Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 210

Thread: How can anyone be a conservative?

  1. #61

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Quote Originally Posted by Copperknickers II View Post
    ... so in fact it mightn't have been a great argument on your part to bring up Burke in the first place.
    No, Burke's views are a brilliant example of what conservatism is (or should be). In the same way that Hobbes, Adam Smith, and John Locke et al. are still relevant for liberals, so too is Burke for conservatism. This is because our societies are still very much connected with the enlightenment era in a way that they simply aren't with the Medieval or early modern one. And your point was basically the opposite of this - that Burke can't be the "father of conservatism" because medieval kings, pope's etc. were in favour of the status quo. When we talk about "conservatism" in a modern political context we're referring to a doctrine (spearheaded by the likes of Burke) which emerged as a response to revolutionary Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries. We are not talking about Richard II squabbling with the peasants.

    There's actual skepticism, and then there's just willful ignorance. Picking out individual examples of times the figures have been doctored doesn't invalidate thousands of studies over 50 years.
    It's mostly just skepticism. Like I said, the notion that conservatives are anti-science is mostly just a meme. In any case, if liberals are so bothered about the religiously minded rejecting evolution, climate change, homosexuality etc. maybe they shouldn't be falling over themselves to accept millions of migrants from deeply religious and conservatives realms all for the fuzzy feels.

    Agreed.
    About time too.

    The proportion of people who are transgender isn't hugely relevant. It's like people who say the word 'cisgender' shouldn't exist because 99% of people are cisgender. Well what word are transexuals supposed to use to describe other people? Just because you don't need to use a word in your daily life doesn't mean others don't.
    I don't know what you're arguing against here. I didn't say that the word cisgender shouldn't exist. My point was simply that we shouldn't be tearing down what it means to be masculine or feminine because 0.3% of the population suffer from "gender dysphoria" - an objective medical condition. Too many liberals, in my opinion, treat gender dysphoria like fashion accessory and as an excuse to attack traditional understandings of gender. I have very much sympathy for people who struggle with their identity, but that doesn't mean we should just throw out all of our gender conventions or pretend that the condition exists more broadly than it does.

    On a related note, the American College of Pediatricians recently concluded that giving a child hormonal or chemical treatment for GD is tantamount to child abuse. They have also argued that 98% of "gender confused" boys and 88% of "gender confused" girls will eventually accept their biological sex - which is why the liberal media fawning over gender "transitioning" 7 year olds sends out dangerously mixed messages to parents and society at large. This issue needs to be reported properly, not simply treated as a social justice cause or worse, used cynically as political weapon in this exhausting shill war the fake media is having with Donald Trump.

    There is such a thing as radical centrism. Separatism is not in itself 'radical' in the sense of being extreme left or extreme right, it's just a radical change.
    Believe whatever you like. The reality is that the SNP are radicals and nationalists who want to extricate Scotland from a union which is older than the United States of America and half the countries in Europe. Honestly, I don't mind if you support them, just don't pretend to be some sort of moderate if you do.

    J. K. Rowling is not a great example, since in addition to being a champagne socialist she is also a bizarre fantasist and a rabid (British) nationalist.
    Never seen anything nationalist from her at all.

    Edit: Oh I see what you did there. Rowling didn't support Scottish independence so she's a "rabid British nationalist". Yeah, no.
    Last edited by Cope; February 25, 2017 at 12:19 PM.



  2. #62
    Copperknickers II's Avatar quaeri, si sapis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    12,647

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    No, Burke's views are a brilliant example of what conservatism is (or should be). In the same way that Hobbes, Adam Smith, and John Locke et al. are still relevant for liberals, so too is Burke for conservatism. This is because our societies are still very much connected with the enlightenment era in a way that they simply aren't with the Medieval or early modern one.
    That is an interesting debate for another thread. I think people vastly understimate the contributions of the Medieval era to the present.

    And your point was basically the opposite of this - that Burke can't be the "father of conservatism" because medieval kings, pope's etc. were in favour of the status quo. When we talk about "conservatism" in a modern political context we're referring to a doctrine (spearheaded by the likes of Burke) which emerged as a response to revolutionary Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries. We are not talking about Richard II squabbling with the peasants.
    I don't think Burke's conservatism is very relevant to the modern world. We are moving into an era where the whole early modern period from the Renaissance to the 19th century is becoming somewhat irrelevant.

    It's mostly just skepticism. Like I said, the notion that conservatives are anti-science is mostly just a meme.
    I'm sorry but you're talking absolute nonsense. Trump literally called climate change a hoax and supports the idea that vaccines cause autism. His own beliefs aside, those ideas are mainstays of the American Right and they are not 'skepticism', they are straight-up anti-science. A quarter of the US population don't even believe in evolution.

    In any case, if liberals are so bothered about the religiously minded rejecting evolution, climate change, homosexuality etc. maybe they shouldn't be falling over themselves to accept millions of migrants from deeply religious and conservatives realms all for the fuzzy feels.
    I oppose fundamentalist religion, but I oppose leaving innocent civilians to their deaths more. One has to put things into perspective.

    My point was simply that we shouldn't be tearing down what it means to be masculine or feminine because 0.3% of the population suffer from "gender dysphoria" - an objective medical condition.
    Gender dysphoria is basically just 'unhappiness caused by being transgender. It's not suffered by all transgender people. Dysphoria can be caused by more or less anything.

    Believe whatever you like. The reality is that the SNP are radicals and nationalists who want to extricate Scotland from a union which is older than the United States of America and half the countries in Europe.
    I prefer the term 'separatist'. And I don't think it's very relevant that the UK is older than the USA. Scotland was an independent kingdom for 700 years before that, and frankly if the UK was 10,000 years old I'd still want out of it.

    Honestly, I don't mind if you support them, just don't pretend to be some sort of moderate if you do.
    The SNP are quite a moderate party by Scottish standards, separatism aside. As I said, separatism is radical but it doesn't bear on the left/right divide, it's a separate (pun not intended) issue.
    A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.

    A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."

  3. #63

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Quote Originally Posted by Copperknickers II View Post
    That is an interesting debate for another thread. I think people vastly understimate the contributions of the Medieval era to the present.
    It's not about medieval contributions to the modern era. It's about recognizing that modern political thought stems much more predominantly from the enlightenment than it does from the medieval period.

    I don't think Burke's conservatism is very relevant to the modern world. We are moving into an era where the whole early modern period from the Renaissance to the 19th century is becoming somewhat irrelevant.
    Not really. Again, this is like saying that Hobbes and Locke are barely relevant to the modern world, despite their theses providing part of the basis for contemporary political thought.

    I'm sorry but you're talking absolute nonsense. Trump literally called climate change a hoax and supports the idea that vaccines cause autism. His own beliefs aside, those ideas are mainstays of the American Right and they are not 'skepticism', they are straight-up anti-science. A quarter of the US population don't even believe in evolution.
    For the third time, Trump is not a conservative. The notion that vaccines cause autism is not a "mainstay of the American Right" and the argument about climate change stems primarily from the extent to which it is caused by humanity and the extent to which we should be concerned about it.

    I oppose fundamentalist religion, but I oppose leaving innocent civilians to their deaths more. One has to put things into perspective.
    Sure, but you're presenting the false dichotomy that either Western nations accept millions of migrants or they're leaving innocent civilians to die. One obvious other solution which should have been explored and put into action many years ago is the construction of safe zones in the affected areas where civilians would be able to retreat to and find sanctuary until it was safe for them to return home.

    Gender dysphoria is basically just 'unhappiness caused by being transgender. It's not suffered by all transgender people. Dysphoria can be caused by more or less anything.
    To quote the ACP: "When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria"

    I prefer the term 'separatist'. And I don't think it's very relevant that the UK is older than the USA. Scotland was an independent kingdom for 700 years before that, and frankly if the UK was 10,000 years old I'd still want out of it.
    Prefer whatever term you want. My point is that the SNP are not centrists, and your comments seem to demonstrate that you are stubbornly nationalist. Again, I don't really mind, believe whatever you want just stop pretending that you're some sort of moderate or centrist.

    The SNP are quite a moderate party by Scottish standards, separatism aside. As I said, separatism is radical but it doesn't bear on the left/right divide, it's a separate (pun not intended) issue.
    The SNP's entire raison d'etre is to separate Scotland from the UK. We can therefore conclude that, even according to you, since "separatism is radical", that the SNP are radical too.



  4. #64

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    It's mostly just skepticism. Like I said, the notion that conservatives are anti-science is mostly just a meme. In any case, if liberals are so bothered about the religiously minded rejecting evolution, climate change, homosexuality etc. maybe they shouldn't be falling over themselves to accept millions of migrants from deeply religious and conservatives realms all for the fuzzy feels.
    Sorry, had to jump in here because of the absurdity. You see, skepticism has a specific meaning. There are no more skeptics to the idea of Evolution or Anthropogenic Climate Change. The actual skepticism happened (years ago), was addressed, and settled. The only skepticism regarding these fields are on the micro side; i.e. the specifics of cellular DNA and RNA mutations or will the sea level raise by 6 feet in 60 years or by 20 feet? No, the word for people who deny those fields is Pseudoskepticism. They are deniers who tell themselves they are skeptics so they don't feel like deniers. To the point of the migrants; wow, what a red herring. You seem to be conflating the ideas that wanting to help people means accepting or approving of their beliefs.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  5. #65

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    No they aren't. A baby boomer is someone born between 1946 and 1964. Baby boomers had nothing to do with 1950's era conservatism.
    Close enough. In what way do Baby Boomers have nothing to do with American conservatism in the 1950s? They grew up in the era of McCarthy and they were the generation that saw the popular rise of Friedman, Libertarianism, Raegan, and rejection of Keynesian ideas. Baby Boomers are far more likely to be conservative on economics, to say nothing of social issues.

    It isn't a mischaracterization. You think Trump was singularly responsible for debasing the political discourse and that everyone who voted Republican was a "moron" who voted against their own interests.
    We didn't call everything we disagreed with "Fake" before this election, but no. Voting against your own interests doesn't make you a moron. Plenty of bad reasons to vote Republican besides being a moron. But hey, attack me over an obvious hyperbole that we settled many posts ago. Evil hypocrite Sukiyama who thinks everyone is a moron (because I'm a flat character in a Tarantino film obviously).

    I've explained to you the hypocrisy of arguing in favour of dignified discussion before condemning all those who disagreed with you as "retards".
    Nah, just those who insist Trump is going to save us from something. Liberals maybe.

    Yeah, lets just ignore her time as Secretary of State. Nothing to see there. But hey, at least this list shows her support for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. Such progressiveness.
    Yeah let's just ignore her initiatives for health care reform and women's rights as First Lady. Let's ignore the numerous articles she's written on foreign and domestic policy. Let's ignore some 2400 pieces of legislation that reveal she is what says she is, center right or center left depending on your ideology, let's ignore the thorough presidential platforms she laid out in both 2008 and 2016. Let's ignore the countless speeches she made.

    But hey, those terrible e-mails. Good thing we have good access to every season of Trump's Apprentice, his excessively long Twitter campaign, and the amount of purely retarded he's said over the last two years. I mean for 's sake did you hear the man speak at the press conference?

    I would not have voted for Trump, but if forced, I would have chosen him over Hillary Clinton. Brexit isn't ambiguous, it's good. Also "zomg the Nazi's are coming" isn't true nor is the idea that conservatism is dying.
    Okay, okay. I said Conservatism is dying. Ignoring your ridiculous pedantry which suggests that I meant, "the entire right-wing of the political spectrum will cease to exist" I actually meant, "the last vestiges of Conservatism from the 1950s-era will be dying with the baby boomers". I consider this case closed.

    And nobody forced you to vote for Trump anyway. If you're a foreigner, I've already said (numerous times on the Forum mind you) that I prefer Trump's foreign policy proposals over Clinton's. But that for Americans, concerns over domestic issues should matter far more to us. Not to mention that Clinton never said she wants to go to war, merely that she would be more aggressive and hawkish in her posturing. Yeah totally Brexit is good. Unanimous consent there, I suppose that's another reason to consider all news "fake".

    And I don't remember liberal members of this Forum say the Nazis are ing coming. Merely that increased activism and membership of alt-right groups is disturbing, seeing as those alt-right groups advocate general evil and terrible Nazi-like things. We're well aware that the majority of the population still thinks those people are insane, thankfully.

    What has you repeatedly denigrating half your own country got to do with cynicism? It's a fact. If anything, you are the cynic.
    Oh no. I'm not a cynic. I take a stand on positions. Unlike all the cowards who say, "the news are fake, the NFL is rigged, you will never be successful in life. OMGOMG". If you don't believe anything, you believe in nothing. And voting Trump to spite the rest of the "system" is ing stupidity. But hey, "he inherited a mess".

  6. #66

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Sorry, had to jump in here because of the absurdity. You see, skepticism has a specific meaning. There are no more skeptics to the idea of Evolution or Anthropogenic Climate Change. The actual skepticism happened (years ago), was addressed, and settled. The only skepticism regarding these fields are on the micro side; i.e. the specifics of cellular DNA and RNA mutations or will the sea level raise by 6 feet in 60 years or by 20 feet? No, the word for people who deny those fields is Pseudoskepticism. They are deniers who tell themselves they are skeptics so they don't feel like deniers. To the point of the migrants; wow, what a red herring. You seem to be conflating the ideas that wanting to help people means accepting or approving of their beliefs.
    I can already tell that you've been triggered. You saw someone argue that conservatism as a political doctrine has nothing to do with rejecting science and were outraged, not specifically by that argument, but by memories you have of republicans and/or the religious denying scientific truths.

    That said, let's get to the content of your post...

    Firstly, your argument is pretty incoherent insofar as it contradicts itself almost immediately. First you claim that there are "no more skeptics to the idea of evolution or climate change" before then highlighting areas of legitimate skepticism within those fields. There clearly remain questions pertaining to climate change - not whether it is real or whether human activity contributes to it, but rather how fast it is happening, what we can expect it's impact to be, the extent to which it is caused by human activity and how best to manage it. Asking these questions and receiving answers which are as accurate as possible is important. Creating policies in tandem with media doom mongering is unhelpful as is the NOAA allegedly manipulating figures for political reasons.

    Secondly, as far as migrants are concerned, my point was that many liberals appear to have put very little thought into the manner in which that help should be provided, not that we should simply ignore refugees. Instead of developing a controlled and manageable program to manage the humanitarian crisis in Syria and other places, liberals often rallied around the idea of just letting anyone and everyone resettle in Europe without properly considering the consequences of doing so.



  7. #67

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Close enough. In what way do Baby Boomers have nothing to do with American conservatism in the 1950s? They grew up in the era of McCarthy and they were the generation that saw the popular rise of Friedman, Libertarianism, Raegan, and rejection of Keynesian ideas. Baby Boomers are far more likely to be conservative on economics, to say nothing of social issues.
    Baby boomers had nothing to do with the formulation of 1950's style American conservative perspectives. If anything, they were the generation most responsible for resisting them - particularly in a social sense. The idea of small government and low taxation also really has nothing to do with the boomers since it has existed since the start of the Republic.

    We didn't call everything we disagreed with "Fake" before this election, but no. Voting against your own interests doesn't make you a moron. Plenty of bad reasons to vote Republican besides being a moron. But hey, attack me over an obvious hyperbole that we settled many posts ago. Evil hypocrite Sukiyama who thinks everyone is a moron (because I'm a flat character in a Tarantino film obviously).
    You are not the arbiter of what other people's interests are, period. This is really a basic point which goes straight to the heart of this debate. If you can't respect the individual choices made by other people without losing your mind out of a conviction that you know better than them about what their own interests are then you are neither a conservative nor a liberal.

    Nah, just those who insist Trump is going to save us from something. Liberals maybe.
    Yeah, but that isn't what you said is it? Oh but wait, confronting you on what you literally said makes me a pedant or something.

    Yeah let's just ignore her initiatives for health care reform and women's rights as First Lady. Let's ignore the numerous articles she's written on foreign and domestic policy. Let's ignore some 2400 pieces of legislation that reveal she is what says she is, center right or center left depending on your ideology, let's ignore the thorough presidential platforms she laid out in both 2008 and 2016. Let's ignore the countless speeches she made.
    I'm not re-fighting the election with you. Hillary Clinton was a dreadful candidate - so dreadful that she even managed to lose to Donald Trump.
    But hey, those terrible e-mails. Good thing we have good access to every season of Trump's Apprentice, his excessively long Twitter campaign, and the amount of purely retarded he's said over the last two years. I mean for 's sake did you hear the man speak at the press conference?
    See above.

    Okay, okay. I said Conservatism is dying. Ignoring your ridiculous pedantry which suggests that I meant, "the entire right-wing of the political spectrum will cease to exist" I actually meant, "the last vestiges of Conservatism from the 1950s-era will be dying with the baby boomers". I consider this case closed.
    Yeah, my bad. I can't read your mind. Instead I have to rely on the things you actually say.

    And nobody forced you to vote for Trump anyway. If you're a foreigner, I've already said (numerous times on the Forum mind you) that I prefer Trump's foreign policy proposals over Clinton's. But that for Americans, concerns over domestic issues should matter far more to us. Not to mention that Clinton never said she wants to go to war, merely that she would be more aggressive and hawkish in her posturing. Yeah totally Brexit is good. Unanimous consent there, I suppose that's another reason to consider all news "fake".
    What?

    And I don't remember liberal members of this Forum say the Nazis are ing coming. Merely that increased activism and membership of alt-right groups is disturbing, seeing as those alt-right groups advocate general evil and terrible Nazi-like things. We're well aware that the majority of the population still thinks those people are insane, thankfully.
    Are they? Where is the evidence that membership of "alt-right groups" is increasing?

    Oh no. I'm not a cynic. I take a stand on positions. Unlike all the cowards who say, "the news are fake, the NFL is rigged, you will never be successful in life. OMGOMG". If you don't believe anything, you believe in nothing. And voting Trump to spite the rest of the "system" is ing stupidity. But hey, "he inherited a mess".
    You know it's funny. The mainstream press is capable of using the truth to tell lies, whereas Donald Trump seems somehow capable of telling the truth by lying. He is completely right that the press is manipulative and dishonest - and it was about time that a politician pointed that out. Yes, he bumbles around, is overzealous and often imprecise - though that seems to be out of ignorance rather than deliberate intent to mislead - but the general points he makes on issues which concern ordinary voters are often valid.

    As to the rest, well I'm sure we're all super glad that you're such a champion of great causes. I know I am.



  8. #68
    Copperknickers II's Avatar quaeri, si sapis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    12,647

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    For the third time, Trump is not a conservative. The notion that vaccines cause autism is not a "mainstay of the American Right" and the argument about climate change stems primarily from the extent to which it is caused by humanity and the extent to which we should be concerned about it.
    Which is still anti-science. These people aren't genuinely interested in offering minor critiques on scientific studies, they want do discredit the whole idea of climate change. The stupid ones say 'it doesn't exist', but the smarter ones realise that the best way of discrediting something is not to oppose it, but to cast doubt on it and to maintain that there are 'alternative' ways of interpreting the data (#AlternativeFacts). But that in itself is incredibly anti-scientific because it's disingenuous and it doesn't actually prove anything. And by some estimates a third of Americans think vaccines cause autism, and the rates are twice as high among Republicans as among Democrats.

    Sure, but you're presenting the false dichotomy that either Western nations accept millions of migrants or they're leaving innocent civilians to die. One obvious other solution which should have been explored and put into action many years ago is the construction of safe zones in the affected areas where civilians would be able to retreat to and find sanctuary until it was safe for them to return home.
    That's a moot point seeing as there are no plans afoot to do it. The refugee crisis is an acute crisis and it can't be solved by long term projects like that which require planning and complex negotiations. Incidentally do you think safe zones were never proposed? They were rejected at an early stage because they were unworkable, given that they would have required either the USA, Turkey, Israel or Saudi Arabia (or all of those) invading Syria, which was likely to make the war worse not better.

    To quote the ACP: "When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria"
    The ACP is one of numerous professional bodies dealing with psychiatry, indeed it's not even a specialist psychiatric organisation. DSM V stresses that distress is a necessary part of the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and DSM is the most respected psychiatric manual in the world. Comparing it to the ACP is like comparing the Oxford English Dictionary with the Collins Abridged Dictionary for Schoolchildren.

    Prefer whatever term you want. My point is that the SNP are not centrists, and your comments seem to demonstrate that you are stubbornly nationalist.
    Separatist. I am in absolutely no sense a Nationalist, and I am very much a centrist when it comes to the left/right continuum, less because I am moderate and more because my rightist and leftist beliefs largely cancel each other out.

    The SNP's entire raison d'etre is to separate Scotland from the UK. We can therefore conclude that, even according to you, since "separatism is radical", that the SNP are radical too.
    It's quite radical to put bacon in ice-cream. Doesn't make Heston Blumenthal a fascist. Radical has a broad range of applications beyond the left-right continuum, which describes a narrow range of economic and cultural beliefs.
    A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.

    A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."

  9. #69

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Quote Originally Posted by Copperknickers II View Post
    Which is still anti-science. These people aren't genuinely interested in offering minor critiques on scientific studies, they want do discredit the whole idea of climate change. The stupid ones say 'it doesn't exist', but the smarter ones realise that the best way of discrediting something is not to oppose it, but to cast doubt on it and to maintain that there are 'alternative' ways of interpreting the data (#AlternativeFacts). But that in itself is incredibly anti-scientific because it's disingenuous and it doesn't actually prove anything. And by some estimates a third of Americans think vaccines cause autism, and the rates are twice as high among Republicans as among Democrats.
    You're going off on a tangent here. Non of this is really pertinent to the points I made above. In any case, questioning certain facets of climate change with a mind to forming public policy isn't "anti-science". As to the support of conspiracy theories, the data points to the fact that that people will believe lies that correlate with their general political beliefs - which pretty much aligns with my point that being anti-science has nothing to do with being conservative. As to the "autism is caused by vaccines" argument, the data shows actually that the rates for belief among Trump voters was a closer to a third higher (not twice) than the rates for belief among Clinton voters. That being the case, I certainly don't think that makes it a "mainstay of the American right".

    That's a moot point seeing as there are no plans afoot to do it. The refugee crisis is an acute crisis and it can't be solved by long term projects like that which require planning and complex negotiations. Incidentally do you think safe zones were never proposed? They were rejected at an early stage because they were unworkable, given that they would have required either the USA, Turkey, Israel or Saudi Arabia (or all of those) invading Syria, which was likely to make the war worse not better.
    Of course, its mostly immaterial now because what's done is done. It's nevertheless curious that when European leaders decided that Europe could no longer cope with the flows the number of people using the Balkan route decreased by 75%.

    The ACP is one of numerous professional bodies dealing with psychiatry, indeed it's not even a specialist psychiatric organisation. DSM V stresses that distress is a necessary part of the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and DSM is the most respected psychiatric manual in the world. Comparing it to the ACP is like comparing the Oxford English Dictionary with the Collins Abridged Dictionary for Schoolchildren.
    Yes, this is true. I can't remember why whether or not distress being a factor of the diagnosis was even relevant, but yes, the DSM do say that - presumably because if there is no distress caused then there really is no medical threat to the individual.

    Separatist. I am in absolutely no sense a Nationalist, and I am very much a centrist when it comes to the left/right continuum, less because I am moderate and more because my rightist and leftist beliefs largely cancel each other out.
    Again, phrase it however you like. It's just semantics. It doesn't change the fact that the SNP aren't a centrist party. They are nationalists with a socialist economic agenda.

    It's quite radical to put bacon in ice-cream. Doesn't make Heston Blumenthal a fascist. Radical has a broad range of applications beyond the left-right continuum, which describes a narrow range of economic and cultural beliefs.
    I never implied that radicalism was akin to fascism. You're arguing against a straw man here. I mean I know someone always has to invoke 30's politics in these sort of debates, but really.



  10. #70

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Baby boomers had nothing to do with the formulation of 1950's style American conservative perspectives. If anything, they were the generation most responsible for resisting them - particularly in a social sense. The idea of small government and low taxation also really has nothing to do with the boomers since it has existed since the start of the Republic.
    The ideas of small government and low taxation fell out of vogue in the 30s after the Great Depression. Baby Boomer era marks the revival of conservatism that was previously all but stamped out, i.e. the 70s.

    You are not the arbiter of what other people's interests are, period. This is really a basic point which goes straight to the heart of this debate. If you can't respect the individual choices made by other people without losing your mind out of a conviction that you know better than them about what their own interests are then you are neither a conservative nor a liberal.
    A senior citizen voting for a representative who vows to end Medicare is voting against their interests. End of story. I take issues with people who consistently vote on ignorance and pseudo-science. Moreover, I am no more obliged to respect people's choices than anyone else and that doesn't disqualify me from being a liberal. For the record, I consider myself to be a conservative, center-right. The only reason I seem liberal is because I believe hurricanes to be caused by low pressure instead of gay marriage.

    The great sin of "Libertarian" type though is the emphasis on freedom above all else. Yes, conservatives are entitled to believe that ending gay marriage is a greater priority than providing affordable healthcare to the population. They are also completely wrong and they can shove their freedom up their ass. The entire basis for governance is the principle of giving up certain freedoms for security and public welfare and I'll be damned if I end debate on voting on such issues with, "yeah, if you hold ending gay marriage as the single most important thing in your life you should vote for Trump".

    Yeah, but that isn't what you said is it? Oh but wait, confronting you on what you literally said makes me a pedant or something.
    We are finally admitting to pedantry? I'll be honest, wasn't expecting it.

    I'm not re-fighting the election with you. Hillary Clinton was a dreadful candidate - so dreadful that she even managed to lose to Donald Trump.

    See above.
    I'm taking this to be to be the trumpet of surrender. Don't worry. This is the usual tactic with conservatives. Argue abstract concepts instead of actual policy.

    Yeah, my bad. I can't read your mind. Instead I have to rely on the things you actually say.
    Don't really need to read my mind. You can just read the things I say, but apparently not since you're having some difficulty with it.

    What?
    Good argument.


    Are they? Where is the evidence that membership of "alt-right groups" is increasing?
    Alt right parties in Europe have been gaining more votes in elections. Not to mention the number of alt-right groups has been rising in recent years.

    You know it's funny. The mainstream press is capable of using the truth to tell lies, whereas Donald Trump seems somehow capable of telling the truth by lying. He is completely right that the press is manipulative and dishonest - and it was about time that a politician pointed that out. Yes, he bumbles around, is overzealous and often imprecise - though that seems to be out of ignorance rather than deliberate intent to mislead - but the general points he makes on issues which concern ordinary voters are often valid.
    Oh? Are you on the Fake News cuckoo train too? And here I thought I was having a conversation with a moderate. Glad to know otherwise. As for Trump, he's a national embarrassment that should never have been elected.

    he rest, well I'm sure we're all super glad that you're such a champion of great causes. I know I am.
    Why thank you. On one side we have me, who favors progressive policy, public welfare, and freedom to make your own destiny. On the other hand we have today's conservatives, who champion nationalism, total negative freedom, and defense spending. I mean leaving aside the fact that we already spend more than the next few nations combined, but what the hell. We're mediocre there for some reason. But yes, I am the great evil that's threatening freedom of having your own thoughts.

  11. #71
    Copperknickers II's Avatar quaeri, si sapis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    12,647

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You're going off on a tangent here. Non of this is really pertinent to the points I made above. In any case, questioning certain facets of climate change with a mind to forming public policy isn't "anti-science".
    It is, if the questioning takes the form of undermining or disagreeing with scientific consensus.

    As to the support of conspiracy theories, the data points to the fact that that people will believe lies that correlate with their general political beliefs - which pretty much aligns with my point that being anti-science has nothing to do with being conservative. As to the "autism is caused by vaccines" argument, the data shows actually that the rates for belief among Trump voters was a closer to a third higher (not twice) than the rates for belief among Clinton voters. That being the case, I certainly don't think that makes it a "mainstay of the American right".
    Pretty close to twice as high in the figures I saw. At any rate, it's clearly higher on the Right, as is the general level of anti-scientific beliefs.

    Yes, this is true. I can't remember why whether or not distress being a factor of the diagnosis was even relevant, but yes, the DSM do say that - presumably because if there is no distress caused then there really is no medical threat to the individual.
    It was relevant because you tried to claim that transexuality and gender dysphoria are the same thing, implying that transexuality was in itself a mental illness. Which it isn't, according to DSM V. You used the figure of '0.3%' in relation to gender dysphoria, which is the total percentage of all transgender people. Actually it does seem that over half of transgender people experience dysphoria to some extent, but still, not all and not for their whole lives necessarily.

    Again, phrase it however you like. It's just semantics. It doesn't change the fact that the SNP aren't a centrist party. They are nationalists with a socialist economic agenda.
    Separatists. And they have a less socialist agenda than Labour do at the moment. So if Labour are a centre left party, the SNP are a very centrally skewed left party. By Scottish standards, they are a centrist party. By American standards there aren't really any conservative parties in Scotland, not even UKIP. The Left-Right divide is relative not absolute. From the perspective of actual Communists Jeremy Corbyn is quite moderate. From the perspective of true Fascist/Far Right parties in other countries, the Tories are bleeding heart liberals.

    I never implied that radicalism was akin to fascism. You're arguing against a straw man here. I mean I know someone always has to invoke 30's politics in these sort of debates, but really.
    You implied that radicalism was by definition either extreme left or extreme right. It isn't, it's an entirely separate concept to the left-right divide. As I said before, there is such a thing as radical centrism.
    A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.

    A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."

  12. #72
    Diocle's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Amon Amarth
    Posts
    12,572

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    I have very strongly held beliefs about justice and equality. That's why I was so appalled, for example, when most of the UK's Conservative Party voted against marriage. That's unforgivable. How can anyone support a party that opposes gay marriage?
    It's called: Democracy.

    In Democracy, people with different opinions vote to decide what has to be done about common problems with different (frequently opposite) solutions, the place in which the men and women representing the citizens meet each other to vote is called Parliament.

    The Ancient Greeks invented the machine, but in modern times, the Brits (dammit! Always them!) are credited to be the firsts having accomplished the very risky and difficult task of re-creating a good form for the ancient bimillenary machine, extended not only to a single city-sate but to a whole nation.

    If you think there is a better way to decide what to do in countries where men and women have opposite views about life, economy and politics, I would be very interesred in reading it.



    Side note:
    I belong to the large group which thinks that the gay marriage is the quintessence of human idiocy, of the leftist dementia and of the social hypocrisy, daily mirrored and magnified by modern media, and I demand that my point of view is respected, in the hope it will have the chance to prevail once for all.

  13. #73

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I don't know what you're arguing against here. I didn't say that the word cisgender shouldn't exist. My point was simply that we shouldn't be tearing down what it means to be masculine or feminine because 0.3% of the population suffer from "gender dysphoria" - an objective medical condition. Too many liberals, in my opinion, treat gender dysphoria like fashion accessory and as an excuse to attack traditional understandings of gender. I have very much sympathy for people who struggle with their identity, but that doesn't mean we should just throw out all of our gender conventions or pretend that the condition exists more broadly than it does
    We should be throwing them away regardless of the existence of transgenders because they are oppressive. It wasn't too long ago in this country that women weren't allowed to study higher level maths.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    On a related note, the American College of Pediatricians recently concluded that giving a child hormonal or chemical treatment for GD is tantamount to child abuse.
    Which it is. You are falsely claiming transgender rights activists are calling for transgender interventions to be performed on children when they are not. The only appropriate chemical treatment for gender dysphoric children is puberty blockers. No others are authorized.

    So despite the American College of Pediatricians being a fake medical organization which has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, it is correct in this case. The group has previously fabricated evidence that gays are more likely to molest children than straights.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    They have also argued that 98% of "gender confused" boys and 88% of "gender confused" girls will eventually accept their biological sex
    While these figures are invented, it is true that most people who believe they have gender dysphoria are not diagnosed with it. By design it's hard to become transgender. You have to spend many months or years meeting different medical specialists, many of whom have the sole job of filtering you out of the process if you are not genuinely transgender. That's how medicine works of course. There are always lots of possible cases which fall to a much smaller number when a proper diagnosis is done.

    Why are you taking statistics about the success of transgender doctors in diagnosing gender dysphoria and treating some cases of gender dysphoria by means other than transition and using it to bash transgenders?
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    which is why the liberal media fawning over gender "transitioning" 7 year olds sends out dangerously mixed messages to parents and society at large.
    There are no transitioning 7 year olds. Some 7 year olds can get puberty blockers if they are willing to go through the months or years of meeting medical specialists. In their teenage years will be when they are allowed to transition. If they aren't going to transition, as happens in some cases, their puberty will resume, possibly later than usual.
    Last edited by Enros; February 25, 2017 at 09:55 PM.

  14. #74

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Alt right parties in Europe have been gaining more votes in elections. Not to mention the number of alt-right groups has been rising in recent years.
    There are "alt right parties" in Europe? Name one.

  15. #75

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    The ideas of small government and low taxation fell out of vogue in the 30s after the Great Depression. Baby Boomer era marks the revival of conservatism that was previously all but stamped out, i.e. the 70s.
    The latter part of the sentence is basically a lie. Pretending that the boomers were somehow responsible for re-instituting pre-30's conservatism (because Reagan or something) is absolute nonsense.

    A senior citizen voting for a representative who vows to end Medicare is voting against their interests. End of story.
    This is also a lie. A person not wanting state subsidized healthcare is not automatically "voting against their interests". And before you try and make the argument that senior citizens have already paid for Medicare through taxation, don't bother: people have hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from in tax for which they receive no personal benefit, which is exactly why so many people want to reduce government interventionism in the free market - because they think it is poor value for money. Furthermore your inference that people's interests are confined to their own persons is rubbish. Senior citizens, parents and grandparents routinely vote in alignment with what they think will be best for their children or other family members.

    I take issues with people who consistently vote on ignorance and pseudo-science.
    No, you take issue with anyone that didn't vote the same way you did.

    Moreover, I am no more obliged to respect people's choices than anyone else and that doesn't disqualify me from being a liberal. For the record, I consider myself to be a conservative, center-right. The only reason I seem liberal is because I believe hurricanes to be caused by low pressure instead of gay marriage.
    The notion that you know what is in other people's interests implies that you have no respect for individualism. Ergo, you appear to be neither a liberal or a conservative.

    The great sin of "Libertarian" type though is the emphasis on freedom above all else. Yes, conservatives are entitled to believe that ending gay marriage is a greater priority than providing affordable healthcare to the population. They are also completely wrong and they can shove their freedom up their ass. The entire basis for governance is the principle of giving up certain freedoms for security and public welfare and I'll be damned if I end debate on voting on such issues with, "yeah, if you hold ending gay marriage as the single most important thing in your life you should vote for Trump".
    You're inventing non-existent positions to support your own argument. Donald Trump never said that he wanted to revoke Gay Marriage. On the contrary, he said he considered the issue closed.

    We are finally admitting to pedantry? I'll be honest, wasn't expecting it.
    No. I was highlighting the absurdity of you complaining about "pedantry" whenever I confront you on things you've actually said.

    I'm taking this to be to be the trumpet of surrender. Don't worry. This is the usual tactic with conservatives. Argue abstract concepts instead of actual policy.
    Take it however you like. This discussion is meant to be about conservatism, not Hillary Clinton or the 2016 election. If you want to convince yourself that you've won some sort of brilliant victory simply because I have no interest in re-fighting the election campaign all over again, that is your prerogative.

    Don't really need to read my mind. You can just read the things I say, but apparently not since you're having some difficulty with it.
    You make over-zealous statements such as all Trump voters are "retards" or "conservatism is dying" and then when you get challenged you pretend that there was some non-existent context that justifies them. After a certain amount of pushing you finally either amend said statements to something more palatable or just invoke "hyperbole". Then I see you making the same sort of comments again somewhere else.

    Good argument.
    I can't argue against incoherence which had nothing to do with the comment I made. That entire passage was a mess - something about Brexit and consent.

    Alt right parties in Europe have been gaining more votes in elections. Not to mention the number of alt-right groups has been rising in recent years.
    Which parties in Europe are Alt-Right? Which alt-right groups have been rising in recent years?

    Oh? Are you on the Fake News cuckoo train too? And here I thought I was having a conversation with a moderate. Glad to know otherwise. As for Trump, he's a national embarrassment that should never have been elected.
    Yeah, pointing out that the press consistently uses polemic and manipulative techniques in order to push certain narratives makes one an idiot. Their sensationalism, dramatics and deliberately divisive rhetoric (designed to pit one citizen against another) and has gotten completely out of hand, as has their patent bias. It's time they were called out on it. It is absolutely unsurprising that people are using alternative media.

    Why thank you. On one side we have me, who favors progressive policy, public welfare, and freedom to make your own destiny. On the other hand we have today's conservatives, who champion nationalism, total negative freedom, and defense spending. I mean leaving aside the fact that we already spend more than the next few nations combined, but what the hell. We're mediocre there for some reason. But yes, I am the great evil that's threatening freedom of having your own thoughts
    A vague effort at self-aggrandizement. I'm not going to bother trying to respond to the platitudes. The only specific point you've made refers to defense expenditure - and yet what is the US going to do when half of its NATO allies won't meet the two-percent and establishment politicians are so hawkish over Russia? The reality is that the Europeans are piggy backing on American military might, and yet when the President tries to make this point (or questions NATO more generally) he's accused of being Putin's puppet. Then, when he says he wants to bolster the US forces, you effectively accuse him of wastefulness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Copperknickers II View Post
    It is, if the questioning takes the form of undermining or disagreeing with scientific consensus.
    I'm not going to go down the line of arguing that the scientific consensus isn't infallible. What I will say - once again - is that non of this supports the notion that conservatives are intrinsically anti-science. They aren't. Again, it is mostly to do with people on the right being more likely to distrust scientists rather than distrusting science as a matter of political doctrine.

    Pretty close to twice as high in the figures I saw. At any rate, it's clearly higher on the Right, as is the general level of anti-scientific beliefs.
    It's actually 0.6 Clinton voters for every Trump voter (I did the maths) according to the data provided in the Washington Post article. As to the rest, I answered it above.

    It was relevant because you tried to claim that transexuality and gender dysphoria are the same thing, implying that transexuality was in itself a mental illness. Which it isn't, according to DSM V. You used the figure of '0.3%' in relation to gender dysphoria, which is the total percentage of all transgender people. Actually it does seem that over half of transgender people experience dysphoria to some extent, but still, not all and not for their whole lives necessarily.
    You are right that I used incorrect terminology according to the DSM. I reject the notion that I tried to imply that transexuality was a "mental illness".

    Separatists. And they have a less socialist agenda than Labour do at the moment. So if Labour are a centre left party, the SNP are a very centrally skewed left party. By Scottish standards, they are a centrist party. By American standards there aren't really any conservative parties in Scotland, not even UKIP. The Left-Right divide is relative not absolute. From the perspective of actual Communists Jeremy Corbyn is quite moderate. From the perspective of true Fascist/Far Right parties in other countries, the Tories are bleeding heart liberals.
    Neither Corbyn or the SNP are centrists and Scotland does not exist in a vacuum. But even if it did, it has a long history wherein its constituents have supported, in considerable numbers, a variety of parties - including the Conservative and Unionist party and the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, I would say that the Liberal Democrats represent centrism in Scotland since they are basically Blairites but without all the baggage of Iraq and the financial crisis.

    You implied that radicalism was by definition either extreme left or extreme right. It isn't, it's an entirely separate concept to the left-right divide. As I said before, there is such a thing as radical centrism.
    The SNP are not centrists. I've explained why about five times. They literally call themselves (and are) nationalists, they pursue economic socialism and they envisage, nay, exist, for the sole purpose of breaking up an historic union which as of now is stable and healthy. But really, I have no interest in getting into it with you over the nationalist agenda for I think God himself would fail to convince you of it's pitfalls. I mean you literally had to invoke feudal Scotland as an argument.
    Last edited by Cope; February 26, 2017 at 08:53 AM.



  16. #76

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Quote Originally Posted by Copperknickers II View Post
    It is, if the questioning takes the form of undermining or disagreeing with scientific consensus.
    I don't have any opinions worth mentioning on climate change, because I haven't really studied it, but this sentence actually expresses an anti-scientific view.

    "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." ~Richard Feynman

    But then to just accept Feynman's opinion as an expert would be missing the point, so here's the context of the argument:

    We have many studies in teaching, for example, in which people make observations, make lists, do statistics, and so on, but these do not thereby become established science, established knowledge. They are merely an imitative form of science analogous to the South Sea Islanders' airfields--radio towers, etc., made out of wood. The islanders expect a great airplane to arrive. They even build wooden airplanes of the same shape as they see in the foreigners' airfields around them, but strangely enough, their wood planes do not fly. The result of this pseudoscientific imitation is to produce experts, which many of you are. [But] you teachers, who are really teaching children at the bottom of the heap, can maybe doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

    When someone says, "Science teaches such and such," he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, "Science has shown such and such," you might ask, "How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?"

    It should not be "science has shown" but "this experiment, this effect, has shown." And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments--but be patient and listen to all the evidence--to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.

    In a field which is so complicated [as education] that true science is not yet able to get anywhere, we have to rely on a kind of old-fashioned wisdom, a kind of definite straightforwardness. I am trying to inspire the teacher at the bottom to have some hope and some self-confidence in common sense and natural intelligence. The experts who are leading you may be wrong.

    I have probably ruined the system, and the students that are coming into Caltech no longer will be any good. I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television--words, books, and so on--are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  17. #77
    Copperknickers II's Avatar quaeri, si sapis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    12,647

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    I don't have any opinions worth mentioning on climate change, because I haven't really studied it, but this sentence actually expresses an anti-scientific view.

    "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." ~Richard Feynman

    But then to just accept Feynman's opinion as an expert would be missing the point, so here's the context of the argument:
    Sorry Sum but you're taking me considerably out of context. Obviously I'm not an idiot and I do know that criticising and being skeptical about scientific studies is one of the foundations of the scientific method. But the important thing is that this skepticism and critique must themselves also be rooted in the scientific method for them to be valid. What I was arguing was that many conservatives use specious arguments wherein they try to claim that because science is by its nature fluid and falsifiable, we are better off trusting in totally unscientific methods. In its extreme form, this manifests as statements like 'evolution is just a theory (therefore the Bible is equally reliable)!'.

    And you needn't worry about my accepting Feynman's opinion as an expert, because I don't accept it. As a historian, I know what people used to use in place of this 'imitative science', and I prefer an unscientific world based on imitative/poorly understood science rather than an unscientific world based on astrology and haruspicy. I think what we need is more people accepting scientific findings in place of their gut instincts, not less. The scientific method is very often a poor or even counterproductive tool for interpreting complex subjects outside the realm of the physical and biological sciences and producing recommendations on the correct course of action. But it's still better than relying solely on common sense in many cases. Because common sense isn't particularly common. And besides, generally if science has bad results it's because people don't understand it properly, not because there's anything wrong with the science itself. If someone decides to eat 10 fruits and vegetables per day because of scientific advice and they end up getting morbidly obese due to all the carbs, that's not the fault of the science, it's because taking a scientific study in isolation as a universal truth is not good science.
    Last edited by Copperknickers II; February 26, 2017 at 09:58 AM.
    A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.

    A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."

  18. #78

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Quote Originally Posted by Copperknickers II View Post
    Sorry Sum but you're taking me considerably out of context. Obviously I'm not an idiot and I do know that criticising and being skeptical about scientific studies is one of the foundations of the scientific method. But the important thing is that this skepticism and critique must themselves also be rooted in the scientific method for them to be valid. What I was arguing was that many conservatives use specious arguments wherein they try to claim that because science is by its nature fluid and falsifiable, we are better off trusting in totally unscientific methods. In its extreme form, this manifests as statements like 'evolution is just a theory (therefore the Bible is equally reliable)!'.
    I didn't take you out of context, you were responding to this quote:

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You're going off on a tangent here. Non of this is really pertinent to the points I made above. In any case, questioning certain facets of climate change with a mind to forming public policy isn't "anti-science".
    Which ep1c_fail had previously qualified as:

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    There clearly remain questions pertaining to climate change - not whether it is real or whether human activity contributes to it, but rather how fast it is happening, what we can expect it's impact to be, the extent to which it is caused by human activity and how best to manage it. Asking these questions and receiving answers which are as accurate as possible is important. Creating policies in tandem with media doom mongering is unhelpful as is the NOAA allegedly manipulating figures for political reasons.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  19. #79

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Just to provide some context, these are the main points that the IPCC put forth in 2007 which no scientific organization of national or international standing dissents to (hence why people refer to it as 'consensus'):
    1. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
    2. Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.
    3. Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale. Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative. Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.
    4. The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.
    5. The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).
    If you personally disagree with any of the points, you do so without any organizational support, at least from those with high reputability.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  20. #80
    Copperknickers II's Avatar quaeri, si sapis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    12,647

    Default Re: How can anyone be a conservative?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    I didn't take you out of context, you were responding to this quote:

    You're going off on a tangent here. None of this is really pertinent to the points I made above. In any case, questioning certain facets of climate change with a mind to forming public policy isn't "anti-science".
    Which ep1c_fail had previously qualified as:

    There clearly remain questions pertaining to climate change - not whether it is real or whether human activity contributes to it, but rather how fast it is happening, what we can expect it's impact to be, the extent to which it is caused by human activity and how best to manage it. Asking these questions and receiving answers which are as accurate as possible is important. Creating policies in tandem with media doom mongering is unhelpful as is the NOAA allegedly manipulating figures for political reasons.
    Yes, and Epic Fail was responding in the former post to my qualification of what specifically I was classifying as anti-science:

    Quote Originally Posted by Me
    These people aren't genuinely interested in offering minor critiques on scientific studies, they want do discredit the whole idea of climate change. The stupid ones say 'it doesn't exist', but the smarter ones realise that the best way of discrediting something is not to oppose it, but to cast doubt on it and to maintain that there are 'alternative' ways of interpreting the data.
    My later post was meant to be taken as a reiteration of my own argument, which Epic Fail ignored. I don't really care how Epic Fail qualified what he meant because, unless I've been speaking Swahili for the past two pages, I thought I had made it quite clear that I don't buy his explanation for the motivations of those in conservative circles who criticise climate science. If I thought such conservatives were genuinely concerned 'not [with] whether it is real or whether human activity contributes to it, but rather how fast it is happening, what we can expect it's impact to be, the extent to which it is caused by human activity and how best to manage it' then I wouldn't have any disagreement with him. But I bypassed this because it is a strawman, and also a fallacious argument: 'no real conservative seriously questions climate change'. Right. And no true Scotsman wears underwear under his kilt.
    A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.

    A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •