The single big difference would be in how one interprets the Constitution. Conservatives generally subscribe to Rigid Construction, whereas Liberals would consider the language of the Constitution to be Subject to Construction.
The single big difference would be in how one interprets the Constitution. Conservatives generally subscribe to Rigid Construction, whereas Liberals would consider the language of the Constitution to be Subject to Construction.
Actually, you have a flaw in that statement... a liberal is a conservative that hasn?t made it through adolescents yet... or so I hear...
Anyway... Yeah one side has a set of morals while the other side doesn't.
well thats the problem. we dont live in a 100% free economy. the government is involved in almost all industries/markets to one extent or another.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
1.) That may be true but no matter what, it is true that there is little difference between your average conservative and your average liberal. Both believe that man does not have the right to free and peaceful exchange.
2.) Providing a "social safety net" may be a high priority for some, but for others it is not. Taking wealth from one individual at the point of a gun to give to another violates the principles of the right to free and peaceful exchange. More on that here.
In any event however, liberals and conservatives alike will never cease taxing and spending, because public choice theory indicates that people in general will grow public programs instead of shrink them. Furthermore, the government has an extremely convenient scheme set up. People have accepted government currency as their medium of exchange, this greatly enhances the government's ability to tax. As long as people continue using U.S. dollars as their currency they will never own the fruits of their labor. More on that here.
Edit: Bottom line: as long you use government created currency the government will have your nuts in a vice. If you resist by protesting or evading taxes, the government will merely start winding the vice down.
The flaw is purely in your lack of vision. A conservative is a person who has been kicked in the teath and crys in his beer about how he was wronged and how evil the world is and how he will never ever try to be nice again. This he calls being realistic because having your teeth kicked out is a serious matter.
A liberal is a person who knows that those you help will try to kick your teeth in so he comes prepared. He has no teeth to kick in because he has given them away. Conservatives are big people who grew up to be small. They call that maturity.
Such is living in a nation of laws;
The right of the masses to repress the minority is inherent in such a nation; even if you disagree with it.
Not hardly, and your freedom allows you to move somewhere better to your liking. You are not being repressed because gays can marry. You are simply being forced to eat your bigotry which, if you were sane in the first place, you wouldn't have. Some bigot stuck his bigotry in a book two thousand years ago and your wish and failure to institute that bigotry into law, you call repression. What it is is freedom from your repression. Try to get up to speed.
So theft from the minority is one thing, but laws based on what the majority thinks is good or bad for society is something completely different:Originally posted by: [intellectuallyEquitable]MoonNot hardly, and your freedom allows you to move somewhere better to your liking. You are not being repressed because [the rich own everything]. You are simply being forced to eat your [populist] bigotry which, if you were sane in the first place, you wouldn't have. Some [populist] bigot stuck his bigotry in a [constitution] two [hundred+] years ago and your wish and failure to institute [full populist wealth redistribution] into law, you call repression. What it is[,] is freedom from your repression. Try to get up to speed.
How else must we run the country Moonie?
Fact is that the right of the majority to repress the minority is the most basic reason for democracy, all we can hope is that enough of the majority is loving enough not to do anything truly evil to the minority.
But then we don?t have [rich] people strung up in times of [economic trouble] because we have a democracy that can legally repress the minority at will.
Your thinking is just so flawed it's really not fun to respond to. [the rich own everything]. How did this happen in a democracy of majority repression? Try to get up to speed.
From poor people like me who respect those who make their way in life, thus republicans are in the majority.
It's blatant repression of the minority to take a greater proportion of income from the more affluent, but... what is it you always say... "your a bigot?" Yea... i guess anyone with a political view is a bigot, eh?
Try being intellectually honest, at least with yourself.
You don't seem to know what intellectually honest means yet you ask it of me. I have defined bigot for you countless times and yet you pretend that I would call political opinion bigotry. What a crock. You also claim to be poor yet rail about the repression of the rich as if you were a part of their cause or knew and understood their plight. You are most confused. The rich are free to leave if they don't like the rules that have given them almost all the wealth. My how they must appreciate nuts like you so ready to take a bullet for their sake.
Your definition lacks any respect for the connotative meaning of the word & you have used the term in respect to political opinion. Without respect for that connotative meaning any political view can be called 'bigotry'. Honesty gives charity to opposing views, avoids being based in appeal to emotion, doesn't attack the arguer but rather the argument, and avoids even connotative equivocation, all things that you refuse to do on a consistent basis.
You could say any minority you are trying to repress "can leave"... but I sugest they could vote and try to get people to vote along with them. But I guess popular appeal doesn't fit in with the tyranny now stance hear from the left.
But in the end I?d have lived a good life if I can die to defend the right of the vast majority to choose, because allowing the great-populous to have their will is better than a tyranny by the minority. I'm constantly amazed at the number of people on the left that want to install such said tyranny.
It's like the American left is just a conglomerate of people who want to tyrannies the population and are willing to help each other achieve their collective goals. Just look at the intellectual knots abortion-rights and animal-rights people have to tie themselves into support one-another. Life isn?t sacrosanct we have a right to end it at will for no reason? unless it?s animal life, then it can?t be touched!
You fail to include the epicanthic vituperations of a bifurcated eye into your calculations. This leads you into remonstrative permissions all out of keeping with the tenor of day. The appellation of concordant dissimilitudes into an amalgam of nihilism is an anathema to reason, linguistically referenced, that is. Connotative meaning, as everybody knows, is jurisprudentially derivative and analytically weak when misapplied. You need to refine your argument within definitional latitudes of a more temperate clime.
You will only save yourself the embarassment. If what you say was of any importance to you, you would say it clearly and simply so that it would be easily understood and not try to talk in some artificially stilted manner you clearly seem to mis-associate with intellectual rigor. Your grammar and lucidity are simply terrible and render what you say as some sort of monstrous and pompass joke. I don't get paid enough to try to decifer the coded meanings of your lame attempts to sound like you have something to say.
If you are not an English speaker it's especially important to fess up and say so. In such a case some leeway would be acceptable. Otherwise the conclusion I reach is that you are afraid that your ideas need some gasification just to pass muster. But the way you dress them up looses whatever meaning they might have had. Stop trying to say things in a manner well beyond your means. Your English just plain sucks. And you have been told this over and over again. If you want to be a pretentious ass you will get what you came for. It's annoying to try to make sense of your gibberish especially when it looks for all the world like a, 'baffle um with bullsh!t' shield.
If you are not an English speaker it's especially important to fess up and say so. In such a case some leeway would be acceptable. Otherwise the conclusion I reach is that you are afraid that your ideas need some gasification just to pass muster. But the way you dress them up looses whatever meaning they might have had. Stop trying to say things in a manner well beyond your means. Your English just plain sucks. And you have been told this over and over again. If you want to be a pretentious ass you will get what you came for. It's annoying to try to make sense of your gibberish especially when it looks for all the world like a, 'baffle um with bullsh!t' shield.
Moonbeam:
Bwuahahaha! Oh, so true.
My son started writing like that in 9th grade. He'd give me a paper that started out something like:
"The proletariat had an agenda, albeit a temporary one hatched in the heat of intellectual combat by the denizens of the anti-bourgois establishment, and delivered it to the minister of education in their portfolio of ....etc., etc."
Oh, my God, I must have laughed for an hour. To this day I have to cut him short. He is so long winded and still thinks 50 words is better than 5.
My suggestion to those who would learn to write is to READ the great writers and write POETRY. If you can condense an idea to a haiku you are on the way to learning to communicate effectively.
My son rarely read anything except what was required and it still shows. Those who write poorly amply demonstrate that they have read poorly.
-Robert
Bwuahahaha! Oh, so true.
My son started writing like that in 9th grade. He'd give me a paper that started out something like:
"The proletariat had an agenda, albeit a temporary one hatched in the heat of intellectual combat by the denizens of the anti-bourgois establishment, and delivered it to the minister of education in their portfolio of ....etc., etc."
Oh, my God, I must have laughed for an hour. To this day I have to cut him short. He is so long winded and still thinks 50 words is better than 5.
My suggestion to those who would learn to write is to READ the great writers and write POETRY. If you can condense an idea to a haiku you are on the way to learning to communicate effectively.
My son rarely read anything except what was required and it still shows. Those who write poorly amply demonstrate that they have read poorly.
-Robert
Perhaps, NightTrain you would care to translate this for me. I'm tired of the effort:
"Your definition lacks any respect for the connotative meaning of the word & you have used the term in respect to political opinion. Without respect for that connotative meaning any political view can be called 'bigotry'. Honesty gives charity to opposing views, avoids being based in appeal to emotion, doesn't attack the arguer but rather the argument, and avoids even connotative equivocation, all things that you refuse to do on a consistent basis.
You could say any minority you are trying to repress "can leave"... but I sugest they could vote and try to get people to vote along with them. But I guess popular appeal doesn't fit in with the tyranny now stance hear from the left.
But in the end I?d have lived a good life if I can die to defend the right of the vast majority to choose, because allowing the great-populous to have their will is better than a tyranny by the minority. I'm constantly amazed at the number of people on the left that want to install such said tyranny.
It's like the American left is just a conglomerate of people who want to tyrannies the population and are willing to help each other achieve their collective goals."
Who does he think he is, anyway, George Bush?
"Your definition lacks any respect for the connotative meaning of the word & you have used the term in respect to political opinion. Without respect for that connotative meaning any political view can be called 'bigotry'. Honesty gives charity to opposing views, avoids being based in appeal to emotion, doesn't attack the arguer but rather the argument, and avoids even connotative equivocation, all things that you refuse to do on a consistent basis.
You could say any minority you are trying to repress "can leave"... but I sugest they could vote and try to get people to vote along with them. But I guess popular appeal doesn't fit in with the tyranny now stance hear from the left.
But in the end I?d have lived a good life if I can die to defend the right of the vast majority to choose, because allowing the great-populous to have their will is better than a tyranny by the minority. I'm constantly amazed at the number of people on the left that want to install such said tyranny.
It's like the American left is just a conglomerate of people who want to tyrannies the population and are willing to help each other achieve their collective goals."
Who does he think he is, anyway, George Bush?
words have two simultaneous meanings,
denotative.) the word-for-word meaning
connotative.) what the word implies
So, calling someone a bigot not only denotes that he is "obstinately devoted to his own opinions and prejudices" but you are also indicating:
secondary meaning of the word prejudice:"an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics" not
primary meaning of the word prejudice:"preconceived judgment or opinion"
This was a definition of intellectual honesty, I?ll explain each term so that you no longer lack insight as to why what you say is often illogical and dishonest:
appeals to emotion: Trying associate particular feelings with a view as a reason that view is true or false. Such as calling ideas "bigoted" instead of making substantive argument.
attack the arguer: Tiring to associate a particular feeling with a viewer as a reason that view is false. Such as dismissing someone's non-religious arguments because of their religious views.
equivocation: is when you try to argue with a definition of a word other than the one that's appropriate for the subject at hand. Connotative equivocation can be seen in using the word 'bigot' for both murderous KKK members and people who believe in any religious precepts.
Without those things, Moonie, you've got no argument. With those things Moonie, you've got an illogical argument... which is worse than no argument at all.
The rest is answered with a simple check against the context.
No matter what side you support anyone reading this can tell moonbeam lost the argument and now just wants to distract from it.
Hey! I told everyone that I was less understandable when I used a spell checker.
"Your definition lacks any respect for the connotative meaning of the word & you have used the term in respect to political opinion.[/quote]
words have two simultaneous meanings,
denotative.) the word-for-word meaning
connotative.) what the word implies
So, calling someone a bigot not only denotes that he is "obstinately devoted to his own opinions and prejudices" but you are also indicating:
secondary meaning of the word prejudice:"an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics" not
primary meaning of the word prejudice:"preconceived judgment or opinion"
I wasn't calling anybody anything. I simply applied the term bigot to bigots. The people I called bigots based their wish to prevent gays from marrying on religious doctrine and religiously derived moral precepts antithetical to gays, which secondarily creates an emotional feelings that being gay is sinful. I asked everybody to supply rational reasons for their opinion and got only emotional answers in reply. I concluded correctly and definitionally accurately, then that these were the opinion of bigots. A duck is a duck. It's just one of those things. It's not my fault that no rational non emotional reasons were given to oppose gay marriage. The reasons were all bigotry. You get that from bigots, you see. Of course the bigots all denied that their reasoning was emotionally irrational and religiously based because in their minds they were right. If my religion says gays are rotten they are rotten, damn it, is what they say. But this is just the result of being blind to their own bigotry.
If somebody is prejudiced against bigots that's not my problem is it. A bigot is a bigot regardless of how one feels about it. I think you don't like admitting to being a bigot and you get all emotional about it and then think that emotion is coming from me. I don't mind if you are a bigot. I'm surrounded by them every where I turn. I just don't want you to go away thinking you're not a bigot if you are because you can't get well till you get out of denial.
This was a definition of intellectual honesty, I?ll explain each term so that you no longer lack insight as to why what you say is often illogical and dishonest:
appeals to emotion: Trying associate particular feelings with a view as a reason that view is true or false. Such as calling ideas "bigoted" instead of making substantive argument.
There is no substantive argument to make, my friend. A bigot is a bigot when he holds bigoted opinions that are irrational in nature. My bigoted counterparts did all that work for me. I just pointed out that fact. If somebody says gays can't marry because the Bible says that gay acts are evil that's bigotry. There's nothing more substantive to say. I made that clear about a million times.
attack the arguer: Tiring to associate a particular feeling with a viewer as a reason that view is false. Such as dismissing someone's non-religious arguments because of their religious views.
I never say any non religious argument. You provided a bunch of phony statistics that were fallacious and shown to be such. They sounded good to you because they were based on the notion that gay acts are evil, a feeling you have and agree with, but a feeling only and without a shred of proof. Your bias preceded your reasoning and made it look right. It was wrong and shown to be. You simply persist in your delusion regardless of evidence. A shame really.
equivocation: is when you try to argue with a definition of a word other than the one that's appropriate for the subject at hand. Connotative equivocation can be seen in using the word 'bigot' for both murderous KKK members and people who believe in any religious precepts.
You fail to see how dangerous your bigotry is. You are the KKK. Out of bigotry you would deny others the opportunity to love as married people.
Without those things, Moonie, you've got no argument. With those things Moonie, you've got an illogical argument... which is worse than no argument at all.
Yup well I'm not without those things so that's an irrelevancy.
The rest is answered with a simple check against the context.
The problem is not your spelling. The problem is that you are talking in a language understood only by yourself. You throw a montage of words against a point thinking they will speak. When you translate yourself as you did here you make some sense. Try doing that in the first place. Put yourself in the other persons shoes and ask 'am I clear'. You are much more cleaver if you say something than if you say nothing at all if sounding cleaver is the issue. I am not trying to make fun of your writing. I just got tired of having to do all the work you should be doing before you post. I learned, perhaps in some limited fashion, to rewrite but at great expense. I worked my ass off trying to make my words say what I meant. I had so much I wanted to say and had no idea how to do it. I sweat blood to make sense. I tried to pack everything into one sentence but found that writing like I talk was the way to go. I had to use a lot more words, but they made more sense. Try writing as if you were talking. Maybe it will help. You are too abstract and cerebral. Say not what you are thinking, but what you are feeling. That is were it's really at anyway.
words have two simultaneous meanings,
denotative.) the word-for-word meaning
connotative.) what the word implies
So, calling someone a bigot not only denotes that he is "obstinately devoted to his own opinions and prejudices" but you are also indicating:
secondary meaning of the word prejudice:"an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics" not
primary meaning of the word prejudice:"preconceived judgment or opinion"
I wasn't calling anybody anything. I simply applied the term bigot to bigots. The people I called bigots based their wish to prevent gays from marrying on religious doctrine and religiously derived moral precepts antithetical to gays, which secondarily creates an emotional feelings that being gay is sinful. I asked everybody to supply rational reasons for their opinion and got only emotional answers in reply. I concluded correctly and definitionally accurately, then that these were the opinion of bigots. A duck is a duck. It's just one of those things. It's not my fault that no rational non emotional reasons were given to oppose gay marriage. The reasons were all bigotry. You get that from bigots, you see. Of course the bigots all denied that their reasoning was emotionally irrational and religiously based because in their minds they were right. If my religion says gays are rotten they are rotten, damn it, is what they say. But this is just the result of being blind to their own bigotry.
If somebody is prejudiced against bigots that's not my problem is it. A bigot is a bigot regardless of how one feels about it. I think you don't like admitting to being a bigot and you get all emotional about it and then think that emotion is coming from me. I don't mind if you are a bigot. I'm surrounded by them every where I turn. I just don't want you to go away thinking you're not a bigot if you are because you can't get well till you get out of denial.
This was a definition of intellectual honesty, I?ll explain each term so that you no longer lack insight as to why what you say is often illogical and dishonest:
appeals to emotion: Trying associate particular feelings with a view as a reason that view is true or false. Such as calling ideas "bigoted" instead of making substantive argument.
There is no substantive argument to make, my friend. A bigot is a bigot when he holds bigoted opinions that are irrational in nature. My bigoted counterparts did all that work for me. I just pointed out that fact. If somebody says gays can't marry because the Bible says that gay acts are evil that's bigotry. There's nothing more substantive to say. I made that clear about a million times.
attack the arguer: Tiring to associate a particular feeling with a viewer as a reason that view is false. Such as dismissing someone's non-religious arguments because of their religious views.
I never say any non religious argument. You provided a bunch of phony statistics that were fallacious and shown to be such. They sounded good to you because they were based on the notion that gay acts are evil, a feeling you have and agree with, but a feeling only and without a shred of proof. Your bias preceded your reasoning and made it look right. It was wrong and shown to be. You simply persist in your delusion regardless of evidence. A shame really.
equivocation: is when you try to argue with a definition of a word other than the one that's appropriate for the subject at hand. Connotative equivocation can be seen in using the word 'bigot' for both murderous KKK members and people who believe in any religious precepts.
You fail to see how dangerous your bigotry is. You are the KKK. Out of bigotry you would deny others the opportunity to love as married people.
Without those things, Moonie, you've got no argument. With those things Moonie, you've got an illogical argument... which is worse than no argument at all.
Yup well I'm not without those things so that's an irrelevancy.
The rest is answered with a simple check against the context.
Hey! I told everyone that I was less understandable when I used a spell checker.[/quote]
The problem is not your spelling. The problem is that you are talking in a language understood only by yourself. You throw a montage of words against a point thinking they will speak. When you translate yourself as you did here you make some sense. Try doing that in the first place. Put yourself in the other persons shoes and ask 'am I clear'. You are much more cleaver if you say something than if you say nothing at all if sounding cleaver is the issue. I am not trying to make fun of your writing. I just got tired of having to do all the work you should be doing before you post. I learned, perhaps in some limited fashion, to rewrite but at great expense. I worked my ass off trying to make my words say what I meant. I had so much I wanted to say and had no idea how to do it. I sweat blood to make sense. I tried to pack everything into one sentence but found that writing like I talk was the way to go. I had to use a lot more words, but they made more sense. Try writing as if you were talking. Maybe it will help. You are too abstract and cerebral. Say not what you are thinking, but what you are feeling. That is were it's really at anyway.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter