...Why do the Right typically hate Intellectualism?

[Lightbringer]

That's a non-sequitor. Does the conservative ideology detail denying climate change? Yes? Or no?

It means I said yes already, so no it wasn't. Wow you are sour.

Here's a comprehensive study that does a great job going into detail about the ideology of climate change denial of the conservative movement.

I've pulled a few excerpts:

You must be registered for see links

"Climate change deniers have been remarkably successful in shaping the position of the Republican Party with regards to global warming. During the 2012 presidential primary contest, each candidate had to pass a number of ideological litmus tests in order to prove his or her conservativeness on key issues like illegal immigration, abortion, and same-*** marriage. Curiously, denying man-made global warming or downplaying its consequences turned out to be one of the requirements foisted on the candidates."



"Climate change deniers also illustrate the strong ideological forces that have been shaping Republican politics over the last few decades. The generally accepted scientific explanation for global warming significantly damages the soundness of the ideological pro-market position which the American conservative movement has been embracing since the Reagan era and the end of the Cold War. The central contribution of human activities to the warming of our planet does not destroy the case for a market economy per se; it does, however, put a dent in the validity of the American Right’s faith in the free market as the ultimate solution to all social, economic, and environmental problems. In effect, conceding defeat in the climate war would have devastating repercussions on the intellectual bearings of many conservative officials and activists."



"Michael Gerson, Washington Post columnist and former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, has pointed out that the political controversy over man-made global warming is the most recent front in the so-called culture wars.35 Whether correct or not, Gerson’s idea bears testimony to the vehement rhetoric deployed by climate change deniers against their detractors, and vice versa. The climate change denial movement sometimes appears as the extension of Cold War politics by other means. Deniers are prone to dismiss the theory of man-made global warming and all the attendant government schemes to mitigate it as a kind of socialist conspiracy hatched by the enemies of economic freedom."



"This being said, climate denial is not confined to popular culture: it has also been advocated by prominent conservative intellectuals. George F. Will, in a 2010 Washington Post column, derided the threat of global warming as a convenient strategy used by big-government liberals like Al Gore and Barack Obama to reinforce what he perceives as the pre-eminence of statism in American life and to drive the last nail in the coffin of economic freedom. He characterises public figures endeavouring to draw the public’s attention to the dangers posed by the warming of the planet as “those trying to stampede the world into a spasm of prophylactic statism.”38 The fear of socialism by stealth, which has been on the conservative fiscal agenda since the end of the Cold War, has been summarized laconically by the conservative lobbyist and zealous climate change denier Steve Milloy: “green is the new red.”

 

[kimb]

I said yes

That wasn't too hard now, was it?

Now link me a source to a book, document, professional, dictionary, encyclopedia, etc. which states the conservative ideology/philosophy/principle entails the denial in climate change.

 

[Lightbringer]

That wasn't too hard now, was it?

Now link me a source to a book, document, professional, dictionary, encyclopedia, etc. which states the conservative ideology/philosophy/principle entails the denial in climate change.

Um, I did in my previous comment. It was edited.

 

[Narushima]

An ‘intellectual,’ as far as I’m concerned, is a man who understands some aspect of the world very well and at least endeavours to understand it generally.

The left associates’ ‘intellectualism’ with the social sciences but I have little to no respect for most of those disciplines.

The fact is that as fields they produce little more than castles of verbal abstractions that have virtually zero predictive power, i.e. the so called ‘replication crisis’ in the social sciences – most of social science studies fail to replicate, the most basic criteria of a scientific study.

Now, as far as scientific ability at the individual level is concerned here too the evidence is not in their favour as tests of cognitive ability show that social scientists are at the bottom of the distribution, e.g. refer to Ann Roe’s study of eminent scientists which demonstrated that physical scientists significantly outperformed social scientists on all tests of intelligence including verbal IQ tests.

As regards conservative problems with biology this has to do with religion and not political ideology as, unlike you Americans, we do not have this problem here in Europe.

On the other hand the left universally denies the evolutionary biology of the human brain, particularly the fact that as with all biological structures the human brain shows natural variation and since cognitive ability is an epiphenomena of brain architecture it follows that there exists biological variation in cognitive ability.

An update for my leftist creationist friend Lightbringer – the hunt for IQ genes continues with success with new GWAS studies appearing more or less every month now. Here’s September’s treat for you ??????

You must be registered for see links

 

[Lightbringer]

An ‘intellectual,’ as far as I’m concerned, is a man who understands some aspect of the world very well and at least endeavours to understand it generally.

The left associates’ ‘intellectualism’ with the social sciences but I have little to no respect for most of those disciplines.

The fact is that as fields they produce little more than castles of verbal abstractions that have virtually zero predictive power, i.e. the so called ‘replication crisis’ in the social sciences – most of social science studies fail to replicate, the most basic criteria of a scientific study.

Now, as far as scientific ability at the individual level is concerned here too the evidence is not in their favour as tests of cognitive ability show that social scientists are at the bottom of the distribution, e.g. refer to Ann Roe’s study of eminent scientists which demonstrated that physical scientists significantly outperformed social scientists on all tests of intelligence including verbal IQ tests.

As regards conservative problems with biology this has to do with religion and not political ideology as, unlike you Americans, we do not have this problem here in Europe.

On the other hand the left universally denies the evolutionary biology of the human brain, particularly the fact that as with all biological structures the human brain shows natural variation and since cognitive ability is an epiphenomena of brain architecture it follows that there exists biological variation in cognitive ability.

An update for my leftist creationist friend Lightbringer – the hunt for IQ genes continues with success with new GWAS studies appearing more or less every month now. Here’s September’s treat for you ������

You must be registered for see links

Ah yes, the dishonesty and false labeling continues. Do you have any dignity?

I'm not a creationist, so I don't know why you even said that?

I never said that intelligence wasn't linked to biology nor does the left; I just argued that there's no gene specific to the intelligence of a certain ethnicity of which there isn't.

Try again.

 

[kimb]

Um, I did in my previous comment. It was edited.

You don't seem to understand what I asked for or the basis of my argument, you've provided quotes proving that conservatives (individuals within an ideology) deny climate change. Provide citation of the conservative philosophy/ideology/principle (abstract) entailing denial of climate change.

 

[Lightbringer]

You don't seem to understand what I asked for or the basis of my argument, you've provided quotes proving that conservatives (individuals within an ideology) deny climate change. Provide citation of the conservative philosophy/ideology/principle (abstract) entailing denial of climate change.

You're an idiot.

 

[kimb]

You're an idiot.

Resorting to ad Homs this early, LB?

• I claimed that there is variance between an metaphysical ideology and individuals who follow an ideology.
  
• I stated that if you agree with me, there's no reason to argue, but you persist in arguing the contrary.

You've just admitted that you believe the conservativism entails "denial of climate change". From that we can deduct that conservatism is synonymous with climate change denial, and that in order to be considered conservative, one must deny climate change -- meaning that you cannot be conservative without denying climate change. You don't have to look any further than to common sense to know this is false, even your biased data disagrees with you.

Here's a simple syllogism breaking down your argument;

All X are Y
Some X are Z
Therefore all Y are Z

All conservatives(X) prescribe to Conservativatism (Y)
Some conservatives deny man made climate change(Z)
Therefore, conservatism entails denying man made climate Change


Unless you believe that in every scenario the beliefs of some dictate what defines a belief, you're wrong. I'm going to give you room to either backtrack on what you said, or acknowledge the faulty logic in your argument without me being a condescending **** about it. Because the way I see it, there's really no arguing yourself out of this without being disingenuous

Im actually going to be nice to you about it :sakubun:

 

[Lightbringer]

Resorting to ad Homs this early, LB?

• I claimed that there is variance between an metaphysical ideology and individuals who follow an ideology.
  
• I stated that if you agree with me, there's no reason to argue, but you persist in arguing the contrary.

You've just admitted that you believe the conservativism entails "denial of climate change". From that we can deduct that conservatism is synonymous with climate change denial, and that in order to be considered conservative, one must deny climate change -- meaning that you cannot be conservative without denying climate change. You don't have to look any further than to common sense to know this is false, even your biased data disagrees with you.

Here's a simple syllogism breaking down your argument;

All X are Y
Some X are Z
Therefore all Y are Z

All conservatives(X) prescribe to Conservativatism (Y)
Some conservatives deny man made climate change(Z)
Therefore, conservatism entails denying man made climate Change


Unless you believe that in every scenario the beliefs of some dictate what defines a belief, you're wrong. I'm going to give you room to either backtrack on what you said, or acknowledge the faulty logic in your argument without me being a condescending **** about it. Because the way I see it, there's really no arguing yourself out of this without being disingenuous

Im actually going to be nice to you about it :sakubun:

Are you really that daft or are you deliberately being naive? You should already know that conservatism isn't just one philosophy, it's a multitude of beliefs. Climate change denial is just one aspect of conservatism, not all.

It's remarkable that you call me disingenuous when you're now making straw-man arguments and you still neglect to acknowledge that 85% of conservatives deny climate change, yet you're trying to downplay it still and say it's only "some" conservatives that adopt this view. Your inept syllogism of my argument falls apart with this fact in mind.

Once again, 85% of conservatives isn't just "some" people, it's a grand majority. Climate Change denial is prevalent within the conservative movement and is an ideological platform for even conservative candidates. To say that it's not an ideology of conservatives is being ignorant of the facts.

No, you don't have to be a climate denier in order to be considered a conservative, same as you don't have to be for a single-payer healthcare system in order to be a liberal. There are many beliefs that go into characterizing you as one or the other.

I really don't know what else to say to you. I've already proved this to you, yet you simply dismissed the data as usual and can't accept this fact out of either spite or stubbornness.

So yes, I'm resorting to ad hominem because there is a point where rational debate is fruitless. What else can I do but call you an idiot as you logic fails with you.

 

[kimb]

Are you really that daft or are you deliberately being naive? You should already know that conservatism isn't just one philosophy, it's a multitude of beliefs. Climate change denial is just one aspect of conservatism, not all.

It's remarkable that you call me disingenuous when you're now making straw-man arguments and you still neglect to acknowledge that 85% of conservatives deny climate change, yet you're trying to downplay it still and say it's only "some" conservatives that adopt this view. Your inept syllogism of my argument falls apart with this fact in mind.

:wut:
Conservativism IS ONE philosophy, and from Conservatism you can draw a MULTITUDE beliefs. Have you taken politi-sci lol? Lets take encyclopedia britannicas expression of conservativism.

Conservatism is a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal. This preference has traditionally rested on an organic conception of society—that is, on the belief that society is not merely a loose collection of individuals but a living organism comprising closely connected, interdependent members. Conservatives thus favour institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability. Government’s responsibility is to be the servant, not the master, of existing ways of life, and politicians must therefore resist the temptation to transform society and politics.

We can describe philosophy as a rule of thumb that inspires beliefs. In this sense The philosophy/principle of liberalism can inspire/produce the belief of gay rights; liberalism in itself does not entail gay rights, but gay rights can be a byproduct of liberalism. That now does not mean liberalism means you believe in gay rights.

This is why I believe you don't understand metaphysics as you're arguing as if the ideology/philosophy/principle of conservatism is only relative to our current time period, when in fact ideologies (ideas) transcend time and space. When you say conservativism entails denial of climate change, meaning that it's an inherent belief, you are going throughout all periods of time and throughout the world and saying every conservative who ever was denied climate change. You're saying that somewhere in Ency.Brittanica's expression of conservativism, climate change denial is an inherent ideal.

Once again, 85% of conservatives isn't just "some" people, it's a grand majority. Climate Change denial is prevalent within the conservative movement and is an ideological platform for even conservative candidates. To say that it's not an ideology of conservatives is being ignorant of the facts.

"Some" is a commonplace form in syllogisms; it acts as a place holder to reduce an argument to its simplest form; the terms used in basic syllogisms are "All, No, or Some". If you studied philosophy or picked up a book on philosophy, you would be aware of this.

No, you don't have to be a climate denier in order to be considered a conservative, same as you don't have to be for a single-payer healthcare system in order to be a liberal. There are many beliefs that go into characterizing you as one or the other.

Then you don't disagree with me, and we are arguing for nothing LOL.

When you say you don't have to be a climate change denier to be conservative, you're saying conservatism does not entail the denial of climate change. This is why I stressed the question several times and wanted to get a direct answer, to make sure you understand what's being argued at hand. Hopefully you just had an epiphany and realized what's happening right now.

 

[Lightbringer]

:wut:
Conservativism IS ONE philosophy, and from Conservatism you can draw a MULTITUDE beliefs. Have you taken politi-sci lol? Lets take encyclopedia britannicas expression of conservativism.

Conservatism is a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal. This preference has traditionally rested on an organic conception of society—that is, on the belief that society is not merely a loose collection of individuals but a living organism comprising closely connected, interdependent members. Conservatives thus favour institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability. Government’s responsibility is to be the servant, not the master, of existing ways of life, and politicians must therefore resist the temptation to transform society and politics.

We can describe philosophy as a rule of thumb that inspires beliefs. In this sense The philosophy/principle of liberalism can inspire/produce the belief of gay rights; liberalism in itself does not entail gay rights, but gay rights can be a byproduct of liberalism. That now does not mean liberalism means you believe in gay rights.

This is why I believe you don't understand metaphysics as you're arguing as if the ideology/philosophy/principle of conservatism is only relative to our current time period, when in fact ideologies (ideas) transcend time and space. When you say conservativism entails denial of climate change, meaning that it's an inherent belief, you are going throughout all periods of time and throughout the world and saying every conservative who ever was denied climate change. You're saying that somewhere in Ency.Brittanica's expression of conservativism, climate change denial is an inherent ideal.



"Some" is a commonplace form in syllogisms; it acts as a place holder to reduce an argument to its simplest form; the terms used in basic syllogisms are "All, No, or Some". If you studied philosophy or picked up a book on philosophy, you would be aware of this.


Then you don't disagree with me, and we are arguing for nothing LOL.

When you say you don't have to be a climate change denier to be conservative, you're saying conservatism does not entail the denial of climate change. This is why I stressed the question several times and wanted to get a direct answer, to make sure you understand what's being argued at hand. Hopefully you just had an epiphany and realized what's happening right now.

What are you even arguing right now?

i·de·ol·o·gy (ī′dē-ŏl′ə-jē, ĭd′ē-)
n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies
A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.


Your original statement that this debate started on:

The conservative ideologydoes not include the denial of evolution, big bang, climate change, nor does the liberal ideology include the denial of physiology, psychology, evolution, race, and IQ. You're conflating ideologies with individuals

Climate Change denial is part of the conservative beliefs which make up the ideology. I've already shown that this is a belief shared by the majority of its members.

Neither liberalism nor conservatism are static ideologies. Throughout time and different regions they've taken their own distinct identities. An example would be classical liberalism, which is now known as libertarianism, and current liberalism. They are antithetical to one another.

Even Britannica has a page on this.

You must be registered for see links

Your argument was originally about the conservative ideology. You asked me to provide evidence for climate change being part of that ideology; of which I did.

But now you're changing the argument to the "metaphysical ideology."

Two separate topics altogether and a disingenuous attempt to validate your stance.

 

[Edogawa]

Conservatism and liberalism isn't just a label or a group, like some party; it's an ideology. If you share political beliefs that are conservative or liberal, then you would fall under that category whether you like it or not.

Neither conservatism and liberalism is an ideology. They're just collection of many ideologies that fall under the label. You support the liberal party, so you fall under category of communism, since communist ideology is inherently liberal. Would like to be called that?

 

[Lightbringer]

Neither conservatism and liberalism is an ideology. They're just collection of many ideologies that fall under the label. You support the liberal party, so you fall under category of communism, since communist ideology is inherently liberal. Would like to be called that?

This contradicts what you said earlier. You yourself called it an ideology.

Good thing I'm neither a conservative or liberal. When you adhere to a certain ideology that majority believe in, you're easy to brainwash.

My point was that you are defined by what you believe and not by what you want to be labeled as in response to your claim of being neither conservative or liberal. I don't know what your beliefs are, but simply claiming to not be one doesn't mean you aren't.

 

[Narushima]

Ah yes, the dishonesty and false labeling continues. Do you have any dignity?

I'm not a creationist, so I don't know why you even said that?

I never said that intelligence wasn't linked to biology nor does the left; I just argued that there's no gene specific to the intelligence of a certain ethnicity of which there isn't.

Try again.

You do not understand GWAS or the leftist position. GWAS works by looking at genetic variation between people so the genes it finds are not ones universal to all human beings. Just as GWAS can now predict height to a few cm by looking at how many + variants and – variants a person has (we all have different proportions of different height variants), GWAS can now capture a little more than 10% of the variation in intelligence by looking at the different number of + and – variants people have.

Leftism maintains that all people are born with identical genes for cognitive ability. GWAS proves otherwise by demonstrating that cognitive ability has a genetic architecture the same as human height, and that not all people are born with identical genes for intelligence anymore than height potential.

And just as evolution has selected for height differences between populations we should expect that environmental selection differentials would produce population differences in cognitive ability. I have in my previous attempts to educate you broached studies that have already looked at the variant frequencies that GWAS has found for cognitive ability in the three populations of Europeans, Black Africans and East Asians – which found that East Asians has the highest proportion of + variants for IQ and Blacks least (Blacks also had the highest number of – variants), with Europeans being closer to East Asians, on average.

Your hero Stephen Jay Gould once said that the human brain stopped evolving when homo sapiens sapiens first appeared. This is a disproven fantasy. This belief is what I call ‘leftist creationism’ and it is a staple of leftist ideology in both the American continent and in Europe.

 

[Lightbringer]

You do not understand GWAS or the leftist position. GWAS works by looking at genetic variation between people so the genes it finds are not ones universal to all human beings. Just as GWAS can now predict height to a few cm by looking at how many + variants and – variants a person has (we all have different proportions of different height variants), GWAS can now capture a little more than 10% of the variation in intelligence by looking at the different number of + and – variants people have.

Leftism maintains that all people are born with identical genes for cognitive ability. GWAS proves otherwise by demonstrating that cognitive ability has a genetic architecture the same as human height, and that not all people are born with identical genes for intelligence anymore than height potential.

And just as evolution has selected for height differences between populations we should expect that environmental selection differentials would produce population differences in cognitive ability. I have in my previous attempts to educate you broached studies that have already looked at the variant frequencies that GWAS has found for cognitive ability in the three populations of Europeans, Black Africans and East Asians – which found that East Asians has the highest proportion of + variants for IQ and Blacks least (Blacks also had the highest number of – variants), with Europeans being closer to East Asians, on average.

Your hero Stephen Jay Gould once said that the human brain stopped evolving when homo sapiens sapiens first appeared. This is a disproven fantasy. This belief is what I call ‘leftist creationism’ and it is a staple of leftist ideology in both the American continent and in Europe.

So to summarize, there is no evidence for any sort of ethnic specific gene that makes one ethnicity smarter than the other by default.

Once again, no leftist is denying genetic differences between individuals such as height or even intelligence. But there is no ethno-exclusive IQ gene.

Intelligence does not correlate with skin color.

@Bold: So this is all just your opinion and not a professionally sound statement? Gotcha.

Please, point me to any quote where I stated that the human brain has stopped evolving?

I would also like you to cite me the quote of where Gould said this.

 

[kimb]

Climate Change denial is part of the conservative beliefs which make up the ideology. I've already shown that this is a belief shared by the majority of its members.

Corrected: "Climate change denial is a belief held by 'most' conservatives which make up their ideology".

The fact that a majority of conservatives deny climate change does not mean climate change is inherently a conservative principle. What conservatives believe does not dictate what conservativism is as a belief. In other words, what ideologies conservatives (individual) hold don't define conservativism (abstract) as an ideology.

Let's put your through a liberal filter, so you can understand what I mean;

All liberals prescribe to Liberalism
Some liberals believe in the Big Bang
Therefore the belief in the Big Bang Theory is inherent to Liberalism

When it should be;

All liberals prescribe to Liberalism
Not all liberals believe in the Big Bang
There for the Big Bang is not a belief inherent to Liberalism

Now, plugging in my initial argument;

All conservatives prescribe to Conservativism
Not all Conservatives deny climate change
Therefore denial of climate change is not a belief inherent to Conservatism

I don't see how you can attribute an apolitical belief to a political philosophy in the first place.

Neither liberalism nor conservatism are static ideologies. Throughout time and different regions they've taken their own distinct identities. An example would be classical liberalism, which is now known as libertarianism, and current liberalism. They are antithetical to one another.

Even Britannica has a page on this.

You must be registered for see links

The core aspects of Conservativism as a principle/philosophy/ideology does not change, the sets of beliefs produced by conservatism change. It is the same way that Politics always deals the way in which a government is set up, but the ways in which government is set up varies throughout time.

Also changing the name of an ideology/philosophy does not change the ideology/philosophy, simply the language we use to refer to it as. The word "libertarianism" was essentially invented because classical liberals felt that the word had become expropriated, which it was. The fact that liberals muddied the term does not mean the concept changed. Libertarianism is considered a subcategory Liberalism. Both having sharing the same fundamental principles of individual liberty, property rights, etc. they simply deviate on their approach to liberty, property rights; so they're not really antithetical to each other. They're more related if anything.

1. Classical liberalism, which is true Liberalism, being the belief in inalienable civil rights, and the reduction of the state/government, w/ minor interference outside of protectionism over society through the consent of the people.
   
2. Libertarianism is identical, being the belief in inalienable civil rights, and the conversion of state/government institutions into a voluntarist society.
   
3. And then there's American mutt, modern day "Liberalism", which really isn't "Liberalism", but more so social left-ism. Leftists do not believe in consent of the governed or property rights, which is the opposite of Liberalism. For them, it's equality at the expense of freedom. Liberalism is equality of opportunity, and leftism is equality of outcome. Social or “modern” liberalism attempts to straddle the fence, advocating for the equality of outcome without going full scale leftist and curbing people’s fundamental freedom.

Anyways, this is a discussion of ideas not terminology. We both have a basic concept of what conservative means, so we don't need to go down a route of etymology. It's a long and nasty road that will lead to dozens of links to different definitions of the same term. Hopefully you won't need to feel the urge to defend the modern day liberal label, seeing as how you prescribe to progressivism, which is fundamentally different from Liberalism.

Your argument was originally about the conservative ideology. You asked me to provide evidence for climate change being part of that ideology; of which I did.

No, you provided me evidence that conservatives believe climate change is false, whichever i never argued against. I argued that denial of climate change is not an inherent to conservatism.

But now you're changing the argument to the "metaphysical ideology."

Two separate topics altogether and a disingenuous attempt to validate your stance.

Ideology has always been metaphysical, what are you saying? Do you think there's a giant mass of "conservativism" floating in space? Lol. I'm pointing out the difference between conservatives, who are physical beings subject to change, and conservatism, which not subject to change; that is the core of my argument.

 

[Lightbringer]

Corrected: "Climate change denial is a belief held by 'most' conservatives which make up their ideology".

The fact that a majority of conservatives deny climate change does not mean climate change is inherently a conservative principle. What conservatives believe does not dictate what conservativism is as a belief. In other words, what ideologies conservatives (individual) hold don't define conservativism (abstract) as an ideology.

Let's put your through a liberal filter, so you can understand what I mean;

All liberals prescribe to Liberalism
Some liberals believe in the Big Bang
Therefore the belief in the Big Bang Theory is inherent to Liberalism

When it should be;

All liberals prescribe to Liberalism
Not all liberals believe in the Big Bang
There for the Big Bang is not a belief inherent to Liberalism

Now, plugging in my initial argument;

All conservatives prescribe to Conservativism
Not all Conservatives deny climate change
Therefore denial of climate change is not a belief inherent to Conservatism

I don't see how you can attribute an apolitical belief to a political philosophy in the first place.


The core aspects of Conservativism as a principle/philosophy/ideology does not change, the sets of beliefs produced by conservatism change. It is the same way that Politics always deals the way in which a government is set up, but the ways in which government is set up varies throughout time.

Also changing the name of an ideology/philosophy does not change the ideology/philosophy, simply the language we use to refer to it as. The word "libertarianism" was essentially invented because classical liberals felt that the word had become expropriated, which it was. The fact that liberals muddied the term does not mean the concept changed. Libertarianism is considered a subcategory Liberalism. Both having sharing the same fundamental principles of individual liberty, property rights, etc. they simply deviate on their approach to liberty, property rights; so they're not really antithetical to each other. They're more related if anything.

1. Classical liberalism, which is true Liberalism, being the belief in inalienable civil rights, and the reduction of the state/government, w/ minor interference outside of protectionism over society through the consent of the people.
   
2. Libertarianism is identical, being the belief in inalienable civil rights, and the conversion of state/government institutions into a voluntarist society.
   
3. And then there's American mutt, modern day "Liberalism", which really isn't "Liberalism", but more so social left-ism. Leftists do not believe in consent of the governed or property rights, which is the opposite of Liberalism. For them, it's equality at the expense of freedom. Liberalism is equality of opportunity, and leftism is equality of outcome. Social or “modern” liberalism attempts to straddle the fence, advocating for the equality of outcome without going full scale leftist and curbing people’s fundamental freedom.

Anyways, this is a discussion of ideas not terminology. We both have a basic concept of what conservative means, so we don't need to go down a route of etymology. It's a long and nasty road that will lead to dozens of links to different definitions of the same term. Hopefully you won't need to feel the urge to defend the modern day liberal label, seeing as how you prescribe to progressivism, which is fundamentally different from Liberalism.


No, you provided me evidence that conservatives believe climate change is false, whichever i never argued against. I argued that denial of climate change is not an inherent to conservatism.



Ideology has always been metaphysical, what are you saying? Do you think there's a giant mass of "conservativism" floating in space? Lol. I'm pointing out the difference between conservatives, who are physical beings subject to change, and conservatism, which not subject to change; that is the core of my argument.

You came into this thread in order to downplay the anti-intellectualism propagated by the right and made a red herring into the broader philosophy of conservatism when the thread pertains to the contemporary beliefs of conservatives.




Let's backtrack to your first comment.

"Typically" you're generalizing here. You have a minority of the right that deny climate change is a result of human interference, and the You have a minority of the left that denies there are no psychological and in some instances physical differences between men and women, and deny physiological and genetic differences beteeen races. Anti-intellectualism is not a trait of the right or left. Stupid people exist on both sides of the spectrum.

Then my response to that comment was:

85% isn't a minority.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You failed to respond to that quote and then proceeded to say this about liberals:

They're too indoctrinated to notice their own bias. In a moment where both sides of the spectrum and come together, hold hands, and say, "hey, we both have stupid people on our side", the deny that ever being the case. They'd rather double down or ignore their bullshit.

After that you lead into the argument of the philosophical theory of conservatism and how climate change denial is not inherently part of that which turned out to be a moot point.


But now you're saying you never disagreed with the notion that conservatives deny climate change, which is whollely untrue if we go back to your previous comments.

No, you provided me evidence that conservatives believe climate change is false, whichever i never argued against. I argued that denial of climate change is not an inherent to conservatism.

So what is the purpose of your comments other than to be a champion for conservatives under the guise of a self-proclaimed centrist?

 

[kimb]

Spoiler

You came into this thread in order to downplay the anti-intellectualism propagated by the right and made a red herring into the broader philosophy of conservatism when the thread pertains to the contemporary beliefs of conservatives.

Spoiler

Starting off with a blatant strawman, "I came here to downplay blah blah blah", can you be objective in your argumentation? I PM'd you about how you have an issue in implying motive and asserting malice as the motivation for everyone who disagree with and using that as an argument against what they say. You really need to stop with that, it's fallacious behavior, mate.

You're also you're claiming my argument in response to Macho, who, he and Multiply had derailed the thread, was a red herring. My comment had nothing to do with the thread at hand, but in what utterance of the word is it a red herring when my comment was entirely relevant to the person I was responding to?

:wut:

You failed to respond to that quote and then proceeded to say this about liberals:

"I failed to respond" I WAS NEVER RESPONDED TO YOU. You're trying to swerve our discussion in a way it never was. I did not interact with you for the first two pages of the thread, or on the topic, maybe you're remembering things incorrectly, but the argument you think "we had" was entirely one sided. If anything, you're creating a red herring by switching back to the discussion on the first page of the thread, which I never discussed with you in anyway.

After that you lead into the argument of the philosophical theory of conservatism and how climate change denial is not inherently part of that which turned out to be a moot point.

A point you can't refute and which you're completely wrong about, which is why you're attempting to switch the argument to a discussion we never had. I did not discuss the thread topic with you.

Find me a quote referring to you that isn't on the topic of philosophical theory and abstract ideology, I'll wait. :tea:

But now you're saying you never disagreed with the notion that conservatives deny climate change, which is whollely untrue if we go back to your previous comments.

Selective hearing? No, that's not it. More like, progressive hearing. First page of the thread;

I do want to acknowledge though that traditional conservatives w/ power or influence over environmental and energy regulation like members of GOP or former (GOP) candidate Rick Santorum are notorious for citing the Bible in order to refute claims of climate change. There's also the aspect of financial gain in denying climate change for many republican representatives, as they have a hand in or are financially invested in the coal and oil industry. So policies that attempt to implement things like carbon taxes, or a push for renewable energy stands in the way of their financial gains.

But I didn't say anything like that, You clearly went back to my previous comments.

So what is the purpose of your comments other than to be a champion for conservatives under the guise of a self-proclaimed centrist?

"You dare present a reasonable argument accusing both sides of the political spectrum of exhibiting anti-intellectual behavior, while we're maligning conservatives as the only contributor to anti-intellectualism? Are you sure you're a LIBERALO_O? And to argue that both sides of the spectrum exhibit such behavior, to attribute something so untrue of the left? THEE AUDACITY! You're clearly championing conservatives, even after you've claimed they blatantly deny climate change. Clearly Conservatives are the main contributors to anti-intellectualism, and my FAR LEFT PROGRESSIVE LENS HAS NO HAND IN MY PERCEPTION! And you being on the left is clearly a ruse, just like Dave Rubin and Sargon of Akkad. Bunch of right wing shills. Anyone who dares defend the right is a right wing shill. Oh, Sam Harris??? He's clearly not a LIBERAL, he does not concave his views to the leftist hive. JUST ANOTHER RIGHT WING SHILL"

This is why I don't interact with you, you attribute malicious motives to everyone who disagrees with you, that and you're blinded by your far left views. To you, a left leaning centrist is right wing, a centrist is a conservative, a right leaning centrist is far right, and a conservative is a fascist. You're Overton window is ****ed up by your bias, and you're incapable of being grounded and sensible enough to agree to something like centered as "both the left and right exhibit anti-intellectualism". You probably think you're being centered on this issue, but that couldn't be farther from the truth.

You must be registered for see images

At least you're subconsciously smart enough to realize the arguments from my last comment are irrefutable, which is why you're trying to backtrack to a discussion we never had. You can't debate me on abstract topics, mate. Those involve rational thought, and drawing your own conclusions, you can't provide lefty links to those.