NationStates

Imperializt Russia wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:And two, hence "Mutant" Snake. It's not entirely impossible for there to be a sapient, speaking creature that looks like a snake.

It probably is.

Anatomically, depends on how far you stretch "looks like a snake". No actual snake has the necessary anatomy for human-like speech, and they'd look very different and not very snake-like if they did. Add to that the fact that to be sapient a snakes would likely need a much larger brain and probably additional support and muscle to lift the added weight. Such a "snake" would have quite a deformed head.

Although there's no way such a creature, even if hypothetically plausible anatomically, could be the result of a mutation or few in a snake genome. Sapience and speech are the product of countless generations of evolution over millions of years. It's not plausible that such dramatic change to the snake's genome could occur spontaneously over a single generation or even a couple of generations, especially without deleterious and lethal effects.

I think the problem lies in how you characterise these 'reforms'.

trying to destroy our economy through over regulation. Trying to take away people's right to bear arms, trying to ruin the homogeneity of western societies that result in conflict with foreign cultures that are incompatible with western liberal civilization, destroying our society by ruining the family unit... I mean, these are disgusting policies from my point of view. Destroying the foundation of our civilization! Like rotting fruit!

Sanctissima wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:It probably is.

I think it's worth noting that the story of the Garden of Eden was probably never actually intended to be taken literally, so this particular point is a bit moot.

I mean, even Augustine was against the literal interpretation of Genesis.

I'm pretty sure that almost no part of the Old Testament was meant to be taken literally.

I mean, the Bible works fine in a modern context so long as you take every story in it as metaphorical.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
I think it's worth noting that the story of the Garden of Eden was probably never actually intended to be taken literally, so this particular point is a bit moot.

I mean, even Augustine was against the literal interpretation of Genesis.

I'm pretty sure that almost no part of the Old Testament was meant to be taken literally.

I mean, the Bible works fine in a modern context so long as you take every story in it as metaphorical.

There are certainly parts that are meant literally; for example, the prophets and patriarchs are certainly real.

The Bible is not meant to be taken in a modern context.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
I think it's worth noting that the story of the Garden of Eden was probably never actually intended to be taken literally, so this particular point is a bit moot.

I mean, even Augustine was against the literal interpretation of Genesis.

I'm pretty sure that almost no part of the Old Testament was meant to be taken literally.

I mean, the Bible works fine in a modern context so long as you take every story in it as metaphorical.

Religion is pointless and serves nothing but to distract people from what's really important -- their people.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
I think it's worth noting that the story of the Garden of Eden was probably never actually intended to be taken literally, so this particular point is a bit moot.

I mean, even Augustine was against the literal interpretation of Genesis.

I'm pretty sure that almost no part of the Old Testament was meant to be taken literally.

I mean, the Bible works fine in a modern context so long as you take every story in it as metaphorical.

Well, not entirely.

I'm pretty sure the Jewish priests who wrote the Song of Solomon were completely aware that they were writing a porno.

Oklahoman State wrote:I think the problem lies in how you characterise these 'reforms'.

trying to destroy our economy through over regulation. Trying to take away people's right to bear arms, trying to ruin the homogeneity of western societies that result in conflict with foreign cultures that are incompatible with western liberal civilization, destroying our society by ruining the family unit... I mean, these are disgusting policies from my point of view. Destroying the foundation of our civilization! Like rotting fruit!

I am sure people opposing the then long held tradition of blacks sitting at the back of the bus, only men voting, gays being imprisoned said when those were eliminated.

Honestly, I am a bit of a conservative because I support keeping the monarchy of Canada as it is, since I feel that they have not done anything bad to us (well, if they did, that's the fault of their representatives down here), and because it keeps us distinct from the Americans. Whenever I read about Canadians wanting to get rid of the monarchy, I shudder to imagine what they would replace it with: probably an American-style government which doesn't work.

In addition, I feel that while I do support rehabilitation for minor crimes, for more severe crimes, while I am not fond of the death penalty (most of the time), I don't mind locking them up and throwing them away or sending them far north in the Arctic to develop the north.

Great Nepal wrote:

Oklahoman State wrote:I think the problem lies in how you characterise these 'reforms'.

trying to destroy our economy through over regulation. Trying to take away people's right to bear arms, trying to ruin the homogeneity of western societies that result in conflict with foreign cultures that are incompatible with western liberal civilization, destroying our society by ruining the family unit... I mean, these are disgusting policies from my point of view. Destroying the foundation of our civilization! Like rotting fruit!

I am sure people opposing the then long held tradition of blacks sitting at the back of the bus, only men voting, gays being imprisoned said when those were eliminated.

Yeah, what about it?

Aryan Nation wrote:

Great Nepal wrote:I am sure people opposing the then long held tradition of blacks sitting at the back of the bus, only men voting, gays being imprisoned said when those were eliminated.

Yeah, what about it?

Now you're just being a reactionary, rather than a conservative.

Luziyca wrote:Honestly, I am a bit of a conservative because I support keeping the monarchy of Canada as it is, since I feel that they have not done anything bad to us (well, if they did, that's the fault of their representatives down here), and because it keeps us distinct from the Americans. Whenever I read about Canadians wanting to get rid of the monarchy, I shudder to imagine what they would replace it with: probably an American-style government which doesn't work.

In addition, I feel that while I do support rehabilitation for minor crimes, for more severe crimes, while I am not fond of the death penalty (most of the time), I don't mind locking them up and throwing them away or sending them far north in the Arctic to develop the north.

I think it's more likely you'd probably just have a directly elected Governor-General, perhaps renaming the position "President". Or, more conservatively still, have the Governor-General appointed by Parliament, rather than the Queen, at the recommendation of the PM (as is presently the case).

To introduce the American system into Canada would require a huge overhaul that no-one, or few, would want.

Luziyca wrote:Honestly, I am a bit of a conservative because I support keeping the monarchy of Canada as it is, since I feel that they have not done anything bad to us (well, if they did, that's the fault of their representatives down here), and because it keeps us distinct from the Americans. Whenever I read about Canadians wanting to get rid of the monarchy, I shudder to imagine what they would replace it with: probably an American-style government which doesn't work.

Hisss... what kind of fellow Canuck are you, supporting a foreign monarch? The British Empire is dead and the Commonwealth is naught but its decaying corpse. It is an indignity for Canadians to even be symbolically under the rule of a monarch with no actual power and who maintains her role only due to sentimentality and tourism.

We must remove ourselves from the yoke of mother Britannia! A mari usque ad mare, my fellow Canadian! For the glory of the true North, strong and...

Sorry, went off on a bit of a tangent there. But in all seriousness, there's really no point whatsoever in keeping the British monarch as our symbolic head-of-state aside from sentimentality. I understand your argument that it hypothetically makes us distinct from the Yankees, but then again, when was the last time you heard a Canadian say that their national identity was directly linked with a foreign monarch?

Conservatism has often been used as an excuse to continue practices that are less than good.

For example, the discrimination of the LGBT community and minorities.

Conservatism is very, very broad. My personal brand of conservatism relies heavily on leaving everyone alone and not being a hypocrite about it.

Sack Jackpot Winners wrote:Conservatism is very, very broad. My personal brand of conservatism relies heavily on leaving everyone alone and not being a hypocrite about it.

Sounds more like liberalism or libertarianism than conservativism.

Yorkers wrote:

Feriq wrote:I think most people can agree that the status quo is almost always awful

lmao

Feriq wrote:so how can anyone subscribe to a political ideology that basically scorns reform?

Because not all reforms are good.

Feriq wrote:What value is there in tradition for tradition's sake?

Because traditions provide a sense of identity, community, and stability, and are often preferable to an alternative.

Feriq wrote:I can understand holding some conservative/traditional stances/opinions (Favoring the Nuclear family, Maintaining a strong standing military, Spending money prudently) but not as a worldview.

Here, you demonstrate you have no idea what conservatism is.

Feriq wrote:The value in tradition lies in its effectiveness, and if it isn't effective, it doesn't have value.

How do you decide if it isn't effective? What if people disagree with you?

Feriq wrote:Reform should always be actively sought out because nothing is ever finished, etc.

A pretty dangerous way to view the world.

Feriq wrote:So conservatives of Nation States, how do you justify conservatism as an overarching philosophy?

Because it is superior to liberalism.

I was going to post about OP's scattered and confused view of conservatism, but this sums up exactly what i was thinking.

Well, there are always different issues. As of today, though you'll still find the most accurate definition (Liberal = reform, Conservative = standstill, reactionary = reform, but backwards), but nowadays Liberals are those that are to the left of the political compass, and conservatives are those to the right. In this way, the word "Conservative" can encompass peopel like Libertarian Rightists, even though those actually tend to want reform towards personal freedom and small government. Thing is, the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" are both remnants of an era when there were constant societal and political changes that ushered in the Industrial Age, where nearly all of those changes were supported by liberals and opposed by conservatives. The conservatives were definitely on the receiving end of that one. In today's partisan politics, liberals are simply those who identify with a party which advocates for more reforms than most of the other major parties in any given country, and conservatives are the opposite. I identify as moderately "conservative" because my stance on a lot of issues matches the stance of "conservative" parties such as the Republicans (US), the Conservatives (UK) and the like, such as my preference of gun rights, absence of hate speech laws, a strict 'no' to socialism and the like.

To the OP: Define conservatism... fiscal conservatism is good, social conservatism less so. Your "liberalism" (in reality, Statism) that encourages "political reforms" is a disgrace to the word liberal. True liberalism includes economic freedoms, and a limit on the powers of the state, both of which modern "liberals" are willing to abolish in favor of chasing ridiculous idealistic nonsense. Leave the state out of social affairs, and let the people solve their own quarrels. There's nothing intelligent or revolutionary about using the government to enforce emotional opinion or your idea of fairness, your "conservative" enemies have been doing the same thing for centuries... so I now ask you, how do you justify authoritarian progressivism?

So what justifies someone being a liberal?

The status quo of anything is rarely perfect. But what progressives propose, the ways they want to reform things, are often worse than the status quo.

Or, at the very least, unbridled progressives with a free hand to reform anything and everything will go mad with power and thusneed conservatives to temper them.

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Actually, two of those are absolutely impossible. Snakes have no vocal cords and are incapable of self-awareness, and there is nowhere near enough water on Earth to flood its entire surface.

The whale thing is pretty close to impossible as well, and relies on a damn unbelievable sequence of coincidences to even remotely work.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware we actually knew every last molecule of the planet earth. OH WAIT. No we don't,

Strawman. Try again.

once you get to a certain depth, we've got little more than guesses of what's down there.

I doubt you are going to find ground snakes at the bottom of the Mariana trench.

And two, hence "Mutant" Snake. It's not entirely impossible for there to be a sapient, speaking creature that looks like a snake.

It pretty much is, unless you want to assert that there may be an interstellar civilization of snakelike creatures who visited Earth several thousand years ago and never returned.

Conscentia wrote:

Sack Jackpot Winners wrote:Conservatism is very, very broad. My personal brand of conservatism relies heavily on leaving everyone alone and not being a hypocrite about it.

Sounds more like liberalism or libertarianism than conservativism.

Liberalism, where you can only be pro-choice on sex and abortion.

And concerning libertarianism, they're a bit too isolationist for me as a whole.

Wallenburg wrote:Actually, two of those are absolutely impossible. Snakes have no vocal cords and are incapable of self-awareness, and there is nowhere near enough water on Earth to flood its entire surface.

The serpent is supposedly Satan, who can take on any form. Genesis never says anything to suggest that the serpent was supernatural, but another part of the Bible implies that Lucifer was in the garden of Eden where he tricked Adam and Eve into evil.

Creationists are pretty much the type of people who believe that nothing is impossible for Yahweh, that God can change every single thing at will to confuse humanity. "He created the world in 7 days and aged the Earth to make it appear that it is billions of years old, among many other thing in order to test us."

Sack Jackpot Winners wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Sounds more like liberalism or libertarianism than conservativism.

Liberalism, where you can only be pro-choice on sex and abortion.

And concerning libertarianism, they're a bit too isolationist for me as a whole.

Liberalism is a political philosophy founded on idea of liberty - hence the name. It seems your problem with liberalism is that it's not liberal enough.

I don't know why you think libertarianism is isolationist. In my experience, left-libertarians are often anti-nationalists and right-libertarians often support free trade and freedom of movement.

Saiwania wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Actually, two of those are absolutely impossible. Snakes have no vocal cords and are incapable of self-awareness, and there is nowhere near enough water on Earth to flood its entire surface.

The serpent is supposedly Satan, who can take on any form. Genesis never says anything to suggest that the serpent was supernatural, but another part of the Bible implies that Lucifer was in the garden of Eden where he tricked Adam and Eve into evil.

Creationists are pretty much the type of people who believe that nothing is impossible for Yahweh, that God can change every single thing at will to confuse humanity. "He created the world in 7 days and aged the Earth to make it appear that it is billions of years old, among many other thing in order to test us."

Which part?