Social Question

HungryGuy's avatar

Conservatives: You want freedom for yourselves? Fine! But are you willing to give freedom to others?

Asked by HungryGuy (15956 points ) December 6th, 2011

Even though I don’t agree 100%, I see the logic and reasoning in opposing government regulations that dictate whom one must interact with in business, and opposing unequal rates of taxation (i.e., you earn a dollar, you should pay the same percentage in taxes out of that dollar as everyone else, regardless of how many dollars you earn).

You say that such laws and regulations are, in effect, reverse discrimination against you and theft of your rightful property to benefit others against your consent.

Fair enough.

But, in turn, do you support the rights of others to interact peacefully and consensually?

I.e., do you believe that consenting adults should have the right to live together as a family unit and/or have sex with whomever they want to under whatever terms they mutually agree to?

Do you believe that adults should have the right to absorb whatever substances they choose to, for whatever reason they choose to, as long as doing so doesn’t put non-participants in danger?

Do you believe that adults should have the right to create, share, and consume any printed and/or visual matter they choose to that’s created by consenting adults and takes place in private?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

91 Answers

janbb's avatar

Is this a question or a maifesto?

TexasDude's avatar

Yes.

Next question please.

HungryGuy's avatar

No.

It’s a challenge to conservatives. Do they really believe in freedom from government regulation of human activities? Or do they want freedom for themselves while denying it to others?

I merely tried to word the introduction paragraph in the description on conservatives’ terms so they’d appreciate my intentions.

Now please stop derailing my question!!!

Blackberry's avatar

I guess it depends on what kind of conservative. You will get a different answer from Michelle Bachman than @Fiddle. People that are social and fiscal conservatives just don’t seem like very open minded people, in my opinion.

TexasDude's avatar

@Blackberry precisely. There are many different flavors of conservatives, just like there are many different flavors of liberals. There are self-described liberals who would gladly deny rights to people they don’t agree with. Authoritarians exist in most every group. I’m assuming the type of conservative that @HungryGuy is referring to is the religious Bachmann-esque/conservapedia-editing variety. In that case, I don’t know what kind of answer he is expecting. For one, I think there’s probably only one or two of that kind of conservative on Fluther, at most. And secondly, of course they don’t want to extend certain rights to others. That’s how authoritarians work, and it shouldn’t be surprising.

CaptainHarley's avatar

I’m fine with anyone wanting to pollute their body. That’s their business, but then again, I’m not a conservative… I’m a libertarian. : ))

HungryGuy's avatar

For the record, I’m slightly down the left slope from the peak of the political spectrum. This makes me largely a libertarian, but I believe in some social safety nets and regulations to prevent the rich from hoarding all the wealth while everyone else lives in poverty.

Also, I know that some people don’t like absolutes or labels like “liberal” and “conservative.” But most people know what I mean by those terms. If I didn’t use these terms, then I’d have to write a novel to explain my question without using such commonly understood terms.

CWOTUS's avatar

I don’t believe in a whole lot of absolutes, but in general I’m in near complete agreement with this.

For example, a freedom of speech that allows threats, fraud and incitements to violence would be an absolute freedom of speech that I wouldn’t support.

Likewise, I wouldn’t support “freedom to ingest anything a person wanted” if the public health consequences were too dire. I don’t support the freedom of people to ingest plutonium, for example, or anthrax. (Though I do support a person’s right to suicide, even though I disagree with it.)

In the same vein, “consensual agreement” is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. People can be conditioned and trained to appear to agree to things that are antithetical to their long term survival, simply because they have no other apparent options, or better frame of reference. But in general, I support the right of homosexuals to marry, for example, with all of the benefits (and costs) that accrue to heterosexual couples.

Is that what you meant?

Blackberry's avatar

@CaptainHarley “Libertarians are just republicans that want to smoke weed” – Bill Maher. LOL. Just messin’ with ya.

tedd's avatar

It depends the brand of “conservative” you’re talking about.

The Libertarian brand probably wouldn’t really care about any of that.

The religious-right brand probably would.

jerv's avatar

This has also confused me for many years; the party that screams for smaller government perpetually tries to legislate things like marriage and sex, restrict free insofar as it is only for those with the fattest wallets.

While some seem to consider this question to be a manifesto, I see it as seeking an explanation for inconsistency, but will admit that there are also many Conservatives who agree that such a dichotomy is illogical.

gondwanalon's avatar

I admit that I’m conservative and I’m happy with all the freedoms that we enjoy in the U.S.A. I’m OK with all the laws currently enforced that keep our country from falling further into moral decay.
I support the rights of others to interact peacefully and consensually up to a point. As far as your last three question go, I’ll answer: no, no and no.

HungryGuy's avatar

@jerv – Exactly! Thank you! I know not all conservatives think that way, but for those who do, I want them to explain the inconsistency. And I wanted to explain that I understand the logic that underlies their ideology, even if I don’t agree with it 100%.

CWOTUS's avatar

It’s okay, @HungryGuy and @jerv.

It’s been obvious to many of us for decades that the American political party that wants everything “free” really wants “free for me, provided by others, according to regulations that ‘we’ make for ‘them’”.

HungryGuy's avatar

@CWOTUS – Yes, there are extremists on the left who believe that there should be no disparity at all…that the wealthy should be taxed at close to 100% so that everyone will live at an equal standard of living. But please don’t assume things that aren’t true because we’re not hard-core conservatives. Please re-read what I’ve written about my own political stance above.

Now, @CWOTUS & @gondwanalon – Suppose, hypothetically, that I agree with you that there should be no government redistribution of wealth, and no regulations on whom you must or may not conduct business with. Do you believe, likewise, that there should be no regulations on what people can do in private that’s peaceful and mutually consensual? If not, please explain the inconsistency. Why do you demand freedom for yourselves, but would deny freedom to others? That’s the gist of my question.

Aethelflaed's avatar

@HungryGuy That troll really pissed you off, didn’t he?

HungryGuy's avatar

Ayyyyup… :-p

KidCurtis's avatar

Yes, yes and yes to at least some degree. Not my business.

Aethelflaed's avatar

@HungryGuy Yeah, I get that. I guess I’ve just sort of made some peace with the fact that there are hugely hypocritical, hateful douchebags out there (and I mean that in a general way, not just that guy’s specific political beliefs). But if they aren’t someone I have to come into contact with, and don’t have any power (like, being a congressperson), then… eh, got other stuff to worry about.

HungryGuy's avatar

@Aethelflaed – Good thinking :-)

But he made me think, and now I want to get to the bottom of why some (not all) conservatives are hypocrites. Why they want less government control over their lives, but yet want government to control others’ private lives…

janbb's avatar

I actually have thought about this before and I find it fascinating that liberals want to regulate public things and leave private matters to the individual while conservatives often look for public deregulation while trying to control private matters such as marriage and sex. it’s a fascinating dichotomy on both sides.

CWOTUS's avatar

My motto is essentially “Legalize everything.” We can take up the exceptional cases individually. I have no problem with decriminalizing all forms of consensual behavior: drug use, prostitution, gambling, suicide (and risky behavior in general) – you name it.

HungryGuy's avatar

@janbb – I agree. Each side wants their own preferred freedoms, but deny the other side their preferred freedoms.

jerv's avatar

@gondwanalon So… the government has a right to be big and meddlesome, in the boardroom as well a the bedroom? Our are you just a Theocrat? Please explain…

Mariah's avatar

This always perplexes me, when people who say they want less regulation, less government oversight, also want the government to have a say in who we marry, etc.

I’m just the opposite, I want individual liberty to do whatever I please so long as I don’t hurt anybody else, but I want businesses, insurance companies, etc. kept in check.

These aree just my personal opinions.

Aethelflaed's avatar

@janbb Well, it’s sort of dependent on if it’s under the rhetoric of universal individual freedom, isn’t it? I mean, if someone is saying that the markets shouldn’t be regulated because it hurts the economy, that’s different than because it encroaches upon their right to freedom.

JLeslie's avatar

I started to see a new angle on the less government chant. It seems where I live that means less federal, yankee, liberal government. Not less local government.

janbb's avatar

@Aethelflaed True, but often the same people who advocate controlling the bedroom are those who say they are generally in favor of small government as well as free markets. That was just one example.

Aethelflaed's avatar

@janbb Oh, totally. And it’s definitely an interesting dynamic to watch.

saracore's avatar

@HungryGuy,

I’m a conservative. If all government regulations were gone, welfare programs cut off, and there was only one low tax bracket of 5% or less paid equally by everyone despite the amount of wealth one makes, then I would gladly support people that want to do drugs, abortion, same-sex, etc…

This topic actually came up at the table in an event I was recently invited to. The Liberals at the table refused to compromise to such an offer.

CaptainHarley's avatar

@Blackberry

Yeah. So you wanna make sumfin outta dat… DUDE? : D

jerv's avatar

@saracore Given what it would take for you to “allow” abortion, same-sex marriage, etcetera, it seems that you are not up for compromising either. You want it all!

jerv's avatar

@CaptainHarley Well, you do kind of look like Willie Nelson…

CaptainHarley's avatar

@jerv

Huh? Whut? What’d ah do THIS time? LOL!

CaptainHarley's avatar

@jerv

WILLIE NELSON? WTF? Them’s fightin’ words! : )

CaptainHarley's avatar

@jerv

I never hit a man wearing glasses… better take ‘em off! Heh!

jerv's avatar

@CaptainHarley You know I still love ya :D

Back on track though, I think @saracore is actually a sign of the problems we face in politics today. No compromise, extremist viewpoints, and anybody with a third-party opinion such as you or I are doomed to never see a politician that we can vote for without holding our noses win an election; the two-party, either/or mentality is too entrenched.

Thoughts? Rebuttal?

CaptainHarley's avatar

[ walks away muttering into his beard ]

saracore's avatar

I don’t see the problem, jerv. I’m willing to compromise to offer more social freedom in exchange for liberals compromising on offering more economic freedom. The liberals I have encountered are not up for it.

jerv's avatar

@saracore I have not seen many Conservatives willing to compromise though; blackmail and extortion maybe, but never compromise. Remember when the debt ceiling came up a while back and the GOP wouldn’t even think about considering allowing it to be debated until they got their way on extending tax cuts to the top 2%?

That said, there are plenty of Liberals that aren’t much better, and it seems that such stubbornness transcends partisanship. But then again, exactly what “Liberal” and “Conservative” really mean is rather subjective anyways. I mean, Colin Powell is too Liberal for some.

And where does a person like me fit in; I feel that everybody has a right to the very basics of survival, that everyone has a right to profit from their labors, and that nobody should profit out of proportion to their actual contribution like the uber-rich do. Am I a Socialist because I do not believe that they poor should die because they are poor? Am I a Capitalist because I believe that pay should be based on what you have done instead of being equal for all? Am I a Communist because I believe that the government should have enough control over the government to protect consumers from unfair business practices and to prosecute white-collar crime? In short, am I Liberal or Conservative?

Also, please tell me how your position above really allows for compromise? I mean, it sounded to me like the only way you would relax on social issues is if we went the “Scorched Earth”, “Fuck the poor”, “Anarchy Rule!” rout that basically precludes the existence of any government at all anyways. Were you overstating your case, or is that what is would actually take to make you budge on your positions about Social issues? And if you were serious and not overstating at all, what the hell type of “offer” is that?

saracore's avatar

Well yeh, why would conservatives make compromises on economic freedom? They want complete economic freedom, not just some of it. It’s not up for debate.

The things you want may only be achieved by limiting people’s economic freedom.

Sacrificing the social issues that I hold dear is my compromise. I would support these rights for people instead of my usual opposition, but only if I have liberals allow complete economic freedom for me. I’m not overstating, this is what it would take to change my position. All or nothing.

I didn’t offer you partial social freedom, did I? I said you can have all the social freedom. I expect to have all the economic freedom.

jerv's avatar

It’s dictionary time!

*******

com·pro·mise

verb /ˈkämprəˌmīz/ 
compromised, past participle; compromised, past tense; compromises, 3rd person singular present; compromising, present participle

- Settle a dispute by mutual concession
– Weaken (a reputation or principle) by accepting standards that are lower than is desirable

*******

Either you need to educate yourself a little more so as not to make yourself look foolish, or you are here being a deliberate troll.

“All or nothing” is not compromise.
You do not actually want compromise.
Therefore, it is not worth discussing with you any further.

saracore's avatar

Exactly what the definition says. I’m excepting standards that are lower then desirable, hence I’m willing to support drugs, abortion, and same-sex marriage. This is all or nothing. I didn’t just select drugs, and not same-sex. I accept all social freedom.

If I’m willing to compromise here^, then economically you would have to do the same. All economic freedom, not just a few.

On an economic level, I’m not willing to compromise at all, just like you wouldn’t compromise on accepting some social freedoms, but not others. You would want all of it.

CWOTUS's avatar

Actually, @saracore, I’m not willing to “sell” those freedoms. I believe that people’s rights to their own bodies and lives should not be a “compromise” position. You’re either for freedom or not, aren’t you? It’s not like “I’ll agree to the abolition of slavery on the condition that…”. Slavery is evil; it should be condemned regardless of other concessions and relief of burdens that we want from our government.

saracore's avatar

Well then with your rationale, since I think drugs, abortion and same-sex are evil, I should condemn it regardless of other concessions and relief of burdens that I want from our government.

This puts me back right where I started – Limited social freedom, maximum economic freedom. Not negotiable.

The founding fathers didn’t think slavery was evil. They were slave owners.

gondwanalon's avatar

Another 14 hour day at work. Feel sorry for me. HA!

@jerv and @HungryGuy Is it so crazy to say that laws should be maintained that reflect common decency and traditional behavior of a healthy society. All I’m saying is that I think that practices such as polygamy, child pornography, child prostitution, bestiality, illegal drug use etc. should remain illegal.

Franky I don’t care if adults have a private sex orgy or if 3 or more adults live together as long as they keep it to themselves in private. If they decide run naked through a public park doing their thing or if they expect me to think that their behavior is normal then I have a problem with that.

How well would such perverted behavior be accepted in China, Iran, or Russia? The U.S.A is still the best place on Earth to live.

I have another 14 hour day tomorrow so have a great day!

judochop's avatar

I have been sitting here trying to think of a good answer as a conservative and I just can’t think like that.

Blackberry's avatar

@judochop I can’t either. And when I try, I end up thinking I’m somewhat greedy (disregard for ethics and the poor in the name of economic freedom) and/or trying to impose my seemingly objective morality onto others (thinking things should be illgal because it’s not a part of a “healthy society”).

Paradox25's avatar

Well I’m somewhat “libertarian” (I prefer the term liberal but I hate the baggage that comes with the modern day definition of it) but I lean just slightly left of center. What you described above sounds like libertarianism, not conservatism. Conservatism can be a relative term depending on what a political party is trying to ‘conserve’ but libertarianism is a modern day term for liberalism (classic if you will) which essentially means hands off or live and let live.

I think you have to realize the mentality here of people when they use terms such as liberal and conservative before anybody can answer such a question but I won’t go too deep here. Progressives can be very conservative and many past Democrats (which I call communitarians) are a good example of this. On the other hand many past Republicans had a major libertarian streak in them. The term liberalism became demonized by both anticommunist conservative/communitarian political think tanks over the past 60 years. In fact this campaign was so successful that today (though this sounds strange) people believe that liberalism means conservatism and that conservatism means liberalism. Now liberalism is lumped together with progressivism, communism, fascism, collectivism, authoritarianism, etc despite the fact that liberalism means the dead opposite of all of these terms.

I have argued against many self described conservatives both online and offline when they say they stand for freedom. The typical types of counter responses I get are “we need to employ a neoconservative foreign policy to protect the free word”, “without family values and morals our society would quickly fall apart and we would loose that freedom anyways”, “if we allowed every vice to be decriminalized than we will be the ones to pay for others irresponsible behaviors with our hard earned tax dollars”, “social help programs eventually lead to government dependence, which in turn leads to communism/fascism”, etc.

I don’t know, what do you think? Personally I have found that modern day conservatism and progressivism has a major authoritarian streak within them, just like many ‘moderates’ do. This is one of the reasons why I classify myself as a libertarian instead of a conservative despite the fact that I live a much more conservative life than my political views say. Conservatives (or Republicans if you will) seem to be a dividing bunch these days with 3 major factions; moderate, authoritarian and libertarian. Authoritarian conservatives preach smaller government and less intrusion in our personal lives but if it was up to them the tax burden wouldn’t really go down but up for that “99%”, we would all be drafted in the military, our personal freedoms would disappear and we truely would be a ‘Christian Nation’.

incendiary_dan's avatar

Corporations are not people. They get no rights. People get rights.

jerv's avatar

@gondwanalon There are certain things that are nearly universal across nearly every culture, like murder, then there are other things that vary by culture like drug use (Muslims and alcohol versus peyote in tribal lands) or homosexuality. I have no problem with banning the universal things, but we are not a Theocracy, so legislating morality is dicey.

HungryGuy's avatar

I think part of the problem is that both conservatives and liberals just don’t understand each others’ basic premises, and base their opinions on each other on examples of extremists.

For example, a conservative jelly here on Fluther repeatedly posts quips in his answers wondering why liberals want to have everything given to them for “free” while they “refuse” to work. That’s not what most liberals want at all (though some do), it’s just how some conservatives see them. Just as some liberals see conservatives as ignorant rich people who who “hate” minorities. That’s not true either.

From what I’ve been able to glean, both liberals and conservatives want what’s best for everyone and society.

Conservatives think the best way to improve everyone’s standard of living is to allow business to prosper, and that the more prosperous the economy, the better off everyone is. “A rising tide lifts all boats.” as some say. But conservatives are against things that hamper a robust economy. If people are high on drugs, or spending time in the sack, or watching porn, instead of working and contributing to the economy, that hurts everyone and should be forbidden.

On the other hand, liberals think that the best way to improve everyone’s standard of living is to allow people to have fun and live however they want to in private, even if that means the economy isn’t humming along at 110% efficiency. But liberals are against things that, while mutually consensual, cause wealth to be concentrated among a few, and thus hurt most peoples’ endeavors to be happy by denying them the means to have a reasonable, even if not prosperous, standard of living.

Now, I know I’ve used a lot of generalities here that may upset some people, but my goal was to make my point succinctly without writing a novel.

I think if both liberals and conservatives would make a greater effort to understand and appreciate each others’ motives, instead of liberals accusing conservatives of being “hateful” and “ignorant” and “for the rich,” and instead of conservatives accusing liberals of wanting everything for “free” while “refusing” to work, we might be able to get somewhere…

Just sayin’...

jerv's avatar

@HungryGuy Absolutely correct. However, it muddies the waters when you get Moderates like me in the mix.

For instance, I share the Conservative ideal that allowing business to prosper is necessary to improve quality of life for us all, but I also share the Liberal ideal that prosperity means nothing if we can’t feed our own citizens, or workers cannot afford to buy what the businesses are selling. I share the Conservative ideal that smaller government is better, and the Liberal ideal that the government should not regulate social things that don’t harm anybody.

Sadly, the weight of the evidence supports those stereotypes, if for no reason other than the more Moderate voices are rarely heard, or at least not listened too because we are not as sensational as, say, Westboro Baptist Church. The voice of reason isn’t entertaining or attention-getting.

It would also help if there wasn’t such an “us or them” mentality. I have often been called spineless, weak, wishy-washy, and many other similar things because of my political and religious views that are not 130% on one side or the other. That needs to stop!

TexasDude's avatar

@HungryGuy it’s all about emphasis on different value sets. Michael Shermer (founder of the Skeptics Society, editor in chief of Skeptic magazine, secular humanist, and liberal turned libertarian) has written quite a bit on this subject. He takes a rather fair-minded and functionalistic perspective on the whole liberal vs. conservative thing. He argues that almost all people have the same innate set of values (which includes things like empathy/care, traditionalism, loyalty, and so on). Self-described liberals and conservatives alike all possess these traits, but place more or less emphasis on the traits themselves depending on what they identify as. For example, liberals are more likely to report that they feel the pain of others, but are less likely to have loyalty to some time of group. He argues that it takes all types to make the world go round and there is room for both liberals and conservatives in society. The example he makes is that he’d prefer his therapist to be a liberal (with high levels of empathy, etc) whereas he’d like the soldier that protects him to be a conservative (loyal, aggressive, etc). I tend to agree with his assessment.

incendiary_dan's avatar

I do refuse to work, but then again I’m an anarchist, and don’t expect anyone to give me handouts either.

Paradox25's avatar

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard It doesn’t surprise me that those who identify themselves as conservative hold supporting traditional institutions and being accepted by their peers in high regards compared to those who describe themselves as liberal. Liberals can have much more dissention among themselves than most conservatives. Dr. Bob Altemeyer really dwells into the topic of the way authoritarians think differently than liberals (when I say liberal I mean hands-off, not progressivism) on his site and you can download his free e-book from there called “The Authoritarians”, it is a great read.

@jerv I know the us vs them attitudes that many authoritarians have. When I was on sodahead they would call moderates fence sitting cowards, liberals (well I better not say here) and libertarians one of two things; closet liberals or conservatives without a backbone.

HungryGuy's avatar

@incendiary_dan – If you refuse to work, but are self-sufficient otherwise, I think that works for most people. liberal and conservative alike :-p

@all – As I’ve already said a few times, I’m pretty near the top of the spectrum (libertarian) who leans a little down the left slope (liberal). To those of you who are liberal and have come across conservatives who refuse to compromise, and to those of you who are conservative and have come across liberals who refuse to compromise, I feel your frustration.

But again, to get back to the topic of the question: Why do some of you refuse to compromise? Why do you demand the rights that are important to you, but would deny others’ the rights that are important to them? Why? Why Why?

saracore's avatar

Because I can be successful at implementing my ideology without a compromise. Compromising is a last resort, like when you’re having a hard time getting it done in the polls, or the court room.

You shouldn’t have to compromise something you believe in. As CWOTUS pointed out, if you think it’s wrong, then keep making an effort to outlaw it.

HungryGuy's avatar

@saracore – Okay. Maybe we’re getting somewhere. That begs the next question; Why do you believe that letting people do what they want in private that’s peaceful and consensual is “wrong?”

incendiary_dan's avatar

@HungryGuy Personally, I think it has to do with the narrative each group has, and in particular what that narrative tells them about what the role of government and economics are. Not surprisingly, I think this all stems from the incomplete narrative of human history and nature that civilized cultures repeat. But I’ve been through explaining that often enough already.

saracore's avatar

@HungryGuy,

Why does it matter why I think it’s wrong? If my minds made up, then that’s it.

Who cares if I tell you I think it’s immoral, or for religious reasons, or whatever other reason?

HungryGuy's avatar

@saracore & @incendiary_dan – That seems pretty final, eh?

incendiary_dan's avatar

Apparently.

saracore's avatar

I think it has always been final on a practical level. It’s a cycle. Conservatives gain power for a while and push their type of thinking, then it dies down and liberals takeover.

HungryGuy's avatar

@saracore – I’ve noticed that, too. The pendulum swings back and forth, and back and forth…

Now if only it would swing to the top once in a while…

saracore's avatar

Idealism, in my opinion.

incendiary_dan's avatar

Gotta get off that swing.

saracore's avatar

Getting of that swing would be a compromise, and compromising is idealism, my opinion.

That’s why anarchist & libertarian systems don’t last too long. The only thing you get is the degree of the swing.

incendiary_dan's avatar

Yea, I suppose that’s why humans spent over 90% of our history without class division and managing classes. Totally don’t last long.

saracore's avatar

Those links are vague. They don’t show in detail where, when, and how long egalitarian/gift economies were around.

It just shows that some places were practicing it. I wouldn’t call that 90% or use the word our.

jerv's avatar

“Because I can be successful at implementing my ideology without a compromise. Compromising is a last resort, like when you’re having a hard time getting it done in the polls, or the court room.”

Personally, I would’ve thought that trashing our liberties, removing our freedoms, inciting unrest, or merely imprisoning/executing dissenters would be even less preferable than compromise. It is zealotry like that that keeps people fom even trying to negotiate.

@saracore With a position like that, you are discrediting everything you stand for. Congratulations for weakening your position better than I ever could.

@HungryGuy I am resistant to compromise because of people like @saracore. Give me a Conservative like @CaptainHarley and there is room for give-and-take, some constructive dialog, and some actual compromise. Give me someone like @saracore and I will talk to the wall as that would be more productive.

saracore's avatar

That’s a straw man fallacy, petty.

After considering what cwotus wrote, I’m not going to compromise in something I believe in. If something is wrong, then it should be condemned, not negotiated with.

There is no constructive dialog when negotiating on how much evil to allow into the system since evil is not-negotiable. On that note, I give you the wall. Have fun.

jerv's avatar

@saracore “If something is wrong, then it should be condemned, not negotiated with.”
Correct. That is why I condemn you.

@Paradox25 “Liberals can have much more dissention among themselves than most conservatives.”
Traditionally, yes. However, with some Republicans now tolerating gays, others joining the Tea Party, and some saying, “Fuck you all, I’m going Libertarian!”, I wonder if it’s still true today. Or are you saying that the Liberals generally handle it better because the Democrats have been disorganized and fractious for over a century yet still remain relevant?

incendiary_dan's avatar

@saracore I’m the one saying that. Since you haven’t been around as long as most of the others in here, you’re probably not aware that I teach anthropology (mostly as secondary in my classes, but it is what I went to school for and still study and write about it). :)

But hey, if you need someone more well known to talk about it, here’s Marshal Sahlins.

Paradox25's avatar

@jerv I’m talking about those who identify themselves as hard core conservatives, not necessarily Republicans. I don’t know of too many hardcore conservatives that like a Ron Paul or Gary Johnson type of Republican.

To answer the other part of your response most liberals and moderates tolerate each other well. To the authoritarian conservative mindset liberals are commies out to destroy America while moderates are closet liberals. Libertarians too are considered closet liberals. Hardcore conservatives also already have their platform written in stone for what you should believe to be considered a true American. I’ll use Conservapedia as an example. The latter group is more likely to conform to a set of rules written for them, the former groups can have massive dissention depending on the issue. Just my own experience.

HungryGuy's avatar

@all – Let’s not fall into a flame war here :-p

@saracore – IMO, @jerv has a point. No offense, and please don’t take this as a personal attack, but saying what people do in private that’s mutually consensual is evil and should be forbidden is, itself, evil. I.e., if I want to do something in private in my home along with other consenting adults, and you think that’s evil and won’t compromise on giving me that right, why shouldn’t I consider you evil? Just askin’... :-p

jerv's avatar

@Paradox25 True, your self-identified “hardcore Conservatives” would consider both of those guys to be Socialists at best. However, your run-of-the-mill Conservative is more likely to be a Republican rather than a Tea Party member or one of those who thinks the Tea Party is too liberal. But I guess it all goes to illustrate how “Liberal” and “Conservative” are relative.

@HungryGuy I can think of two alternative possible explanations; insanity or mental retardation. Normally, I would apply Hanlon’s Razor (“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”), but I think stupidity can be ruled out by the eloquence of the vitriol spewed forth by @saracore.
However, there has been no similar evidence of their mental stability. Therefore, insanity remains on the table and allows for the possibility that @saracore is neither evil nor stupid.

incendiary_dan's avatar

@jerv One of my favorite authors has as a premise in one of his books “The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane.” Seems applicable here.

HungryGuy's avatar

@jerv – LoL. I wouldn’t go so far as to accuse conservatives (and liberals) who refuse to compromise with each other as insane or mentally retarded. More like selfish to the point where they don’t care if people like us (the political minority who believe in all aspects of freedom) see their hypocrisy.

saracore's avatar

@HungryGuy
You can see me as evil. All that matters is who wins on shaping the system (what I think is evil or what you). Cycle.

@jerv‘s straw man fallacies & petty insults towards gives me a sense of relief, because it shows how well my world perspectives dominate the system he lives in. I’m clearly making a practical impact that effects his life.

This not such a surprising response. People who don’t know how to continue civil/logical discourse respond with emotional outbursts or physical violence.

HungryGuy's avatar

@saracore – I think you misinterpreted my reply. I didn’t mean to call you evil. I don’t really think you’re evil. I was just trying to make a point.

After all, you said that you won’t compromise with evil, as if to say that what consenting adults in private is evil.

My point is (1) to ask what’s evil in what consenting adults do in private? And (2) if person “A” believes that what person “B” and person “C” do consensually in private is evil, why shouldn’t persons “B” and “C” regard person “A” as evil? That’s all I meant :-)

jerv's avatar

@saracore “People who don’t know how to continue civil/logical discourse respond with emotional outbursts or physical violence.”

That would explain Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and other things that Conservatives have done, as well as Fox News. Given those things that qualify as “emotional outbursts” and “physical violence” along with your utter unwillingness to give an inch, I find it hypocritical of you to try using that against me… and that I find to be utterly unsurprising.

As for your perspectives dominating the system I live in, not really. They concern me greatly though since you want us to go down a path that is no better than North Korea, Iran, or any other place that is considered “evil”. That being the case, it is a bit difficult to think otherwise of you.

As for continuing logical discourse, need I remind you which of us digs in their feet, shuts down, and refuses to make it a two-way, give-and-take conversation? Hint; it isn’t me.

@HungryGuy I find that, barring evil, that degree of selfishness is generally only possible amongst those whose lack empathy is the result of sociopathic disorders or some form of Autism. Given my personal experience with the latter, I say the former.
Megalomania is also a possibility; people tend to dismiss the thoughts, opinions and feeling of those I feel are inferior.

Regardless of the exact details, I consider that refusing to even consider budging indicates some serious mental flaw. Though they are sometimes amusing to watch, or to wind up….

saracore's avatar

@HungryGuy,

1. Well I asked you before, why does it matter on why I think abortion, drugs, and same-sex are evil?

2. They can view me as evil and that is why you have many groups with different perspectives on is considered evil. Some people think greed is evil. I don’t. I think greed is good and human nature.

@jerv,

I never said one political leaning does it and not the other. I said anyone.

There you again, another straw man fallacy and more insults. It’s amazing how easily I wind you up just by holding on to what I believe in.

Let me spare you of making more straw man fallacies by summing up what I actually believe in, economically. Link Perhaps this Link2 & this link3 & this link4 too. There is no give-and-take here. You either believe in the school of thought of the links, or you don’t. I’m not unsubscribing from that school of thought.

And since you’re willing to compromise socially, what exactly are you willing to compromise on?

jerv's avatar

@saracore It is late here, so I won’t go into much detail right now, but f for the moment, let us just say that I believe that people I don’t agree with are entitled to the same freedoms I am.

Also note that I am not so much wound up as amused. I find this entertaining, but really don’t have much stake in this as I am aware that there is no chance of me affecting your thinking and thus don’t expect anything to really come of this. In other words, I am only here because I am bored.

jerv's avatar

BTW, I noticed that you cannot differentiate between “Straw man”, Ad hominem, and Exempli gratia.

incendiary_dan's avatar

@jerv Yea, I was just going to point that one out. Naming logical fallacies isn’t the same as actually pointing them out.

saracore's avatar

@jerv wrote, “Personally, I would’ve thought that trashing our liberties, removing our freedoms, inciting unrest, or merely imprisoning/executing dissenters would be even less preferable than compromise. It is zealotry like that that keeps people fom even trying to negotiate.”

This is implying I’m for those things. This is a straw man. You linked me to an argument that I never said, and can easily be defeated.

@jerv wrote, ” I can think of two alternative possible explanations; insanity or mental retardation.”

@jerv, “However, there has been no similar evidence of their mental stability. Therefore, insanity remains on the table and allows for the possibility that @saracore is neither evil nor stupid.”

These two quotes are personal attacks, hence an Ad hominem attack.

@jerv wrote, ” They concern me greatly though since you want us to go down a path that is no better than North Korea, Iran, or any other place that is considered “evil”.”

This is another straw man. Linking a sham argument to me that I never stated, and that can be easily defeated.

jerv's avatar

@saracore

1) So, it is your argument that you are willing to move away from the extremist position that you espouse? You implied that you would not and then went on to give a different definition of “compromise” than most English-speaking people I know use.
If, on the other hand, you are steadfast and resolute in being “all or nothing” then I am linking you to an argument you said, thereby invalidating that statement.

2 & 3) Coming up with less harmful alternatives to being evil really isn’t an attack. I can see how you may think otherwise since none of the possibilities mentioned are very flattering though.
Oddly, you mentioned a logical fallacy that did not exist and yet did not address one that actually could have slipped in during my attempt to portray you as something other than evil. But given your aberrant definition of “compromise”, I am not sure I would be able to identify that anyways; you seem to speak a different dialect of English.

4) So, your argument is that abortion, drugs, and same-sex relationships should not be condemned. Gotcha. Sorry about taking your explicit statement to the contrary at face value earlier.
If you wish to back away from that and claim that those things should be condemned then your argument is invalid; I am referencing an argument that you did make.

However, this has now digressed far enough that you are starting to make straw men, so I think it best to end this silliness.

Besides, you are now boring.

saracore's avatar

@jerv,

Well I said that after conversing with CWOTUS, I changed my position. I no longer wish to compromise on anything, and I’ve stated my reason. You must not have read that part, even thought I wrote it more then once.

I didn’t know I was suppose to entertain you. I’m sorry I didn’t meet your expectations. Try youtube for some boredom relief. I find that effective at times.

saint's avatar

Yes. Enjoy your freedom. Please. Just pay your own bills.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther