That is also a liberal narrative. Opposing illegal immigration is not the same thing as hurting legal immigrants. He is married to an immigrant.
What’s Your Resilience Score?
Illegal is different than legal in a country built on the concept of rule of law. It is actually fundamentally different. The LGBT community is a long discussion. Almost as long as the full list of sexual differences it represents.
But it is a discussion largely built upon the assumption that sexual behaviour should be outside the purview of government regulation. In either case I think your belief that Trump has hurt this segment of society overstates the issue while misunderstanding it. As for the FBA and DOJ those are ongoing investigations which at the moment seem more likely to implicate their upper management than exonerate them. But we will see how it plays out. I am an atheist myself. As such I am constantly amazed how liberals confuse religious opinion with conservative opinion simply because the religious align more closely with a conservative perspective in secular states.
- Aphorisms & Puns!
- Knowledge Base?
- Outstanding Books for the College Bound: Titles and Programs for a New Generation;
- Monkey Business!
- Concorrenza, regolamentazione e processi di mercato. Un punto di vista “austriaco” (FREEdom Vol. 6) (Italian Edition)?
The left often enjoys making fun of those who believe in an omniscient moral force. They believe that believing in a god makes people stupid and rarely resist the opportunity to say so. A perspective that never seems to occur to the progressive mind. Anyway this is offered in the spirit of encouraging discussion or debate but I think that you will find that railing against Trump as a legitimate argument against conservative values is a dead end.
Trump was successful largely because he rejected the foolishness that has taken over the progressive agenda as opposed to the idea that he represents conservatives in any consistent manner. You make an interesting argument. Liberals typically point out that when one can offer no basis for a belief beyond their own personal prejudices, prejudices which happen to align with conservative christian dogma, we usually assume the belief to be religious in nature.
A Christian might argue that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so and that is really the end of the discussion since the Bible reflects the word of god. Homosexuality does not produce offspring and is therefore not a behaviour that can enjoy state support since it not only does not provide the offspring required for the defence of the state but if monogamous it excludes those individuals from also forming a heterosexual relationship that could produce that need for the state. With the rise of technology and concerns regarding over population that argument provides historical context but is open to the rebuttal that it is no longer relevant.
Immigration versus childbirth starts a discussion on the role of culture in a state. This argument, btw, is the same argument as to why issues such as abortion, birth control pills, euthanasia saw such a sea change during the last 50 years. Without specifically understanding that population maintenance or growth no longer offers the same assurance of protection from invasion society intuitively revisited its position on these issues.
You are conservative if you think that it is incumbent upon change to justify itself rather than the progressive view that the status quo is required to defend its past. What has been lost in the contemporary discussion is that the state can allow, ignore, encourage, or enshrine in law the behaviours of its citizens. It is the promise of the modern liberal democracy envisioned by its authors that behaviour that does not endanger or weaken the state should remain unregulated.
It did not promise to encourage it or specifically enshrine it in law. So while the reason for homosexuality being illegal is questionable that does not necessarily translate into a requirement that government promote it as an equally viable alternative to heterosexual arrangements unless it can make the case that it provides the various other advantages to the state that the heterosexual arrangement has provided over the centuries.
This is exactly my point.
Subscribe to ejroundtheworld!
Conservatives cannot, and I say cannot because they have utterly failed despite being granted ample opportunity, provide one single logical argument in defense of their bigotry towards homosexuals. Each and every one fails under even the most basic scrutiny. We do not have an underpopulation problem, we are in fact dealing with an overpopulation problem. And even if we did, many homosexual couples do in fact have children throughout artificial means.
Saying that heterosexual relationships, but even then only marriage, enjoy the support of the state because they produce offspring is invariably false. It simplifies parental rights, property rights and certain issues related to healthcare. But it does not a single thing you claim it does. Conservatives can offer nothing but vague poetical waxing about their preferences and will do any number of mental gymnastics in order to justify persecuting homosexuals.
Even going so far as to pretend marriage is about producing offspring when that is clearly false. If they actually believed this, they would not consider a childless marriage to be a marriage. Sorry, but the Shroud of Turin is really cool but probably a forgery. Liberal or progressive ideas are set against this backdrop and really have no meaning without it. If we imagine tradition as a mountain range, then liberalism serves as the rainfall that erodes and reconstitutes the old material into new, sometimes destructively.
Rainfall patterns are a major determinant in where people live on earth, to carry on the analogy. The basic force of modern liberal thought— creative, disruptive, seeking to abolish limits and boundaries that would confine the human experience and limit our autonomy— helps us keep a balance or evolution of ideas and practices when it maintains a participatory role and not a leading role. Its principles are not suited to lead groups of people, if for no other reason than its aims are indeterminate and process-driven rather than content-diven or spirit-driven. Experiments in 20th century Russia and China are blunt examples of this fatal flaw in practice.
Liberals in many ways have gotten carried away with their ideas and the success of those ideas in the last few generations. Push back is inevitable. If Bush realized at the time that invading Iraq was a mistake, could he admit it? Regarding religion, bad track records and good works.
I think they have it exactly backwards. The spiritual part of religion, as you point out, lacks any evidence to support it. Look at all the people who follow bullies because it makes them feel like they are part of something stronger and bigger than themselves. How about all the great people who feel their role at work is to support their boss regardless of whether that person is ethical , honest or correct. Throughout history, people have obtained their certainty from religion, which gives them a place in the world. In the absence of religion, progressives have taken on politics an absolutist, rigid politics as their religion.
They cannot imagine that other people might value different things, have different experiences, etc and therefore cannot debate or even listen. Anyone else with an opinion is nor merely stupid or wrong but is expressing a heresy. I guarantee that these extremists who are shouting down conservative speakers do not belong to any traditional church.
But I do find people on the far left almost childlike, immature in their responses and perceptions. I will agree that people on the right seem to calmly hold onto their ideas with debate.
Reclaim Australia: the fear remains the same, but the targets keep changing
Pingback: Exploiting the Rift — whatsthejillyyo. I have wondered if the push to get everybody to go to college has something to do with this. Sowell pointed out in Inside American Education that when people entered college on the quota system, they would find themselves out of their league and would turn to activism instead of academics. He calls them moral foundations. He ALSO finds that moral foundations are the essential building blocks of human society.
Haidt finds that conservatives use all of them but liberals use about half of them, and of that half mostly just one.
Can Physicists Rewrite the Origin Story of the Universe?
What else could you think? Haidt continues:. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm. One of the many ironies in this quotation is that it shows the inability of a theater critic-who skillfully enters fantastical imaginary worlds for a living-to imagine that Republicans act within a moral matrix that differs from his own.
And again, this pattern is far less often found among those on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum. The visceral hostility toward Sarah Palin by present day liberals, and the gutter level to which some descend in expressing it, is just one sign of a mindset on the left that goes back more than two centuries. Malthus was the target of such hostility in the 18th and early 19th centuries.
I am unwilling to doubt their candor.
Julie Richardson > Compare Discount Book Prices & Save up to 90% > fenkataser.ga
This asymmetry in responses to people with different opinions has been too persistent, for too many years, to be just a matter of individual personality differences. Liberalism is blind in one eye, yet it insists on the superiority of its vision and its supreme right to rule. It cannot see half the things a governing philosophy must see, and claims that those who see both halves are thereby unqualified to govern.
Ok, debate about adoption is little more complex but still with similar destiny if rationality is accessed. This whole discussion is remarkably data-free. Where would that leave us?
The arguments will always be with us, because, as others have pointed out, they are rarely forwarded by reason. Totalitarianism of any flavour comes easily to humankind it seems, both in culture and government. Pingback: Smash the idols of this current year. Dark Brightness. Conservatives have only one argument: that might is right, whether its inherited from the idiotic descendants of robber barons, stolen from the labour of the working class, or extracted at the point of a gun.
While this article is right in many of its observations about the increasingly dictatorial nature of so-called liberals, it says a lot more about the bad faith of conservatives and how they justify their position in the world through these kinds of absurd self-representations.