Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Towards a Liberal/Conservative Synthesis


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Towards a Liberal/Conservative Synthesis Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Towards a Liberal/Conservative Synthesis - 6/2/2010 9:07:10 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL:FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

2) The New Atheists are mean because they don't like religious people. False.

I don't think "New Atheists are mean" is part of anyone's thesis. 

Would you mind pointing out who says that is the issue?

No. You got your response. Now its your turn.

It appears that you can't support your assertion.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL:FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Now how about addressing the fact that your conclusion is fairly obviously 180 degrees wrong?

Which conclusions, specifically, do you mean?


Specifically the one I responded to in the first reply to your op. The one you were reserving comment on.

You mean about where the burden lies, to understand the other?

I said "the toughest burden", not the only burden.

The fact is that secularism has been and still is in the position of power in our nation.  You even acknowledged that the country was founded by secularists.

The problem that I see is that some secularist/liberals have decided that "no quarter" is now appropriate in the order of things.  They see the individual moral foundations as the only legitimate source of morality.  If so, then of course the tougher burden is on them to show compassion and understanding.

However, that misses the main point of the OP, which is that a true civil and sane society learns how to integrate all aspects of both the individual and the binding foundations of morality.  That's not meant to say that secularist/liberals have to be religious, but they need to understand, appreciate and integrate the concepts of the binding foundations that conservatives see value in, and understand why they should do so.

Just as taking the conservative concepts of binding foundations too far can end up in a stifling society, so too can restricting society to only the liberal individual moral foundations.

It's tougher for liberals, because conservatives - in general - already understand and acknowledge the individual bindings.  Check out Haidt's research.  Take the test yourself, there is a link in the OP.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Towards a Liberal/Conservative Synthesis - 6/2/2010 9:12:53 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

* The thesis is an intellectual proposition.

And is false.

Not much of an intellectual proposition. Pointing out it's false IS discussing the contents.

Marx's work is based on Hegel. Same difference.


I dunno.

I've never heard of a requirement to use "universal principles".  And while the Marxist's dialectic is based on Hegal, it's not exactly the same thing.

A "thesis" is exactly that: a thesis.  It's opposite is an "antithesis".  The "Synthesis" is the joining of the two, or the resolution of their contradictions.

Are you saying that the thesis "is false" as in untrue, or that my formulation of the dialectic is incorrect and therefore "false"?

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Towards a Liberal/Conservative Synthesis - 6/2/2010 9:16:32 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Look, I'm done. Play by yourself.

If you can't see that basing an argument on a flawed premise is a problem, then there's no point discussing logic at all.

Haidt has opinion pieces here, and shifting ones at that. You like his assertions. Fine.

I'm not big on unsupported rationalizations. You are I are going in circles here.

See my first post. That's my take. The rest of this is just silly.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Towards a Liberal/Conservative Synthesis - 6/2/2010 9:32:02 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Look, I'm done. Play by yourself.

If you can't see that basing an argument on a flawed premise is a problem, then there's no point discussing logic at all.

Haidt has opinion pieces here, and shifting ones at that. You like his assertions. Fine.

I'm not big on unsupported rationalizations. You are I are going in circles here.

See my first post. That's my take. The rest of this is just silly.


Haidt's work and theories are based on science and research. 


asshole mode/

Read it, instead of making faux, silly arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. 

Your attempts to cloud the issue with poorly thought out, pseudo-intellectual arguments about the format, and the Marxist dialectic (of which you seem to be particularly ill equipped to pursue) have done nothing to contribute.

I'm disappointed, because for a long while I valued your opinions and your posts, but over the last week or so, you seemed to have suffered a cranial-rectal inversion.

Let me know when you have your problem straightened out, and I'll apologize and welcome you back.

/asshole mode


Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Towards a Liberal/Conservative Synthesis - 6/2/2010 9:34:52 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Nonsense.

It was addressed on its merits, and politely.

Sorry people disagree with you, and with Haidt. This isn't research, not in any respectable peer review model, but unsupported justification for preconceived conclusions. It happens.

That bugs you, so be it.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Towards a Liberal/Conservative Synthesis - 6/2/2010 9:37:51 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		FR

Great thread, Firm. I'll plan to get back with something suitably longwinded when time and life permit. There are several points I think I have to disagree on.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Towards a Liberal/Conservative Synthesis - 6/2/2010 9:55:11 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

FR

Great thread, Firm. I'll plan to get back with something suitably longwinded when time and life permit. There are several points I think I have to disagree on.


Thanks Rich.  I'll be interested in your comments.

Firm

edited for: brainfart


< Message edited by FirmhandKY -- 6/2/2010 9:59:47 PM >

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Towards a Liberal/Conservative Synthesis - 6/2/2010 9:59:39 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
It appears that you can't support your assertion.

You misunderstand the difference between cannot and choose to not get embroiled in your games.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You mean about where the burden lies, to understand the other?

I said "the toughest burden", not the only burden.

The fact is that secularism has been and still is in the position of power in our nation.  You even acknowledged that the country was founded by secularists.

The problem that I see is that some secularist/liberals have decided that "no quarter" is now appropriate in the order of things.  They see the individual moral foundations as the only legitimate source of morality.  If so, then of course the tougher burden is on them to show compassion and understanding.

However, that misses the main point of the OP, which is that a true civil and sane society learns how to integrate all aspects of both the individual and the binding foundations of morality.  That's not meant to say that secularist/liberals have to be religious, but they need to understand, appreciate and integrate the concepts of the binding foundations that conservatives see value in, and understand why they should do so.

Just as taking the conservative concepts of binding foundations too far can end up in a stifling society, so too can restricting society to only the liberal individual moral foundations.

It's tougher for liberals, because conservatives - in general - already understand and acknowledge the individual bindings.  Check out Haidt's research.  Take the test yourself, there is a link in the OP.

Firm


And you still fail to acknowledge that the secularists and liberals do not have any burden in this matter. We already have lived beside religious and conservative people for 2 centuries. We've never tried to prevent your practice of your religion as long as it respects our right to not be your religion. We're not the ones that have tried to make political beliefs illegal or tried to legislate a required faith.

The simple fact is the source of the conflict is and has been since the Puritans in the Bay Colony tried to oppress the merchants of Boston, the religious and conservative.

If you believe otherwise it is far past time for evidence and it would be wise to keep in mind the list I presented in my first response which can be extended quite easily.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Towards a Liberal/Conservative Synthesis - 6/2/2010 10:06:37 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
It appears that you can't support your assertion.

You misunderstand the difference between cannot and choose to not get embroiled in your games.

You made it an issue, and chose to not back it up.

Your choice, naturally, but expect people to draw the obvious conclusion.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You mean about where the burden lies, to understand the other?

I said "the toughest burden", not the only burden.

The fact is that secularism has been and still is in the position of power in our nation.  You even acknowledged that the country was founded by secularists.

The problem that I see is that some secularist/liberals have decided that "no quarter" is now appropriate in the order of things.  They see the individual moral foundations as the only legitimate source of morality.  If so, then of course the tougher burden is on them to show compassion and understanding.

However, that misses the main point of the OP, which is that a true civil and sane society learns how to integrate all aspects of both the individual and the binding foundations of morality.  That's not meant to say that secularist/liberals have to be religious, but they need to understand, appreciate and integrate the concepts of the binding foundations that conservatives see value in, and understand why they should do so.

Just as taking the conservative concepts of binding foundations too far can end up in a stifling society, so too can restricting society to only the liberal individual moral foundations.

It's tougher for liberals, because conservatives - in general - already understand and acknowledge the individual bindings.  Check out Haidt's research.  Take the test yourself, there is a link in the OP.

Firm


And you still fail to acknowledge that the secularists and liberals do not have any burden in this matter. We already have lived beside religious and conservative people for 2 centuries. We've never tried to prevent your practice of your religion as long as it respects our right to not be your religion. We're not the ones that have tried to make political beliefs illegal or tried to legislate a required faith.

The simple fact is the source of the conflict is and has been since the Puritans in the Bay Colony tried to oppress the merchants of Boston, the religious and conservative.

If you believe otherwise it is far past time for evidence and it would be wise to keep in mind the list I presented in my first response which can be extended quite easily.


The use of the term "religious" government in the T-A-S was to set the terms that many religions - especially Christianity - rely upon the three binding foundations of morality, and that conservatives seem to recognize this better than liberal/secularists.  Liberal/secularists primarily rely upon the two binding foundations of morality.

So, getting out of the discussion about religion as religion, what are your thoughts about secularist/liberals expanding their thought processes to include the other three moral foundations?

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Towards a Liberal/Conservative Synthesis - 6/2/2010 10:54:44 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		My only interest is to prevent your obviously incorrect conclusion from being unchallenged. I take it from your abandonment of it that you have conceded the point in question. Which obviously calls into doubt the logic you used to arrive at your conclusion. Therefore the entire essay can be forgotten as a failed premise.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Towards a Liberal/Conservative Synthesis - 6/2/2010 11:52:01 PM   
BitaTruble


Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

How do we reach such an understanding, for the benefit of our entire world?


Put yourself into the shoes of the other side. Live their ways, breath their air, eat their food, speak their lingo, learn from their children. Gain knowledge of what it is, what it means then accept what should be accepted and reject what is rightfully rejected. Apply what you learn by the living of it and see if it doesn't truly broaden the mind to experience diversity. I have been fortunate to have been afforded the opportunity to experience many cultures - from my roots in the south to the laid back west coast and the frozen tundra of the North. I have tasted ultra conservative flavors from the small town in which I was born to the high energy, almost chaotic lifestyle of living for so long with a New Yorker - from the close-knit Mormon influences in Utah, the bible belt in the midwest, southen Babtist singing, Penacostal tongues and Pagan loving naturists as well as Silicon Valley geeks who wouldn't know a bible if you thumped them on the head with it and could not help but shed some tears at the dual Christian/Jewish wedding of my step-daughter. Live in several states as each has their own flavor. Fill your senses with the south, taste the north, feel the cool breeze from the Atlantic on your skin in the East and dip your toes in the Pacific Ocean then pick a direction and ride your bike, walk, fly, drive, take a boat - whatever .. and see where you end up and what happens to you when you get there.

We are now starting out in our second country in Europe and by staying open-minded and embracing various cultures, (something I highly recommend that individuals do and sooner in life rather than later if possible) I have learned more of myself and the world than I would have ever thought possible. Experience what's out there and integrate it into your own life when you honestly believe it's right. Be grounded and well-rounded and encourage such in others.

quote:

What can we do, each from our own positions, to achieve a balanced world view,


In keeping with this website - I wear a gag and a blindfold while I listen to those around me and listen, especially, to those who think and live in a differing manner because I will learn more from them than from someone who thinks exactly like me.


quote:

do we even have a desire to do so?


I do because I'm pretty fond of the planet as a whole and would like to see humans progress while realizing sometimes that means taking one step back for every two steps forward but that's okay because it's still progress and even baby steps get you places even if it takes a while.

You were looking for solutions, right? Those are mine.



_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."


(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Towards a Liberal/Conservative Synthesis - 6/3/2010 5:16:32 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline 		Thank you very much Bita.

Excellent post and great answers.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to BitaTruble)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Towards a Liberal/Conservative Synthesis - 6/4/2010 9:43:36 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		Sorry, Firm, but I just can't accept the basic premise Haidt and you seem to be working from here, that the lines of distinction between democrat/republican or liberal/conservative are drawn based on views of social morality. I see the difference in philosophy of governance. If I didn't see it this way, it would frankly be impossible for me to be a Republican.

Now the points that are raised certainly represent the talking points, but what you hear in the campaign, and what you get from the administration are very different. My faith in the structure of our government, and the specific protections of the Bill of Rights let me sleep easy after voting for a fiscal conservative no matter how he may reach out to the fundy vote. Want evidence? Reagan, Bush, and Bush II all ran as opposing abortion. 20 of the last 30 years. The dithering is over particularly distasteful late-term procedures, and who pays for a cheap outpatient surgery. At no time has the right of an asshole to hand her a couple hundred bucks to get rid of it, been infringed.

The evolution would be a fascinating study, but we've come to a place where the left sells the contract, to get you into the hive, while the right sells the hive, to get you into the contract.

I affiliate by what I'm expecting to buy, not the sales pitch.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Towards a Liberal/Conservative Synthesis - 6/6/2010 9:59:38 AM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

How do we reach such an understanding, for the benefit of our entire world?  What can we do, each from our own positions, to achieve a balanced world view, or ... do we even have a desire to do so?




I guess the place to start is with a neverending search for common ground. Once we get some of that on a shared goal, perhaps we can get a civil discussion going regarding process. It has to happen in good faith, as well. Too often, that seems to be lacking.






_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 54
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Towards a Liberal/Conservative Synthesis Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.079