APP - Ask me about social conservatism

Damn Yankee said:
wow I haven't seen self-pwnage so bad as Midcan's "tooth fairy" false analogy attempt in a long time.
Click to expand...

Can you explain what that means?

And if you are going denigrate toothfairism, please spell it correctly. Toothfairidom is at the heart of the political beliefs of many people, it is the reason life in our land is simply wonderful. If more people believed in toothfairism, it would certainly be a better world. Toothfairidom is the answer.
 
midcan5 said:
Can you explain what that means?

And if you are going denigrate toothfairism, please spell it correctly. Toothfairidom is at the heart of the political beliefs of many people, it is the reason life in our land is simply wonderful. If more people believed in toothfairism, it would certainly be a better world. Toothfairidom is the answer.
Click to expand...

You've resorted to the logical fallacy of "weak analogy". Stop it now or risk continued pwnage and embarrassment.
 
Damn Yankee said:
You've resorted to the logical fallacy of "weak analogy". Stop it now or risk continued pwnage and embarrassment.
Click to expand...

It's so good of you to finally reply to my initial query. A weak analogy would be one in which competing ideas had different and unequal efficiencies and accomplishments. If we are to fairly weigh libertarianism and toothfairism, the scale would be balanced and level. The foundation for both is belief in a system that leads to a best case situation. The best case situation is defined by the believer. Since neither exist in reality but are only ideas of the faithful, both are equally efficacious or not. It all depends how you look. This was my point in asking Threedee, who went off on a tangent into his own prefigured universe. So the analogy is not weak but real. Now your test is to prove me wrong, demonstrate a clear verifiable accomplishment of libertarianism to tip the scale. Next we can see how toothfairism competes with conservatism, if you like.
 
midcan5 said:
A weak analogy would be one in which competing ideas had different and unequal efficiencies and accomplishments.
Click to expand...
No. If you read the link that I have provided you would know your actual logical fallacy and wouldn't have to make up your own definition.

Now why don't you go back to the OP and ask me a question about social conservatism? :)
 
What religion's prayers should be recited in public classrooms ? What should the penalty be for failure to comply? Should the students be punished, or the parents or the teachers or the administrators?
 
Holden Caulfield said:
I asked three questions, you answered one. You requested questions, do you have answers or not?
Click to expand...

In light of my answer to your first, you'll have to be more specific with regards to your other questions. Perhaps you can give me an example of how a student would fail to comply with a consensus of the others.
 
Damn Yankee said:
No. If you read the link that I have provided you would know your actual logical fallacy and wouldn't have to make up your own definition.

Now why don't you go back to the OP and ask me a question about social conservatism? :)
Click to expand...

I see you too cannot answer my simple question, and my analogy works as well as any because I am comparing two ideas that are not rigidly defined. See definition.

analogy 1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
Logic: a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

Social conservatism is an oxymoron of sorts, a genuinely social creature could not be a conservative as that would counter life experience - life changes. But why define and debate fine points of word use and semantics.

My question is, social conservatism as you and so many right wingers use it is the incursion of your religion into our constitutional government when clearly it has no place there? How do you justify allowing your religion to mediate when you would not want another religion mediating the laws of the land?
 
Damn Yankee said:
In light of my answer to your first, you'll have to be more specific with regards to your other questions. Perhaps you can give me an example of how a student would fail to comply with a consensus of the others.
Click to expand...

I am asking the questions here, at your request. You are the one who wants to require prayer in schools. Perhaps you can answer the friggin questions now.
 
midcan5 said:
I see you too cannot answer my simple question, and my analogy works as well as any because I am comparing two ideas that are not rigidly defined.
Click to expand...
That's your problem summed up. Social Conservatism is rigidly defined, as demonstrated in the OP. You've tried to make your own definitions, but as I've stated many times, groups get to make up their own definitions, not their opposition.
 
Holden Caulfield said:
I am asking the questions here, at your request. You are the one who wants to require prayer in schools. Perhaps you can answer the friggin questions now.
Click to expand...

In order to answer your question I need to know some specifics, as previously stated. There's no reason for you to get emotional.
 
Damn Yankee said:
In order to answer your question I need to know some specifics, as previously stated. There's no reason for you to get emotional.
Click to expand...

You know native new englanders don't get emotional, especialy when talking to wash a shores and rebs.

Scroll all the way up to post 166 and answer the questions. You can only delay for so long.
 
midcan5 said:
I see you too cannot answer my simple question, and my analogy works as well as any because I am comparing two ideas that are not rigidly defined. See definition.

analogy 1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
Logic: a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

Social conservatism is an oxymoron of sorts, a genuinely social creature could not be a conservative as that would counter life experience - life changes. But why define and debate fine points of word use and semantics.

My question is, social conservatism as you and so many right wingers use it is the incursion of your religion into our constitutional government when clearly it has no place there? How do you justify allowing your religion to mediate when you would not want another religion mediating the laws of the land?
Click to expand...

You're an idiot. No, your analogies never work, and never will work. They are silly constructs which are frequently dishonest, and always irrelevant.
 
Holden Caulfield said:
You know native new englanders don't get emotional, especialy when talking to wash a shores and rebs.

Scroll all the way up to post 166 and answer the questions. You can only delay for so long.
Click to expand...
I've known plenty of native New Englandders who get all emotional when I hit them off the side of their heads with facts. You're just the latest example.
 
Regarding the last paragraph, Midcan, it would depend on whether religious incursion occurred at the federal or state level. The reason why the 1st Amendment uses the term "respecting" rather than stating a prohibition on a "national religion" as Madison wanted, was because 7 of the 14 states wanted to protect their establishments of religion, and wanted to keep the federal government out (especially MA and CT, which had established the Congregational Church).

http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1485&loc=r
 
WinterBorn said:
* Limited government and balanced budgets
Limited gov't? And yet you advocate the gov't deciding whether or not a private business owner can allow smoking. Several of the things on your list are bigger gov't.

* Classroom prayer
What sort of prayer? Christian? Muslim? Jewish? Pagan? Hindu? And will the majority of students respect the beliefs of the minority?

* Abstinence education
Because it has worked so well? If the schools are teaching morality, doesn't that conflict with "Parental control of education"?

* Traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage
On the one hand you want smaller gov't, and on the other you want it to interfere in personal relationships.

* Respect for differences between men and women, boys and girls
This is simply a diversionary phrase for gender discrimination.

* Laws against pornography
And who defines what is pornographic? Will we create laws based on an "I know it when I see it" ideology?

* The death penalty
Since it has not been shown to be a serious deterrent, and since our judicial system continually shows itself to be flawed, and since the costs of capital cases is prohibitively high, this one doesn't pass muster either.


* Parental control of education
Which parents? The liberal ones? The ones who want the gov't to spend more and more?

* Respect for our military ... past and present
And how do you legislate that? Require salutes for veterans?

* Rejection of junk science such as evolution and global warming
The labelling evolution as "junk science" is a poor attempt at an Appeal to Ridicule, and offers no actual evidence that the Theory of Evolution is wrong.

* Low taxes, especially for families
So how much do you plan to penalize single people? And who defines what a "family" is, exactly?
Click to expand...

Ok, SM, since you claim you don't answer my posts that are without substance I bumped this one up. Care to respond to any of these points concerning your list of social conservative beliefs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top