Are there any conservatives on this forum?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

I'm a conservative liberal.

I believe you should be able to think or do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt others.

However I disagree with modern thought that its against all human decency to dislike the practices of others, sexual, religious or otherwise. Sure sometimes it comes to flat out retarded bigotry and I really want to slap some morons for being ignorant towards others. However we're all people with free minds and we're allowed to not like other people for what they do if we plain don't like it. The lesson of tolerance is not to love everyone's actions but to accept that each person is allowed to do what they want and should NOT be harassed for it. To tolerate, not full on embrace. There is a difference.

Example of my thinking: Gay marriage should be legalised worldwide but the Catholic Church should never be forced to perform gay marriage services. If their religion considers being gay immoral that is their belief. I might as well demand that I can eat a bacon sandwich in a Synagogue.

Images:
I'm a conservative liberal.

I believe you should be able to think or do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt others.

However I disagree with modern thought that its against all human decency to dislike the practices of others, sexual, religious or otherwise. Sure sometimes it comes to flat out retarded bigotry and I really want to slap some morons for being ignorant towards others. However we're all people with free minds and we're allowed to not like other people for what they do if we plain don't like it. The lesson of tolerance is not to love everyone's actions but to accept that each person is allowed to do what they want and should NOT be harassed for it. To tolerate, not full on embrace. There is a difference.

Example of my thinking: Gay marriage should be legalised worldwide but the Catholic Church should never be forced to perform gay marriage services. If their religion considers being gay immoral that is their belief. I might as well demand that I can eat a bacon sandwich in a Synagogue.

I never imagined to find someone here who thinks alike!

Like this man, I am of the opinion that each man and woman, of each culture, ethnicity or sexuality, has the right to think and do what (s)he wants (within the limits of the law), but that the freedom on conscience and expression cuts both ways. I, and anyone else, has the right to think and speak less of others, as long as one still acknowledges the same rights for the other party.

To put it differently: I am opposed to racism, but I do not deny someone else racist ideas. I believe that in the "Market Place of Ideas" superior ideas will eventually succeed. Government sanctioned PC is not required to ultimately achieve this kind of progress. However, institutionalized discrimination should be fought at every turn, as this opposes the principle that every (wo)man is equal before the law.

tstorm823:

Aris Khandr:

I do kind of wish our conservatives would stick around longer. Not to make fun of them, but because I honestly believe that if they were forced to face how indefensible their positions were day after day after day, they might actually change their point of view. It is easy to show up, echo a bunch of inflammatory talking points, and end up getting banned. Much harder to push past those points and face an actual conversation with your own words.

I am quite conservative, everytime this thread shows up I am assured that there are plenty of us, it just so happens that a quality political debate in a conservative vs liberal format doesn't usually get very far when half the community holds ^^^that^^^ position.

That depends on the topic of the debate itself. Gun control? Sure, we can debate that. Immigration? Not a problem. Gay marriage? Sorry, but the conservative side of the debate hasn't got a leg to stand on. Not even a termite-infested peg leg. We've outright begged and pleaded for a defensible, secular reason to deny gay marriage, and you can't give us one. That isn't even restricted to this board. The best, and let me repeat that, the BEST defense the conservative side can come up with going into the Supreme Court hearings is "Gays shouldn't marry because they can't have unplanned pregnancies."

When it comes to fiscal policy, we'll happily debate with you. We may not agree, but there are valid points on both sides. Social conservatism, however, exists detached from reality. It produces people like Todd "legitimate rape" Akin and Paul "evolution is a lie from the pits of hell" Broun. People like that live in an echo chamber, and only by continued exposure to reality do they have any chance of escaping.

There is a difference between disagreeing and being wrong. We'll all disagree on hundreds of topics. That's fine. But if you believe the world is flat, you're wrong. If you believe the world is 6,000 years old, you're wrong. If you believe that your religion's rules apply to anyone else, you are wrong. That's why I say that I wish our conservatives stuck around, rather than getting flamey and banned. I'd love to see real debate, with facts and research on both sides. What we tend to get are more social conservatives who parrot the same indefensible points over and over again.

Aris Khandr:

Gay marriage? Sorry, but the conservative side of the debate hasn't got a leg to stand on..... the BEST defense the conservative side can come up with going into the Supreme Court hearings is "Gays shouldn't marry because they can't have unplanned pregnancies."

This is an example of what I'm writing of: that AK dismisses out of hand a very reasonable argument. I write again, simply calling rational arguments against your position bad names does not dismiss them. They're not arguments. On a board like this, you can argue and debate this sort of thing, as long as you don't descend into sanctionable statements.

There is an entire thread on this so I won't get into it here, but everyone should check it out. It is not dispositive, but it isn't derisable either.

Gorfias, how on earth is that a reasonable argument?

Hardcore_gamer:

generals3:

Hardcore_gamer:
Of course I am a conservative, I already made it obvious that I am and why on my other thread that the liberals had to drag into the gutter.

To be fair that topic was already in the gutter the moment you posted it. I mean "Slightly less disgusting than..." when describing left leaning ideologies isn't really gonna spark a lot of interesting discussion.

I have yet to see any liberals or socialists get punished on the forum for their endless talk about how right-wingers are nazi-fascists who want to enslave the world. Yet when I say the same about the left, the completely lose their shit and report bomb me.

Blahab and Stagnant are gone. Strawman burned to the ground...

Meanwhile, your "thread" and there are not large enough parenthesis for that, was nothing but one-sided political bashing that Fox News would be damned proud of.

Xan Krieger:

Skeleon:
@Xan Krieger
Dunno, I'd point to the fact that this was OT. Moderation is (or at least is supposed to be) more lenient regarding political views in R&P. I wonder whether you would've received a suspension in this subforum for the content. Or maybe you would've received a warning for the post in question, but for low content rather than the statement therein.

@Hardcore_gamer
You were extremely confrontational in that post. I even recommended you EDIT it to defuse it. You declined. I also can't help but notice that you are strawmanning right now. I'm not aware of similarly confrontational left-wing posts that remained unmoderated. As was already stated in this thread, numerous left-wing posters were moderated and even banned for their attacks on right-wing posts that drove them to lose their manners. It's less the content and more the way in which we conduct ourselves that ends up costing folks of any political persuasion their accounts on here.

Sad fact: That post was before R&P existed. My views are different now though, I'd have said something like outlawed marriage and replaced it with civil unions for everyone. As for it being low content, the same could be said of 90% of the posts in that thread. You are right though, mods are more lenient here now.

I didn't even report that one. I'm just as surprised as anyone.

I remember I got my 3 day suspension and 14 day suspension on top of each other when Xanith called everyone who gets disability from state worthless human scum that are just lazy, and that Asperger's are just social retards that never leave their parent's basement. As someone who gets SSI for Asperger's, I tore him a new asshole. No regrets.

BOOM headshot65:

aelreth:
In case if anyone is bored here is a simple chart to determine how liberal, conservative, libertarian or statist you are.

http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php

Alright, I'll bite *taking survey, DING!* Nolan Survey says: Centerist with a heavy tilt toward conservative. A little further right than normal but GodDAMN those questions were biased as all hell.

I don't really agree with that test either. Any political test that puts you and me in the same spectrum is dangerously flawed.

Gorfias:

This is an example of what I'm writing of: that AK dismisses out of hand a very reasonable argument. I write again, simply calling rational arguments against your position bad names does not dismiss them. They're not arguments. On a board like this, you can argue and debate this sort of thing, as long as you don't descend into sanctionable statements.
aa
There is an entire thread on this so I won't get into it here, but everyone should check it out. It is not dispositive, but it isn't derisable either.

Gorfias, you yourself have just committed an example of what I (and other posters) was talking about in previous posts. Here in the UK it was the Conservatives who proposed a bill to legalise gay marriage, on the argument that marriage (and stable relationships to raise children, and other such arguments also used against the idea) was important for society - and that gay people, who can adopt or even have biological children of their own and being part of society, should have the same rights and protections under law in order to protect the "institution of marriage" itself.

Sure, you can argue that such a view makes them inherently "not-conservative", and less than half of the actual party backed their leader's (who is the Prime Minister) bill. However, for all you know (though I am not saying they are, and they are a fellow American so international perspective shifts may not apply) Aris Khandr could be a Conservative!

The difference between what is "conservative" and "liberal" is always a problem on international boards. See my previous posts for a far more detailed explanation.

I would also disagree that the argument being used in the Supreme Court case is a rational one - though as you say, this is not the thread to debate that in - and I would disagree that Aris Khandr was calling the argument names. I would also argue that the argument can be dismissed, though I personally would go into detail as to why the argument makes no sense, especially when it comes to the secular and constitutional perspectives that the Supreme Court has to uphold, so I do not know if you would label that as "dismissing it out of hand".

++EDIT++

Looking back on my post after writing it, I realise I may have misinterpreted what you were saying, so I hope this reply makes sense. I took your "this is an example of what I was saying" to be how a (from your perspective) left-leaning poster acts, or something along those lines. If I am wrong then I apologise, but I did not want to just delete the whole post after spending all that time writing it.

Superbeast:

Looking back on my post after writing it, I realise I may have misinterpreted what you were saying, so I hope this reply makes sense. I took your "this is an example of what I was saying" to be how a (from your perspective) left-leaning poster acts, or something along those lines. If I am wrong then I apologise, but I did not want to just delete the whole post after spending all that time writing it.

AK grouped a reasonable position by USA Conservatives and linked it to, "the conservative side of the debate hasn't got a leg to stand on. Not even a termite-infested peg leg."

I'm writing, that is not an argument. Just an insult. Maybe I have done the same. I'm trying to be better. We all should be.

I do though, worry about being caught up in a cult of experts, where we all post studies by academics that pretty much just confirm their own biases. I have written it is often hard to know what a truth is and demonstrate that it is true.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Gorfias, how on earth is that a reasonable argument?

I'll copy and paste this to the other thread. Never done it before, hope it works!

Aris Khandr:

Gay marriage? Sorry, but the conservative side of the debate hasn't got a leg to stand on. Not even a termite-infested peg leg. We've outright begged and pleaded for a defensible, secular reason to deny gay marriage, and you can't give us one. That isn't even restricted to this board. The best, and let me repeat that, the BEST defense the conservative side can come up with going into the Supreme Court hearings is "Gays shouldn't marry because they can't have unplanned pregnancies."

Government should have no say on marriage whatsoever. The government should not be sanctioning gay marriages because it should not be sanctioning any marriage. Trying to make laws or contracts between people dependant on who loves one another is absolutely idiotic, almost arbitrary even, and marriage should go back to the self-determined tradition it was before the protestants ruined it. Not to mention, allowing gays to legally marry doesn't achieve equality, it just broadens the pool of people getting random government priveledge, still leaving single people to rot.

If you tell this to a religious conservative, they usually don't mind despite the fact that doing it this way would make gay marriages as legitimate as theirs. If you tell all this to someone involved in the gay rights movement, they won't agree with it because they want their government sanctioned marriage; they aren't after equality, they're after forced acceptance. I've ended this debate like 80 times and people just keep bringing it up, don't blame me for getting bored of it.

-Pro-gun, limited government, fiscal solvency, military & LE (up to a certain level of command), Voter ID, Right-to-work
-Ok with gay marriage (change Constitution or leave it up to states), abortion (extremely limited, not a right), capital punishment
-Anti-tax, political parties, climate change/global warming/green energy (policies), Obamacare

I find ideological labels undermine everyone and only encourage groupthink. Beside, you don't need to look at it yourself, others will come along and do it for you.

Aris Khandr:

tstorm823:

Aris Khandr:

I do kind of wish our conservatives would stick around longer. Not to make fun of them, but because I honestly believe that if they were forced to face how indefensible their positions were day after day after day, they might actually change their point of view. It is easy to show up, echo a bunch of inflammatory talking points, and end up getting banned. Much harder to push past those points and face an actual conversation with your own words.

I am quite conservative, everytime this thread shows up I am assured that there are plenty of us, it just so happens that a quality political debate in a conservative vs liberal format doesn't usually get very far when half the community holds ^^^that^^^ position.

That depends on the topic of the debate itself. Gun control? Sure, we can debate that. Immigration? Not a problem. Gay marriage? Sorry, but the conservative side of the debate hasn't got a leg to stand on. Not even a termite-infested peg leg. We've outright begged and pleaded for a defensible, secular reason to deny gay marriage, and you can't give us one. That isn't even restricted to this board. The best, and let me repeat that, the BEST defense the conservative side can come up with going into the Supreme Court hearings is "Gays shouldn't marry because they can't have unplanned pregnancies."

When it comes to fiscal policy, we'll happily debate with you. We may not agree, but there are valid points on both sides. Social conservatism, however, exists detached from reality. It produces people like Todd "legitimate rape" Akin and Paul "evolution is a lie from the pits of hell" Broun. People like that live in an echo chamber, and only by continued exposure to reality do they have any chance of escaping.

There is a difference between disagreeing and being wrong. We'll all disagree on hundreds of topics. That's fine. But if you believe the world is flat, you're wrong. If you believe the world is 6,000 years old, you're wrong. If you believe that your religion's rules apply to anyone else, you are wrong. That's why I say that I wish our conservatives stuck around, rather than getting flamey and banned. I'd love to see real debate, with facts and research on both sides. What we tend to get are more social conservatives who parrot the same indefensible points over and over again.

When it comes to gay marriage shouldn't that topic just be banned? I mean there never really is a discussion about it because both sides tend to be dug in and the conservatives get called out for needing a reason. Isn't someone's belief enough reason? One person might have their evidence and all that stuff and the other person might have a belief based on personal morality but when they go to vote the only that matters is their belief, not why they believe that way. Personal beliefs will always influence politics, reasons don't really matter.

We live in an age where some people don't believe in evolution but still get their fair say in politics. You can throw all the evidence you want at people but it's their choice to accept it or not and whatever they decide they still get to say and vote based on their beliefs. It may sound like I'm saying it's a bad thing but really it's the best system we've got.

"The quickest way for a progressive to become a conservative, is to win the revolution."

"Conservative" and "progressive" are, generally, derogatory labels used in political rhetoric. One can be "conservative" on an issue for very "progressive" reasons. I.e. it is perfectly possible to denounce multicultural society on egalitarian grounds.

Personally, people on either side of the spectrum are very much alike, as they generally propose easy analyses/solutions of complex problems which are, of course, plausible, neat and wrong.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

BOOM headshot65:

aelreth:
In case if anyone is bored here is a simple chart to determine how liberal, conservative, libertarian or statist you are.

http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php

Alright, I'll bite *taking survey, DING!* Nolan Survey says: Centerist with a heavy tilt toward conservative. A little further right than normal but GodDAMN those questions were biased as all hell.

I don't really agree with that test either. Any political test that puts you and me in the same spectrum is dangerously flawed.

I actually more to the center than you give me credit for. My complaint was that this thing put me further RIGHT than normal (I was right on the border between Conservative and Centerist). Normally I am closer to the center than that. As I said in my opening statement on page 1:

I guess you could chalk me up......in a way. I usually end up with the same results on every political test I take (internet or otherwise), and 9:10 I am Center-Right, Socially Moderate. For instance, I am all for a flat tax, think corporations should have less regulation then they do now, the military is the most important item in the (federal) budget, the welfare/entitlement state should be left up to the individual states to pay for and not the Feds, and I am all for loose gun laws. And for social issues, I am pro-life (with a very specific critria that would allow it under this but make it completely illegal after another), kind-of-sort-of in favor of the death penalty, think drugs should remain illegal, believe that humans effect on climate change is negliable and not worth worrying about (this being said, I have no problem with keeping the environment clean for the sake of keeping the environment clean, so long as we can afford it), etc.

However, that gets swung backward where I think education should be inexpensive and subsidized by the state (although states should choose thier own funding, the Fed sets education critera, so no anti-evolution), ok with a safetly net for the poor and disabled (but ONLY for the poor and disabled. That is my problem with the current safetly net), I am open to semi-socialized healthcare (like, have the government pay for those who cant afford it, but others have to pay), am all for funding science projects like NASA and other research instiutes, and on social issues I am pro-gay marriage, I believe in evolution (dispite being religious), and afew others that escape me right now.

Thus: Center Right, Socially Moderate

EDIT: Also, wanted to comment on this:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

I remember I got my 3 day suspension and 14 day suspension on top of each other when Xanith called everyone who gets disability from state worthless human scum that are just lazy, and that Asperger's are just social retards that never leave their parent's basement. As someone who gets SSI for Asperger's, I tore him a new asshole. No regrets.

I had a similar situation for the only warning I have ever gotten. Someone said I was faking having Aspergers to try and get away with being a jerk (I wasnt being a jerk in any sense of the word). This is a particuarly berserk inducing button to me because it is the same excuse that my 3rd grade principal used to excuse the bullying going on to me. That I was "faking it" to get attention (she also said that the students bullying me had bad home lives and that somehow excused thier behavior). Needless to say, I flipped shit when this guy said that.

Xan Krieger:

Superbeast:
snip

Good news
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.125750.2626861
Suspension Details
Duration: 3 days
Post: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.125750.2626861
Reason: We don\'t like intolerance around here.

Actually got probation for the same post
Probation Details
Duration: 3 days
Post: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.125750.2626861
Reason:

Not sure what your point is but that post was 4 YEARS ago.
There were completely different mods and the forum rules were different back then. We don't ban people based on their opinions. But if the way you present your opinions breaks the forum rules then we will act.

That depends on how you define conservatism. I am a libertarian, which means I'm very economically conservative (unlike the majority of both Republicans and Democrats in the United States), and I agree with American conservatives on a few points - I staunchly oppose gun control and support the use of military force to guard our borders.

What I am NOT is a social conservative. The Bible-toting, gay-bashing, authoritarian, and frankly evil human beings who believe they are God's special snowflakes and will preach on and on about "small government" while simultaneously attempting to pass legislation that would allow the government to invade people's homes and legislate their particular brand of morality on pain of death. Those people are truly the lowest form of life on this planet, lower than the bacteria in the intestinal tract of Adolf Hitler.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked