NationStates

The Orson Empire wrote:

Jumalariik wrote:
Are you saying you've never met a poor conservative?

No, I haven't. The poor are generally not welcomed in the Republican Party.

Hello, I'm a poor conservative.

Nice to meet you.

The Orson Empire wrote:

Jumalariik wrote:
Are you saying you've never met a poor conservative?

No, I haven't. The poor are generally not welcomed in the Republican Party.

As a Republican, that's a lie.

The Orson Empire wrote:

Jumalariik wrote:
Are you saying you've never met a poor conservative?

No, I haven't. The poor are generally not welcomed in the Republican Party.

There's a difference between being conservative and republican.

Jormengand wrote:

Othelos wrote:I don't think so. They deal with different sets of the population. They might overlap, but they aren't the same.

Also, whether they're the same or different, hating people because they're trans and you're a conservative is just as stupid as hating them because they're female and you're a conservative.

Murkwood wrote:Look, this is going nowhere. Let's agree to disagree.

"Look, I'm losing. Let's shut off all potential for rational debate on this subject."

Thanks for heating the flame war more, with your "I'm losing" statement.

The Orson Empire wrote:

Jumalariik wrote:
Are you saying you've never met a poor conservative?

No, I haven't. The poor are generally not welcomed in the Republican Party.

Yes they are...

Jumalariik wrote:

The Orson Empire wrote:No, I haven't. The poor are generally not welcomed in the Republican Party.

There's a difference between being conservative and republican.

Though those two ideals are steadily becoming one.

So what do you think? What causes us to have the views that we have?

A little nature, a little nurture. A lot of society, and quite a bit of personal upbringing, followed by subsequent experiences in the real world and the continual refinement of personal views.

What makes a conservative?

Resistance to change. Or, in the good old USA, an adherence to right-wing social and economic positions and norms.

A liberal?

Liberal is awfully broad. Depends on where you ask, I suppose.

A libertarian?

The belief that the government is significantly worse than other powerful organizations, but the unwillingness to trust people/capital enough to descend into full out anarchism.

A communist? What do you consider your own primary value to be? How can we evaluate the better ones?

My own primary values are, in no particular order

Loyalty
Pride
Equality
Respect

Baxten wrote:

Jormengand wrote:Also, whether they're the same or different, hating people because they're trans and you're a conservative is just as stupid as hating them because they're female and you're a conservative.

"Look, I'm losing. Let's shut off all potential for rational debate on this subject."

Thanks for heating the flame war more, with your "I'm losing" statement.

Being sarcastic to highlight the flaws of a debating move is not flaming, and the mods have stated this more than once.

Jormengand wrote:

Othelos wrote:I don't think so. They deal with different sets of the population. They might overlap, but they aren't the same.

Also, whether they're the same or different, hating people because they're trans and you're a conservative is just as stupid as hating them because they're female and you're a conservative.

Murkwood wrote:Look, this is going nowhere. Let's agree to disagree.

"Look, I'm losing. Let's shut off all potential for rational debate on this subject."

If you're looking for rationality, NSG is not the place for you

New haven america wrote:

Jumalariik wrote:There's a difference between being conservative and republican.

Though those two ideals are steadily becoming one.

Republicanism =/= Conservatism

Two ENTIRELY different things.

The Orson Empire wrote:
No, I haven't. The poor are generally not welcomed in the Republican Party.

The poor make up a great deal of the Republican party. Mostly the rural and suburban poor.

Idzequitch wrote:

Jormengand wrote:Also, whether they're the same or different, hating people because they're trans and you're a conservative is just as stupid as hating them because they're female and you're a conservative.

"Look, I'm losing. Let's shut off all potential for rational debate on this subject."

If you're looking for rationality, NSG is not the place for you

Well, some of us are rational...

And it's fun to point out the ones who aren't.

Korouse wrote:

The Orson Empire wrote:No, I haven't. The poor are generally not welcomed in the Republican Party.

Yes they are...

Can I just point out the ridiculousness of your sig?

Anti-women. Jesus H. Christ we have a winner here.

Why are Conservatives wrong about everything thanks for that I needed a good laugh!

Korouse wrote:

New haven america wrote:Though those two ideals are steadily becoming one.

Republicanism =/= Conservatism

Two ENTIRELY different things.

Yet again: "Though those two ideals are steadily becoming one."

You seem to have missed that part.

Title is heavily misleading.

Blasveck wrote:

Korouse wrote:Yes they are...

Can I just point out the ridiculousness of your sig?

Anti-women. Jesus H. Christ we have a winner here.

It's meant to be a joke.

Jesus H. Christ.

Blasveck wrote:

Korouse wrote:Yes they are...

Can I just point out the ridiculousness of your sig?

Anti-women. Jesus H. Christ we have a winner here.

Oh, we've had better. We had an anti-LGBT pro-communist in the LGBT thread. Say it with me kids: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

New haven america wrote:Yet again: "Though those two ideals are steadily becoming one."

You seem to have missed that part.

Not really. Conservatism, even here in the States, is more fractured than it appears. The problem is that a great deal of conservative voters lean Republican, but don't care enough about the batshit crazy in the base that they allow it to drift continually to the right in exchange for comforting rhetoric.

Thalbania wrote:I noticed something about my views on important issues: they're all left-wing. I don't have any sort of underlying formula to determine my views; I'm only interested in what policies are most beneficial.

That's what we all think. If we did not all think that our proposed policies would be beneficial to society, we would not hold them unless we were deliberately evil. As a conservative who used to be a progressive socialist, I can honestly say that I used to believe in what I believed because I thought it was the right way to go. I did not change my beliefs because my sense of morality changed - I changed them because I realised that progressive socialism would be paradise in the short term, but hell to pay in the long term. I'll give you some examples.

1. The welfare state. It looks fantastic when it's being introduced, and I used to be heavily in favour of expanding it, but:
1.1 When people start paying more than half of their income in taxes and mandatory premiums, a society's economic life stagnates and purchasing power drops, making most people poorer.
1.2 Unfortunately, a generous welfare state draws the wrong kind of immigration when that is allowed - the kind that costs money instead of adding to the welfare state.
1.3 The welfare state replaces the community with the state; you no longer look to your family or friends for help, you look to the state. This ends genuine solidarity and establishes entitlement.
1.4 In multinational states, where different ethnic or religious groups live, this sense of entitlement causes anger, hostility and rioting when some groups refuse to pay for other groups.

2. Migration. It looks fantastic in the short term, and in the past supporting it loudly really made me smug, but:
2.1 As I said, adding significantly different groups of people to one state - especially if that state is prominent in economic redistribution - leads to conflict rather than harmony.
2.2 Some forms of migration might be good for the economy, but - and if you are a socialist I don't see how you could disagree - that prosperity ends up mainly with large businesses, while ordinary people are driven out of work in places where migrants, legally or illegally, are able to work for less than the cost of living for the nationals of their host country. Not to mention, because you are not likely to be swayed by an argument related to the people already in the host country, that the migrants are often exploited and have to work under dangerous or degrading circumstances.
2.3 Migration, unfortunately, usually leads to supplantment rather than addition, because values that run contrary to each other can and will not co-exist. One must become dominant, and if migration is not kept under control then the values of the migrants will eventually become dominant. Just ask the Britons. Usually, migration occurs from places with much more corruption and much less wealth than the places these migrants end up in. That means: with every migrant you take in, your country moves one step further towards lethargy, corruption and the very infighting many migrants fled.

3. Sexual freedom. It sounds fantastic in the short term, but:
3.1 A nation needs a stable population. For that, it needs women to give birth to, on average, somewhere between 2.1 (wealthy first-world nations) and 3.3 children (third world nations, accounting for excess deaths and physical and mental handicaps preventing people from reproducing later) children. In order to do that, women - at least European women and women of European descent - generally need stability.
3.2 The sexual revolution that took place in the second half of the 1960s and the first half of the 1970s, when everything sexual became acceptable, resulted also in: (1) women marrying at a higher average age, one at which they simply cannot have enough children, (2) women going to work, meaning they have smaller families, (3) more and more broken families coming to exist.

4. Religious tolerance. It sounds fantastic in the short term, but:
4.1 You must take into account that not everyone will tolerate you, and that those who you tolerate but who do not tolerate you might one day gain the upper hand over you;
4.2 That tolerance, in itself, does not negate the fact that people with significantly different beliefs and values will not be able to live in peace indefinitely, and that one group is bound to eventually gain enough strength either in numbers or in political or economic influence to banish the other group, and that those who are tolerant are also generally the weaker side in those schisms.

Thalbania wrote:What do you consider your own primary value to be? How can we evaluate the better ones?

The reason I became a conservative was not initially moral, although I have learned to appreciate the moral side of the debate. I became a conservative because I realised the things conservatives want - stability, security, tradition and national sovereignty - are requirements for a functioning society. At a basic level, progressives are beneficial to a nation in the short term and superficially but create deep, dangerous schisms and demographic developments that will eventually break any nation up completely. At the same basic level, conservatives seem harsh and stubborn, but they have realised - rightly so, if you ask me - that you can't have a prosperous, safe and therefore happy society that produces great science and great works of art if you set that same society up for absolute disaster in the long term.

Murkwood wrote:Some people have views against it. Mostly, it's based on religion, but there can be other reasons. Take me, for example. Look at LGBT. Those first three, I agree. However, T gets me. Regardless of the question of whether someone has had his/her genitals amputated, they don't become a different gender, but an effigy of a different gender. Sex is a biological reality, and it is not subordinate to subjective impressions, no matter how intense those impressions are, how sincerely they are held, or how painful they make facing the biological facts of life. No hormone injection or surgical mutilation is sufficient to change that.

At least, that's my view.

Gender isn't just sex: I doubt very much that your distinctions in pronouns, for example, are inspired by differences in genitalia. Gender is to do with how we regard people. Presumably, you knew that there were boys and girls before you knew about anatomical differences. Gender is what you were looking at then: a set of social mechanism by which we identify people. That regardless of any basis it might have in biology, is subject to human needs; we can change how we view people. If you need evidence of that, look to the two-spirit people in Indigenous American culture. Thus, when we discover that some people experience terrible suffering due to the way that society views them, it's appropriate to change it. No one's proposing that trans women have XX chromosomes; we propose that it isn't the important feature.

As a center right person I find this title kind of, well bad. Just bad.



Of course a person of the opposing ideology would believe the other side is "Wrong" on everything, that's why there are different ideology's

Blasveck wrote:

Korouse wrote:Yes they are...

Can I just point out the ridiculousness of your sig?

Anti-women. Jesus H. Christ we have a winner here.

You can't give Jesus a middle name!!!! Blasphemy!!!!

Jormengand wrote:

Blasveck wrote:Can I just point out the ridiculousness of your sig?

Anti-women. Jesus H. Christ we have a winner here.

Oh, we've had better. We had an anti-LGBT pro-communist in the LGBT thread. Say it with me kids: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Actually, IIRC, there was a thread with a report saying a lot of communist's didn't accept LGBT(How the fuck it happened is beyond me).

Kelmet wrote:As a center right person I find this title kind of, well bad. Just bad.



Of course a person of the opposing ideology would believe the other side is "Wrong" on everything, that's why there are different ideology's

Not necessarily. Many ideologies are actually quite closely related, but we tend to focus on the differences rather than similarities.