Study: Extreme conservatives make happier people

TheHeretic · 27-07-2013 02:42PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

True conservatives, in my opinoin, tend to be the most insecure, paranoid, hate-filled, selfish, angry people I've ever met.

Not happy, though.

Are there any more pejoratives you'd like to add to that list while we're here? The 'progressives' that have posted on this thread could also be described as the above from the bottom of the barrel material they have posted. We need to look beyond political or social outlooks to garner the real value of a person. This is something 'progressives' preach yet, never, ever, practice. Again, it would be wise to note this thread.

I think that most forms of progressivism, neo-marxism etc are quite the way you are stating, because it's not a social or economic outlook they are promoting, but a world-ideology that must be pressed into all corners of life and in all senses. They are unhappy people because of the persistent need to point out 'problems' to enforce their underlying ideology, thus this devalues everything in society that is essential to it's function and existence. Everything then is subject to Critical Theory, the process of needlessly questioning everything into submission and decay, culture, custom, institutions, values, history, economics etc. Everyone and everything becomes 'racist', 'sexist', 'tyrannical', 'homophobic', 'old-fashioned', 'undemocratic', and other recenty invented heresy terms that only serve to put people down.

Therefore we have in the modern West the persecution of the 'sinners' of this ideology of progressivism - the people who simply question and disprove it.

For example, if I implied that everyone is not equal, that people have different value inherently by saying - "A physically disabled person cannot do many of the jobs an abled person can do", I have 'sinned' to the dominant modern political mentality. I have sinned because I spoke in normal, unpolitical language, and stated the factually obvious. This isn't allowed because it undermines the utopian concepts that progressivism is based on, the blanket equality of all humans, and everything derived from that fantasy.

Progressive neo-marxists are essentially unhappy because they constantly strive to package a utopian fallacy into the real world. This creates numerous problems for them, least of all it promotes a disbelief in their own self-worth, as they have undermined their culture and the natural fabric of their own society by theorizing/questioning it to death - which represents nothing more than the demise of their own roots & social belonging.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 27-07-2013 06:24PM

TheHeretic wrote: »

Are there any more pejoratives you'd like to add to that list while we're here? The 'progressives' that have posted on this thread could also be described as the above from the bottom of the barrel material they have posted. We need to look beyond political or social outlooks to garner the real value of a person. This is something 'progressives' preach yet, never, ever, practice. Again, it would be wise to note this thread.

Was thinking "anti-liberal" but left it out, because that seems to be limited to Fox and AH.

I also made a point of stating "true" conservatives, because a lot of people I know consider themselves conservative but are much more liberali in their outlooks. Certainly not extreme.

I think that most forms of progressivism, neo-marxism etc are quite the way you are stating, because it's not a social or economic outlook they are promoting, but a world-ideology that must be pressed into all corners of life and in all senses. They are unhappy people because of the persistent need to point out 'problems' to enforce their underlying ideology, thus this devalues everything in society that is essential to it's function and existence. Everything then is subject to Critical Theory, the process of needlessly questioning everything into submission and decay, culture, custom, institutions, values, history, economics etc. Everyone and everything becomes 'racist', 'sexist', 'tyrannical', 'homophobic', 'old-fashioned', 'undemocratic', and other recenty invented heresy terms that only serve to put people down.

Don't agree. I think the closer you come to centre (regardless of which side of the spectrum) the less you fidn this. And most people would be more centre than anything.

Therefore we have in the modern West the persecution of the 'sinners' of this ideology of progressivism - the people who simply question and disprove it.

For example, if I implied that everyone is not equal, that people have different value inherently by saying - "A physically disabled person cannot do many of the jobs an abled person can do", I have 'sinned' to the dominant modern political mentality. I have sinned because I spoke in normal, unpolitical language, and stated the factually obvious. This isn't allowed because it undermines the utopian concepts that progressivism is based on, the blanket equality of all humans, and everything derived from that fantasy.

This sounds like a more intelligent way of saying "PC gone mad". It also depends on how you say it, because a lot of peopel say that gay people cannot adopt in the same tone of voice and, weh nquestioned, beleive them selves to have "sinned" for stating the obvious 0 which in this case is far from the obvious.

Progressive neo-marxists are essentially unhappy because they constantly strive to package a utopian fallacy into the real world. This creates numerous problems for them, least of all it promotes a disbelief in their own self-worth, as they have undermined their culture and the natural fabric of their own society by theorizing/questioning it to death - which represents nothing more than the demise of their own roots & social belonging.

This, again, could go for anyone without a centrist view. Beyond that, you'll have to define "progressive neo-marxist".

Pumpkinseeds · 27-07-2013 07:04PM

I think it depends on your values. 30 years ago when I was a kid, most people would have held conservative views, i.e. decency, respectability, providing for their families, having respect for themselves, treating their neighbourhoods and neighbours with respect and bringing their kids up to treat others with respect.

Even going back to the 80's teen pregnancy would have been frowned upon and considered shocking in my parents circles. Liberal thinking has led to a reverse of that and not for the better in my opinion.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 27-07-2013 07:13PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I think it depends on your values. 30 years ago when I was a kid, most people would have held conservative views, i.e. decency, respectability, providing for their families, having respect for themselves, treating their neighbourhoods and neighbours with respect and bringing their kids up to treat others with respect.

Hardly any of these are definite conservative ideas - they are right across the politcial spectrum.

Even going back to the 80's teen pregnancy would have been frowned upon and considered shocking in my parents circles. Liberal thinking has led to a reverse of that and not for the better in my opinion.

Firrstly, what "liberal thinking"? Secondly, in what way?

TheHeretic · 27-07-2013 07:16PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I think it depends on your values. 30 years ago when I was a kid, most people would have held conservative views, i.e. decency, respectability, providing for their families, having respect for themselves, treating their neighbourhoods and neighbours with respect and bringing their kids up to treat others with respect.

Even going back to the 80's teen pregnancy would have been frowned upon and considered shocking in my parents circles. Liberal thinking has led to a reverse of that and not for the better in my opinion.

You hit the nail on the head I think. The problem is the absence of common hard values shared among people at present. When you talk about anything even relatively serious, social or political, people can't even seem to agree on the terminology used to describe it, yet alone the values presented. It then becomes an argument of semantics more than anything else - a symptom of the belief in opposing values of the parties concerned.

When people can't agree on anything like this, common responsibility goes out the window as people feel that every person isn't held to the same rule of thumb. "If he can do his own thing, why can't I?" If there are no common values, this just means there is a non-recognition of common interests, and certainly yes, there can be no common future without this interest.

When an atomized society like this exists, where disagreements on basic ethics & values are commonplace, and in-fighting and power struggles are the norm, an exterior people who are united encroaches and imposes themselves. History is full of examples. The modern world is full of examples. We're no different.

Welcome to the ME, ME, ME culture.

Mark Tapley · 27-07-2013 07:49PM

TheHeretic wrote: »

You hit the nail on the head I think. The problem is the absence of common hard values shared among people at present. When you talk about anything even relatively serious, social or political, people can't even seem to agree on the terminology used to describe it, yet alone the values presented. It then becomes an argument of semantics more than anything else - a symptom of the belief in opposing values of the parties concerned.

When people can't agree on anything like this, common responsibility goes out the window as people feel that every person isn't held to the same rule of thumb. "If he can do his own thing, why can't I?" If there are no common values, this just means there is a non-recognition of common interests, and certainly yes, there can be no common future without this interest.

When an atomized society like this exists, where disagreements on basic ethics & values are commonplace, and in-fighting and power struggles are the norm, an exterior people who are united encroaches and imposes themselves. History is full of examples. The modern world is full of examples. We're no different.

Welcome to the ME, ME, ME culture.

Society is in a constant state of flux , to think there would ever be a time when people didn't disagree about ethics and values is unrealistic.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 27-07-2013 08:04PM

TheHeretic wrote: »

You hit the nail on the head I think. The problem is the absence of common hard values shared among people at present. When you talk about anything even relatively serious, social or political, people can't even seem to agree on the terminology used to describe it, yet alone the values presented. It then becomes an argument of semantics more than anything else - a symptom of the belief in opposing values of the parties concerned.

There are plenty of shared values. Heretic listed a few, but incorrectly labeled them as conservative...!

When people can't agree on anything like this, common responsibility goes out the window as people feel that every person isn't held to the same rule of thumb. "If he can do his own thing, why can't I?" If there are no common values, this just means there is a non-recognition of common interests, and certainly yes, there can be no common future without this interest.

When an atomized society like this exists, where disagreements on basic ethics & values are commonplace, and in-fighting and power struggles are the norm, an exterior people who are united encroaches and imposes themselves. History is full of examples. The modern world is full of examples. We're no different.

So... you're saying (and correct me if I;m wrong) that conformity is the way ahead? I disagree firstly that we have no shared values, and secodnly that we can not operate in an atomized society.

Welcome to the ME, ME, ME culture.

Now THAT sounds like extremism. Not nessecarily left or right, though.

Most peole seem to get along fine. They live their lives, they get along, for the most part, with one another. We are more tolerant and understanding than we were 30 odd years ago, certainly, but I wouldn't put this down to a political shift. I'd put it down to more intelligent and informed people asking questions of supposed authorities and not accepting what we're told automaitcally. THAT's the key difference.

In short, people who are centrist seem to be happier than people who are extreme anything.

TheHeretic · 27-07-2013 08:05PM

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Society is in a constant state of flux , to think there would ever be a time when people didn't disagree about ethics and values is unrealistic.

You know there used to be a time when 'society' meant a great collection of socially & intellectually disparate people coming together in the spirit of compromise.

Why compromise? Because it's only in this spirit that we can put aside our petty differences, to come together in our efforts & desires, and achieve something worthwhile and lasting for the greater number of people that make up that society. We call this great product of society culture. Culture leads to material, artistic & economic development.

Culture is nothing more than an agreement of values, and can't be contained or find growth in people that don't have this prerequisite. Life is flux yes, but humans have willpower and intelligence. We can choose to make efforts toward value-building and thus advancing culture and civilization, or we don't.

Alternatively we can choose to box ourselves off from others we live with, and to make our own individual-centric norms that don't require group support or input. But we do this out of ignorance, because we actually, evolutionary, socially and otherwise need the group to survive. This is fact. Such latter societies, with no values, no direction, flounder in a sea of divisiveness as ultimately they have no agreed upon spiritual or material purpose.

I think your view is a bit too superficial to make sense. Societies would not even exist if profound disagreements were normal.

Pumpkinseeds · 27-07-2013 08:35PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Hardly any of these are definite conservative ideas - they are right across the politcial spectrum.

Firrstly, what "liberal thinking"? Secondly, in what way?

The conservative ideas I mentioned above don't exist in the way that they did 30 years ago. Nowadays people have a more 'Me and mine' oriented view on things. Many kids I've seen run wild and have a deplorable attitude. I see kids in my own neighbourhod from working class families kicking a football against a neighbours car or against the gable end of another neighbours house, while the parents ignore it.

I've seen people go to other neighbours houses and start a shouting match just because that neighbour told the kids to play somewhere else. When I was a kid we'd have been in trouble with our parents for doing any of those things. I know I'm opening the floodgates of personal abuse for this opinion but I'm going to state it anyway. Teen pregnancy is wrong, just because a teenager is able to give birth doesn't mean that it's acceptable for her to have a child. I have several friends who were grandparents at 40 years old, that is ridiculous.

Liberal thinking in areas such as disciplining a child is 'wrong' and therefore 'stifles' its personality and 'creativity' and 'chummy parenting', you are not meant to be your childs friend, you are meant to be their parent. Old fashioned and conservative are often the same thingt, but it doesn't make them wrong. 30 years ago most of us were taught to accept personal responsibility for ourselves and our actions.

Today people expect the state to take care of their needs. People would have been embarrassed not to be able to provide for their famillies and would have felt mortified to have to ask for financial support, nowadays many people make a lifestyle choice to live on benefits and have child after child that they will never support financially.

When I was a kid you had to be good at something to be picked to do it, whether that be sport or whatever, nowadays every child gets picked, just to make sure that nobody feels hurt or excluded, that in itself is namby pamby liberal thinking. People freely expressed their opinions without fear of being labelled bigoted, racist or whatever other negative label liberal thinkers attach to anyone who isn't sporting the 'wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice' attitude we're all supposed to live by these days.

Christ on a bike, I will never forget seeing my Mother cover her mouth with her hand after mentioning the word black when telling me about a black person she works with. She was afraid to be labelled as a racist, just for using the word. It's no surprise that with such liberal thinking groups such as the BNP are gaining support.

Almaviva · 27-07-2013 08:36PM

Is the study not just stating the equivalent of 'six really is half a dozen' ?

Conservatives desire in general no change to the status quo because they are happy with it and their lot.
Non-conservatives desire change, reform or whatever to correct something in life, society, politics, or their lot - about which they are unhappy is not as they wish. So they aren't going to be conservative advocating maintaining a situation wich is unsatisfactory to them.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 27-07-2013 08:53PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

The conservative ideas I mentioned above don't exist in the way that they did 30 years ago. Nowadays people have a more 'Me and mine' oriented view on things. Many kids I've seen run wild and have a deplorable attitude. I see kids in my own neighbourhod from working class families kicking a football against a neighbours car or against the gable end of another neighbours house, while the parents ignore it.

For the second time, these are not conservative ideas. "Me" and "mine" IS a conservative attitude, but in fairness more of an extreme one.

I've seen people go to other neighbours houses and start a shouting match just because that neighbour told the kids to play somewhere else. When I was a kid we'd have been in trouble with our parents for doing any of those things. I know I'm opening the floodgates of personal abuse for this opinion but I'm going to state it anyway. Teen pregnancy is wrong, just because a teenager is able to give birth doesn't mean that it's acceptable for her to have a child. I have several friends who were grandparents at 40 years old, that is ridiculous.

Liberal thinking in areas such as disciplining a child is 'wrong' and therefore 'stifles' its personality and 'creativity' and 'chummy parenting', you are not meant to be your childs friend, you are meant to be their parent. Old fashioned and conservative are often the same thingt, but it doesn't make them wrong. 30 years ago most of us were taught to accept personal responsibility for ourselves and our actions.

Are you sure that's liberal thinking? Liberals do cherish creativity and expression, but not at the expense of respect. That seems to be a created "boogeyman" in order to try and appoint blame.

Accepting responsibility for ourselves and actions - again, this is neither old fashioned nor coservative. If anything, it's modern and liberal. Yes, there are bad parents who ignore this, but - and this is the where I believe you arguemment fallas down - you can NOT prove a link between bad parenting and their political outlook.

Today people expect the state to take care of their needs. People would have been embarrassed not to be able to provide for their famillies and would have felt mortified to have to ask for financial support, nowadays many people make a lifestyle choice to live on benefits and have child after child that they will never support financially.

Again - can you link this to a particular outlook?

When I was a kid you had to be good at something to be picked to do it, whether that be sport or whatever, nowadays every child gets picked, just to make sure that nobody feels hurt or excluded, that in itself is namby pamby liberal thinking. People freely expressed their opinions without fear of being labelled bigoted, racist or whatever other negative label liberal thinkers attach to anyone who isn't sporting the 'wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice' attitude we're all supposed to live by these days.

As I said before most of this is down to a more tolerant and well-informed populace, not a certain political outlook.

Christ on a bike, I will never forget seeing my Mother cover her mouth with her hand after mentioning the word black when telling me about a black person she works with. She was afraid to be labelled as a racist, just for using the word. It's no surprise that with such liberal thinking groups such as the BNP are gaining support.

At this point you've gone completely off the rails.

Seriously. You're painting an overly rosy picture of life 30 years ago and a bleak one of it now and then finger pointing at "liberals". I again challenge you to proe that there is a link between social change and a political group.

Ireland is still a conservative country, no doubt about it. Considerably more moderate than 30 years ago, but definitely conservative. Abortion, gay marraige are still illegal for one thing. Are you suggwsting we go back to a more intolerant and ignroant age?

I'd also like to point out I can do the same: I can point at child abuse scandals by certain groups of people 30 years ago, tut tut a few times and mutter "conservatives." Do you really want to go down this road...?

Mark Tapley · 27-07-2013 09:20PM

TheHeretic wrote: »

You know there used to be a time when 'society' meant a great collection of socially & intellectually disparate people coming together in the spirit of compromise.

Why compromise? Because it's only in this spirit that we can put aside our petty differences, to come together in our efforts & desires, and achieve something worthwhile and lasting for the greater number of people that make up that society. We call this great product of society culture. Culture leads to material, artistic & economic development.

Culture is nothing more than an agreement of values, and can't be contained or find growth in people that don't have this prerequisite. Life is flux yes, but humans have willpower and intelligence. We can choose to make efforts toward value-building and thus advancing culture and civilization, or we don't.

Alternatively we can choose to box ourselves off from others we live with, and to make our own individual-centric norms that don't require group support or input. But we do this out of ignorance, because we actually, evolutionary, socially and otherwise need the group to survive. This is fact. Such latter societies, with no values, no direction, flounder in a sea of divisiveness as ultimately they have no agreed upon spiritual or material purpose.

I think your view is a bit too superficial to make sense. Societies would not even exist if profound disagreements were normal.

Thanks for the the lecture on compromise , but I cant see the connection with my post. Of course people compromise and collaborate for the common good. This does not mean that they agree on everything. They compromise . The idea that everyone would agree about everything is abhorrent. I would suggest you read the words in the post and not make unfounded assumptions.

KyussBishop · 27-07-2013 10:09PM

conorhal wrote: »

Again, sounds no different to the ideological marxists either. At the extreme of most politics the arguments against the 'other side', (a bit like your post) get pretty reductive, where as most people in the middle generally don't suffer from that kind of tunnel vision and are capable of broadly assessing the nuances of a position.

There is no 'middle', there is what works and what doesn't, science/empiricism vs ideologically motivated nonsense (which includes painting all opponents as part of opposing ideologies, i.e. marxism), and conservatives tend to fall almost exclusively on the latter side.

It's not a partisan divide where meeting in the middle resolves the issues; you either have a respect for science and evidence-based policymaking, or you don't.

It's not uncommon to find conservatives explicitly rejecting empiricism/science altogether (usually with platitudes like "oh but a lot of us are scientists too"), particularly where it comes to economics.

Pumpkinseeds · 27-07-2013 11:19PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

For the second time, these are not conservative ideas. "Me" and "mine" IS a conservative attitude, but in fairness more of an extreme one.

Are you sure that's liberal thinking? Liberals do cherish creativity and expression, but not at the expense of respect. That seems to be a created "boogeyman" in order to try and appoint blame.

Accepting responsibility for ourselves and actions - again, this is neither old fashioned nor coservative. If anything, it's modern and liberal. Yes, there are bad parents who ignore this, but - and this is the where I believe you arguemment fallas down - you can NOT prove a link between bad parenting and their political outlook.

Again - can you link this to a particular outlook?

As I said before most of this is down to a more tolerant and well-informed populace, not a certain political outlook.

At this point you've gone completely off the rails.

Seriously. You're painting an overly rosy picture of life 30 years ago and a bleak one of it now and then finger pointing at "liberals". I again challenge you to proe that there is a link between social change and a political group.

Ireland is still a conservative country, no doubt about it. Considerably more moderate than 30 years ago, but definitely conservative. Abortion, gay marraige are still illegal for one thing. Are you suggwsting we go back to a more intolerant and ignroant age?

I'd also like to point out I can do the same: I can point at child abuse scandals by certain groups of people 30 years ago, tut tut a few times and mutter "conservatives." Do you really want to go down this road...?

Actually I'm pro abortion and pro gay marriage. I'm not for a moment suggesting that things were rosier 30 years ago, in a lot of ways they really weren't. I think that you are determined to disagree with my beliefs and that's fine. Yes, I do have conservative views on somethings. I believe in deceny and equality and treating people with courtesy and respect. Basic human decency can be hard to find these days. I'm not really interested in statistics, those can be manipulated to fit whatever agena suits whatever party.

I just need to take a look around me or read any newspaper or put on any news channel to see how far wrong things have gone. There's a whole generation of 20 and 30 somethings out there with a liberal sense of entitlement, many of whom are raising kids with same obnoxious and arrogant sense of entitlement. It benefits nobody in the long term. You only have to see how unwelcome many of them are becoming in countries that the Irish have traditionally emigrated to.

You can discount my opinion on the BNP and other extremist groups as much as you like, but their popularity is soaring these days. That group and others of it's kind disgust me, but they find a niche market.

Mark Tapley · 27-07-2013 11:36PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Actually I'm pro abortion and pro gay marriage. I'm not for a moment suggesting that things were rosier 30 years ago, in a lot of ways they really weren't. I think that you are determined to disagree with my beliefs and that's fine. Yes, I do have conservative views on somethings. I believe in deceny and equality and treating people with courtesy and respect. Basic human decency can be hard to find these days. I'm not really interested in statistics, those can be manipulated to fit whatever agena suits whatever party.

I just need to take a look around me or read any newspaper or put on any news channel to see how far wrong things have gone. There's a whole generation of 20 and 30 somethings out there with a liberal sense of entitlement, many of whom are raising kids with same obnoxious and arrogant sense of entitlement. It benefits nobody in the long term. You only have to see how unwelcome many of them are becoming in countries that the Irish have traditionally emigrated to.

You can discount my opinion on the BNP and other extremist groups as much as you like, but their popularity is soaring these days. That group and others of it's kind disgust me, but they find a niche market.

Were you being sarcastic when you said the BNP are a liberal thinking group?

Pro choice not pro abortion would make more sense.

Do you think the Irish going to England thirty years ago were greeted with open arms.

SolarFlash · 27-07-2013 11:38PM

Study: Extreme conservatives are happier people

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 28-07-2013 12:10AM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Actually I'm pro abortion and pro gay marriage. I'm not for a moment suggesting that things were rosier 30 years ago, in a lot of ways they really weren't. I think that you are determined to disagree with my beliefs and that's fine. Yes, I do have conservative views on somethings. I believe in deceny and equality and treating people with courtesy and respect. Basic human decency can be hard to find these days. I'm not really interested in statistics, those can be manipulated to fit whatever agena suits whatever party.

For the third time, these are NOT conservative beliefs!

Basic human deceny is actually very easy to find - IF you want to find it.

I just need to take a look around me or read any newspaper or put on any news channel to see how far wrong things have gone. There's a whole generation of 20 and 30 somethings out there with a liberal sense of entitlement, many of whom are raising kids with same obnoxious and arrogant sense of entitlement. It benefits nobody in the long term. You only have to see how unwelcome many of them are becoming in countries that the Irish have traditionally emigrated to.

And these are not liberal beliefs!

You can discount my opinion on the BNP and other extremist groups as much as you like, but their popularity is soaring these days. That group and others of it's kind disgust me, but they find a niche market.

I really am not convinced you know what you're talkign here on three counts:
1 - You don't accurately list conservative characteristics
2 - You don't accurately list liberal chacteristics
3 - You refere to the BNP as "liberal"

I'm not enitrely sure you have an accrate view of modern society, either. You place waaaay too much emphasis on news. which always portrays the worst element and it's warped your judgement. I don;t se the hoards of kids being pampered and undisciplined you talk of. Sure, there's a few scumbags, but no more than there were 30 years ago.

Ultimaltey, I think you're more anti-this false idea you think liberal means than pro-this false idea you think conservative means.

TheHeretic · 28-07-2013 01:26AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

For the third time, these are NOT conservative beliefs!

Basic human deceny is actually very easy to find - IF you want to find it.

Was your response to Pumpkinseeds posting "I believe in decency and equality and treating people with courtesy and respect."

Of course these are conservative beliefs! Indeed most political opinions hold to this stance. Isn't this obvious? Just because people don't have the same stance on the economy or on social aspects doesn't mean they distrust or demonize anybody else. They can still genuinely respect others even if they don't agree. How can you deny a whole swath of people this basic principle out of spite of your own political leanings? Your attempt to take the moral high ground just doesn't make sense in this case.

This is not a very liberal attitude.

Mark Tapley · 28-07-2013 03:08AM

TheHeretic wrote: »

Was your response to Pumpkinseeds posting "I believe in decency and equality and treating people with courtesy and respect."

Of course these are conservative beliefs! Indeed most political opinions hold to this stance. Isn't this obvious? Just because people don't have the same stance on the economy or on social aspects doesn't mean they distrust or demonize anybody else. They can still genuinely respect others even if they don't agree. How can you deny a whole swath of people this basic principle out of spite of your own political leanings? Your attempt to take the moral high ground just doesn't make sense in this case.

This is not a very liberal attitude.

I think you are being obtuse. The thread is about why would a conservative be happier than anyone else. If "decency and equality and treating people with courtesy and respect" is a belief held by conservatives (which I have my doubts about) but is also held by many other groups then it does not distinguish them. Accusing people of taking the moral high ground after your patronising diatribe is a bit rich. You seem to be preaching respect and compromise whilst at the same time being divisive , which makes a nonsense of your argument.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 28-07-2013 03:41AM

Being young liberal and idealistic comes with a price I suppose, once you realise that you can't really change things you have to shift gears and in some ways give up. It weighs on the mind, the futility of our short existence.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 28-07-2013 03:56AM

TheHeretic wrote: »

Was your response to Pumpkinseeds posting "I believe in decency and equality and treating people with courtesy and respect."

Of course these are conservative beliefs! Indeed most political opinions hold to this stance. Isn't this obvious? Just because people don't have the same stance on the economy or on social aspects doesn't mean they distrust or demonize anybody else. They can still genuinely respect others even if they don't agree. How can you deny a whole swath of people this basic principle out of spite of your own political leanings? Your attempt to take the moral high ground just doesn't make sense in this case.

This is not a very liberal attitude.

Of course the values mentione above are across the board - I stated this myself in a previous post. But Pumpkin portratyed said values were what defined conservatism and were specific characteristics to conservatism - which is what I pulled her up on.

When I said "not conservtaive beliefs" I meant "not specific conservative beliefs". Could have been clearer, point accepted. Certainly they don't define conservatism from other social stances.

They part highlighed in bold is straw man, because I don't beleive I ever argued these points. I certainly never portrayed them as liberal and I don't see where I took any moral high ground: I just pointed out some political inaccuracies in previous posts.

Pumpkinseeds · 28-07-2013 04:09PM

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Were you being sarcastic when you said the BNP are a liberal thinking group?

Pro choice not pro abortion would make more sense.

Do you think the Irish going to England thirty years ago were greeted with open arms.

You seem to have misunderstood me, I never suggested that the BNP was a liberal thinking group. They are anything but. There is a huge difference between conservatism and racist bigotry. I've found myself shocked in recent times by the sheer number of friends and relatives in the UK who are supporting them. People who by no stretch of the imagination would have been considered racists are voting for them for various reasons, I would never consider voting for that kind of group.

No the Irish going to England weren't greeted with open arms and a lot of that had to do with heavy drinking, the same as we're seeing with a lot of the Irish in Australia today. My husbands grandmother was a white woman who married a black immigrant and they lived in a dirt poor part of the east end of London. I've heard the horror stories of racist abuse that they got from my mother in law. There will always be racists and bigots, regardless of whether they have liberal or conservative views. Liberals are just less likely to voice those unpopular views publicly.

Nodin · 28-07-2013 04:17PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I think it depends on your values. 30 years ago when I was a kid, most people would have held conservative views, i.e. decency, respectability, providing for their families, having respect for themselves, treating their neighbourhoods and neighbours with respect and bringing their kids up to treat others with respect. .

I wasn't aware that much had changed....... You might define precisely what you mean by (1) Decency (2) respectability (3) having respect for themselves

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Even going back to the 80's teen pregnancy would have been frowned upon and considered shocking in my parents circles. .

....with all the attendant joy of pretending sex didn't happen between teenagers, difficulty in access to contraception, rows over sex education, shame, guilt, fear.....no, fuck that for a game of soldiers.

TheHeretic · 28-07-2013 04:22PM

Nodin wrote: »

I wasn't aware that much had changed....... You might define precisely what you mean by (1) Decency (2) respectability (3) having respect for themselves
.

Surely you are trolling?? If anyone seriously didn't know what these terms and values mean, and for arguments sake couldn't point out an example of 'decency', they aren't yet fully equipped to live in this world.

Semantic arguments is the lowest of the low form of debate. We're not dealing with esoteric science or philosophy terms here, but things we see and contact every single day.

Pumpkinseeds · 28-07-2013 04:29PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

For the third time, these are NOT conservative beliefs!

Basic human deceny is actually very easy to find - IF you want to find it.

And these are not liberal beliefs!

I really am not convinced you know what you're talkign here on three counts:
1 - You don't accurately list conservative characteristics
2 - You don't accurately list liberal chacteristics
3 - You refere to the BNP as "liberal"

I'm not enitrely sure you have an accrate view of modern society, either. You place waaaay too much emphasis on news. which always portrays the worst element and it's warped your judgement. I don;t se the hoards of kids being pampered and undisciplined you talk of. Sure, there's a few scumbags, but no more than there were 30 years ago.

Ultimaltey, I think you're more anti-this false idea you think liberal means than pro-this false idea you think conservative means.

Erm, I think you are the one who is a little out of touch with reality princess, so I'll happily leave you to your outrage and bow out of this thread now. Sooner or later, no matter how hard we fight it, most of us grow up and as we gain life experience we accept our conservative leanings. One day you'll come to realise that and perhaps feel a tad silly about your railings against conservatism:)

Nodin · 28-07-2013 04:30PM

TheHeretic wrote: »

Surely you are trolling?? If anyone seriously didn't know what these terms and values mean, and for arguments sake couldn't point out an example of 'decency', they aren't yet fully equipped to live in this world. .

Some people think its indecent to have sex before marriage. Therefore the question arises as to what standards or activities are required or forbidden for 'decent', 'respectable' labels to apply.

Nodin · 28-07-2013 04:31PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Erm, I think you are the one who is a little out of touch with reality princess, so I'll happily leave you to your outrage and bow out of this thread now. .........

Not yet, for jaysus sake.

ScumLord · 28-07-2013 04:40PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I think it depends on your values. 30 years ago when I was a kid, most people would have held conservative views, i.e. decency, respectability, providing for their families, having respect for themselves, treating their neighbourhoods and neighbours with respect and bringing their kids up to treat others with respect.

I grew up in the 80s and didn't see it that way at all. We got beat at home and in school. I don't mean slaps for being bold either, we got beat! We had our subjects at school beat into us and if we didn't like GAA we were left in a room while everyone else went out to play. There was constant mental abuse but sure the principle put the town on the map with his GAA teaching.

Forced to like certain things and told everything else was evil and encouraged to hate anyone that wasn't towing the line.

Pre 90s Ireland was a horrible place to live if you were in any way different.

TheHeretic · 28-07-2013 04:41PM

Nodin wrote: »

Some people think its indecent to have sex before marriage. Therefore the question arises as to what standards or activities are required or forbidden for 'decent', 'respectable' labels to apply.

Then it's a question of the two parties having different values which they cannot agree upon, not of the terms themselves. The terms still have the same meaning.

Anyhow, I've made a post in this thread already about the lack of common values and interests among people and its effects. The failure to agree upon the basic values of our age and to build an underlying unity of ethics will inevitably lead to further social and political failures.

Just look at the current political establishment, it's one that does not have the support of the people. It is hastily made and broken, it exists purely to stop the encomy from going over the edge. Look at the welfare-dependance, the stealth taxes, the socializing of private banking debt. Yet, our people and the average person of our society seem paralyzed, unable to do anything about this.

The lack of strong uniting values is absent, people can no longer act in unison for a common goal - the common interest therefore can't be recognized among themselves as a result. We are indeed living amid a time of great societal failure & political downfall, and it won't change until people come to together and agree on the values and purpose of our society. That's the only place were social direction is found.

Nodin · 28-07-2013 04:46PM

TheHeretic wrote: »

Then it's a question of the two parties having different values which they cannot agree upon, not of the terms themselves. The terms still have the same meaning.
..........

....bollocks. Without definition of values, its rendered incomprehensible.

Noun

Behavior that conforms to accepted standards of morality or respectability: "she had the decency to come and confess".

Study: Extreme conservatives make happier people

Comments