Conservative Boast

[Akita Suggagaki]

Now how do we enforce it on the web?

BTW I do agree that pornography is pernicious, degrading and addictive for some. On that basis alone one could hope that a societal consensus could be reached and standards set. When it comes to alcohol, guns, driving, hunting, movie theaters we at least have some boundaries. I believe a NON-RELIGOUS argument can be made for better regulation of pornography. But then you have the government telling you what you can look at. How does that sit with you.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Can't you understand that any arguments in the public sector, especially with laws, must have a basis other than religious belief?

Let's make work on the Sabbath, Saturday, against the law. Why? because the Bible says so. Are you ok with that?

I understand that the purely religious element in law cannot be used as a basis for society. Yet I don't believe in excising the influence of religion from public life in total as you seem to. This has only lead to the current situation where faith is utterly subordinated to a secular progressive legal and social hegemony which even Christians adopt. Many countries have laws against hate speech, like the UK, but Christians shudder even more at the Idea of punishing blasphemy. What this leads to is the gradual concession of society to elements which won't benefit Christians or Christianity and we wonder at the declining of Christianity int he west. It's because Christians are powerless, they don't organize and watch as spectators as the game of power is played. We don't even operate like the early Christians did, which would at least be something, yet even they would be considered extreme by today's standards.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Because you have no answer.

I have an answer but why does it matter? You'll endlessly deconstruct any definition I give, refusing to admit to the spirit of what I am saying. This sort of rules lawyering would not exist for things you support. So we are of two different minds. You believe in some sacred right to freedom to consume and make pornography based on your liberal worldview. I believe there is no such right to pornography based on my Christian worldview. We're at an impasse. We want two different futures. You want to see degeneracy protected in law and society, I don't.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Do you want to force your morality on liberals?

No more so than liberals want to force their morality on me, by making me have to legally recognize things in order to participate fully in society. If you're objection to me is the use of force, then you must necessarily be opposed to all governmental force but many Christians are not consistent on this front. If the world operates by force or power and most of this power cannot be justified morally and said force will always exist, we do ourselves no favours by refusing to participate. One can have a Christian society and not compel people to be Christian, yet at the same time they would be expected to submit to Christian standards instead of their own. Think of Muslims being not allowed to marry multiple women. Think about people not being allowed to blaspheme Christ or God. I do not see from a Christian point of view, why Christians, if they can attain power, should not operate society on the basis of their own interests.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So we are of two different minds. You believe in some sacred right to freedom to consume and make pornography based on your liberal worldview.

Did you read posts 59 and 61? I find your comment offensive.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Did you read posts 59 and 61? I find your comment offensive.

You claim to not know what pornography is for the sake of deconstructing the Idea in order to justify not making pornography illegal. I find you to be extremely disgusting, this despite you already saying pornography is dehumanizing and evil.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I find you to be extremely disgusting,

You baffle me. I have no other choice put to ignore you from this point forward.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You baffle me. I have no other choice put to ignore you from this point forward.

No skin off my back.

 

[Merrill]

View attachment 352223

This is complete nonsense

Some of it is correct, such as

1. Powerful federal government vs. state and local
2. welfare state vs. individual responsibility

but the idea that only conservatives support lots of funding for military is disproven by history. The Obama and Biden administrations saw record defense spending, lots of foreign interventions, and a strengthening of the military-industrial complex

likewise, there is no such thing as "trickle-down economics" --conservatives never used that term, and it is a distortion of supply-side tax and economic policy of the 1980s. And tax cuts didn't simply go to the "wealthiest class" --the Reagan tax cut of 1981 was across-the-board and impacted everyone, just as the Bush and Trump tax cuts did. Absolutely no president ever passed a "tax cut for the rich"

those are fake, DNC talking-points and slogans

Now we can argue whether or not some of those tax cuts should have been implemented, but let's not paint it as something other than what it was

 

[Merrill]

View attachment 352221

I would move National Socialism to the Y axis between Communism and Fundamentalism

and I would take "Democratic Socialism" out of the graphic altogether

there is no such thing as "Democratic Socialism" --no one "votes freely" for an authoritarian state where individual liberties are abolished in favor of centralized planning, collective ownership (at the expense of individual), etc. North Korea calls itself "Democratic" when everyone knows that it is the least Democratic country on earth

it just isn't a real thing

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

This is complete nonsense

Some of it is correct, such as

1. Powerful federal government vs. state and local
2. welfare state vs. individual responsibility

but the idea that only conservatives support lots of funding for military is disproven by history. The Obama and Biden administrations saw record defense spending, lots of foreign interventions, and a strengthening of the military-industrial complex

likewise, there is no such thing as "trickle-down economics" --conservatives never used that term, and it is a distortion of supply-side tax and economic policy of the 1980s. And tax cuts didn't simply go to the "wealthiest class" --the Reagan tax cut of 1981 was across-the-board and impacted everyone, just as the Bush and Trump tax cuts did. Absolutely no president ever passed a "tax cut for the rich"

those are fake, DNC talking-points and slogans

Now we can argue whether or not some of those tax cuts should have been implemented, but let's not paint it as something other than what it was

Yes, good. I put those up there to get responses and corrections so we can all more clearly see the issues that divide us.

 

[Laodicean60]

No more so than liberals want to force their morality on me, by making me have to legally recognize things in order to participate fully in society.

I don't know NZ's government, so I'm not sure what you mean here.

If you're objection to me is the use of force, then you must necessarily be opposed to all governmental force

I don't see in the bible where Christians are told to use force to preach the Gospel or live a certain way.

I do not see from a Christian point of view, why Christians, if they can attain power, should not operate society on the basis of their own interests.

The sins in the bible are directed toward Christians individually, not unbelievers. Society is a mixture of people and from what I've seen for the last 30 years it's the Christians who have created hate in the world by minding everyone else's business preaching sin and now it's our faces we freak out.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I don't know NZ's government, so I'm not sure what you mean here.

Are you saying laws don't exist and that businesses and people are allowed to do whatever they want?

I don't see in the bible where Christians are told to use force to preach the Gospel or live a certain way.

I don't see where in the Bible Christians are forbidden from having a nation or place that they may govern on their own terms. That requires a certain amount of force which requires the people who live in said territory to recognize local law. Are you against the idea of a polity which is informed by Christian ideals and ideas?

The sins in the bible are directed toward Christians individually, not unbelievers. Society is a mixture of people and from what I've seen for the last 30 years it's the Christians who have created hate in the world by minding everyone else's business preaching sin and now it's our faces we freak out.

So we as Christians are mere dhimmis of any non Christian power and we cannot be allowed to rule ourselves or seek out political power?

 

[Laodicean60]

Are you saying laws don't exist and that businesses and people are allowed to do whatever they want?

I didn't say anything I asked you a question. Of course, there are laws as there should be.

I don't see where in the Bible Christians are forbidden from having a nation or place that they may govern on their own terms. That requires a certain amount of force which requires the people who live in said territory to recognize local law. Are you against the idea of a polity which is informed by Christian ideals and ideas?

What do you want a crusade for your nation, which country do you want to be a Christian nation in a secular world? Since the dawn of man force was used but Jesus taught differently.

So we as Christians are mere dhimmis of any non Christian power and we cannot be allowed to rule ourselves or seek out political power?

I'm sorry you think of yourselves this way and maybe a little paranoid, but I'd rather fall back on Jesus and love rather than what seems militant.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I didn't say anything I asked you a question. Of course, there are laws as there should be.

Then why are you acting as If modern laws don't compel certain behaviors to participate in society? Such as expression or commerce? Why is it especially bad if such law is informed by Christianity?

What do you want a crusade for your nation, which country do you want to be a Christian nation in a secular world? Since the dawn of man force was used but Jesus taught differently.

Yes I would like a nation which embodies aspects of Christianity as I don't believe in handing all power to my ideological enemies. Nor do I think my own principles of ruling are inferior to the ones which dominate today. Jesus did not forbid Christians from having a place of their own, which is operated by and for the interests of Christians.

I'm sorry you think of yourselves this way and maybe a little paranoid, but I'd rather fall back on Jesus and love rather than what seems militant.

How are you not advocating a sort of universal Christian dhimmitude?

 

[Laodicean60]

Then why are you acting as If modern laws don't compel certain behaviors to participate in society? Such as expression or commerce? Why is it especially bad if such law is informed by Christianity?

What inputs do you have or what exactly would you enact as law?

Nor do I think my own principles of ruling are inferior to the ones which dominate today.

Then run I feel the same way. We do have Christians in our government.

How are you not advocating a sort of universal Christian dhimmitude?

So you feel like a second-class citizen? What has affected you in NZ that is taking from Christians?

 

[FireDragon76]

Why do people boast of being "Conservative", especially politicians?

Isn't that basically an admission to being unable or unwilling to adapt to the changing realities of the world?

Conservatism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Traditional Burkean conservatives believes in potential organic social change.

American "conservatives" today are mostly religious fundamentalists, reactionaries and wealthy kleptocrats, in comparison. Somebody like Pete Buttigieg is actually more of a traditional conservative, than somebody like J.D. Vance, who wants to radically reshape America along Catholic Integralist lines and return America to the mythical ideals of a Norman Rockwell painting.

 

[FireDragon76]

View attachment 352221

That's an accurate chart. Many "progressives" are actually center-right conservatives, once you cut through the RT propaganda.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

But new research by psychologist Nick Kerry and me at the University of Pennsylvania contradicts that long-standing theory. We find instead that the main difference between the left and the right is whether people believe the world is inherently hierarchical. Conservatives, our work shows, tend to believe more strongly than liberals in a hierarchical world, which is essentially the view that the universe is a place where the lines between categories or concepts matter. A clearer understanding of that difference could help society better bridge political divides.

Many Differences between Liberals and Conservatives May Boil Down to One Belief

Conservatives tend to believe that strict divisions are an inherent part of life. Liberals do not

www.scientificamerican.com

People who score high in hierarchical world belief see the world as full of differences that matter because they usually reflect something real, inherent and significant. Such individuals often separate things of greater value from things of lesser value. You might imagine that to them the world looks full of big, bold black lines. In the opposite view—held by people with lower scores for this belief—differences tend to be seen as superficial and even silly. For those with this perspective, the world is mostly dotted lines or shades of gray.

The line relevant to the abortion debate is perhaps conception. Conservatives believe this line marks the beginning of human life and thus matters a great deal. A nonhierarchical perspective would be that life emerges incrementally across many thresholds.

Does all this go back to Platonic Forms v. Nominalism?

 

[FireDragon76]

People who score high in hierarchical world belief see the world as full of differences that matter because they usually reflect something real, inherent and significant. Such individuals often separate things of greater value from things of lesser value. You might imagine that to them the world looks full of big, bold black lines. In the opposite view—held by people with lower scores for this belief—differences tend to be seen as superficial and even silly. For those with this perspective, the world is mostly dotted lines or shades of gray.

The line relevant to the abortion debate is perhaps conception. Conservatives believe this line marks the beginning of human life and thus matters a great deal. A nonhierarchical perspective would be that life emerges incrementally across many thresholds.

That's part of the issue, certainly. I also think it has to do with how much people value the autonomy of women, especially women's bodies.