Conservative=Regressive

[HBGary]

The purpose of mortal human life is to seek God and enter a relationship with Him through Chrlst.

Not according to the Muslim, Jew or atheist. You opinion is just that.

Pro-life would mean life for all (animals included) regardless of circumstance. If a so called pro-lifer is for the death penalty, that is not pro-life.

 

[stamperben]

This is a wonderfully fantastic Strawman StamperBen. You provide no evidence, none, to suggest or support the conclusion the Republican Party are advocates of Social Darwinism.

So, to borrow your reasoning, I propose the following diatribe.

Democrats are Communists: They are advocates for Soviet Union style dictatorship.

Just take my comment above as true and no evidence is necessary to support this belief or perception, just as you felt it unnecessary to provide any evidence to support your belief or perception above. You commit the same error here at this forum as you did in the other forum.

How many arguments have I seen that say the poor need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and thus become successes in society?

How many arguments have I seen that call for "smaller government" while calling for the increase in defense spending? We even saw that in the run-up to the failure of the Super Committee with the call to pass a bill that would exempt defense from unilateral cuts.

How many conservative/regressives are for the expanding of Homeland "security" while leading the charge for smaller government?

Your candidate of the moment has even called for the rollback of child labor laws!

Unemployment insurance. Extend it to ease the suffering of millions who through no fault of their own can not find work? Not if up to those who call themselves conservative.

No, the evidence of Social Darwinism is there, you just refuse to see it and therefor call it a strawman instead.

Now then if you'd like to get into a discussion on there being socialists in the Democrat party we could go there. Start the thread and I'll join you shortly.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Pro-life would mean life for all (animals included) regardless of circumstance. If a so called pro-lifer is for the death penalty, that is not pro-life.

And that is your opinion.

 

[NotreDame]

So that's why the cause of equal rights for ALL mankind has been and continues to be championed by us? That might be why the conservative/regressives have recently taken the cause of same sex marriage to task?
Give me a break.

This is a good example of self-aggrandizing.

 

[NotreDame]

How many arguments have I seen that say the poor need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and thus become successes in society?

How many arguments have I seen that call for "smaller government" while calling for the increase in defense spending? We even saw that in the run-up to the failure of the Super Committee with the call to pass a bill that would exempt defense from unilateral cuts.

How many conservative/regressives are for the expanding of Homeland "security" while leading the charge for smaller government?

Your candidate of the moment has even called for the rollback of child labor laws!

Unemployment insurance. Extend it to ease the suffering of millions who through no fault of their own can not find work? Not if up to those who call themselves conservative.

No, the evidence of Social Darwinism is there, you just refuse to see it and therefor call it a strawman instead.

Now then if you'd like to get into a discussion on there being socialists in the Democrat party we could go there. Start the thread and I'll join you shortly.

How many arguments have I seen that say the poor need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and thus become successes in society?

You are asking me this question about your own knowledge? Good one. Are you next going to ask me about the number of times you witnessed some event?

I do not have any idea how many arguments you have seen or heard advocating the poor "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and become "successes in society." Yet, this principle hardly constitutes as Social Darwinism but rather is an appeal to be more self-reliant and determined to achieve social mobility.

How many arguments have I seen that call for "smaller government" while calling for the increase in defense spending? We even saw that in the run-up to the failure of the Super Committee with the call to pass a bill that would exempt defense from unilateral cuts

Advocating for smaller government is not the equivalent of Social Darwinism.

Your candidate of the moment has even called for the rollback of child labor laws!

Another example of presuming too much!!! Another example of your perception being based on something other than reality. Another examle of your perception based upon tenuous assumptions about reality. How exactly do you know who "my" candidate is at the moment?

In addition, can you tell me the extent to which Gingrich has advocated for in reducing child labor laws? Or are we to presume ANY reducation in child labor laws is bad? How exactly is this Social Darwinism?

No, the evidence of Social Darwinism is there, you just refuse to see it and therefor call it a strawman instead.

Well, it isn't in any of your posts in this thread. Rather, you do a great job of merely presuming X is Social Darwinism but fail to argue or demonstrate how and why X is Social Darwinism.

Your argument is a mirage, it lacks substance, and really isn't worth much of anything at the moment.

 

[NotreDame]

Taking it personally, are we? Seems you should be attacking Robert Reich instead of StamperBen.

Personally, I believe Reich is correct. Conservatives are always looking back to "the good old days", you know when women and blacks knew their place and the bossman ran his factory long and hot. Good times

Attacking an argument with a parallel example and reasoning hardly qualifies as "taking it personal." But this isn't the first time you have been confused about things.

Personally, I believe Reich is correct. Conservatives are always looking back to "the good old days", you know when women and blacks knew their place and the bossman ran his factory long and hot. Good times

Demonstrate this is likely true!!!

 

[HBGary]

And that is your opinion.

We all know that pro-life ends the minute the umbilical cord is cut. To state otherwise is a lie.

 

[SOAD]

Attacking an argument with a parallel example and reasoning hardly qualifies as "taking it personal." But this isn't the first time you have been confused about things.



Demonstrate this is likely true!!!

Sure you are taking it personally. Why else would you attack the messenger, then come back with a personal insult against me? Don't worry though, I wont hold it against you

 

[stamperben]

You are asking me this question about your own knowledge? Good one. Are you next going to ask me about the number of times you witnessed some event?

I do not have any idea how many arguments you have seen or heard advocating the poor "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and become "successes in society." Yet, this principle hardly constitutes as Social Darwinism but rather is an appeal to be more self-reliant and determined to achieve social mobility.
​

Read around through the threads in this place. At least that's where I'm seeing them and you could too if you wished.

Advocating for smaller government is not the equivalent of Social Darwinism.
​

However it is showing the hypocrisy inherent in the conservative/regressive movement while also growing that government they say they wish to shrink.
But let's move on...

Another example of presuming too much!!! Another example of your perception being based on something other than reality. Another examle of your perception based upon tenuous assumptions about reality. How exactly do you know who "my" candidate is at the moment?
In addition, can you tell me the extent to which Gingrich has advocated for in reducing child labor laws? Or are we to presume ANY reducation in child labor laws is bad? How exactly is this Social Darwinism?
​

I don't have to presume anything that Newt said. I heard it. And you tell me how far you are willing to roll back child labor laws.

I use the term "your" candidate based on the poll numbers at the moment and based on the perception that you are up in arms over being aligned with Darwinism and the writings of Sumner. To be true, for all I know you may be a Paulite, or a Bachmann backer. But that really doesn't matter though, does it?

To Sumner and his followers, life was a competitive struggle in which only the fittest could survive – and through this struggle societies became stronger over time. A correlate of this principle was that government should do little or nothing to help those in need because that would interfere with natural selection.

Listen to today’s Republican debates and you hear a continuous regurgitation of Sumner. “Civilization has a simple choice,” Sumner wrote in the 1880s. It’s either “liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest,” or “not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members.”
​

So here we have something pointing to how all the above shows social Darwinism NoterDame. I'm sorry if it doesn't meet your exacting standards of debate. You'll have to forgive me as being one of the unwashed masses who wasn't able to attend a university such as the august one you use as your handle. I was too busy making a living and raising a family instead.

 

[NotreDame]

Sure you are taking it personally. Why else would you attack the messenger, then come back with a personal insult against me? Don't worry though, I wont hold it against you

I didn't attack the messenger. You are still confused.

 

[SOAD]

I didn't attack the messenger. You are still confused.

It is you who is confused

 

[NotreDame]

Read around through the threads in this place. At least that's where I'm seeing them and you could too if you wished.

Very weak evidence as you deprive anyone of the opportunity to examine the specific statements made. Furthermore, you once again presume too much in stating I can see evidence of Social Darwinism in posts at this website as it ignores the possibilities of you quite simply seeing something which is non-existent or misinterpreting and understanding what is actually said, or myself taking a different view.

This is hardly evidence to support your claim.

I don't have to presume anything that Newt said. I heard it. And you tell me how far you are willing to roll back child labor laws.

You are the one crying wolf at the moment, so it is your burden to demonstrate the existence of the wolf, not mine. You need to demonstrate how Newt's comment constitutes as Social Darwinism. You just presume, without anything more, Newt's comment constitutes as Social Darwinism. Yet, your statement has no substance to it. You have failed miserably in focusing upon what exactly Newt said, the specifics of his comments, and how the intricacies of his comments and his proposal constitutes as Social Darwinism.

Newt's actuall commentary is anything but Social Darwinism. At the moment, Newt merely suggested allowing 13 and 14 year olds legally work some jobs. There is nothing Darwinistic about such a thought.

This is the problem with your argument, you perceive a reality you believe to exist, rather than allowing reality determine your beliefs and perceptions. Your claims and perceptios are so detached from reality it is tragic.

I'm sorry if it doesn't meet your exacting standards of debate. You'll have to forgive me as being one of the unwashed masses who wasn't able to attend a university such as the august one you use as your handle. I was too busy making a living and raising a family instead.

Irrelevant...this doesn't excuse your poor evidentiary argument or a perception not based on reality.

 

[NotreDame]

It is you who is confused

Coming from someone who described the use of parallel reasoning as taking something personal...no worries mate, at least not in regards to what you are saying so far.

 

[stamperben]

NotreDame, again, you will have to pardon my not making it to the Debate 101 class that you are basing your high standards on, even though your making a passing grade in the class (yes, that is only an assumption on my part) does not negate the facts of the Reich article.

I made my point and will move on.

 

[NotreDame]

NotreDame, again, you will have to pardon my not making it to the Debate 101 class that you are basing your high standards on, even though your making a passing grade in the class (yes, that is only an assumption on my part) does not negate the facts of the Reich article.

I made my point and will move on.

Using evidence to support a claim, any claim, is not a high standard. Rather, using evidence to support a claim is common sense, it is expected, it is rational, and reasonable.

I will further add there aren't many if any facts in the Reich article, a salient point you apparently missed, again. If there were facts in the Reich article, then we'd be having a different dialogue, a dialogue in which I am not asking repeatedly for evidence, i.e. FACTS. So, in other words, you have no evidence to support the article or your own perception. Great. You could have saved us a lot of time by including in your original post a statement you have no facts/evidence to support the article or your agreement with it.

 

[stamperben]

Using evidence to support a claim, any claim, is not a high standard. Rather, using evidence to support a claim is common sense, it is expected, it is rational, and reasonable.

I will further add there aren't many if any facts in the Reich article, a salient point you apparently missed, again. If there were facts in the Reich article, then we'd be having a different dialogue, a dialogue in which I am not asking repeatedly for evidence, i.e. FACTS. So, in other words, you have no evidence to support the article or your own perception. Great. You could have saved us a lot of time by including in your original post a statement you have no facts/evidence to support the article or your agreement with it.

You add that there aren't many, if any facts in the article, then you state that if there were any facts this might be going a different way. Which is it? Are they there or not? You are not clear on that. And if indeed you HAD seen more facts in the article then you did, what sort of supposed dialog might we be having? But it is obvious that you will not see facts as I see them, and to be fair I might not see facts as you see them. But to knitpick over this is a waste of time for both of us. As Dylan (Bob) said - You go your way and I'll go mine.

 

[NotreDame]

There aren't any facts in Reich's article to support his assertions made in the article. Furthermore, you being in agreement with the article have equally failed to provide any evidence or a cogent argument to support the assertions in the article, essentially to support this notion Republican's are advocating for Social Darwinism.

Your position, with that of Reich's, is devoid of any facts in support of the assertions made. As I said before, you should have included a disclaimer stating this is mere opinion, no facts in support of the opinion and none will be forthcoming.

 

[stamperben]

There aren't any facts in Reich's article to support his assertions made in the article. Furthermore, you being in agreement with the article have equally failed to provide any evidence or a cogent argument to support the assertions in the article, essentially to support this notion Republican's are advocating for Social Darwinism.

Your position, with that of Reich's, is devoid of any facts in support of the assertions made. As I said before, you should have included a disclaimer stating this is mere opinion, no facts in support of the opinion and none will be forthcoming.

Then why did you write, and I quote:

I will further add there aren't many if any facts in the Reich article...
​

Unless I missed it in my elementary English class, the word "many" refers to a plural, unless you were referring to the town in Louisiana, which I doubt.

 

[NotreDame]

Then why did you write, and I quote:

I will further add there aren't many if any facts in the Reich article...
​

Unless I missed it in my elementary English class, the word "many" refers to a plural, unless you were referring to the town in Louisiana, which I doubt.

The limitation with your position is the fact I immediately said, "if any facts." You aren't going to score any cheaps points with this approach and it certainly is not going to mitigate the fact you have provided no evidence to support the belief Republicans are advocating Social Darwinism.

I might also add, the phrase of "aren't many facts" is a reference to those facts in the article but are not evidentiary facts in support of the conclusion made in the article. What I am talking about is the use of purely historical facts, such as his statement he has been "listening" to the Republican position, and references to historical figures such as Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, and Carnegie.

You aren't making any substantive progress in this approach.

 

[stamperben]

The limitation with your position is the fact I immediately said, "if any facts." You aren't going to score any cheaps points with this approach and it certainly is not going to mitigate the fact you have provided no evidence to support the belief Republicans are advocating Social Darwinism.

I might also add, the phrase of "aren't many facts" is a reference to those facts in the article but are not evidentiary facts in support of the conclusion made in the article. What I am talking about is the use of purely historical facts, such as his statement he has been "listening" to the Republican position, and references to historical figures such as Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, and Carnegie.

You aren't making any substantive progress in this approach.

Meh... If it was me trying to say what you are alleging I'd have said "There aren't ANY facts..."

But that's just me. I try my best to be as clear as I can and not obfuscate things...

Now I can't get Dylan (Bob) out of my head.