Posted on 07/17/2004 7:40:06 AM PDT by Pharmboy
Absolutely. See # 27.
Indeed, what is the gay marriage movement other than an attempt by a liberal elite to impose on everyone else the notion that sodomy is something which should be accepted. That is, they claim the morally superior and just position is that we must accept their imposition of values. All axiological questions of justice, tolerance, equality, etc., involve a scale of moral values, of "goods" - of transcendental qualities of preferred rights and wrongs.
tpaine:Your claim that there are no '-- conservative policies that regulate the behavior of others --' is a howler.
Unfortunately for you, there was no such claim. The "howler" was yours alone.
Siamese Princess wrote:
Radical individualism and radical equalitarianism are destroying our country and civilization. An excellent book to read about this is Judge Bork's Slouching Towards Gomorrah.
______________________________________
Another view, published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute:
January 1997
Slouching Towards Statism
Which is a greater cause of cultural and moral decline: the private sector or the government? Asked another way, which is doing more to promote a return to civilized social norms: the market or the central state?
The answer highlights a dividing line between left ad right.
Robert Bork's book Slouching Towards Gomorrah provokes this query. He chronicles a dizzy array of depressing cultural data that even left-liberals can't ignore. His thesis is that civilization is slipping through our fingers, and he's probably right.
However, his suggestions for change require new forms of government intervention, a grave error that dooms his analysis.
Bork has confused the cause with the cure.
It's government policy, not the private sector, that has caused social collapse by politicizing culture in the first place.
Whether it's fostering welfarism, backing ugly art and music, punishing society's natural elites with income and inheritance taxes, or shortening time horizons through persistent inflation, the government has debased tastes, subsidized moral squalor, and dumbed down social norms.
Great 'authoritarian' style non-reply. Feel better?
Authoritarian? Oh, dear... So the principles of Aristotelian logic are now "authoritarian"?
Unfortunately for you, there was no such claim. The "howler" was yours alone.
Well, I guess I can't 'prove' that, so I'll have to fall back on the words of one of FR's great self-touted philosophers:
"It would be impossible to discuss (or understand) the concept of the "scientifically provable" entirely within the narrow limits of empirical science, understood in the sense of scientific materialism, derived from 17th-century Baconian or Cartesian ideology or from 19th-century positivism. To postulate, in a formal theoretical proposition, a definition of the scientifically provable, you have to engage in essentialist ratiocination along the lines of Aristotelian philosophy or scholasticism, precisely the kind ridiculed by such ideologues. So, for someone to argue that only empirical truth claims, in the sense of laboratory or physical science, have "scientific" epistemological status, he or she engages in a form of contradiction because the definition of the terms cannot be established by that cognitive method. i.e., "science is of such a nature that only empirical physical science establishes truth." The Philosopher would want to know where the empirical observation occurred which validated that claim. You can't "prove" that only the claims of the physical sciences of the post-17th-century empiricists are true empirically, so to speak. The "nature" of truth cannot be demonstrated in that epistemological methodology.
Case closed?
I thought the boy's whining about condom distribution was a silly public demonstration for conservative thought. Conservatism is not about condoms. The pseudo-libertarianism on social issues is juvenile. No one's copulations are endagered by conservatives or by some guys in the backwoods of Virginia reading the King James version of the Bible. The liberal positions on these matters are tiresome and sophomoric.
"I'm not debating additional issues." -Howling Absurdity-
Thank you.
"I'm not debating additional issues."
-Howling Absurdity-
Thank you.
Ronald Reagan defines the conservative movement best.
But basically, the ontological categories and principles of authentic conservatism do not support a totalitarian secular humanist interpretation of Western culture or the Constitution.
Now, I will admit the rhetorical question at issue was a trick question. Great technique in debating, by the way. Since HMBA does not consider the current regime or players to be authentically "conservative," there are not really any "conservative" policies to cite on the matter. Hee, hee.
I just thought it silly for anyone posing as a conservative to be whining about condoms, particularly global UN condom distribution, as if that were some issue which should preoccupy our time in the archives of hallowed conservative thought.
I apologize for any confusions. We can debate the Aristotelian logical square of opposition and the proper form of logical propositions on policy matters at a later time. I suspect the Kerry-Edwards machine and the Church of Kerryosophy should supply a lot of lessons on how not to manipulate logical propositions. Or ontological propositions.
I agree with the quote cited in #66. If you want to debate that later, I don't mind.
The key phrase in your latest non reply retort:
"I'm not debating additional issues."
-Howling Absurdity-
Thank you.
69 tpaine
______________________________________
But basically, the ontological categories and principles of authentic conservatism do not support a totalitarian secular humanist interpretation of Western culture or the Constitution.
-another Howlingly Absurd retort-
______________________________________
Whatever.
Well, that's a rather integral feature of the larger debates in question. If reality is just whatever anyone wants it to be or feels like it should be, we tend to run into problems. Kerryosophy among others.
HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity wrote:
I agree with the quote cited in #66.
If you want to debate that later, I don't mind.
______________________________________
Another weird comment.
You ~wrote~ the comment quoted, according to your home page.
Just genuinely curious. Philosophically, that is.
HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity wrote:
I agree with the quote cited in #66.
If you want to debate that later, I don't mind.
______________________________________
Another weird comment.
You ~wrote~ the comment quoted, according to your home page.
--- Thus, it stands to reason you would agree with it.
76 tpaine
______________________________________
What would be "weird" about debating the nature of truth claims Particularly if they are relevant to ongoing civic debates on public policy.
Just genuinely curious.
Philosophically, that is.
77 -howlingly absurd-
______________________________________
You are curious about why I find you agreeing with yourself sorta weird?
--- OK... -- I'm about to dine now myself. Even though I don't think I agree that I should. Perhaps later we could debate that proposition. Whatdaya think?
Many 'conservatives'... are actually free-market libertarians - as are the scholars at the CATO Institute.
'Conservatives' tend to think of libertarians as simply the "Party of Pot & Ferrets." We, on the other hand, tend to think of Republicans as "The other white meat" (Party of Pork barrel spending, never saw a subsidy they didn't like), & gay-bashing religiosity.
So, I guess we're even. :)
Seriously, there is much common ground amongst libertarians & conservative -- e.g., pro-second amendment, pro-vouchers, anti-Federal land-grabs, etc -- and many libertarians are pro-life as well (though some are pro-choice such as myself).
Wm. Buckley was in fact IN FAVOR of decriminalizing drugs, though many "Trads" seem to forget this aspect of Buckley's work.
I think the main bone of contention may be Gay rights & other social issues. Many libertarians are also atheists & take a much more laissez-faire approach to life style & social issues; this tends to be the point at which they depart from Trad/Religious-Right thinking.
When introduced to Libertarian policy positions in class, many students, esp. the "conservative" ones, tend to say they in fact tend to side more with libertarianism than religious conservatism (now that they understand it a little more fully) -- though they had originally come from a more Trad perspective at the start of the semester. Most of them have never HEARD of third party philosophies and had only heard of the Dems & the Repubs! Third parties? In America?? Gee... what are the odds? :)
Great article -- thanks for posting it.
It's OK with me. Perhaps I was not sure why you cited my rant on the epistemology and ontological presuppositions of modern scientism. They have some not entirely incidental relation to liberal ideology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.