How do you Justify Conservatism?

[Southerly Gentleman]

"a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics."

Doesn't seem synonymous with cautious.

That's...not what he said at all. That's your definition.

besides, how in the world would it not be cautious?

[Venerable Bede]

I think most people can agree that the status quo is almost always awful, so how can anyone subscribe to a political ideology that basically scorns reform? What value is there in tradition for tradition's sake? 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. The value in tradition lies in its effectiveness ability to effectively contribute to the advancement of humanity and the search for objective truth. Otherwise, it doesn't have value. Reform should always be actively sought out because nothing is ever finished, etc.

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

Can you explain how the status quo is awful compared to...? Some of the most awful things in history had to do with radical attempts to tear down the status quo; seeing the horror of the French Revolution turned Burke into a conservative, and Stalin, Hitler and Mao were all examples of radicals trying to build a "new world".

[Luminesa]

That's...not what he said at all. That's your definition.

besides, how in the world would it not be cautious?

Thinking long and hard and debating new changes in a constructive manner is not just conservative. It's common sense!

[Imperializt Russia]

British-style one-nation conservatism is tolerable in my mind, as it advocates a sense of community and social equality,

No it doesn't.

Reaganist conservatism is a terrible way to run a country in my mind, as it leads to a disaffected and discontent lower class who struggle to live on much while a small elite own about half the country's wealth.

This is exactly what occurs in British conservatism since Thatcher.

[Imperializt Russia]

That's...not what he said at all. That's your definition.

besides, how in the world would it not be cautious?

If you're merely cautious, you still do the thing.
Conservatism, social conservatism anyway, is largely about being averse, where you do not do the thing.

[The Emerald Legion]

besides, how in the world would it not be cautious?

If you're merely cautious, you still do the thing.
Conservatism, social conservatism anyway, is largely about being averse, where you do not do the thing.

No, if you're concerned about the safety of doing X, you do not do X.

[Southerly Gentleman]

besides, how in the world would it not be cautious?

If you're merely cautious, you still do the thing.
Conservatism, social conservatism anyway, is largely about being averse, where you do not do the thing.

You're playing with semantics. One can be averse, as you say, and still do the thing they're averse to. It just takes far more contemplation than someone with a gung-ho, LET'S FUCKIN CHANGE SHIT attitude.

[Internationalist Bastard]

How do you justify liberalism? People have viewpoints, and they are always valid to some degree, it seems horribly unfair to just demand somebody have to justify their entire and elaborate stance on politics, social issues, and life just because you disagree

[Imperializt Russia]

How do you justify liberalism? People have viewpoints, and they are always valid to some degree, it seems horribly unfair to just demand somebody have to justify their entire and elaborate stance on politics, social issues, and life just because you disagree

Gee, if only everyone thought like that.

[MC United]

The same way Winston Churchill allegedly put it: "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

One could also refer to scripture: "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." Ecclesiastes 10:2.

[Montchevre]

The same way Winston Churchill allegedly put it: "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

One could also refer to scripture: "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." Ecclesiastes 10:2.

One could also be sick and tired of seeing some idiot phrase applied to modern events that have nothing to do with an ancient book of fairy tales.

Also, there's no evidence that Churchill ever said anything of the kind, internet tabloids aside. Lloyd George said something like that, though he didn't use the word liberal.

[United Marxist Nations]

The same way Winston Churchill allegedly put it: "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

One could also refer to scripture: "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." Ecclesiastes 10:2.

One could also be sick and tired of seeing some idiot phrase applied to modern events that have nothing to do with an ancient book of fairy tales.

Also, there's no evidence that Churchill ever said anything of the kind, internet tabloids aside. Lloyd George said something like that, though he didn't use the word liberal.

>calls the Bible fairy tales
>believes in "natural rights"

[Southerly Gentleman]

One could also be sick and tired of seeing some idiot phrase applied to modern events that have nothing to do with an ancient book of fairy tales.

Also, there's no evidence that Churchill ever said anything of the kind, internet tabloids aside. Lloyd George said something like that, though he didn't use the word liberal.

>calls the Bible fairy tales
>believes in "natural rights"

NOOOO, BTFO BY THE ORTHODOX COMMIE.

[Luminesa]

The same way Winston Churchill allegedly put it: "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

One could also refer to scripture: "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." Ecclesiastes 10:2.

One could also be sick and tired of seeing some idiot phrase applied to modern events that have nothing to do with an ancient book of fairy tales.

Also, there's no evidence that Churchill ever said anything of the kind, internet tabloids aside. Lloyd George said something like that, though he didn't use the word liberal.

How is that an idiot phrase? The wise tend toward listening to their conscience and common sense, the fool goes in the other direction, so to speak. Simply calling it "idiot" because it's older than a hundred years old does nothing to prove your own reasoning, or to prove that it is indeed an "idiot" phrase.

[New haven america]

Nice definition you pulled out of your ass. Still doesn't invalidate in the slightest the fact that if people are conservatives it's because they aren't ready to buy up on any new trend immediately just because it's new.

Have to agree there. I believe it's natural, healthy even, for the next generation to want more freedom than the last. But there are a lot of issues I have no idea why Democrats are against. Right to decline service is understandable, the most they've probably ever heard about it was a movie or joke in which an openly homophobic man would be both for right to decline service and against gay marriage, then profoundly state he wouldn't let a homosexual in his store to dehumanize the issue even more. Gun control is the biggest one though. Many view taking away all assault weapons, shotguns, or even just pistols away from the people as perfectly reasonable. Missing the intent of the amendment to allow the people to start a revolt when the people deem it necessary.

You do realize that there are around 200-400 mass shootings in the US every year, right?

I mean, sure, you can use them to cause a civil uprising against a corrupt government or organization... but the last time that happened was in the 1860's, so yeah...

[The Serbian Empire]

Quite easily. Conservatism is all about taking your time to think and weight the outcomes both positives and negatives of reforms so to only adopt the most beneficial ones for society at the best time rather than rushing them all just for the sake of rushing them all as not everything that is newer is better.

I would say that there's a lot things where progress is usually better, but it can cause new problems.

[Montchevre]

One could also be sick and tired of seeing some idiot phrase applied to modern events that have nothing to do with an ancient book of fairy tales.

Also, there's no evidence that Churchill ever said anything of the kind, internet tabloids aside. Lloyd George said something like that, though he didn't use the word liberal.

How is that an idiot phrase? The wise tend toward listening to their conscience and common sense, the fool goes in the other direction, so to speak. Simply calling it "idiot" because it's older than a hundred years old does nothing to prove your own intellect.

Oh let's see, maybe using a verse about comparing a direction to another has nothing to do with modern political complexities. Or maybe I missed out when they were handing out those basic info pamphlets. And I hope by "older than a hundred years old" you recognize that almost nothing is politically the same now as then (2,000 years ago). "Left" and "right" as political terms came from the French Revolution in the National Assembly, not from the bible as some people have actually told me.

[Luminesa]

How is that an idiot phrase? The wise tend toward listening to their conscience and common sense, the fool goes in the other direction, so to speak. Simply calling it "idiot" because it's older than a hundred years old does nothing to prove your own intellect.

Oh let's see, maybe using a verse about comparing a direction to another has nothing to do with modern political complexities. Or maybe I missed out when they were handing out those basic info pamphlets. And I hope by "older than a hundred years old" you recognize that almost nothing is politically the same now as then (2,000 years ago). "Left" and "right" as political terms came from the French Revolution in the National Assembly, not from the bible as some people have actually told me.

I understand that they were perhaps missusing it for this situation, but the phrase itself is not stupid. I am also aware of the governmental changes that have happened in 1790's France.

[Farnhamia]

The same way Winston Churchill allegedly put it: "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

One could also refer to scripture: "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." Ecclesiastes 10:2.

No one really knows the origin of the heart/brains quote, except that the earliest attribution is to Edmund Burke. And only the Sith deal in absolutes.

Ecclesiastes 10:2 is not a political reference but a reference to the age-old idea that the right hand is good and the left bad. Left and right didn't become political labels until the French Revolution. When viewed from the Speaker's chair in various French legislative gatherings, the commoners sat on the left, the aristocrats on the right. So no more "Champions of the common man!" from right-wingers.

[United Marxist Nations]

Have to agree there. I believe it's natural, healthy even, for the next generation to want more freedom than the last. But there are a lot of issues I have no idea why Democrats are against. Right to decline service is understandable, the most they've probably ever heard about it was a movie or joke in which an openly homophobic man would be both for right to decline service and against gay marriage, then profoundly state he wouldn't let a homosexual in his store to dehumanize the issue even more. Gun control is the biggest one though. Many view taking away all assault weapons, shotguns, or even just pistols away from the people as perfectly reasonable. Missing the intent of the amendment to allow the people to start a revolt when the people deem it necessary.

You do realize that there are around 200-400 mass shootings in the US every year, right?

I mean, sure, you can use them to cause a civil uprising against a corrupt government or organization... but the last time that happened was in the 1860's, so yeah...

Not necessarily true, there have been numerous uprisings against corrupt governments and organizations. Multiple incidents in the Coal Wars, as well as one over election rigging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

[Montchevre]

One could also be sick and tired of seeing some idiot phrase applied to modern events that have nothing to do with an ancient book of fairy tales.

Also, there's no evidence that Churchill ever said anything of the kind, internet tabloids aside. Lloyd George said something like that, though he didn't use the word liberal.

>calls the Bible fairy tales
>believes in "natural rights"

>Doesn't believe humans have any rights deserved by their sentience alone
>Believes in talking snakes, Earth being submerged my rainfall, a man being eaten by a whale and surviving for days

[Southerly Gentleman]

>calls the Bible fairy tales
>believes in "natural rights"

>Doesn't believe humans have any rights deserved by their sentience alone
>Believes in talking snakes, Earth being submerged my rainfall, a man being eaten by a whale and surviving for days

both are totally subjective, fam.

[Montchevre]

Oh let's see, maybe using a verse about comparing a direction to another has nothing to do with modern political complexities. Or maybe I missed out when they were handing out those basic info pamphlets. And I hope by "older than a hundred years old" you recognize that almost nothing is politically the same now as then (2,000 years ago). "Left" and "right" as political terms came from the French Revolution in the National Assembly, not from the bible as some people have actually told me.

I understand that they were perhaps missusing it for this situation, but the phrase itself is not stupid. I am also aware of the governmental changes that have happened in 1790's France.

You're right. The phrase itself is not stupid; applying it to modern politics is, which is what he did.

[Luminesa]

>calls the Bible fairy tales
>believes in "natural rights"

>Doesn't believe humans have any rights deserved by their sentience alone
>Believes in talking snakes, Earth being submerged my rainfall, a man being eaten by a whale and surviving for days

You believe in human rights or you don't. There is no in-between.

Furthermore, there is HISTORICAL evidence that a great flood happened at some point in the Mesopotamian region. And MULTIPLE CULTURES mention it.

Jonah and Genesis are largely symbolic and theological literature. Asserting otherwise proves even moreso that you know nothing about Biblical literature, and are in no position to call it "idiotic".

[Montchevre]

>Doesn't believe humans have any rights deserved by their sentience alone
>Believes in talking snakes, Earth being submerged my rainfall, a man being eaten by a whale and surviving for days

both are totally subjective, fam.

Not really. The latter three are scientifically impossible, whereas the former is a philosophical question. But of course, if you'd like you can say no to it and turn in your vote, free speech, and tons of other fun things on the way out the door.