Create a new account
A new episode of the superpodcast Ask Pudge is now online for your listening pleasure. Feel free to Ask new questions of Pudge here, for future episodes.
It's so easy to knock down straw men. Kinda fun sometimes, too.
If only I had known that that liberals are driven by "wishful thinking" and and "the notion that we can make life on Earth perfect" and "[maybe] we can all have a Star Trek like existence". Gosh, even though I've never met a single liberal who espouses such a view, clearly you, Pudge, the Champion of Truth and Light, have revealed to me the Way. Never again shall I be so shallow as to believe that differences in core values might lead peopl
Agreed that you didn't say "all liberals". My apologies. However, you presented the viewpoint of what describe as "many liberals" and you quite failed to make it clear that this is a minority viewpoint. Instead, you presented a viewpoint that is clearly your own, you mocked it ("Star Trek like existence"?), and used a minority opinion -- one I don't hear -- as a contrast to conservative opinion. You might think it's fair to contrast a minority opinion with what you clearly view as the rational conservat
So to contrast this, I could make the following statement:
Many conservatives are racist bastards who feel that non-white people are less intelligent than white people and are genetically predisposed to commit crime. Liberals, quite rightly, reject this notion.
One problem with that statement is that I've now lumped all liberals in the same category. I doubt that many liberals would agree with the "many conservatives" viewpoint I present, but I'm sure that some do. However, my statement about conservat
But why compare non-pervasive ridiculous notions in the first place?
Because that's what the question asked in the first place.
Perhaps a better wording would have been "a significant number of liberals" instead of "many liberals."
Instead, you presented a viewpoint that is clearly your own, you mocked it ("Star Trek like existence"?)
Have you listened to Ask Pudge episode 1? Because one of the questions was this [slashdot.org]. So in the full context of Ask Pudge, the whole "Star Trek post economy, everyone's needs could be filled if we'd just abandon capitalism/conservatism/greed" has been referenced before and is being referenced again.
Well, I certainly wouldn't say that many conservatives are motivated by fear. In fact, I don't think the neo-cons who've hijacked (in my opinion) the conservative party are motivated by fear. (Like many, I feel they find fear is a great tool for public manipulation). So no, I don't think the comparison is unfair for this reason.
And for the record, my general opinion of what I view as "true" conservatives tends to be people who think that smaller government works better and the government should be stay
And for the record, my general opinion of what I view as "true" conservatives tends to be people who think that smaller government works better and the government should be staying the hell out of people's lives unless absolutely necessary. That's a viewpoint I have a lot of sympathy for. It's not a viewpoint that the current administration seems to share.
You and I are in complete agreement on that. Which is why I've basically exited the Republican Party. Of course, my belief in small government event
To clarify previous post, you and I are in complete definition over that definition of conservatism. I don't think we're in complete agreement in both accepting that as our own personal viewpoint, because I don't think (but could be wrong) that it's your viewpoint.
The problem I have with some conservatives is the same problem I have with some Christians. Basically, what they preach and what they practice aren't the same thing. This is hypocricy. Frankly, I don't mind a little hypocricy now and then so long as the practitioner is willing to admit the error of their ways and tries to be better. However, when they refuse to admit they are wrong, I have strong issues with this. Unfortunately, while these might be minority positions, they seem to have had a dispropor
I think I can find examples to contradict what pudge said, but I don't think the example you gave qualifies. Letter of the law/spirit of the law is orthogonal to the issue of whether or not you impose the law on anyone else. So is hypocrisy.
Everything you just said sounds like it could've come straight out of my mouth. My wife and I talk about this all the time. We believe God specifically prohibits Christians from governing others. (And the maximum penalty church government can impose is putting people out of the church.) I use the phrase "right to sin" a lot, with the same logic you do: God gives us the right to sin. God believes in the right to sin.
Frankly, I don't mind a little hypocricy now and then so long as the practitioner is
It's not about complaining. It's about persuading people that they don't have the moral authority to rule over one another, even if they vote on it. And I will continue to say so.
Incidentally, I'm still casting ballots. I'm just not voting for any politicians. I'm voting against referendum measures, and voting "none of the above," "other," or writein against every single candidate running. I'd like for a majority of people to discover they have no right to rule others, either, and join me. Elections are never won by true majorities since that many people rarely vote. I think every registered voter who doesn't show up ought to count as a "no" or "none of the above" vote, to make
Sure I am. I'm teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is a far more effective way to combat every problem people want to solve with government. And as I understand that Gospel, abandoning any claims we have of the right to govern each other is essential.
From a secular point of view, persuading people to relinquish this claim is also the way to eventual success. You cannot achieve a society that doesn't believe it has a right to vote on each other's affairs by voting. I saw a comment recently from
Get More Comments