Look, a Liberal at Free Republic!

[FreeRepublicLoginName]

Hi. Most people would consider me a "Liberal".

I'm not posting here to argue or incite a flame war. I am not posting to change anyone's mind about anything. I am posting here because I want to understand the Conservative viewpoint. I'm here to listen, but I have some questions.

I've read the Conservative FAQ at

http://www.conservatism.com/CustomPage.asp?WEBSVCID=1155&SID={8D0C2C23-7287-400D-ADB9-0EF7C5A3056A}&MID=118

I don't know if that document truly represents conservatism or not, but it seemed consistent with what I've seen in popular media (and on the web). But it raised some questions for me. I was hoping visitors of Free Republic would be willing to give their personal viewpoints on a few questions.

Here are my questions. The word "you" here refers to any conservative willing to post their opinion. (I got most of these questions by reading what others have said about conservatives, so that's why some of my questions sound like a test.)

1. Do you believe in God?

2. Do you believe Reason has limitations? If so, what are those limitations?

3. Did your father use corporal punishment to enforce discipline? (Were you whipped, beaten, or spanked when you misbehaved?) If so, how frequently? (Once per year? Once per day?)

4. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "To be morally strong, you must be self-disciplined and self-denying. Otherwise, you are self-indulgent and such moral flabbiness ultimately helps the forces of evil."

5. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Punishment is nurturing in that it teaches discipline, self-reliance and respect for authority."

6. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Your poverty or your drug habit or your illegitimate children can be explained only as moral weakness and any discussion of social causes cannot be relevant."

7. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The highest moral good is nurturance, including empathy, fairness and protection, but not painful punishment."

8. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Obedience comes out of love and respect for the parent, not out of fear, and strength is in the service of nurturance."

9. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "'Conservative tolerance for inequality' [as described by liberals], should, in fact, read intolerance for forced equality, and acceptance of the natural order of things in which inequality is generally the rule. "

10. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The modern North American liberal is 'a keen advocate of change mainly to fulfill his/her ego needs -- needs for power, influence, self-advertisement, self-promotion and excitement.'"

11. Is it possible for a Liberal to be a good person? Is it possible for a Conservative to be a bad person?

12. Is morality (by which I mean right and wrong) absolute, as described in the bible, or is it relative?

13. On a scale of 1 to 10, are you happy in life (generally speaking)?

14. Which statement do you agree with more: "people are generally good and trustworthy" or "people are generally bad and will try to harm you"?

15. Is corporal punishment (discipline through whipping, beating, or spanking) an acceptable practice?

16. On a scale of 1 to 10, do have anxiety (or fear) in your life (on a day-to-day basis)?

[Dianna]

I submit that you would be happier in life if you would let go of your fear. People are not out to hurt you. (Not even black people.)

How DARE you? Don't even TRY to paint me as a racist.

I'm not afraid in general, I am sensible. There are good people and bad people in this world. A small amount are really awful, probably an equal amount are very good.

But the people in the middle are likely to take advantage of any situation they can to be bad where they cannot get caught. Look at the numbers of people who steal from their employer and shoplifters. Look at the numbers of people who lie on resumes or cut in line. These are the majority of people, not rapists and thieves.

I don't lock my doors at night. I rarely lock my car (this annoys my husband). I don't worry about African bees. Neither do I worry about "global warming" or the horror of homelessness or the millions!! of people killed by SUV's. You don't really think that Fox News reports MORE "scary" stories than any other network?

Liberals would love to deprive me of the right to school my children as I please, drive the car I wish to drive, wear a cross at my government job, or spank my children in public. They very much wish to take my money by force. And would like to deprive me of the right to own a gun. They want to dictate who I can employ.

I don't fear much of anything. I sensibly do not wander around (even in my lily white-middle class neighborhood) alone in the dark. I stay away from high crime areas. Generally I feel pretty safe.

To make myself more clear...remember the outpouring of goodwill after 911? All those people holding hands in churches, donating blood and money? Many of those same people would walk off with too much change from a grocery store, snoop through your medicine cabinet at a party, or deny their kid broke your window when he really did. Good and bad, but more inclined to do bad in general.

If I sin without forgiveness from Christ, I will go to hell. You don't have to believe it, but I insist that you TOLERATE my belief.

[Matchett-PI]

"You have identified your own personal HAPPINESS to be the thing that functions as your ultimate concern -- the thing you prize, and value most highly at this stage of your life."

FreeRepublicLoginName: "This statement is true. ..I do not understand your point."

Oh, I think you do --- because you deliberately cut out the part where I explained it to you here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/972907/posts?page=85#85

Let's go over that part you cut out again:

M-PI:"You're actually saying that there is nothing in your life that functions as an ultimate concern for you."

FreeRepublicLoginName: "No, that's not what I'm saying at all. ...you are asking me what my "ultimate goal", my "purpose" is. .. My answer is: to be happy. My purpose in life is to be happy".

Once again, your answer shows you to be a very illogical person. Here are the facts:

One of the definitions of god is: something or someone of supreme value -- something or someone that functions as as an ultimate concern in a person's life.

We all care about many things: love of family, the condition of one's home, taxes, war and peace, etc., etc., but for each of us, there can be only one ultimate concern, something so important and valuable that we are willing, at the moment, to sacrifice almost anything for it. (One's ultimate concern can change over time, but that doesn't change the fact that we all have one at all of our stages of life).

You have identified your own personal HAPPINESS to be the thing that functions as your ultimate concern -- the thing you prize, and value most highly at this stage of your life.

You said you had no beliefs and no god.

Then you said that happiness is your god at this moment. ~

These two statements contradict each other.

FreeRepublicLoginName: "I also fail to see how my "answer shows [me] to be a very illogical person". .."

I can't help you there. That's why I suggested to you that you might want to seek treatment for the mental confusion (cognitive dissonance) that results from holding contradictory attitudes and beliefs simultaneously .

FreeRepublicLoginName: "conservatives make strange, illogical arguments that cannot be followed, like the Chewbacca Defense.It is for this reason that us Liberals seem to "blow off" your arguments so much of the time."

Now THAT is rich! You have already proven to those capable of critical thought, that you are in no position to be calling others "illogical". Hahahaha

M-PI: "Tell me, is there such a thing as absolute truth?"

FreeRepublicLoginName: "Yes, I think that the Universe we live in (and share) is the absolute truth. ..."

Wow! In addition to worshipping at the altar of happiness (your current ULTIMATE concern), you even have metaphysical *beliefs* about ULTIMATE reality.

Are you aware that there are others who don't believe there is such a thing as absolute truth, and don't hold your *belief* about it? Are they wrong? How do you know?

If you were to try and convince them that your *belief* about the universe being absolute truth is indeed the truth, how would you go about it? What would you base your argument on?

Would you tell them that absolute truth must be the same for all rational beings?

For instance, each human being makes distinctions beween right and wrong. And isn't it funny that even people who profess to be ethical relativists (each person gets to decide whats right and what's wrong for themselves) act contrary to what they profess when they themselves have been wronged.

When someone wrongs them, like making a promise and then breaking it, their protests make it clear that they believe the other person is inately aware of the same *moral law*.

They appeal to some kind of STANDARD of behavior that they expect the other person to inately know about and adhere to.

And the other person rarely would try to deny knowing about that standard -- rather he would make excuses for not holding to it. Hahahaha

[FreeRepublicLoginName]

"Oh, I think you do --- because you deliberately cut out the part where I explained it to you here: "

Please don't get angry. I'm sorry. I didn't "deliberately cut out" anything. I just didn't see any relevance (which is exactly what I said. Quote: "I do not understand your point.") It's just a stupid web board discussion, don't get your blood pressure up.

"You said you had no beliefs and no god.
Then you said that happiness is your god at this moment. ~ "

I never said that happiness was my "god" at this moment. In fact I said the opposite, as you quite clearly show above. You went through some Chewbacca Defense to assert that my happiness is my "god", and I quite clearly explained:

'Does pursuing my happiness in life really mean that I have "beliefs"? I would say no, but it's a nice topic for discussion. '

See, that's the part where I deny that my pursuit of happiness is the same as my "god". Since you bring up this topic, let me explain why:

For any "god", one is forced to accept a mythology, a story (or history) that has mystical elements in it. Whether it be Mercury's magic shoes, or Moses's splitting of the sea, or Christ's miracle healings, or whatever. Some people believe we're in The Matrix. I do not subscribe to such mysticism.

Instead, I believe what I see. I try to look at the world as a Scientist first. I don't go for mumbo jumbo hocus pocus crap - when extraordinary claims are made, extraordinary proof is required.

But I know when I am happy. Do I need to "believe" that I am happy, so that I know what direction to take my life in? I don't think so - I can feel with my senses quite clearly when I am happy. I don't think there's anything mystical, magical, or hocus-pocus about enjoying certain parts of life.

In short, I don't "believe" that happiness is my "god", because I don't believe happiness is a god. It's just an emotion, there's nothing about it that requires faith.

"These two statements contradict each other. "

Perhaps now you understand why I don't see a contradiction?

[Matchett-PI]

FreeRepublicLoginName: "..I didn't "deliberately cut out" anything. ..I never said that happiness was my "god" at this moment. ..In short, I don't "believe" that happiness is my "god", because I don't believe happiness is a god. ..?"

Regardless of what you "never said", and regardless of whether you don't want to believe it, one of the DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS of god is: something or someone of supreme value -- something or someone that functions as an ultimate concern in a person's life.

You have PLAINLY identified your own personal HAPPINESS to be of supreme value to you -- the thing that functions as your ultimate concern -- the thing you prize, and value most highly at this stage of your life. It is your purpose in life:

Your words: "... my "ultimate goal", my "purpose" is .. to be happy. My purpose in life is to be happy".

This fulfills one of the dictionary definitons of a "god".

In light of all your lame, incoherent "chewbacca defenses", you might want to consider changing your screen name to "Chewbacca".

Hahahahaha

[FreeRepublicLoginName]

"If you were to try and convince them that your *belief* about the universe being absolute truth is indeed the truth, how would you go about it? What would you base your argument on?"

Thanks for asking.


It is very simple. Either we all live in the same Universe, or we don't. (Worded more metaphysically: either there is one "absolute truth", or there is not.)

If I come over to your house and give you a wedgie, I've just given you some new sensory input. You'll feel it. The Universe as sensed by you will have gone from a state of normalcy to a state of wedgieness.

There is only one way to model this situation: we're in the same Universe. A high school physicist would say, mathematically, that we were all in the same frame of reference.

Consider the other model: we are all in our own little Universes. That model states quite clearly that your Universe, your sensory input, is separate and disconnected from mine. The very fact that we are having a web board discussion extablishes that we are in a shared Universe.

Another consideration: A sniper can shoot you with a supersonic bullet that will kill you before the sound of the shot gets to your ears. That is a case where you can be killed - your existence as a living, animated creature ceases to be - without you ever having had any sensory input at all. That case can only be explained if the sniper is also in same Universe.

Try a short experiment. Shake somebody's hand. Then say, "Did you feel me shake your hand just now?" If they say "Yes", there's your proof that you and him are in the same Universe.

"Would you tell them that absolute truth must be the same for all rational beings? "

No only all rational beings, but all beings -- rational or not. Living or not.

This is not something that I need to believe in, because that is simply what I define the term "Universe" to mean. I'm not professing some spiritual, mystical knowledge -- I'm just defining those letters, that word, to mean "all things". This should not really come as a shock because it's the common definition; Webster's first definition for the word universe is: "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated". In short: all things.

So when I tell them that the Universe is the absolute truth, I'm not asking for any faith. To me, "all things" implicitly means "all things that TRULY exist", i.e., the Universe, i.e., the truth.

"For instance, each human being makes distinctions beween right and wrong. And isn't it funny that even people who profess to be ethical relativists (each person gets to decide whats right and what's wrong for themselves) act contrary to what they profess when they themselves have been wronged. "

Yeah, you're absolutely right here. There are many people, religious people even, who profess one thing but practice another. But, nobody's perfect. I try to follow good morals but I, like all other humans, tend to make mistakes. I try hard, though. I don't expect to be perfect, do you?


"When someone wrongs them, like making a promise and then breaking it, their protests make it clear that they believe the other person is inately aware of the same *moral law*. "

Thinking that moral law is "relative" does not imply that it's also "different" for everyone. We are all of the same species, and we all have a great deal in common with one-another. As an analogy, just because there are many different languages, does not mean that we can't all live in America and speak English to communicate with each other. If I meet you on the street, I do expect you to have enough relative social training and common interest to not want to hurt or kill me - I mean, have some core moral laws in common with me.

But if you go into strange terroritory, say, in the Amazon, then a moral relativist would have no expectations. If you meet a naked dude with a spear in the rainforest, there's a good chance he may want to eat you. Moral relativists would have no expectations for a common "moral law" in that situation.

But in my city, in this country, when I see people, I do expect them to realize that I don't like pain, I don't want to be robbed, and I don't like it when people break their promises.

(If you think about it, that's really ingrained into the word "promise" -- if I know what that word means, and you know what that word means, then, by definition, we both know that we don't want them broken to us. Definition 1b from Webster's is this:
"
promise
1 [...] b : a legally binding declaration that gives the person to whom it is made a right to expect or to claim the performance or forbearance of a specified act"

Note the term "legally binding". So simply by calling a promise a "promise", we both know what the "moral law" in that case is.)

The fact that what's right and wrong to me is not the exact same thing as it is for you, does not imply that my morality does not have a great deal in common with your morality -- nor does it imply that I cannot have moral expectations of you: if you make a "promise", we both know what that word means, and my expectations of your behaviour will follow.

"They appeal to some kind of STANDARD of behavior that they expect the other person to inately know about and adhere to. "

It's called "the law of the land". In some countries grafiti is bad enough to evoke a caning. In our country, it's a misdemeanor. Same crime, different punishments. In some countries shoplifting costs you a hand. In our country, it costs you jail time. Same crime, different punishments. Morality is relative.

[FreeRepublicLoginName]

"Your words: "... my "ultimate goal", my "purpose" is .. to be happy. My purpose in life is to be happy".

This fulfills one of the dictionary definitons of a "god".
"

Yes, it does fulfil one of the dictionary definitions of a "god". That is true. I should have been more clear, and I apologize. When you say "god", not capitalized (as it was not in your spelling), I refer to the first definition listed by Webster's for the non-capitalized meaning:

"
1 capitalized : [...]
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality"

I do not define my happiness to be a "god", as defined in Webster's as the most common defintion for non-capitalized usage.

I see you've resorted to the definition game, and I am disappointed.

[apackof2]

I think religion is ignorant and destructive

I agree that "religion" can be destructive but you obviously you have confused a relationship with the Creator and living God with religion
Don't throw out a relationship with the Lord because of religion
they are 2 different things

[2] My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, [3] in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. [4] I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.

COL 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. COL 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, [10] and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. [11] In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,* not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, [12] having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

MK 7:7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'*

MK 7:8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

1CO 2:10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. [11] For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. [12] We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. [13] This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.* [14] The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. [15] The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:

[Sam Cree]

"Either that, or Dianna is half way to becoming a liberal and just doesn't know it yet :)"

Or FreeRepblicLoginName is halfway to becoming a conservative ;-)

I don't know if you noticed or not my post #92 in reply to you, however I had wanted to agree with you that there is common ground. I mentioned that there are those (many, IMO) on both sides who are not friends of liberty and freedom.

I probably should note also that there are those on both sides who truly love liberty and freedom.

Our ideas on how to ahieve it differ at a fundamental level, though.

[The Raven]

The conservative viewpoint is:

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Or follow the golden rule...if it is broke....the government had something to do with it.

Suggested reading

Hayek: Road to Serfdom

[honeygrl]

"Like the kinkier type of sadists? Then we'd better get Whyisa over here. "

And don't forget Laz...

[The Raven]

You forgot

Is it OK to burp or cry in public?



It's almost as if the libs have a small screw loose and if only we could just move it a nudge in the right direction....all would be well.

[The Raven]

ping - er- roo - zee

[honeygrl]

Excellent post!!!

[honeygrl]

"Oh wait, I forgot... conservatives only read the bible. "

You might be surprised to know we have quite a few pagans and atheists around here.

MineralMan: aren't you atheist? (i could've remember the wrong username for this) Maybe you could give him an atheist viewpoint of the questions he asked.

And I've spoken with pagans here, I just can't remember their usernames to ping them. Maybe someone else could. "All conservatives are Christian" is a myth though.

[honeygrl]

"I submit that you would be happier in life if you would let go of your fear. People are not out to hurt you. (Not even black people.) "

You mean mhking isn't out to hurt me? Are you sure? /sarcasm

Sorry mhking.. i just couldn't resist pinging you to this comment.

[Lazamataz]

1. Do you believe in God?

Strongly.

2. Do you believe Reason has limitations? If so, what are those limitations?

Yes. Reason is limited by the data it works with.

3. Did your father use corporal punishment to enforce discipline? (Were you whipped, beaten, or spanked when you misbehaved?) If so, how frequently? (Once per year? Once per day?)

No. Never.

4. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "To be morally strong, you must be self-disciplined and self-denying. Otherwise, you are self-indulgent and such moral flabbiness ultimately helps the forces of evil."

There is some truth to the above. I suppose I agree.

5. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Punishment is nurturing in that it teaches discipline, self-reliance and respect for authority."

I disagree.

6. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Your poverty or your drug habit or your illegitimate children can be explained only as moral weakness and any discussion of social causes cannot be relevant."

I disagree. Poverty can be circumstantial (witness African nations), drug use is a medical issue, but illegitimate children is a moral choice. You can choose whether or not to use effective birth control.

7. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The highest moral good is nurturance, including empathy, fairness and protection, but not painful punishment."

Please do not bring ham into this discussion. Stop oppressing my people.

8. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Obedience comes out of love and respect for the parent, not out of fear, and strength is in the service of nurturance."

It was dark. Things moved fast. I don't know who was ultimately responsible, but I always suspected the dwarf. There was something in his sinister grin that unnerved me.

9. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "'Conservative tolerance for inequality' [as described by liberals], should, in fact, read intolerance for forced equality, and acceptance of the natural order of things in which inequality is generally the rule. "

I like cheese. I really really like cheese.

10. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The modern North American liberal is 'a keen advocate of change mainly to fulfill his/her ego needs -- needs for power, influence, self-advertisement, self-promotion and excitement.'"

I would amend the statement. The liberal (worldwide) seeks control and power at the expense of liberty. I suppose I agree.

11. Is it possible for a Liberal to be a good person? Is it possible for a Conservative to be a bad person?

Of course.

12. Is morality (by which I mean right and wrong) absolute, as described in the bible, or is it relative?

It is absolute.

13. On a scale of 1 to 10, are you happy in life (generally speaking)?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

14. Which statement do you agree with more: "people are generally good and trustworthy" or "people are generally bad and will try to harm you"?

There are factors of both in all people.

15. Is corporal punishment (discipline through whipping, beating, or spanking) an acceptable practice?

I suppose.

16. On a scale of 1 to 10, do have anxiety (or fear) in your life (on a day-to-day basis)?

Depends on the arena. Physical threats: 0. Economic threats: 7. Threats to freedom: 8. Threats of the tiny monkeys buzzing around my head in tiny airplanes trying to shoot down the King Kong climbing up my right ear: 120000.

[Lazamataz]

Oh wait, I forgot... conservatives only read the bible.

Sorry, Sparky. We Joos are everywhere.

[honeygrl]

HAH!! I like cheese too.

[Lazamataz]

It is my experience that conservatives are MUCH more kinky than liberals. It's easier to get libs in bed, but once WE are there, it's Nellie-Hold-The-Door WHOO HOOO arf arf arf AROOOOO boing boing boing bouncybouncybouncybouncybouncybouncy HE llo yip yip yip yip AOOOOOOOGAH AOOOOOOOOGAH squeakysqueakysqueakysqueakysqueakysqueakysqueakysqueaky

[bmwcyle]

Do you read the Tora?