| > No, conservatives recognize that society is inherently hierarchical A lot of your responses are simple yes-no with nothing really to back it up. This is your belief system, not a reality. This is analogous to a Muslim complaining about a statement "Muslims believe Mohammed is a prophet" and counter claiming
"NO, Muslims RECOGNIZE Mohammed is a prophet". The only folks who are going to swap "belief" for "recognize" are other conservatives, which is not surprising. In most of your responses you are basically just agreeing with me - simply providing unsubstantiated justifications for your belief system. I recognize your belief system- I simply disagree with it. > The Bible doesn't say anything about using government coercion to help the poor and immigrants. I am talking about the conservative Christian's asking for a Christian nation. > Conservatives, more strongly than liberals, are resigned to the idea that you can't have one They absolutely are not RESIGNED to the idea. They love it, want it and will spend enormous amounts of time, energy and money to defend and reinforce it - for example on tech discussion boards :) > NYC and SF are incredibly hierarchical, while Iowa is incredibly flat. Good for Iowa because federal tax dollars flow out of liberal NYC and SF to pay for the upkeep of conservative, fiscally responsible flat Iowa. https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal... Also, liberals recognize that society will be hierarchical. But justice and fairness are important principles for liberals - not expendable burdens. Liberals "recognize" that conservativism is an inherent malaise of society and has repeatedly tried (unsuccessfully for the most part) to hold back progress in favor of parochialism. In the United states conservatives fought to preserve slavery and prevent civil rights. I was able to immigrate here because the conservatives failed. In India, they fought to preserve caste system, child marriages and sati and now are attempting to strip muslims of citizenship. In Burma, they carried out a Rohingya genocide. In the ISIS Islamic state, they butchered all non Abrahamic peoples they could find. In Germany, there was this great nationalist chancellor who believed in a hierarchy of human ethnicities. And at the bottom were the Jews. Conservative jewish immigration expert Stephen Miller seems to be seized by similar ideas. Certainly, a gem of a man. Conservatism is a platform for the likes of Stephen Miller, Bannon, KKK, white nationalists, motley crew of conspiracy theorists, anti science numb nuts - who if they find themselves in power- will destroy the very fabric of society that has helped humanity progress so much, painfully, step by step to this day. A certain German chancellor with strong beliefs in human hierarchies and conspiracy theories of the Atlantis comes to mind. Nearly managed to wipe out Germany. > and we should hesitate to change longstanding institutions like marriage to address the needs of minorities. Ah classic conservatism. I hope these gays don't destroy America! |
Conservatism and liberalism are both ideologies.
> In most of your responses you are basically just agreeing with me - simply providing unsubstantiated justifications for your belief system.
I’m trying to help you understand the belief system. Neither of us are going to prove the correctness of those systems on a message board.
> I recognize your belief system- I simply disagree with it.
You can disagree with it without constructing a straw man caricature of it.
> I am talking about the conservative Christian's asking for a Christian nation.
Being a Christian nation means that government reflects the needs and morals of a Christian population. It doesn’t say anything about whether charity should be done by the government or by individuals.
>,They absolutely are not RESIGNED to the idea. They love it, want it and will spend enormous amounts of time, energy and money to defend and reinforce it - for example on tech discussion boards
Mind reading is a liberal skill? Conservatives spend a lot of time defending social structures because they are worried that liberal changes will destabilize the system. Which they have countless times in history.
> Good for Iowa because federal tax dollars flow out of liberal NYC and SF to pay for the upkeep of conservative, fiscally responsible flat Iowa.
Yeah and the Fed printing press doesn’t prop up finance-dependent NYC and SF…
> Liberals "recognize" that conservativism is an inherent malaise of society and has repeatedly tried (unsuccessfully for the most part) to hold back progress in favor of parochialism.
Conservatism is a force that prevents stuff like the mass famines when communist countries tried to impose mass social and economic change. Tens of millions of people died in the 20th century because of conservatism.
> In the United states conservatives fought to preserve slavery and prevent civil rights.
The Confederates believed they were the liberals, adapting to the new “science” of recognizing racial differences. They painted abolitionists as religious nuts clinging to the Christian idea of everyone being made in God’s image. (Remember in the 19th century you didn’t have DNA sequencing. Equality of people was an unfalsifiable belief.) Read the famous Cornerstone Speech.
> I was able to immigrate here because the conservatives failed. In India, they fought to preserve caste system, child marriages and sati and now are attempting to strip muslims of citizenship.
Socialism in India also failed. Also, in India, it’s the liberals that are fighting to protect hierarchy—they are Lord Macaulay’s cultivated leadership class, “Indian in blood and colour but British” in culture and beliefs. Trying to impose secular western liberalism on a population that doesn’t want it: https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial...
> In Burma, they carried out a Rohingya genocide…
cough communism. You want to talk about body count…
> Ah classic conservatism. I hope these gays don't destroy America!
See, that’s the straw man. I’m from next door to you in Bangladesh. The prophet was clear about the purpose of marriage: to have and raise children. And he didn’t have nice things to say about people who don’t get married. Americans had the same understanding not to long ago. Obviously that has changed and the western understanding of marriage has become more individualistic and has become disconnected from child bearing. Same-sex marriage being legal reflects that. But can we acknowledge that post-child conceptualization of marriage has consequences? The percentage of households that are married with kids dropped from 40% in the US in 1970 to under 20% today. Americans as a whole, but especially liberal, secular Americans, don’t have enough kids to perpetuate their own civilization. They are reliant on immigrants like us, who typically bring over our conservative attitudes about family formation, to perform the basic function of a society—continuing to exist. I happen to support same-sex marriage. But looking at the big picture, maybe conservatives had a point about the unintended consequences of all the social reengineering we did in the 20th century around our conception of marriage?