasn't using left-leaning or left-wing in this sense. I clarified that I am using left to refer to economic positions. So Scruton's economic positions are more to the left - more for market intervention, controls over big business, protecting the environment, and so forth. Then I addressed the fact that he takes those positions that he does on fox hunting, gay marriage and church involvement makes him a social conservative, as these are social issues that have nothing to do with economics (and thus have nothing to do with left vs right).
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Yes I agree, which is why I think the way we're using the terms should be clarified. So I hope now that I have managed to clarify the way I have used these terms.
This is why labels don't work. Conservatism can mean a lot more than what you believe it to mean. For example, in the UK we talk about privatisation of the NHS and other state-run industries, fox hunting, university fees, grammar schools, faith schools, immigration, and on and on. No one cares about the topics of life long monogamous marriage, abortion, or being pro-family.
I said he is not a left-leaning social conservative. Specifically social. I still don't understand, though, why you are brining economics into it intentionally (I did it accidentally and have stood corrected), when this thread is specifically about social conservatism? I know you only use those labels for economics, but you surely understand that none of us are doing so for the purposes of this thread?
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
No, not specifically social. That simply means that you haven't understood the way I used left. He is left leaning = he has a left-wing position on economy - can mean anything from free healthcare, free education, anti big business, pro-environmental protection when it comes to businesses, etc. You now look at Scruton and see what left-leaning elements from that list he has. Next he is also a social conservative. Go to the social conservative list, and see what positions he has from there regarding issues such as immigration, church, marriage, abortion, etc. This follows because both categories - attitudes on social issues and attitudes on economic issues are required to state what kind of thinker someone is.
So in "left-leaning social conservative" the left-leaning doesn't refer to the social conservative part. It has nothing to do with it. It only refers to his economic positions. That's how I've been using the words. That's why I said it's possible to be a left-leaning social conservative. Social conservative is merely a description of his social policies - and thus has nothing to do with his economic policies. Left-leaning is a description of his economic policies - and has nothing to do with his social policies. Do you understand what I mean now?
Elements, perhaps, but I question whether it's possible to categorize the ancients as either conservative or liberal, those being modern conceptions. If we judge the words by their etymology, of course, they aren't necessarily inconsistent or even opposed. "Liberal" of course is derived from the Latin liber (roughly,"free") as is "liberty", and "libertarian." "Conservative" from the Latin conservare(roughly, "to preserve").
I rather doubt Scipio Africanus can be considered a liberal in the modern sense, nor do I think Marcus Porcius Cato the Elder condemned him because Scipio was a liberal. He condemned him because he wasn't acting like a Roman should, according to Cato.
In the past, you wrote you thought Cicero to be a conservative, if I recall correctly. But Cicero is what Romans considered a "new man"; literally an outsider, born outside of Rome in Arpinum. He wasn't of the Roman elite. He came to be consul largely through his wits and was at times in conflict with "traditional Romans." Caesar was of the elite, however, being of the ancient noble family of the Julii, but was seeing hard times (Sulla was also of an ancient Roman family but impoverished as well when he set out on his career). Cicero, politically, was above all a pragmatist. He feared Caesar's desire to rule Rome as Dictator for life or some equivalent, and backed the optimates in their opposition, which led to civil war. He was a champion of the Republic. But he tried to avoid civil war through compromise, and probably would have preserved the Republic--for a time at least--if only such as Cato the Younger, Cato the Elder's grandson, had not blocked efforts to do so in the Senate.
:-}
Sure, but Cicero was a firm defender of Rome's traditions, including of its form of government. He was also firmly grounded (even though many think of him as a Skeptic) in Stoicism for all practical purposes, and always remained guided by Stoic principles, where virtue remained of prime importance. Cicero may have been pragmatic in his politics, but he was guided by perennial principles. This fact makes him similar to what is understood by a conservative. He sought to conserve what ought to have been conserved - however he did fail in the end. He didn't manage to salvage the Republic - which he may have been able to do had he been more unprincipled. Obviously Cicero wasn't a conservative in the sense of thinking that everything about Rome was perfect and had to be kept the same for eternity - or that all the Roman traditions were good. In fact, probably no one was such a "conservative". But clearly Cicero wasn't a revolutionary - he didn't want to overthrow the Republic, and replace currently existing values by an entirely different standard. He wanted to maintain and improve what already existed. He valued, by and large, traditions. There have been some accusations of him having sex with his daughter I was reading - but it seems this is all coming from his political enemies, so not very believable. The Stoics were quite principled with regards to sexual morality - Musonius Rufus is especially close to being a social conservative in such terms.
Yes, he always seemed fond of the Stoics, though I've also seen the claim that he accepted Academic Skepticism. At the least, he certainly preferred the Stoic view to the Epicurean, also popular at the time. I hadn't heard the claim about him and his daughter. I know he was very fond of her and was devastated by her death, but don't think he would have countenanced incest. The Romans were as nasty as we can be when it comes to defamation.
Cato the Younger professed to be a Stoic, but I doubt someone so angry and condemning of others and so ostentatious in his conduct and pretensions to virtue could properly be called a Stoic.
It goes without saying, I suppose, that I admire Cicero greatly, and agree with much of what you say about him. He was a great lawyer, a master politician, and essential in bringing philosophy to Rome; he's a major source of our knowledge of ancient works of philosophy otherwise lost. A principled man, for certain. He even declined Caesar's invitation to join him, Pompey and Crassus in ruling the Roman world. I wonder sometimes what would have happened if he accepted.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
I don't think he was as skilled a politician as Caesar. Caesar was definitely another level when it came to getting things done in politics (even when comparing him with Pompey or especially the rich Crassus). Quite certainly one of the most brilliant of men at that. He obviously had the advantage of having no principles though. Because of his principles Cicero was ultimately outmaneuvered, by those who were more ruthless.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Probably you're right.
That's my main problem with him. Other than this aberration, I think Scruton is an eminently sensible thinker. And a wonderful writer.
Fox hunting, and hunting in general, needn't be something conservatives ought to feel obliged to support, and in my opinion, they are fools to do so.
Relevant to the thread and now one of my favorite essays: http://people.virginia.edu/~smd5r/Kolak01.htm
I agree, I've read many of his books and still have a few more on my shelf for times to come. He really is a brilliant philosopher and writer. I really like his ideas on architectural aesthetics and art (though I don't have much of an interest in art myself). His conservative philosophy is one I could really get behind if only our corresponding politicians governed with honesty and integrity according to the philosophy. Instead they're just toxic and corrupt.
When it comes to the issue of fox hunting though, I really find some of his arguments to be too watery. For example, it's a "way of living with foxes", the "its traditional" argument, or the "social participation" one. They're just crap for something that has less to do with philosophy than hard facts (but I suppose I can't begrudge a philosopher for being philosophical). The ethical argument, I think, just cannot be won by his side. To me, the intentional cruelty cannot be justified as preferable to simply letting nature do what it does (unless foxes face natural extinction, but unlikely). The only kind of argument that matters to me is the empirical argument, concerning whether or not it is the best means of population control, preservation of the species, or ecological balance. And even there I think we can come up with more humane ways of doing all of these. From the little I've looked into it, as I'll admit that I'd more or less made up my mind before looking that far into the topic, there are conflicting data as far as the empirical argument goes. So I (lazily, I know) side with my original prejudice, for better or worse.
But even if he was, you'd still have supported him, so long as it meant social conservatism won the day. Right?
Excuse me? This is about Cicero - he is long dead. What do you mean would I still have supported him? You can't really support dead people. And what does it have to do with social conservatism winning the day? :s
The tense I used was a clue that I was speaking counterfactually: if, was, would have, supported, meant, won...
You yourself used counterfactual tense in one of your rhetorical questions, but then you switched to present-tense in your nonsequitur answer. That he is dead and that you can't support dead people are both irrelevant.
What does it have to do with social conservatism winning the day? It has to do with morality, and your willingness to disregard your own moral principles for the sake of social conservatism winning the day. Your rhetoric on virtue ethics and the importance of sexual morality is undermined by your consequentialism.
Exactly, although I think the latest revelations about Trump molesting women and sexualizing children may be enough to make even @Agustino rediscover his moral principles. They won't be for many, of course, such as the Texas Senator who said he would consider sticking by Trump even if he said he liked raping women.
IN regards to this thread, generally, in US terms, I have progressive economic policies but am socially conservative. Uneasy mixture in today's world.
I read Scruton's "Modern Philosophy" (Penguin) and found it very irritating the way he inserted his conservative and anti-continental bias into the book. If you're going to write an introductory book to philosophy, you ought at least be fair-minded about it. On the positive side, he gives a good exposition of Kant in "German Philosophers" (OUP).
Despite his support for fox hunting?! Or aside from it?
I dislike the idea of placing meaningful emphasis on race altogether, and am neither proud nor ashamed of being white. I'm completely indifferent to the biological aspect of race in fact and am much more interested in the role of culture and ideas in shaping peoples' identities. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this sentiment. The strange thing about identity politics centered around race is that, in the attempt to invert previous hierarchies, its advocates push many of us into identifying with a group that we previously felt little or no emotional attachment to. It seems to purposely foment racial antagonisms by entrenching people in identities which they have no control over. This of course plays right into the hands of plutocrats who keep the masses at each others' throats, thus distracting them from focusing on the real oppressor.
Apologies for the digression. Lots of interesting points being made here, and it's baffling that there's not a single candidate that I can recall in my lifetime (in the US) who's combined social conservatism with a more leftist economics. I mentioned what I feel is an obvious point to Agustino in a previous thread, to wit, that a society in which virtue and civic-mindedness thrives - over greed and an exaggerated individual autonomy - would seem to take quite naturally to a more just and humane economic system. So there's a natural interconnection between currently perceived foes there. Good people make good citizens. They treat others with respect and dignity and, by doing so, foster good will. By neglecting the moral and ethical side of personal (and collective) development, liberals make their attempt to bring forth the just and equitable society they so desire all the more difficult. I understand the potential pitfalls and dangers of this approach - especially when undertaken by the state - which is why I mentioned previously that social conservatism should work outside the current political system through art and other means of spreading a new set of cultural values.
Granted this scenario sounds extremely unlikely at present, absurd in fact, but as an incipient movement I think it harbors tremendous potential to draw an interesting variety of people together in a coherent narrative. These people would be united, again at the very least, in a longing to transcend both the economic greed of the Right and the racial divisiveness of the Left. Instead of hating the wealthy we could pity them, specifically their sad fixation on the excessive accumulation of money and possessions. This narrow focus comes at the expense of the emotional satisfaction which can result from the development of deep connections with other human beings (and of course the natural world).
The envy and resentment we currently feel towards the rich may ultimately (hopefully) wither away, and we could then voluntarily scale back our needs with an accompanying feeling of pleasure rather than pain. By doing so, we would gain a sense of freedom and empowerment in our refusal to engage in the rat race. This hypothetical shift in values - call it socially conservative or liberal or progressive or whatever you like - would usher in a new sort of world. It would be one with new cultural exemplars who, in turn, would be emulated and admired in the same way that the wealthy are now. Perhaps it's not so much wealth that's important but the social recognition that arises from an abundance of it in our society. Other things could just as easily be recognized in some future era, just as they have been in the past (e.g. education, wisdom, honor). To my understanding, the successful businessperson hasn't always been at the apex of the social hierarchy, and need not be in the future.
I'm most definitely not against business, or even some sort of discrepancy in earnings based upon talent, effort and achievement, as long as the endeavor is subordinated to the 'higher' values of the community. That's clearly not the case now with 'profits above people' and with literally everything (education, healthcare, etc.) being judged according to its usefulness - or lack thereof - to the economy. If the profit-motive can be checked by higher human impulses, then I don't see these motives being necessarily incompatible. Wide variations in wealth do, however, appear detrimental to long-term social cohesion and stability. It's basically a matter of integrating certain cultural values into every aspect of our collective social, political and economic life.
Just brainstorming here. I'm sure some will argue that there's an element within 'human nature' - characterized by greed and acquisitiveness - which renders all of this totally laughable and unrealistic. My only (feeble) response would be: this hypothetical social transition is something that's been mirrored in my own life over the past 15-20 years, and I'm much more content now as a result. I'm sure others have had contrary experiences, but I do believe that many of us struggle to find emotional and/or 'spiritual' fulfillment within this current political and economic paradigm. Perhaps a new social reality - again, grounded in a new (or old?) set of values and interpretations - which did appeal to this side of our being, could have widespread appeal.
Thanks again to all who've contributed.
Out of curiosity, have you read The Meaning of Conservatism? I thought that one was quite beautifully written. I thought his other stuff was really clear and well argued, too, even though I don't accept all of it.
I've been meaning to read something by TE, what would you recommend?
He's always reminded me of a modern day left's GK Chesterton. A peevish and pretentious literary hit man who is way too transparent in his attempts to sound witty and clever. That sort of thing should be experimented with on forums like this, not in one's professional writing.
No, actually I'm quite annoyed by sexually immoral people from the past, and I tend to go so far as even lower the attention I pay to their thinking. Why do you think I don't like reading Heidegger? But what annoys me isn't only so much their behaviour - it's rather that they uphold that such behaviour is acceptable and should be permissible.
I know full well that you find that sort of behaviour objectionable. But your annoyance doesn't mean as much when it's undermined by your actions (or your stated course of action, be it intended or hypothetical). The severity of which you would have us judge it ought to be contrasted with your willingness to vote for people known to have behaved in that way.
There are a number of other acts which, if committed by a candidate running for office, would mean that they'd lose my vote. And not all of them as severe as, say, murder. So, given that for you, this isn't one of them, then either this particular sort of behaviour isn't as bad as all of those sorts of behaviour which would lose my vote - meaning that it's quite a way further down the list in terms of severity and is not as severe as you often make it out to be - or your moral standards are much lower than mine.
Not necessarily Sapientia. Again, I wouldn't encourage to vote for him if on the other side we didn't have a very dangerous progressive candidate - and if she wins, the culture of the US will be altered for quite a long time, in a direction that's not going to be good at all. So it's a necessary sacrifice, to prevent a greater evil.
Okay. But that still means that you'd be willing to sacrifice your moral principles regarding sexual morality by voting for someone you know has not only been accused of behaving in this way, but has actually been caught red handed describing himself behaving in this way, and downplays it as "locker room talk".
What effect do you believe that Hilary Clinton becoming president will bring about which is worse than someone such as Donald Trump becoming president, given what we know about the latter with regards to sexual morality, and given your stance on the importance of sexual morality, and virtue in general?
First because this is about sexual morality - Bill Clinton. That in itself, getting such a man in the White House again, that is a bigger crime than anything Trump has ever done with regards to sexuality. Bill Clinton has raped multiple women - as Trump said, he even had to pay one in a lawsuite.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jan/13/clinton.usa1
Secondly - Clinton just is progressivism + war against Russia. Nothing could be worse. Supreme Court will be finished. We'll have even more identity politics. It will be a disaster.
That is slander, as per the legal definition, as well as speculation. He has not been convicted of rape. Under the settlement, Clinton didn't admit any wrongdoing or apologize and simply agreed to make a cash settlement to Mrs. Jones. Although I do agree that that, as well as the other allegations, and the Lewinsky scandal, are cause for concern. But then, so are similar allegations against Trump, including his alleged rape of a 13 year-old girl - of which there is a lawsuit and upcoming hearing. So, you are guilty of double standards. And Bill Clinton isn't even running for president, unlike Trump.
Quoting Agustino
Your war against Russia comment is ludicrous. So, setting that aside, what is it specifically about Clinton's progressivism and identity politics that you think is worse than Trump's sexual immorality? And, if it is something other than sexual morality, can you please clarify and confirm its importance in comparison to sexual morality? Because, from past comments of yours, you've given me the impression that sexual morality is exceptionally important - almost as if it were the be-all and end-all - but since the topic of Trump has come up, you have been making exceptions.
Oh common give me a break... if he hadn't actually raped her, why did he pay her, what in today's money, would equal to more than 1 million dollars? Do you just throw away 1 million for nothing?Who did Trump pay in order to settle a rape accusation? (and by the way, most of the accusations against him are recent). Bill Clinton may not be running, but he's certainly going to the White House if Hillary wins.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes, it is sexual morality, amongst many other things. Trump himself probably is sexually immoral, but he will not promote this same attitude for everyone else - through for example the appointment of conservative justices to the Supreme Court. Trump will not promote identity politics. Trump will take a tough stance on ISIS. Trump will take a tough stance on illegal immigration. Trump will take a tough stance on abortion. And so forth. These things are very important. If we vote for Crooked, then they're gone - for everyone else. If we vote for Trump, they may be gone for him personally, but certainly not for the rest of us.
So, Bill Clinton needs a roof over his head -- the white house is as good a roof as any.
Quoting Agustino
Calm down. Cultures are changing all the time. The course of history is being changed by the minute. Hillary can neither usher in Utopia or usher it out. (This applies to a Trump presidency too.)
Perhaps a Clinton + Clinton administration will change things, and whether this is good or not depends on who you are. A more liberal court, and one that stays liberal for a while, is the worst outcome that Clinton could produce. Unless there is a plague among the conservative justices sitting there now, there isn't anything dramatic she can do. Same for Trump.
What is it that a more liberal court could do that would affect YOU materially?
I said it was cause for concern, didn't I? I haven't denied the allegation, but that is all it ever was. It hasn't been proven in a court of law. That is a fact. The fact remains that Bill Clinton has never been convicted of rape. Why did [i]she[/I] agree to the settlement? One could speculate on that, too. Perhaps her case wasn't as strong as one might assume.
Quoting Agustino
He already has! He dismissed it as locker room talk!
And letting ISIS thrive. And continuing illegal immigration. And continuing the focus on identity politics. And continuing political correctness. And so forth. Tragic.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Simple: create a culture which is more permissible towards sexual immorality - that is harmful for all of us, not just for me.
But I have formed the view that the Western cultural tradition doesn't stand up without the spiritual dimension that had been provided by Christianity (which is by no means to say that the institution of Christianity is an unalloyed good); and I think his Culture and the Death of God is an insightful commentary on that issue. But it's a dense and a difficult read.
One of my relatives really likes Scruton, I might see if he has the Meaning of Conservatism, thank you for the recommendation.
Oh common... what would you have done my dear? If the guy offered you 1 million bucks would you not have agreed to settle, even if he had raped you? You have to think from the perspective of that woman. Probably not very talented, not very smart, not having a bright future ahead. She could never reasonably hope to make that kinda money, and she had already been raped. Nothing she could do - it had already happened. Might as well take that dough. Think about what her family would advise her - they'd probably be like "You crazy?? 850K? Take it, what else are you hoping for!" If she had refused to settle, worst would have happened (for Clinton) was him getting to jail, and a much lesser compensation - plus the risk for her of losing the case, given his political influence.
Quoting Sapientia
No he hasn't. He actually said it's wrong and he regrets saying it. He has also said he has never behaved like that. He furthermore pointed out that folks in today's culture talk about things like that all the time - almost shamelessly. Which again is something that the hypocritical media says nothing about.
What would I have done? If I answer that question, will it make any of this anything other than speculation? No.
And, if Trump settles in the lawsuit I referenced, or any other such lawsuit, then you will apply the same standard of judgement, yes? Or will you just find another way around it?
Quoting Agustino
Pah! There's that double standard again. Oh common...
He downplayed its significance by dismissing it as locker room talk, and he is obviously going to try to wriggle out of it, but come on... he was showing his true colours. He's a pig.
Yes, I will then consider him the equal of Bill Clinton. I'd still choose him over Bill if I had to pick between who is going to the White House, because at least Trump is sorrounded by a social conservative network, and will do more good for the country than Bill et al.
Quoting Sapientia
I'm not seeing it. Bill hasn't said he regrets raping. Furthermore, there is quite a lot more evidence with regards to Bill than with regards to Trump on the subject of rape.
Where do you live and and what nationality are you? I'm curious.
The double standard is that you take an unproven allegation as truth when it comes to Bill, but with Trump, when it comes straight from the horses mouth, you lap up his denials and apologetics.
B-but he [i]said[/I] that he has never behaved like that... Oh common...
Quoting Agustino
Well, durr. Of course not. It's an unproven allegation which he has always denied.
Just curious as to where your perspective has come from. I sometimes can't tell if you're playing the devil's advocate or are just wildly self-deceived about certain topics like morality and politics.
>:O But the fact that he has paid 850K to settle a rape accusation makes him 98% guilty in my mind already. For all practical purposes that is all the proof that I require. That's why I said I'd put Trump on the same footing if he had settled a rape case for such money. (the laughing face is regarding your "oh common" imitation btw :P )
This is very vague. What do you really mean?
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Like this. You sound like an armchair judge who's never been outside to see the light of day. Perhaps you just don't understand how rape is perceived and understood in the US, I don't know.
So you're telling me that if you were Bill Clinton, you'd settle a rape accusation for 850K USD, knowing very well that the woman is just playing you and you have never done anything wrong, nor raped her?
Yep. Welcome to America, UK immigrant O:)
Well, he certainly wouldn't do it if it was as obvious as you seem to think it is that doing it means he is definitely guilty.
No one but Bill Clinton can know what was in his mind. But you would presume, no doubt...
:-}
Same reason Trump settled all of his cases. It's all about image. Even for a "normal" person such as myself, were someone to accuse me of something I never did, I'd go to great lengths to make sure he/she would stop hollering, because even if I know I'm innocent, along with the court, there will forever be stigma there from the onset of the accusation.
Rape is a tricky crime because, by and large, most cases turn up very little evidence for or against what did or did not happen. Because of this, our justice system has a hard time convicting people. However, and in most cases concerning powerful people, there has arisen legion upon legion of gold digging whores in this country that know that fact, and will gamble on putting someone in the middle where they can't get out, knowing that they're innocent. They just want the money. That's the bottom line.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
And if you pay them money, the stigma will disappear?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Exactly - so do you give in and give them the money? Do you give in, essentially to a terrorist's demands? If you do, then you're only adding fuel to the fire - you're encouraging this sort of activity. Other whores will look and will see - "oh look, she got one million bucks! Let me go to Bill and bump my ass on him a little, maybe I get it too!"
I agree with Heister's analysis. But people may respond very differently to such stressful situations, so it's best to avoid jumping to conclusions based on generalizing your own feelings about it.
People differ on how they want to tackle the problem of being wrongly accused. Some don't pay but then risk having the case go to court and being convicted incorrectly (which happens a lot). Or, they do pay, which is merely an attempt at throwing the whole thing under the rug. Many of the more high profile settlements include restrictions on what may be said in future, thus in part ensuring a certain degree of finality to the ordeal. So, for Bill Clinton, it makes a lot of sense to pay around $1 million dollars over, perhaps, dozens of millions in some lengthy court case when he already knows he's innocent, but still has to go through the sifting of zero evidence - just to make sure.
Again, for important and famous people, these sort of allegations are commonplace because our justice system allows for it. Sometimes it's a good thing, usually it's not, though.
So to be consistent you must either claim that both Trump and Clinton have shown themselves guilty of rape or claim that settlements are not an indication of actual wrongdoing.
The latter would stink of backtracking. Both undermine much of your "Trump is morally better than Clinton" argument.
I'm not a Clinton fan. However, as far as I'm aware, he's never been charged with rape. One doesn't pay to "settle" a criminal prosecution, unless a fine or forfeiture is the applicable penalty. Perhaps someone could be paid not to bring criminal charges or testify as a witness, which can create other problems. Payment may be made to settle a civil claim for damages, and that's what's being referred to here, I think.
In the wonderful world of the practice of law here in God's favorite country, civil actions are routinely settled; no liability for the claim made is determined or admitted in that case. Various factors are involved in deciding whether settlement is appropriate, but the truth of the allegations made is not necessarily a significant factor in the decision in most cases. Factors which are significant in most cases are the costs which would have to be expended in defending against the claim (e.g. attorney's fees); the length of time which will be needed to defend against the claims (what time you'll spend with lawyers, in court, preparing for discovery, preparing for trial, all of which reduces your ability to do other things like be with your family, do your job, run your business); the character of the presiding judge and his record in similar cases; the manner in which the allegations made may influence a jury; the ever-present possibility that a litigant will lose regardless of the evidence submitted; the likely results of an adverse decision; adverse publicity in some cases....in other words, factors which are significant regardless of whether the allegations made are true or false but because litigation is a nasty, expensive, time-consuming process the results of which are never certain.
For similar reasons many accused plea bargain; they get charged with manslaughter instead of murder, and the state saves quite a bit of money on a potentially very expensive trial. Prosecutors are less likely to plea bargain in cases of egregious murder, (like serial murders, especially gruesome first degree murders--trials that the public is willing to pay for).
Example: 27 odd years ago, 11 year old Jacob Wetterling disappeared -- presumably kidnapped -- from his home in St. Joseph, Minnesota. There was a long, intense, and massive search for evidence. There were clues, but nothing certain. This fall, a man confessed, led the police to where the body was buried, and the identity was confirmed. Case closed. There was no trial. The perpetrator, Danny Heinrich 53, was already in federal custody for child pornography charges. Why was the kidnapping and murder charge plea bargained down to lesser charges?
a. The Wetterling family did not want to endure a trial.
b. If Heinrich had been accused, there might not have been sufficient evidence to convict without his cooperation.
c. The bargaining closed the case (good for the family and the community) and was unnecessary: Heinrich will remain in prison for the rest of his life.
People sometimes plead guilty to lesser charges even if they are not guilty because they want to avoid a trial and they want to get out of police custody. If the penalty is small (like for shoplifting) the fine may be viewed as the least worst outcome.
@Agustino
Oh yeah. I should've googled it. He must be very guilty, then, because if you settle, you're guilty. Apparently.
So, I looked it up, and I found the Jill Harth lawsuit. The lawsuit says Trump attempted to rape Harth. Harth dropped her lawsuit after Trump settled another lawsuit (alleging breach of contract) related to the American Dream Festival.
So, Trump raped her.
Oh, and the lawsuit was in 1997, to contradict Agustino's false claim that all of the allegations against Trump are recent.
Although, this one is:
So, in this case, we'll have to wait and see whether they settle to determine whether Trump raped her.
I knew it would be more complicated than @Agustino would have us believe. At least when it's about Bill Clinton. When it's about Donald Trump, despite what he has said, I doubt he'll be so quick to jump to the conclusion of guilt. Or he'll just find some other line of defence.
In any case, he has already said he'd pick Donald over Bill, regardless - even though it's a choice between Donald and Hilary for president.
I never made that argument.
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Michael
It's his wife. She probably just wanted more dough than she could get by a simple divorce proceeding.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Yes I don't dispute this. But rich and powerful people, who easily have access to many lawyers, can outsource those worries, especially when they themselves are lawyers and have the necessary connections as Clinton was. Clinton didn't settle the case because he wanted to, or because he was scared, or because he was intimidated. He probably settled because a group of lawyers advised him to settle. It wasn't as John would have us believe such a stressful situation that that was the only way he could handle. Clinton isn't an idiot. I probably wouldn't have thought he was guilty had he settled for 100 grand, 200 grand, but close to a million is too much given the nature of the accusation. Furthermore, his well-known sexual promiscuity makes it more likely he would have attempted rape than otherwise. Not to mention that such a case would encourage all future women he has sex with to bring similar charges against him - it would set a precedent, because he would pay.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes if it's possible they do. However, it depends on the circumstance. If your possible losses go up to 400 grand (fees, compensations, etc), and you settle for 5 million - then something is amiss.
Quoting Sapientia
Depends. If you settle a rape accusation with a stranger for 1 million, yes very likely you are guilty. If Trump were to settle Trump University cases for 1 million - it could be both ways (leaning on the guilty side however). Because those court cases have potential damages that could be greater than a million considering all the plaintiffs.
Quoting Sapientia
Yeah - she dropped the lawsuit, there we go. Trump never settled it.
Seriously? Can you not see the hypocrisy here? You will come up with any rationalisation to defend Trump against his rape accusations and any rationalisation to "prove" Bill's rape accusations.
He settled the case with her husband. It's a reasonable inference to assume that part of that settlement agreement was that she drop her case against him. Again with the rationalisations.
It would be far more honest if you stop with all the character attacks and moralizing and just admit that all you care about is having a Republican rather than a Democrat in power. You've admitted to it before, which makes all of this irrelevant anyway.
No, it's not reasonable at all - they were two different cases - one regarding business dealings and another regarding rape accusations. It's also quite likely that they - the husband/wife - launched both cases just to get some money out of Donald - the business one quite possibly being a fair one - hence the settlement - and the rape one just out of vengeance, and to put more pressure on Trump.
Quoting Michael
I did say already that I would support Trump even assuming he is on equal moral footing with Clinton. Why? Because he has a different support network, a social conservative one, which will guide the country much better than Clinton's progressive network. In fact, if Clinton was associating herself with people like Mike Pence - would have run from the Republican side in other words - and Trump from the Democrats, I would have supported Clinton. It's very simple. As I said hundreds of times before, I don't like either of them. But Trump being elected in this case is superior to Clinton - not necessarily because he is Trump, but because of the people he is associated with, and whom he depends on.
Quoting Agustino
Who are these people, by name, exactly?
So it's more reasonable to conclude that the wife's decision to drop her rape accusation after Trump settled with her husband was a mere coincidence? I think not. That they're different cases doesn't matter at all.
How do you determine the likeliness of this? And why don't you say the same about the accusations against Clinton?
When Trump's accused of something it's because the accusers want money. When Bill's accused of something it's because he's guilty. It's all just rationalisations and hypocrisy.
Then all your talk about Bill being accused of rape (and Hillary supporting him) is a red herring.
Because it's more likely given the circumstance. It's not just "oh he has a rape case against him" - you have to understand the circumstance, and what it suggests.
Quoting Michael
No, because that matters too. It's a cumulative set of issues that add up.
And these are the people who are going to make Trump an effective president?
It's not at all clear to me that having a high concentration of social conservatives is both a necessary and sufficient condition for an effective administration. If this was the case, then literally any Republican candidate would do. Not only that, literally any group of regular Joe's off the street would be able to govern the country as long as they were socially conservative. What is it about having a socially conservative support network that makes for an effective administration?
Edit: And also, would you want to therefore claim that the democrats can never be effective in their administration simply because they lack a support network that is socially conservative?
Furthermore, how does being anti-gay marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro life-long monogamy, etc, have anything whatsoever to do with economic expertise, health care, foreign policy, counter-terrorism, immigration, diplomacy, trade, and god knows what else you need to be well informed on?
Sure, it's not sufficient as a condition. There needs to be a lot more there, and I'm not saying Trump's will be a great Presidency. As I've said before, progressivism as per Obama and Clinton is a cancer. Trump is merely the chemotherapy - not a good thing definitely, but better than the alternative - also a way to prepare the stage for social conservative candidates themselves.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
It's to do with the current situation that the Western world and the US finds itself in.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Not never - democrats weren't always like this. It's the New Left, from the 1960s onwards that has corrupted the Democratic Party. So again, you have to look at it as a historical situation. You are trying to take my pronouncements and apply them generally and forever - that's the wrong approach. What I said is valid only for this time period, and for the people in question.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
It's not any help, but as I said, it's not a sufficient condition being socially conservative, but it is necessary.
You made me use the term "effective administration" because you used it. So stick to it. You might not be saying Trump's will be a great presidency, as you said earlier, but you are most certainly saying his administration will be effective (whatever that difference amounts to), because of the support network he surrounds himself with. So far you've said you'd vote for Trump because of who he surrounds himself with, and that will make his administration effective. You say it's not a sufficient condition, but it is a necessary condition. Let's remember that. I'll leave aside the parts about Obama and Clinton, because I want to know why you support Trump, not why you don't support the progressives.
You concede that there needs to "be a lot more there" for effective administration. Would this be, by any chance, an expertise on economics, health care, foreign policy, counter-terrorism, immigration, diplomacy, trade, etc? If not, can you elaborate on what exactly this does involve, and can you show some evidence of Trump (and his socially conservative support network) actually having it?
Quoting Agustino
You believe that being anti-gay marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro life-long monogamy, etc, in the US, is a necessary condition for improving the current situation that the Western world finds itself in? How exactly?
And the situation the US finds itself in? The economic situation? The terrorism situation? The gun control situation? Immigration, trade, employment, wages, food stamps, poverty, home ownership, health care, energy situation and on, and on? How is it at all relevant to any of these? Can you explain the cause and effect behind that?
Quoting Agustino
Ok, let's talk about now, the last 8 years. Factcheck.org breaks down Obama's (and his non-socially conservative support network's) successes and failures. Given that there is actual fact-based evidence of Obama's successes, doesn't this prove that having a socially conservative support network is not in any way a necessary condition for effective government? One would expect to find Obama's administration a complete and utter failure (given cancerously progressive they all are), if it were a necessary condition. It's empirically not. How do you explain this?
Quoting Agustino
So, let me understand this. It's not a sufficient condition, but a necessary one. But at the same time is "not any help" with respect to unrelated areas of government? Does it have anything to do with (hint) unrelated areas of government, or does it not? And if being anti-gay marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro life-long monogamy, etc is a necessary condition for success in other areas of government, how do you explain Obama's success in some of these areas despite being a cancerous progressive?
So far, Agustino, I can't honestly fathom how on earth you could support Trump.
Yes it would be. Trump is still better than Crooked on economics, health care, counter-terrorism and immigration. Probably much worse on diplomacy and trade though.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Because our current society is greatly troubled by high divorce rates, high adultery and cheating rates, high out of wedlock birth rates, especially for the African American population in the US, and perpetual poverty and crime which emerges from such social instability. The fact that our children have close to a 1 in 2 chance of their parents divorcing - that alone is a big big problem (and by the way this isn't solved by giving benefits to single moms and all that crap. You have to go to the root of the problem. Otherwise you're merely covering the problem up instead of addressing it). Add on top of this the fact that we've come to live in a very promiscuous society, which no longer values ways of life which are necessary for social stability - to avoid conflicts and harm between people - and we have one of the most important problems facing modern Western society. Up there with radical terrorism (another one which the media never speaks about properly) and global warming.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
The economic situation of the US isn't good at all. Life is becoming more expensive in the large cities, there is more and more competition, people are becoming more and more isolated. Terrorism is rampant - just this year there were quite a few attacks, including the Orlando attack, and the more recent attacks. More importantly, the US is struggling to beat a band of nomads in the deserts of Syria for over 3 years - inadmissible. How long does it take to exterminate ISIS? ISIS are nobodies compared to the resources the US has available. Within 1 year, they should have been exterminated. Furthermore, the Middle East has been left in chaos because of Obama (whom Trump was right about - he actually is the founder of ISIS) by the way he has withdrawn from Iraq. The US shouldn't have left Iraq without maintaining a sizeable force there to ensure peace. The gun control situation is a problem - and Trump will probably not address that very well, I admit that. Immigration is also a very big problem - because it is tied with other problems - such as drugs, poverty, and crime - all of which create social imbalances, which manifest also through the lack of social conservatism noticed. Obamacare is a disaster in terms of healthcare, probably half of the population, if not more according to many sources find that it has done more harm than good. Trump will likely be somewhat negative on trade and green energy.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
I don't know who the hell this factcheck.org is supposed to be or what hidden interests may be behind it. Obama's successes - that's a mirage. What's the success? Obamacare? ISIS? Supreme Court imposing the legality of gay marriage on all states? Really?? That's the "success" of Obama? Pff.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
And this is exactly what we find the Obama administration to be. More black people are in poverty today. Many black communities are still riddled with crime, and no better than before. More black children are born out of wedlock in circumstances that are almost guaranteed to keep them in life-long poverty than ever before. He hasn't even done any good for black people - it's just been a way to shove it to them, be like "yeah there you go, you have a black president now". It means nothing. Black folks aren't living any better today than before. And yet "oh what are Obama's failures?". Are you kidding me? Obama himself is a failure - pure and simple.
Does it not occur to you that Trump couldn't possibly be an expert (though I'm sure he'd call himself the best expert) on a single one of these issues because he has absolutely no political experience or relevant education?
Quoting Agustino
So you're telling me you believe that a Donald Trump presidency is going to somehow reduce the divorce, adultery and cheating rates, and out of wedlock birth rates, all, presumably, without prohibitive legislation? And that he's going to re-establish your preferred moral code into the heart of society again? Again, how?
Divorce rates are not as high as people believe: the truth about divorce rates is surprisingly optimistic, this is the original source for that link, as you can see, the rate of divorce is falling, some incorrectly believe the 50% number, and here's one more source.
It's very clear to everyone that you have moral issues with how individuals in free society choose to conduct themselves in their own private lives, but I fail to see how simply having a republican (especially a life-long democrat kind of republican) president is going to magically reverse whatever slide into decay you perceive to be happening, especially years after their term. There are 320 million people in America right now, who will live on for decades and decades, and you think Donald Trump is going to exert a significant enough influence over the choices they make over the course of their entire lives after a minuscule four years in office?
The fact is there is no reason to believe that anyone has this kind of sway, even a republican president, when you accept the fact (and I bet therein lies the crux) that divorce rates have been falling year after year under republican and democratic presidents alike. There is no causal link there. You seem to think, divorce is bad, republicans are against divorce, therefore I'll support a republican. I can't see any deeper reasoning behind it.
And the fact that you actually believe Trump is a republican (or any of the things he says) tells me you've bought wholesale into his con. He's already been divorced twice, married three times, and committed adultery. And bragged about using his power to get away with sexually assaulting women. And you think he's the solution to societies ills? Jesus Christ, he is the very best example of the exact problem you claim to hate.
Quoting Agustino
Yeh, those research experts. Who the hell do they think they are? With their Ph.D's, Pulitzer prizes for journalism, fancy letters after their names, and awards for impartial journalistic integrity. You've spun a wheel of abstract a priori's, what do they know?
If I can't get you to agree that Obama's terms have not been a complete and utter failure (think for a minute how much worse America would look if that were the case, considering how you think Donald Trump can have so much influence) in spite of the empirical evidence, I don't have much hope of you attempting to address substance of the argument that disproves your claim that a socially conservative support network is a necessary condition for administrative success. If that were the case, it would be logically impossible for a successful democratic presidency. Think about that. Really think about what you're saying and compare it to reality. It would be as impossible as drawing a square circle.
It sounds like you're parroting all the standard memes of the republican party, even down to the Obama ones. And what's even more bizarre is that you've come to the US political scene from the outside, you didn't even grow up in it.
I don't like being so dismissive, but you don't seem to realise how utterly insane the idea of a President Trump looks from the outside.
1 and 3? Yes. Not sure what you mean when you reference ISIS.
And you think Crooked is an expert right? Trump knows and understand business, he can think from a businessman's perspective while in office, which will be helpful at least in economics. Also he has a knack for getting things done, which will be helpful in the case of both illegal immigration and terrorism. He has the right attitude. Also, the job of President isn't about doing things yourself. It's about getting others to do things and making sure that they do do them.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
In-so-far as progressivism is a root cause of the moral decay of society, and Trump is against progressivism, he will help. I do not claim he will reduce them - perhaps not. But he will ensure that the progressives stop with their advances, which will prepare the groundwork for a future social conservative candidate to come and finish the job.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
>:O Your propaganda efforts are hilarious. Okay let's have some fun. First - less people are getting married than before. Second - people are getting married late, if ever, compared to before. This means that while the population increases, the number of marriages will obviously increase but at a slower rate - hence if you calculate the statistics you linked me to, you will find that the marriage rate is decreasing, as is the divorce rate. This is only natural when you have a population which grows at a faster rate than people get married. It has absolutely NOTHING with whether less married people divorce today, than they did 50 years ago. The statistic of 50% that people know is the correct one. Of all marriages 50% end in divorce. This isn't the bullshit that oh in 15 years 80% were still together - as in one of the links you have provided. That's not the question. The question is over a lifetime are they still together? The other statistic - about marriages compared by the time when they got married - the lie of course is that if you adjust the 2000s generation to 25-30 years of married life (even though they haven't lived it yet, but we can predict by extrapolating the trend) you will find out that they will divorce more than any one else before.
Now there is another problem. That people are marrying late. What does this mean? It means that promiscuity is becoming common place in our society, which isn't good at all. It's a disaster. And it's something we have to do something about. What we have to do - I don't know, I'm not sure. But it's clear to me that we can't keep going like we have. You're just irrationally refusing to see that this is a problem, and deluding yourself with statistics that it doesn't seem you understand very well. I have studied the trends (at least in Europe, not in US) very well - the conclusions are beyond doubt. More marriages end in divorce today than ever before. People are getting married later than ever before. Less people are getting married than before. People's sexual morality is disappearing. Promiscuity is on the rise - especially in the young. These are just the facts. Look around at your world. Just go out into the street. Look what people are doing. It's a fact - it can't get any clearer. Today is the first time in history where we serve promiscuity as a business - it's called a nightclub. There we go something that can be done - outlaw nightclubs >:O
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
As I said - he will ready the ground for reversing that by dealing with the progressives. Someone else will need to come afterwards to reverse that slide.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
The way you frame this is ridiculous. This is obviously meant to suggest "what is your business in being concerned how others conduct themselves in their private lives in a free society? You have no place here". There is no freedom to be immoral and hurt other people. For no one.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Divorce RATE - I don't care about the rate. The rate is calculated with reference to the population. Of course that is decreasing, for the reason I have described before. I'm interested in the percentage of marriages that end in divorce. The divorce/marriage ratio is a clearer indicator of that.
http://www.divorce.usu.edu/files/uploads/lesson3.pdf
Now it is you who is refusing to see the facts on this issue. You deceive yourself that there is no problem. Remember that.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
As I said, if progressivism is cancer, then Trump is chemotherapy.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
A PhD doesn't make you smart.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
I never said complete and utter failure. But they were a failure, yes.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
No it wouldn't - because as I have said to you before, Democrats weren't always like this. Only after the New Left came into power, after the 1960s, did Democrats become so anti social conservatism, and so rooted in the promotion of promiscuity.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Yes because I don't listen to the corrupt progressive media (who are the majority of all media), nor do I get involved in viewing corrupt Hollywood (also a majority progressives) and neither do I like the academia (90% progressives in some social science universities). These three entities have the largest concentrations of progressives out of any.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
If by "outside" you mean the brainwashing media - then sure.
Yes - then you see why I don't support Crooked. She will just continue Obama.
Well, that's a shame. My estimation of your judgement has just plummeted. It's not even a matter of politics - I disagree vehemently with some of the Democrat's social policies. But it is a case of a competent public official, vs a venal, self-serving narcissist sorrounded by a bunch of opportunist and unprincipled cronies.
Furthermore by any objective measure, Obama's management of the economy has been outstanding. He inherited a shambles from W, and has actually managed to restore a great deal of the wreckage, like saving the US car industry, which the conservatives gladly would have sacrificed on the altar of dry economics. Obama is the most credible figure on the international stage in my book, notwithstanding 8 years of hysterical propaganda by the right.
Hillary Clinton is competent? Really? So she was competent in the way she handled the emails? She was competent in the way she handled Benghazi? She was competent in the way she handled the Iran deal? The only time when she was competent was when she used her foundation as a pay for play scheme - yeah, she actually was competent in that.
This describes Hillary quite nicely, though.
Imagine how much better the world wold have been today if Gore had won. We will never know of course but I'm certain there would have been no invasion of Iraq. If Trump were to win it literally could mean the end of Western civilization.
Benghazi?? Jesus Christ, you have really drunk the Fox News Kool Aid. Bush and his cronies started a war on false pretenses which has cost the country dearly in blood and treasure, and he gets a free pass from conservatives. A few people die in Libya while Clinton is SoS and it's her fault, to be endlessly investigated. Congress held more hearings on Benghazi than perhaps any other issue in recent memory and found no wrongdoing on Clinton's part. So, please stop the right-wing bullshit.
To mods: is there a way to block posters, as there was in PF? I'd prefer to have to never read another of Agustino's posts ever again, if I can help it.
Yes: for all of the endless carping about how awful Hillary is (even from some of the people who support her), it's telling that her enemies must constantly invent scandals out of thin air. If she's so terrible, don't her actual malfeasances suffice to discredit her? Clinton is possibly the most-scrutinized politician in history. Face it, right-wingers: there's just no "there" there. Just admit that you suffer from CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome), and seek treatment (step 1: Fox News detox).
The short answer is: Not yet. If we can get one, we'll make an announcement.
My views on Hillary Clinton have nothing to do with why you support Trump. [Edit: This is how tribal and black and white your thinking is, as I say at the end of this post. You think that because I'm anti-Trump I therefore must be pro-Hillary, completely incorrect] I point out that Trump isn't an expert on anything he is required to be, and your response is "but Hillary isn't either!".
I know you know Trump isn't an expert on anything because you don't even attempt to defend that he is. Does it really not bother you that you're supporting a person who has absolutely no experience, knowledge or qualification in any of the subjects required to govern? You just respond with, "he understands business and he gets things done." Do you honestly think that's a good reason?
Quoting Agustino
This is a start. Tell me, in real terms, with actual cause and effect, what he will do with his business expertise to fix the economy. I've been asking this whole time for details. Now's your chance.
Quoting Agustino
Astounding. You're supporting him because he has a "knack". Trump does things. What things? This and that. He gets things done. He's a doer, not a talker like that Obama who obviously spent 8 years sitting on is arse smoking a joint on the White House porch. Trump "has a knack", so he should be president of the most powerful country in the world.
Quoting Agustino
What attitude? The one he put on a hat? Details.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, Agustino. Because before Trump all the White House staff and civil servants just sat around doing nothing, ignoring their seniors, letting the country fall apart. Probably sat on the porch smoking that joint. Thanks, Obama.
I'm not going to continue the conversation about divorce rates. Firstly because it's a fundamental given in your world view so it's obviously not going to change, secondly because it's a side issue to your support for Trump. I want to know why you'd support him. Unless of course you want to back up your statistics with some evidence, then I'll at least consider your position.
Quoting Agustino
Can you define progressivism please? You know how I hate sloppy labelling. Then can you also cite actual evidence (by that I mean a link to an expert analysis) detailing the link between progressivism and this moral decay you speak of. Then I want statements from Trump saying exactly how he is going to reverse this decay. I don't want your own handwavey speculation of a philosophic type, on either point.
Your mistake is to actually believe Trump is against anything just because he says so. We, on the outside of the bubble, can all see Trump for what he really is. This is what I find so completely bonkers.
Quoting Agustino
I presume by "dealing with the progressives" you mean to say he'll lock them all up and tell their parents about all the pre-marital sex they're having. This is so vague a response, Agustino. What does "dealing with the progressives" mean? What does "ready the ground" mean? How will he do that? Has he said he'll do that or are you just hoping he'll do that because he plays for the red team (or so he says, even though he's a lifelong New York democrat) and you like the red team?
Quoting Agustino
As I said, I want details. Definitions. Cause and effect. Not handwavey non-sequiters that only a five year old would think was airtight. Your reasons so far have been mickey mouse grade. I've repeatedly asked you for details and evidence and you've provided precisely none, other than your own tirade on the moral decay of western society and Donald Trump level sloganeering.
We've heard all that before, but now I want to know what good reasons you have for supporting Trump. The sooner you give them the sooner this will all be over and we can both go back to the safety and comfort of our bubbles.
And I'm going to press you on that last point, about Trump being everything you claim to be against. Think about that; you openly support a man who has literally committed the major immoralities you sincerely believe are at the heart of the decline of western society. You believe adultery is immoral; Trump has admitted to cheating on his wife. You believe in life-long monogamy; Trump has been divorced twice and married three times. He has bragged about using his power to get away with sexually assaulting women. How can you support him? It's insane enough that anyone supports him after learning about just this last bit. But you of all people, Agustino, are still supporting him even though he is, to you, the metaphorical incarnation of Satan? You are the very person who should be supporting him the least! I'm sorry, but that is a joke. Either you don't take your principles as seriously as you make out, or you are being wilfully ignorant. This should be more than sufficient to disqualify Trump for president, under your moral code. What does cognitive dissonance on that scale feel like?
I'm not going to let this point go, by the way. You'll have to address it sooner or later. I'll PM you in your sleep.
Quoting Agustino
Finally something true. No, having a Ph.D does not necessarily make you smart (though it probably does in actuality, after all that critical study and research). But you've failed entirely to miss the point. probably deliberately. Having Ph.D's, Pulitzer prizes for journalism, fancy letters after names, and awards for impartial journalistic integrity, does make one an expert on ones subject area. Given that, how do you intend to dispute the evidence that Obama has not been the failure your republican talking heads make him out to be?
Quoting Agustino
If you cannot provide me with evidence from experts (regurgitating republican memes will not cut it) as to how Obama has been a failure then in light of the impartial and well-researched evidence I have provided you have to concede that Obama has not been a failure, and that that disproves your claim that having a socially conservative support network is a necessary condition for administrative effectiveness. Of course it isn't a necessary condition, that's obviously false on the face of it. You either concede, dispute, or deny deny deny. It doesn't even matter what the semantic difference is between a failure and a complete and utter failure. If having a socially conservative support network were a necessary condition for administrative success, then Obama could not have had administrative success, because he's a cancerous progressive. Your first reason for support Trump has been disproved with basic logic, Agustino. What else do you have?
Quoting Agustino
I am quite obviously talking about democrats in their current form, Agustino, as you told me to earlier. So again, if you tell me to do something, I expect you to stick to it too. I am talking about modern democrats. Obama, Hillary. The Cancerous Progressives. Why on earth would you think I'm talking about all democrats throughout the history of the USA? So just to be clear, even though I've been through this: if it were the case that having a socially conservative support network was a necessary condition for administrative success, it would be logically impossible for a successful modern day democratic presidency. Think about that. Really think about what you're saying and compare it to reality. It would be as impossible as drawing a square circle. That is absurd.
Quoting Agustino
I see. So you listen to corrupt right wing media instead. Wonderful. Oh no sorry, your favourite media outlets are obviously not the corrupt ones. Which sources do you go to for your US news, by the way?
Let me understand this. You don't even watch Hollywood films, which are fictional, because they are corrupt, yet you will blindly support Trump who has actually committed adultery [edit: which is also sex outside of marriage], divorced twice, married thrice, and bragged about using his power to get away with sexually assault women. Hollywood is bad, even though it's fictional, but Trump is going to Make America Great Again even though his moral crimes are literally real, and he wants to be President Of The United States Of America?
And then you say you don't like academia. So you don't like experts either. Any study that comes out of any university, no matter how valid and credible can be simply labelled (as you love doing) as "academia" and can be disregarded as corrupt and untrustworthy. That is a fantastic way of deligitimising and avoiding any opinion contrary to your own, isn't it? You are actually in a bubble.
Quoting Agustino
I don't follow US media, we've got enough problems of our own in the UK to deal with. Or is all media brainwashing? That would be convenient for you wouldn't it?
So far, Agustino, I've begged for details, evidence, and cause and effect explanations as to why Trump is worthy of being president, in your eyes. So far you've not produced one solid argument, one scrap of evidence, nor a single explanation. Not a single one. Instead I get hand wavey, philosophic wankery (I love philosophy as much as the next person on these forums, but there is a time for philosophising and a time for concrete, real world facts) about the moral decline of western society and downright nasty labelling and generalisations about those on the left (cancerous progressives to which Trump is the chemotherapy, whatever that actually means in real terms).
Nothing you've given me is concrete, it's all abstract nonsense. Just admit that you're voting for him out of the base tribalism of party politics. He says he's on the red team, even though he's been pro-choice all his life until conveniently he decided to play for the red team and needed to win red support like yours (yes, he has even supported baby killing, Agustino!) Hillary is on the blue team, red team good, blue team bad. Trump good, Hillary bad. You've bought into his con wholesale and have been subject to the very 'brainwashing' you think you're above.
Trump wouldn't start a war like Bush. And I agree that back then probably Gore would've been a better choice.
Quoting Wayfarer
There is a story about Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Russell was involved in creating a "World Organization for Peace and Freedom" and when he heard, Wittgenstein was critical. Russell responded by: "Well, I suppose you would rather establish a World Organization for War and Slavery" to which Wittgenstein replied "Yes, yes, much rather that!"
My reaction is the same. Why are you concerned about wrecking the country? It has already been wrecked with the progressives in charge from the 60s onwards. What can Trump do now? What's left for him to destroy but ruins?
Quoting Wayfarer
No it's not efforts on the fringe right. Actually even much of progressive media is highly critical of her - and much of progressives themselves (just look at the students' reaction in the video below - and we all know students ain't conservative). You are being brainwashed Wayfarer - sorry to tell you. You should stop listening to the progressive media propaganda about Clinton now that they're scared of Trump. Clinton is a liar - a much greater liar than Trump - and a spineless scum. She has no courage - no attitude - no nothing. She would lick boots to get elected - she would do anything. Trump at least has some sort of self-esteem, albeit twisted one, which keeps him from humiliating himself just to get elected. The only reason why Clinton is not going to jail is because she would drag a lot of folks with her if she were to - she's very well connected, and very powerful. She can buy or blackmail people in key positions. She holds the FBI in the palm of her hand. Of course they can't get her. It's not that easy when you're dealing with an octopus which has its arms everywhere.
Hillary Clinton ain't honest - and nobody believes she is.
No he doesn't - Bush was a horrible President.
Quoting Arkady
They did - except that she's covering things up and using her power and influence to protect herself. Anyone else who would have bleached their servers would have been arrested.
Quoting Arkady
To let you tell me your left-wing bullshit right? >:O
Quoting Arkady
Why are you so upset huh? If I ended up behaving so childishly like you, I might end up blocking 60% of the folks here (I'm one of the few conservatives around). In fact I'd go out seeking a different online community full only of conservatives. But I don't, because unlike you, I can respect the fact that others hold to different opinions, even though I disagree with them and believe they are wrong. It's much better to stay in an aggressive environment - as they say pressure makes diamonds. But I guess you're not a diamond ;) - you can't even stand 1 dissident, much less tens of them. I've had entire threads where I defended a view entirely by myself. I don't care - the truth doesn't need populism to stand up.
This is nothing else but the malice you hold in your heart, and the hatred and fear you have of those who you don't agree with. Even on a philosophy forum you want to run away and hide from views that you don't agree with. Of course what you're really afraid is that if conservatives get in power, your current way of life will be affected - that's what truly matters to you. But equally you don't care at all how the way of life of conservatives has been destroyed by the progressive administrations of the last 50 years, especially during Obama's tenure.
I don't have to ask you - I already know your views on the issues social conservatives care about - family, monogamous marriage, premartial sex - I know them - from your attitude. It's so obvious that you're all about prejudice and bias - you couldn't accept living in a different world, a world that doesn't run by your values, a world that runs by different rules. You'd burn the whole place down. But us conservatives have been living in such a world for decades - and yet we accept it, we're grown up people, and we're looking patiently for ways and opportunities to bring change, without stomping our feet like little kids and saying we don't want to acknowledge things we don't like. So I advise you to grow up - get a grip on reality. Not everyone agrees with you.
We have to make a choice between Hillary and Trump. There is no other real alternative. Therefore we must compare them and see who is the better choice. It doesn't matter if both are completely incompetent - we still have to determine who is better, since we only have a choice from incompetent people.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Trump is an expert on many more things than Clinton. He lives in the real world - not the fake world of lies and politics - where you actually have to do pragmatic stuff - you know the stuff that has to bring in the dough - stuff that has to show real results - where you can't deceive yourself.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Lower taxes for one. Put restrictions on businesses seeking to move their workforce offshore (to Mexico or China). Encourage an entrepreneurial mindset. Place trade restrictions against currency manipulators. And this is just scratching the surface of what he can do.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
He's built an amazing company, and he's built great buildings. Those are just the facts. You can't cheat the facts. You can't lie about them. Because in the real world, unlike in the Crooked political world of we know who, your results show. You can't lie about them - you can't fake it.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Yes a confident "can-do" attitude, and an attitude which doesn't avoid seeing the truth - that America has a lot of problems. He's not a fake lying politician like Obama "Oh How are you Minnesota? We should be proud of our achievements, we've done great! America is already great! We've beaten the worst recession since the Great Depression, we've gone out of Iraq, we've stopped Iran's nuclear deal bla bla . Americans are not scared people. We're great! I believe in Americans, I have great hope in the American people" --- pathetic rhetoric. Absolutely pathetic. Every time I hear Obama speak - it's the same shameless rhetoric that he's said from day one. From day one he's just been feeding the ego of idiots telling them that they are great, even though they're in the gutter and eating dirt.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Right because you've lost in that chapter and you don't wanna admit it. You refuse to recognise that you are wrong, pure and simple. You refuse to admit the facts - that you go on so much about.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
No the facts are not a given in my worldview. They are the facts. They are the truth. It has nothing to do with my worldview. I could for example have the worldview, as some people here no doubt do, that it's great that so many marriages end in divorce because we should eliminate the institution of marriage. That would be a worldview that is also congruent with the facts. But your position is just avoid the truth.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
The opposite of social conservatism. Pro gay marriage, pro abortion, pro non-monogamous ways of life, pro premartial sex, etc.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Progressivism just is this moral decay. Being pro abortion for one is a form of moral decay. So there is no "link" as such between them - they are the same thing.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
It means throwing all of them in jail as soon as possible and letting them rot for eternity there - what do you think it means? (I'm just joking there). It actually means that his political incorrectness will destroy this ideal of political correctness from the American mind and therefore destroy one of the main defences of the progressives, which will enable future social conservative candidates to tackle them head on in the public arena.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
That's not such a terrible idea, why don't you write it to Trump? >:O
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Yes I have. I have cited statistics for you, and I have explained them in the cases where you have actually offered specific evidence to discuss. Not when you point to "Oh here are the factcheck.org experts, here's the evidence" which of course is a whole fucking big website. I'm not going to search through all that for I don't know what. If you want to discuss specific evidence, then don't put it only on me to bring it up - you should do likewise.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
As I said - I don't support Trump, and I think he's an immoral person. It's a strategic vote for social conservatives. He's the chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is harmful to you as well, but it may very well save you from cancer. Or it may not. But it's a risk one has to sometimes take. So I don't say vote Trump because of his character. I say vote Trump because he'll bring an end to political correctness and progressivism, which is necessary to ready the ground for social conservatives. How will he do it? By being Trump - by being outrageous, demeaning and insulting openly.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
It's good if you come in my sleep it's more time efficient that way ;)
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Experts don't necessarily know any better. I've learned not to trust experts on many issues, ranging from health to engineering to politics. Experts are there to deceive you. Not because they really know what they're talking about. They just seem like they do. You have to be able to judge things for yourself not go like a slave to the expert (or the priest!) to tell you what the truth is - to judge for you.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
If the experts say something that the majority of the people disagree with - then it is likely that the experts have something wrong. I'll just give you one example. Obamacare. The majority of people disagree with the results of Obamacare and are against Obamacare. They experience the system firsthand and are unhappy with it. The experts can say it's the greatest healthcare policy of all time - the fact is the people ain't likin it and that's that.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/repeal_of_health_care_law_favoroppose-1947.html
Really give me a break. I shouldn't have to teach you basic facts. I can go scurrying for this evidence, I've looked at it many times before, why should I need to go re-checking just because you don't know the facts? The fact is Crooked and Obama don't give a shit about the people. They just want to impose their radical progressive agenda on everyone.
This is really shameful that you keep dragging on about me providing you evidence. Why don't you go and get the evidence yourself? Why do you want evidence about every single thing? It's as if I'm running for President myself. If you want to discuss specifics, then you should inquire about specifics. For example, see the opinion of this expert on this issue. What do you think? Then I can actually provide you the data that would prove my point because I know what you're specifically talking about. Right now you're just creating a rhethorical mess - you demand some abstract evidence for me - evidence in general that Obama was a failure - in I don't know what chapters of his Presidency - and then expect me to give you anything but abstractness. If you want concrete details, then you have to ask for concrete details.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
That is mostly true unfortunately, yes.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
I haven't said this. I have simply said that many studies coming out of Universities are biased towards progressivism. This is merely a fact.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/
http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/14/liberal-professors-outnumber-conservative-faculty-5-to-1-academics-explain-why-this-matters/
http://dailysignal.com/2011/02/14/breaking-professors-might-have-liberal-bias/
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/27/study-finds-those-graduate-education-are-far-more-liberal-peers
http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddavenport/2015/05/07/apparently-90-of-harvard-faculty-can-agree-on-something-giving-to-democrats/#f7ef2af19a8e
These are just the facts. I could go on and on, but you refuse to recognize it. The media, Hollywood and the academia have a strong liberal progressive bias - it's just what it is. You're even refusing to see that. You're just blinding yourself to the facts.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Yes the UK media is even more liberal progressive than that of the US - hence why you hear only the bad stuff on Trump. As I said, Europe is more affected by progressivism than the US so far.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
And I have given you the reasons. He will be a middle finger to the progressives, he will disrupt them, divide them, destroy their means of defence (political correctness). In other words, he'd do everything that is required to do to stop them at this point.
The Russian media is actually quite a bit more honest than its Western counterparts. This Russian phobia of the West is just that. A phobia, which probably requires medical treatment. Lots of Westerners are guilty of it, but they know very little if anything about Russia - except of course what they are fed by their own media.
I think possibly you're a Putin troll. It's a shame, but in any case, I wish to have no further interaction with you.
We don't actually, which is why I'm not voting. I greatly regret voting for Obama four years ago, but that was before I drifted more to the right. Given my perspective now, I cannot distinguish who the lesser of two evils is in this election. Thankfully, I am not required to choose.
Quoting Agustino
This trade isolationism has been tried and failed before, during the '30s. When you do this, you raise the price of all goods and services. Moreover, forcing companies to stay will simply mean the government subsidizing them so they can compete. Bigger, more bureaucratic government is not something I would think someone on the right, such as yourself, would be in favor of.
Quoting Agustino
Yes he is. Every other sentence he utters contradicts the previous one. As of a couple years ago, he was on the left, supporting people like Hillary at charity events and galas. His pivot to the right on certain issues is purely down to the fact that he's running as a Republican. So he's as fake and as much of a liar as Hillary and Obama. Although, in Obama's case, I think he's a bit more authentic than the former two; it's just he's authentically wrong.
Wow. I saw this quoted in a later comment and had to wipe my eyes a few times. First, the world would have been a better place if Gore had won? The whole world, objectively better, because of one Albert Gore? Really? Second, I agree with the Iraq war, so speak for yourself. Third, if you think Trump winning spells the "literal" end of Western civilization, then I'd be curious to know why and how, because that is perhaps the most wildly exaggerated and absurd claim of the three.
That's a very fair position. As I said either not voting or voting Trump in my view - for conservatives - are acceptable choices. I can understand why one would not vote Trump.
Quoting Thorongil
I agree but certainly in a different sense than Clinton. Trump's history is ambiguous - both left and right, continuously switching. But he will not refuse to admit that he's taken certain positions in the past (such as being pro-abortion for example). On the other hand, Clinton you literarily play her the video of her saying X, and immediately after she will say she's never said X.
Quoting Thorongil
Why would you say so?
Quoting Thorongil
It's not so much isolationism - it's not a complete cut from trade. But it will be a reduction. This will in and of itself increase the price of all goods and services. Hence why it should be combined with other measures which will enable decreases of prices and avoidance of inflation. It's a well-known link in economics between inflation and unemployment. Such other measures can be tax-cuts.
Quoting Thorongil
Bureaucracy definitely not. Bigger government - it depends in what sense. I don't think you can say people on the right are completely against all forms of government - we certainly do want some government. We don't want the government which forces us to recognize the legality of gay marriage, which forces us to perform abortions, and so forth. But we do want the government which protects us from crime, which creates a stable macro-economic environment, and so forth.
About what? The murders committed by Putin's thugs among their own ranks?
I mean to say that I think he actually has certain principles he holds to, principles I disagree with, but principles all the same. Trump and Hillary do not have any principles; they are pure opportunists.
Quoting Agustino
This is the key assumption I would press you on. Why do you think it has done, does, or is capable of doing this?
Now Putin is very well loved by the Russian public. I have quite a few friends who live in Russia, and most of the population simply loves Putin's style of government and are happy with the performance of their government. Unlike his current Western counterparts, Putin is able to get things done. And yes, obviously he has to work with Russia as it is, including all its bad parts, some of which I have mentioned. He's able to move his country in one direction, expand its sphere of influence, and promote its interests. He's a very good leader. The West is failing - because we have weak leaders. And that's a very big problem. Not because Putin is a bad guy - he's not, he's just following the interest of his nation. The problem is that we're too weak - we can't stand up to him, we can't outsmart him. Now Putin's influence over Eastern Europe is growing - as far as I'm concerned that's not a good thing, but the West is too weak to deal with him - and probably Trump will actually be worse on this point - protecting the Eastern border - than Clinton - although Clinton may risk starting a war - so it's tough to decide which is worse.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, human rights and international law violating things.
For the simple reason that it controls legislation. If government creates legislation which gives me tax-breaks if I'm a small business (say less than 100K revenue) and employ more than 5 people - then more people will open their businesses. This will create a favorable macro-economic environment for small businesses with literarily no negative effect on the economy. Likewise, government legislation will determine the ease I can collaborate with other firms - how easy it is to break a contract and get away with it, whether the bureaucracy requires me to employ a lawyer from the start, and so forth.
Agreed, but these are negative interventions (relieving burdens), not positive ones like forcing companies to stay.
Is this a bad thing? For example should the press become like the American one, full 85%+ of progressive propaganda? The American press is only apparently free. In truth, it's not. It's governed by progressivism and political correctness - which are systemic problems, not under the control of any one person. If you go out of the party line of the New Left, you'll be isolated and effectively thrown out - discounted from having a significant say in public discourse. So either way - whether there is no direct control of government over it - or there is - the press ends up being controlled it seems. At least if it's official this illusion doesn't exist.
Quoting Thorongil
Again that's the way the system functions. You may disagree with it - as do many people - but if the US were to come in there and install its own leaders, the same problems would appear. It's just the way those regions work - the same way Sicily works mafia-style regardless of all the efforts undertaken to curb it. It's a mentality that is at fault - a mentality that is shared by all the population.
Quoting Thorongil
The first example isn't a negative legislation. It's forcing a positive change - it rewards people for seeking to open their own business.
Where did you pull this number from? Freedom, in this case, is determined by the degree to which journalists are free to speak their minds and report the facts as they see them. It may well be that the most popular news outlets are those with a leftist bias, but in a democracy, this is nothing to be surprised about. The majority tends to win. As long as those of opposing views are not being, oh I don't know, murdered for dissenting opinions, then there's not much to be upset about. There is no gun pressed to the head of the average American, forcing them to read Salon and other crappy leftist outlets. So your problem is in fact the electorate, not the media.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, but the key here is that the government doesn't do this. And the person thrown out can then go work for Fox News or Breitbart or something.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, I disagree with human rights violations and will continue to do so.
Quoting Agustino
I don't see it.
Okay so in a democracy, what should be done about the electorate?
Quoting Thorongil
I possibly agree that this may be preferable. But it really depends on the conditions where it is applied. I grew up with a very liberal education considering where I'm from so that's why I tend to agree.
Quoting Thorongil
Okay - the question is do you have a way to prevent them? And if so, what is that way? What can Putin do today - or really anyone in Russia - to stop such things from happening?
Quoting Thorongil
So is creating special artificial rewards in an economic environment not equivalent to setting up macro-economic conditions that are aimed to achieve a certain positive goal?
I don't desire to block you because you're a "dissident." There are many people with whom I disagree and with whom I've had interesting and civil discussions. However, you are dogmatically right-wing, and you say nothing which can't be found on a Fox News opinion piece. In our prior discussions, you've also established yourself as a moral lunatic, obsessed with "promiscuity" and its supposedly detrimental effects on the moral fabric of society. You also pull "theories" and "facts" out of your ass when it suits you. In short: you're just not worth reading. Goodbye.
That's not true, I've always provided reasons for believing X and Y.
Quoting Arkady
I should start listening to them then, it seems they have interesting things to say ;)
Quoting Arkady
Okay so believing promiscuity is harmful apparently is equivalent to being a moral lunatic. I didn't know most of the people who have ever lived have been moral lunatics... neither did I know that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, and virtually all the other major religions have also been involved in moral lunacy... how quaint.
Quoting Arkady
Where are these smelly theories and facts that I pulled out of my ass? >:O
Just concede it, you assumed I was pro-Hillary because I'm anti-Trump. You were wrong, because you look at everything in black and white. There's social conservatives on one side and cancerous progressives on the other. Trump will Make America Great Again, and Hillary is the devil. This is how you sound.
Quoting Agustino
We do indeed have a choice. What I'm wondering is what is your substantive reason for supporting Trump. So far I've had some rubbish about necessary conditions which was obviously false.
Then I had the demonisation of everyone in America and the western hemisphere who isn't socially conservative as therefore progressive and "cancerous", in spite of a god knows how many other factors and nuances and alternative possibilities, which is literally the most simplistic mindset you could possibly have unless you want to put everyone in the planet into just one box (but then that would include yourself, so that won't do). But as you said elsewhere, that kind of thinking makes things "simpler". You don't know how right you are.
Then you said Trump is the chemotherapy for the cancer that is progressivism. Which means (whatever that does in fact mean, you haven't explained the metaphor in real terms) that Trump and his socially conservative support network are going to somehow make hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people throughout America and the rest of the western world do a 180 on their way of life, their fundamental beliefs, and their emotive behaviour, by following the Puritan-esque moral precepts of Agustino from the philosophy forum. Or would it be enough to just fix America?
In his spare time I have to also assume he's going to fix the American economy, fix immigration, fix trade, fix cyber security, defeat ISIS, defeat political corruption, fix political correctness, fix employment, fix tax, fix healthcare, and fix foreign policy. Am I missing any?
And you believe him and his people are going to do all this, despite not being able to provide a single shred of evidence for the precise steps he plans on taking to do this. No worries, though, he gave me this hat that said "Make America Great Again". God only knows what the term "fix" even means here when applied to so many diverse subcategories of governmental responsibility, but no wonder I don't understand it - it's a Trump term.
Quoting Agustino
Sure, he's the best expert. Better than anyone. No one experts better than Trump. Especially Crooked. Sorry, not an answer.
Hillary's qualifications or lack thereof are not evidence of Trumps. If you're so sure he's an expert on "many more things than Clinton", then prove it. Show me what qualifications and experience he has with any of the governmental roles I listed. Like I asked you to.
Quoting Agustino
You have cited statistics on something that is utterly irrelevant to what I was asking for. This was not about divorce, I do not care about that. It's about what Trump wants to do to Make America Great Again. I want to see some evidence of Trumps competency and his step by step policy proposals. So you say:
Quoting Agustino
So he'll lower taxes. He'll do the exact same thing that every other republican has ever done in modern history. Wonderful. It clearly hasn't worked, though, has it? Or is step 2 and 3 of his master plan going to do the trick?
Trade restrictions on currency manipulators. Oh wait, none of the US’s big trading partners had engaged in currency manipulation in the past year, the Treasury said in its twice yearly foreign exchange market report to Congress. But you and Trump know, despite not working for the Treasury, something they don't, I bet. Or else it's those pesky progressive experts and their brainwashing bias.
He'll also "encourage an entrepreneurial mindset". As if potentially becoming a billionaire wasn't enough incentive. As if people are going to stop what they're doing with their lives to become entrepreneurs because President Trump is a billionaire. Even though every single president in recent history has been well inside the top 1%. It doesn't seem to have had any impact, considering how you think the US is in such a terrible state under Obama. If you think it does make an impact, you know what I'm going to ask for? Evidence, please.
Lastly, I'm not here to "scratch the surface". This is not a surface issue. What else can you tell me about "what Trump can do"?
Quoting Agustino
How can this be a strategic vote for social conservatives when Trump himself is quite clearly, under your own definition, blatantly not a social conservative? His track record proves that. He's been married three times, divorced twice, cheated on his wife, had extra-marital sex, and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You actually should be voting for Hillary - she's still married to her first husband, she hasn't committed adultery, nor has she had children out of wedlock. Trump is a "cancerous" progressive, Hillary is a social conservative according to your definition. So what the hell are you even talking about anymore?
Quoting Agustino
"If the experts say something that the majority of the people disagree with - then it is likely that the experts have something wrong." - Agustino, 2016. I once thought you were intelligent.
Quoting Agustino
Finally you provide me a link. Unfortunately though, even if Obama care was a total and abject failure, that does not prove that Obama's terms as a whole have been failures.
You're right, you do not need to teach me basic facts. But the ins and outs of the most complicated piece of healthcare reform in history is hardly a basic fact, is it?
They want to impose their radical progressive agenda on everyone? And this is coming from the person who has admitted he wants to impose his socially conservative agenda on western civilisation (or was it 'just' the US?), by installing, in spite of admitting the degree of all their other innumerable faults, a social conservative into the position of President of the United States of America to do it.
Quoting Agustino
No Agustino. What is shameful, absolutely fucking shameful, is that you think you have acceptable reasons for supporting someone as utterly bonkers as Donald Trump for position of leader of the free world.
Yes, I'm being nasty and demanding. Because the burden of proof is on you to provide me with evidence to justify your decision. Yes, I want evidence. Your decision will affect me. Even though I don't even live in America, it will drastically affect me because we live in a globalised world.
I would love to talk specifics with you, but so far you have totally avoided any semblance of the word. I've repeatedly asked you for policy proposals, qualifications, empirical evidence, a youtube clip of the man himself - any little shred to back up what you've been claiming about Trump. Unfortunately, the few links you provided were about divorce (not the topic at hand) and Obamacare (nothing to do with Trump). I'm not creating a "rhetorical mess". I'm making specific requests for more information about the things you're saying.
First of all I asked for evidence of Trumps expertise on economics, health care, foreign policy, counter-terrorism, immigration, diplomacy, trade, etc. I got nothing except watery bullshit.
I then asked for a cause and effect explanation of how being anti-gay marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro life-long monogamy, has any bearing on a persons ability to improve the economy, gun control, terrorism, immigration, trade, employment, wages, food stamps, poverty, home ownership, health care, energy situation etc. I got watery bullshit.
I then asked for evidence of Obama's failure as a president that contradicted the evidence I gave. I got something about Obamacare. Another republican talking point. It says nothing of anything else Obama has done in office. Watery bullshit.
I then asked, if being anti-gay marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro life-long monogamy, etc is a necessary condition for success in other areas of government, how do you explain Obama's success in some of these areas despite being a cancerous progressive? I was again asking for a cause and effect explanation, evidence would be nice. Instead you ignored it.
I asked how, in concrete terms, a Donald Trump presidency is going to somehow reduce the divorce, adultery and cheating rates, and out of wedlock birth rates. I got watery bullshit.
I then asked you to tell me, in real terms, with actual cause and effect, what Trump will do with his business expertise to fix the economy. Your explanations were pathetic. Lower taxes like every other republican has ever done, fix a problem that doesn't even exist, and somehow "encourage an entrepreneurial mindset". Watery bullshit.
You then said Trump "has a knack" for things. I asked what things. You told me he's built a great company and great buildings. He's also been bankrupt several times. You honestly sound like you have as much depth and knowledge as Trump. If you interviewed someone for a job as an economist, a foreign affairs advisor, a healthcare systems adviser, a counter-terrorism expert, etc all rolled into one, and in response to you asking for their qualifications they said "I build great buildings and great companies" you would be as mad as them if you didn't laugh them out the door, down the street, and have them locked up in the nearest mental institution.
I then asked, what attitude does Trump have that is "the right one"? Oh, it's a "can-do attitude". Marvelous. Absolutely marvelous.
I also got how he's not a "fake lying politician like Obama", who says stuff like:
Quoting Agustino
Yes, absolutely pathetic indeed. Although it sounds exactly like something Donald Trump himself would say. Your lack of awareness of astounding. You do realise he's ridiculed for sounding exactly like that?
Christ I'm getting tired of this. Then I asked if you could also cite actual evidence detailing the link between progressivism and societies moral decay. This is an empirical claim that can be observed and studied - and it would behoove society to do so, for its existence depends on recognising its own decay. You then refuse to cite any studies, and instead insist that they are in fact one and the same thing. A tautology, a trick of definitions and language. Why bother trying to establish B being caused by A when you can just say B is the same thing as A? Watery bullshit. Wouldn't feed it to my neighbors dog. And I don't even like my neighbors dog. Not even they would swallow it, anyway.
Then said I want statements from Trump saying exactly how he is going to reverse this decay. I also added, "I don't want your own handwavey speculation of a philosophic type, on either point."
You then snipped out this part and proceeded to give me your own philosophical handwavery, on both points.
I then asked you how Trump would save the western world from moral decay. You said, in not so many words, he'll destroy political correctness by being an asshole. Fantastic analysis, Agustino. Top work. The experts are ready to see you now, they have a job offer for you.
I wanted you to explain what this cancer and chemotherapy metaphor meant in real terms. You ignored it.
Quoting Agustino
You did not give me anything I asked for. You cited some stats about divorce (and how you wanted the SIMPLEST possible raw calculation of divorces, which if you were to read the pages I gave you you would see why that raw number is not appropriate, but as you said earlier simplicity makes complicated things easier) and something about Obamacare.
I did not merely point you to "a whole fucking big website", I pointed you to the exact page that details, with massive great big up and down arrows to make it as crystal clear as day, how well Obama has fared in different aspects of his administration. Or are the massive arrows and double digit percentage points not simple enough for you?
And I'm sorry to say that it is all on you here. I am scrutinising your support for Trump. I don't have a position in this debate. The burden of proof is on you, Agustino. No one but you because you support Trump and I want you to justify that.
I'm going to stop going through all the requests that I've made for evidence or detail which you've failed to provide because it's getting tiresome, and the pattern has been established at this point.
Quoting Agustino
If you don't support Trump then you have a bloody funny way of showing it. If you support social conservatives, and Trump is a social conservative, then you support Trump. If he wasn't a social conservative, you wouldn't support him. Not only that, I'll remind you that, according to your own definition, Hillary is more socially conservative than Trump. Why don't you vote for Hillary? Let me guess, she's on team blue and Trump is on team red.
Quoting Agustino
Just because certain institutions have a liberal bias does not mean you have grounds to entirely dismiss everything they have to say. It means you take it with a pinch of salt and look at both sides of the story. Not cover your ears in go live in a republican echo chamber. Have a sense of proportion man. Again, too black and white.
Quoting Agustino
Another absolute blinder. "Experts don't necessarily know any better". Christ there is no nuance with you, is there? Just because they don't, logically, necessarily, know any better does not mean they don't know anything at all and they're not to be trusted. Do you honestly think that a person who goes to university, studies hard on a specific subject, is tested by professors, scrutinised, corrected, recorrected, for years and years under the most stringent learning conditions and then has a successful career in their field, is not "necessarily" going to know what they're talking about?
Where else does this apply? Would you say your doctor, after having spent years in medical school and working in hospitals, doesn't "necessarily" know what they're talking about?
Quoting Agustino
Jesus fucking Christ you actually would.
Not only do you say something so mental, you then go on to say "experts are there to deceive you". You are tin-foil-hat insane, Agustino. Through the looking glass. Down the rabbit hole. Looking through the other end of the telescope. Where is the common sense in anything you're saying? Are there any experts you don't think are out to deceive you? Or are you the only one?
Quoting Agustino
That is precisely the problem. You've given me reasons. Abstract a priori's spun into some grand philosophical theory by Agustino The Great. There is no substance to anything you say. There is only ideology all the way down. Pure ideology, nothing more. You make it sound like there's some kind of war going on between good and evil and all of western society depends on just picking the right emperor, when really you're electing a diligent and capable civil servant to high office for the purposes of effective government. Is that really, in your honest opinion, Donald bloody Trump?
You support Trump because he's going to be (if you even believe it) a "middle finger" to progressives in your 'us vs them' black and white world. What a fucking solid reason for electing a con man to President of the United States. God help us all.
No you actually haven't. Check the link which you gave. It leads to the home page of factcheck.org.
Well shit, I did indeed. I apologise. Here is the link.
Outside of giving them better education, nothing.
Quoting Agustino
The international community has various ways: diplomacy, economic sanctions, military assistance and guarantees of it to threatened states, and as a last resort, direct military intervention.
Quoting Agustino
You described removing barriers for the business to succeed (specifically taxes). That's not a positive reward being bestowed.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
No I haven't assumed you are pro-Hillary - I have however assumed that if you would be forced to pick between Trump and Hillary you'd pick Hillary. Is that statement true or false?
Now I have never said Trump will make America great again. I haven't even said he will fix the divorce problems, the abortion problems and many of the other issues social conservatives are fighting for. I simply said he will disrupt the progressives, which is necessary before being able to introduce the social conservative policies in question.
I will address the rest of your long post in some time.
But education obviously isn't working, so we have a very real problem. People are more educated than ever today, and many are more immoral than ever. So what does it mean then?
Quoting Thorongil
Again you're ignoring the fact that the international community cannot do anything. Firstly because Russia is a superpower. Secondly because even if they do - it will not change things, since things come from the mentality and ways of life adopted by the people there. They will not change - regardless of the intervention. You do an intervention in Iraq - does anything change? No - you still get the same terrorists and animals running the show. Because that's just the culture of that region. You appoint someone to government - he, or his underlings - will end up doing the same things. The culture must evolve itself - and that cannot be imposed by any outside force. Now from the inside change is possible but probably cannot be achieved in a single lifetime.
Quoting Thorongil
Yes only that I'm speaking about people starting businesses. To quit my job and start a business I receive certain advantages. This can and often does include tax-breaks. Since my company would not pay as much corporate tax as my previous employer did I will be able to allocate myself a higher salary. That's an incentive to start a business. Another incentive could possibly be state given, non-returnable funds. Say given that I present a strong business plan which gets approval I receive up to 30,000 USD in start-up capital - not all at once of course, but over the course of starting my business with the state verifying things on the way. That's another intervention in the market that's possible. And so forth. So again - my point is that regardless of how you call it - removing barriers or not - the government should be actively involved in shaping the macro-economic environment. They should for example decide that it is good that more people start new businesses - and therefore allocate tax breaks to such businesses, while not to others. And so forth - these are government level decisions in favor of all sorts of different interventions. So in-so-far as such actions may entail big government, they may. But that's not necessarily bad I don't think. That's what I mean by controlling the macro-economic environment - controlling the environment in order to achieve some objectives.
No, not there we go. He settled the other case. Curious how your suspicion and cynicism evaporates when it's about Trump. You don't suspect that there was any link, any relation, any pressure, any negotiation, between settling the one case and dropping the other? No, of course you don't, because of your bias.
No, but with my limited knowledge of the situation, I suspect that Trump had done something that was illegal in the business and he would have lost that case, hence why he settled. Simple. And I also suspect that the wife started the other case merely to add pressure on Trump for the case he was having against her husband, which is exactly why she dropped it as soon as they got what they wanted from that case.
You seem hell bent toward holding fast to suspicions and impressions rather than the facts-of-the-matter, which I think is why many here find your approach to the topics discussed as being obtuse and hypocritical, to varying degrees.
Have you ever watched Lumet's '12 Angry Men'? If not, perhaps watch it and see how truth can be elusive, especially when facts are hard to come by.
The reason why I'm hellbent on holding fast to suspicions and impressions is because I believe we should train our minds to draw the right conclusions (if possible) even with little data available. In life we need to make judgements, because things have practical implications - we can't afford not to for fear that we may be wrong - because not making a judgement is often making a wrong judgement. I've learned from my work (and studies) as an engineer - quick educated guesses when there is a problem is much better than analysis paralysis or waiting for data. You have to act quick - yes you can get things wrong, but your judgement should be trained. I used to be the opposite as a teenager and even until my final year in university - I would be very paranoid about things and would always see possibilities how I may have been wrong. This is also why I could be quite anxious, and also frequently worried about my health at small signs. But I've learned to train my judgement - to take a decision and stick to it - trust my judgement instead of doubt it. Now I'm very rarely if at all troubled by anxiety for example. Because I can judge situations. And because I've seen that I judge them accurately in general, both in my professional and personal life - I trust my knack.
People here seem to adopt a very impractical attitude of withholding judgement. This just doesn't work in life. You can't withhold judgement. You're thinking about marrying woman X. There's many things about her character you don't know - she could possibly turn out to be a nasty person. So what do you do? You need to judge! You need to choose - how is she? Is she a person with good moral character or not? You have to have the courage to risk it - is it white or black. So yes - I may be prone to mistakes, but I'm also sharpening my judgement in the process.
I honestly think you will be massively well served by reading Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, providing you don't.. judge it too hastily.
"Sexual sins like sodomy, adultery, fornication, contraception, and masturbation are wrong not simply because the laws of the Church or society forbid them, or simply because they are not psychologically mature, and not even simply because they hurt other people (they always do, but sometimes it is easy to see how they do and sometimes it is not). They are wrong because they sin against truth, against being, against reality; because they lie about the nature of love, that is, about the nature of God, and about God's image, man. They contradict the design of the Designer who created sex in His own image."
"In fact, almost the only reason anyone in our society ever believes and teaches a philosophy of moral relativism is to justify sexual immorality. All the controversial issues in the culture war are sexual. How often have you heard arguments for moral relativism to justify nuclear war, or insider trading, or child abuse, or genocide, or racism, or even environmental pollution?"
And this is all true. I've honestly not seen a moral relativist upholding sexual morality in their lives. I've not seen it. Sure correlation isn't causation - but one must only wonder... could it be that their entire worldview is such as it's necessary for it to be merely to justify their sexual (mis)behaviour? And if so would that be true for conservatives as well? A dangerous question because it suggests the possibility that one may not decide the important questions because of their allegiance to truth, but rather because they are coherent with their sexual practices. As I see it though, conservatives are ultimately siding with what is objectively correct, as they aspire to what is highest and most beautiful in sex, and despise what is low and brings harm to themselves and others - at least in the long term.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Not the demonisation - rather I think these people have been deceived by consumerism and the mass-media to live in ways that have destroyed and demeaned their true potential - and of course they cannot recognize this, for the psychological burden would be too much. They'll never say "yes we are wrong" - they've invested too much in such a life. Philosophers like Thomas Nagel are right - they don't want God to exist - because if He does - then they're fucked. I do think what is understood in today's world by progressivism is cancerous. This over-emphasis on sex, this over-emphasis on gender, on race, on transgender, on I don't know what other lunacy is crazy - because it seeks to impose itself over everyone, and through means of social pressure pull all of society in its direction.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
I have never claimed that Trump or his administration would change this. Also, none of my morality is puritanical - unless of course you also think that Judaic, Christian, Islamic, Buddhist and Hindu morality is also puritanical. Now I'm asking you honestly - do you think that is the case?
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
:-! lol - the article doesn't work for me as I need to pay to read it, but alas. Currency manipulation isn't a one-act event. It's a continuous long-term way of behaving by a central bank in order to influence its currency in order to achieve a certain goal. Now there are boundaries which limit what a country can do without undermining itself. An expensive currency means cheap imports but expensive and thus unattractive exports. A cheap currency means the opposite - expensive imports but very attractive exports. The fact is that the Chinese yuan vs the dollar is quite probably undervalued despite the protests of the IMF to the contrary. It's not as undervalued as it was in the past, because rampant Chinese inflation - something that they have been struggling to control - increased the value of the yuan beyond the point where they could fully control it by dumping it in exchange for USD. This doesn't mean they have stopped doing it - not at all. They're still doing their best to do it. China runs trade deficits with all the partners from whom it has large imports - these are mostly natural resources - countries like Saudi Arabi - which China needs to manufacture. Why are they running trade deficits? Because the yuan is still cheap - and therefore their imports are more expensive than they ought to be.
I don't need any experts to tell me China is manipulating their currency. I know it first-hand. I've worked in construction, and quite a few of the materials we were ordering were China made. I know that the Chinese get ahead due to their low price, despite inferior quality and inferior production efficiency (the two of them end up being quite tied). To stay on budget people use their materials - not the best, but good enough. Part of the reasons why they achieve such low prices - apart from low wages, which many other poorer nations also have - is their currency manipulation. In fact, China is probably draining a large part of the wealth of sorrounding Asian countries - especially the poor ones like Bangladesh, etc. through their currency manipulation. Donald Trump, sorry to tell you, actually does know what the fuck he's talking about on this point. This is actually one of the few points that he very smartly noticed.
Furthermore - you should expand your understanding. It seems to me you are stuck to what some experts are telling you. You have to consider all the constraints that are needed for publication. You need evidence for this, evidence for that - well life is such that you don't have such evidence. Many times when you really speak to an expert and get to know them, you'll find out that their actual opinions may be quite different from what they can or actually end up publishing - because they're not stuck in the "evidence evidence we want evidence" scheme - and they are freed to use their own understanding of what could possibly be happening, even if they can't prove it 100%.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Potentially becoming a billionaire is not a realistic incentive for your average Joe.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Because by voting Trump I'm not voting FOR social conservatives, I'm voting AGAINST progressives. I have said that a million times. It's not a vote for support, it's a strategic vote. Trump will be - pragmatically - more effective at harming the progressive movement than any socially conservative candidate. So he is needed to prepare the way, as I have said.
As for Crooked being socially conservative - I highly highly highly doubt that. I highly doubt that she hasn't committed adultery. I more than highly doubt it. I would make a bet with you if I could that she has. The environment she grew up in and went to university in - the environment she worked in afterwards, and the social environment she was surrounded by would make this an extraordinary fact. Almost a miracle! Again I'm not saying it's impossible, I just can't believe it. She's not the type of person.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
All of our decisions affect each other. But do you see me crying to the progressives "Oh your decision to encourage promiscuity will affect me!! My children will be encouraged to follow your ways, my wife will be encouraged to screw other men and divorce me!! Ahhh such a disaster!! I demand you tell me what evidence that my wife and children won't be affected by this exists?? I am being very nasty and demanding with you, because the burden of proof is on you! You are engaging in actions which affect me!! Not directly, but they will influence my cultural environment which will in turn influence me!!!"
Of course I don't behave that way. Why would a reasonable person do that? I understand they have their interests, and I have mine, and we're both looking for ways to achieve them.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
No because it's not like Trump wants to repeal Obamacare (which by the way is what most Americans have consistently said they wanted - check the polls that I linked to you before). So stop ignoring evidence.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
A President does not require expertise on any of these issues. He requires the capacity to listen to a bunch of suggestions, and choose the best course of action. Trump, after having worked in a business which is quite possibly the most complicated business you can work in - construction - has what it takes to look at different plans and proposed courses of actions and to say "we do it this way" and then make sure that it gets done. His business as CEO of Trump Organization is precisely that - to choose from what people tell him, and to ensure that it gets done - cheaply, quickly and well. That's why he's qualified. Crooked has no real experience in doing things. Neither do many other politicians. They have experience in talking about stuff, and making big plans, we're gonna do this and we're gonna do that, while they sit with a finger up their asses. The real question is can they actually get the job done in the real world, with real people, and with all the difficulties that will come their way - difficulties one cannot plan for, and that one cannot spend hundreads of years analysing. Obama proved that he can't - with both Iraq and Obamacare for example.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
There is no direct effect of social conservatism on economics. There is an indirect one as I have argued and explained to you before. Do you have any qualms with my explanation? Any reason for thinking it may not be the case? I have explained for example how out of wedlock birth rate which is very high keeps people in cycles of perpetual poverty, crime and so forth. See you're asking me for all these detailed explanations but it seems besides the point - you're not being open minded about this, you have decided Trump is the devil and that's it.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
I will get to this sometime later in another post, when I tackle the factcheck matters.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
And I told you in very concrete terms that it will not.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Yes - except that Crooked and Trump aren't running for such a job :)
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
It's not a sleight of hand at all. It's what I mean by moral decay. A society which applauds sexual promiscuity, which approves of abortion and so forth is exactly a society undergoing moral decay.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
No - it is actually YOU who pointed me to the simplest calculations. You pointed me to the divorce rate and said "Oh look, past 9 years it's going down". Of course you didn't perform any fucking analysis on that data. I had to do that for you, and notice that the population for the past 9 years was increasing, while the number of marriages decreased, hence obviously the divorce rate would also have a downward pressure on it. Again this is nothing but the university educated kid who knows nothing about the real world. Things aren't so simple as your simple calculations. What you should do is take that divorce rate and divide it by the marriage rate - that, although is not the best stat to measure this - does give an indiction of what chances a marriage has to end in divorce.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Trump ain't a social conservative. Did I ever say he was? I'm voting against the progressives - that's in accordance with a social conservative agenda.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Sure - did I say you should never agree with them? Why are you jumping to such unwarranted conclusions?
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Sure it doesn't mean that they're not to be trusted at all - I never said that. You keep engaging in all these biases that's it's very difficult to carry this conversation. But I do think people ought to be able to think for themselves, and talk from a standpoint of knowledge with the experts.
I actually don't trust my doctor overly much. I discuss with him issues from equal to equal. My medical knowledge is very good - in fact extremely good for a lay person. I could discuss with you almost whatever subject you want about it. I have friends who currently work as doctors. They say that my knowledge is easily the equivalent of a fourth year medical student - all that I lack really is practical experience and theoretical understanding of some more obscure conditions. I have however very good pragmatic understanding of the body - when I must do something, what a certain symptom can mean, what to do in certain cases, how to track vital functions, what actions to take if someone faints, and so forth. I can read my own blood tests, i know what tests to do, I can read an EKG by myself, i know what each wave means, etc. In fact I get quite pissed if I ever go to a specialist who doesn't treat me with the necessary respect - because most doctors are quite arrogant bastards, who expect you to bow your head and submit to their "great" authority. I despise this attitude. I find the same to be the case with the lawyers I've dealt with. And I absolutely hate it - although my knowledge and understanding of the law is indeed much poorer than that of medicine - so I do tolerate it there to a certain extent. I don't have much choice.
That they're educated badly.
Quoting Agustino
I naturally agree, but when it comes to human rights violations, I take a pretty firm stand that they must be stopped and the perpetrators of them punished, no matter if the surrounding culture changes.
Quoting Agustino
Alright, sure, then we agree. But I still think I'm on the right side of the semantics here, for whatever that's worth.
I agree so how to educate them better?
Quoting Thorongil
What if this isn't possible? You need alternatives for scenarios in which this injunction cannot be followed through successfully.
Well, I wouldn't deign to think I could adequately answer such a question on a mere Internet forum, but for starters, I would say that we ought to invest more in the arts, place less of an emphasis on standardized testing and the use of technology in the classroom, require teachers to hold degrees in their fields (rather than in generic education degrees), and advance measures to alleviate poverty and single-parent households.
Quoting Agustino
Name an example.
Russia for starters. Or China.