Thursday, September 22, 2011

Differences Between Liberals and Conservatives

I don’t like doing these type of posts, so I am going to approach this differently than most people might. Before I start, I have to present some basic definitions, because I will be working with words that people will attach meaning to which I do not intend.

First of all, I will be primarily using the term “progressive,” rather than liberal. There’s a few reasons for this, the first is that the post by Heathen Republican which inspired my decision to write this primarily uses the terminology “progressive,” except in its title. I can’t speak for why HR decided upon this change between the title and the bulk of his piece, but the fact that he titles one section “Progressive or Liberal Principles” would indicate to me that he equates them. Also, I think “progressive” carries ever-so-slightly less prejudice from the right and a fair bit less preference from the left. Finally, I just like the terminology, and why I like it will become evident in a moment.

Next, I will also be dropping the use of the term “conservative,” in favor of “traditionalist.” Again, I think “conservative” evokes far too many preconceived notions.

Now, those definitions:

Progressive: (adjective) a quality of seeking change for the sake of progress

Traditionalist: (adjective) a quality of preventing change for the sake of stability

Note: as you will see in a moment, not all change is progressive, nor is opposition to change always traditionalist.

While the post that inspired me to write this uses lists, I don’t think analyzing these two ideologies is best done through lists. I think comparing a list of principles supposedly espoused by each side would present false dichotomies that would only serve to expose my own prejudice for one side or the other. I also think it’s silly to imagine progressive and traditionalist ideology as being based on principles, but more on that later.

This is simply one of those times where the fullness of the issue can only be expressed (even partially) if they are examined in some depth, rather than in superficial bullet points. This is a shame, because I love making lists, but comparison of this kind would not do either side justice.

Which is a good place to start: justice. Each view believes in justice, but each view emphasizes very different aspects. The traditionalist view tends to focus on existing crime, while the progressive view often seeks to alter the idea of what constitutes a crime. As a result, someone supporting tradition often argues in favor of enforcing existing laws, while someone supporting progress seeks to add or eliminate existing laws.

It’s important to point out one unmentioned trait of traditionalism, which is the idea that some wish to “rollback” change. In this way, a supporter of tradition may seek to change what is currently the norm (the current “tradition”) to a previous one (an older or original tradition), and it is progressives who take the defensive and protect what has been established. In this instance, it is not “change” that is the true measure of whether a stance is progressive or traditionalist, but the intent and originality of the policy.

Getting back to justice… there is a component of justice which is quite useful for comparing traditionalist and progressive views: fairness. What a great and horrible word, “fair.” We’ve all been told, “Life isn’t fair,” and yet I suspect every one of us has taken some steps in our lives to make things more fair, not just for ourselves, but also for others.

Indeed, life isn’t fair, but we all dedicate ourselves in some way towards trying to make it more so. And why not? It’s not as though “fair” is aiming too high. Hell, if I had a meal at a restaurant, and I only thought it was “fair,” I probably wouldn’t even go back, so I think “fair” is a fair goal. Plus, rather than creating a dichotomy of whether a view is “fair or unfair,” one can easily see how two views are both fair, even if one is more fair than the other (which often depends upon priorities).

My goal here is not to say, “See, progressive and traditionalist ideologies are really working towards the same aim.” True, both of these sides think that what they do is “fair,” but each defines what is fair differently, then goes about achieving what they see to be fair in different ways. I never liked categorizing people, or really any attempt to encapsulate individuals into convenient little stereotypes (except as it pertains to humor), and yet here I am seemingly emphasizing a dichotomy of only two views.

There is a huge disparity between thought and people. This is why I defined and have only used “progressive” and “traditionalist” as adjectives, not nouns. I cannot point to a progressive or a traditionalist anymore than I can point to God or the Easter Bunny. Well… I can point to all four, but if I do, the finger is only pointing directly at my brain. They exist only in our minds.

It is infinitely important to remember that people are not defined by a label. I would go so far as to say a group of people can be defined, based on their actions, but as soon as you take an individual out of that group, that label will cease to mean as much. Why? Because individuals fail time after time at being neatly organized, categorized, and simplified. They don’t fall into perfect categories, nor do they follow strict, no exceptions principles.

Ultimately, this is why I don’t view principles as all that important for this discussion, because people don’t make decisions based on principles. People’s views are defined by what they found attractive, and to say that our minds are logical machines that are attracted to reason is a laughable proposition. Our politics are based on principles like who we love is based on an empirical analysis of a person.

People are jumbled ideological messes, yet when they are presented with a group of issues, most people will tend to fall squarely on one side of the familiar political spectrum. Even in the rare cases where someone has a semi-equal set of views on either side… the ideas themselves are on one particular side. Even “no action” or apathy will inherently favor the status quo (which may be traditionalist or progressive, as mentioned earlier).

I don’t want to spend more than one paragraph on how superficial and oversimplified the political spectrum is, so I want to point out that most people have no problem at all identifying as more left or right, with left being equivalent to more progressive and right more traditionalist. Every “moderate” or “centrist” I ever met actually leans heavily to one side; I assume they claim to be in the middle in order to appear unbiased, because they are embarrassed by their ideological kin, or simply out of ignorance or apathy.

I can’t be sure, but I assume one of two things to be happening. Either people are being formed by the ideological systems around them, or the ideological systems we have to work with are formed around deep-rooted attitudes within us. I can’t even pretend to guess which is the case, but the outcome in either instance is that while these ideologies are not necessarily cohesive in terms of principled stances, they are linked in that they reflect two different outlooks that exist within our society.

Earlier, I mentioned principles. Principles are highly overrated. By and large, a principle is a lofty truism stated when it is convenient to defend one view, and which is ignored when it contradicts another. Hence, traditionalists who are “pro-life” often have no problem with capital punishment or war, and may even cheer the idea of letting someone without health insurance die in a hospital untreated. On the other hand, progressives are “pro-choice” when it comes to abortion, but they think nothing of putting unnecessary barriers up when purchasing things like guns, cigarettes, or fast food kids’ meals with toys.

I think that people not only base their views on what they find to be attractive (in terms of their measure of fairness), but also that people may adopt a position based on being repulsed by another. This may introduce the situation where a person adopts a stance they are not very attached to, because it is the de facto socially-acceptable view in opposition to another, less desired stance.

With what I think are few exceptions, principles are arguments formulated or understood long after a view has been adopted. A principle may explain why a view is right, but unless you can demonstrate that your “principles” span the entirety of your ideology… it is not a principle, it is a justification for one idea. There no dishonor in that, but there is dishonesty in pretending you base your views on principles when you don’t.

There are many ideas I am tempted to say are “progressive” or “traditionalist,” but I don’t think there is any way of determining a definite difference yet. What is conservative in Norway can be very progressive by US standards, and likewise, there are polices that are quite readily accepted by conservatives in the US which would be radically liberal in the Muslim world. Determining time and place is important when discussing these labels, and for obvious reasons, as I proceed, I will be using the standard of America as it is today.

In this context, one of the primary differences in priorities between these two groups is the view of the individual. The progressive stance often aims for “positive liberty,” while the traditionalist stance often aims for “negative liberty.” Positive liberty is the freedom for every individual to have access to the resources necessary to reach their potential (therefore, requiring action), while negative liberty is the freedom from any external interference (generally requiring no action, except to enforce laws preventing individuals from interfering with others). There are exceptions, however, as when a conservative restriction is in place (like a ban on gay marriage). In such a case, when the tradition is restriction, and the progressive stance is to repeal it, then the progressive view is in support of negative liberty. Again, one can see that principles do not apply universally through the ideologies.

I could complicate matters by inventing “positive progressivism” as those ideas that wish to add to legislation, and “negative progressivism” which seeks to repeal legislation… but, no thanks.

Another useful way of looking at this is to consider breaking each ideology into social and economic spheres. There is inevitable overlap in these two, but it’s easy to see how a person may support the economic policies of one side and the social policies of the other, especially when you consider that much of progressive social policy supports negative liberty, as does traditionalist economic policy, and vice versa for traditionalist social policies and progressive economic policies (although it’s rare to find the latter in America, the first example might be considered a standard Libertarian).

Given the criteria I have provided, I hope it would be easy to see whether an idea was progressive or conservative within the system I presented (though I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to…).

So, I promised not to do a list… in this post. The list is in the works, and will be posted when I am satisfied that it is thorough. Also, this is a great opportunity to post this as is and to take criticism on any gaping holes I missed.

16 comments:

  1. Also, I think “progressive” carries ever-so-slightly less prejudice from the right

    That is but one reason I claim to be a liberal.

    Progressive: (adjective) a quality of seeking change for the sake of progress I would change this to the quality of accepting change for the sake of progress. Progressives do not seek change. They seek solutions to problems.


    Traditionalist: (adjective) a quality of preventing change for the sake of stability I would change this to the quality of preferring stability over sudden change. Conservatives want to change lots of things, God bless ‘em.

    People’s views are defined by what they found attractive, and to say that our minds are logical machines that are attracted to reason is a laughable proposition. Very provocative, sir. Well said.

    I can’t be sure, but I assume one of two things to be happening. Either people are being formed by the ideological systems around them, or the ideological systems we have to work with are formed around deep-rooted attitudes within us. People lean one direction, often ever so slightly, and then core axioms, confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance carry them the rest of the way. This also explains why these “ideological messes” end up fitting squarely on one side or the other.

    By and large, a principle is a lofty truism stated when it is convenient to defend one view, and which is ignored when it contradicts another. Were I so motivated, I think I could come up with a list of principles that guide you.

    Hence, traditionalists who are “pro-life” often have no problem with capital punishment or war, and may even cheer the idea of letting someone without health insurance die in a hospital untreated.

    This is because the principle does not say “thou shalt not kill,” just as Genesis didn’t that until it was mistranslated. The principle is “thou shalt not murder.” There is a principle, just not the one that I think you implied. I actually believe that core moral axioms are mostly made of principles, even when we do not successfully articulate them.

    On the other hand, progressives are “pro-choice” when it comes to abortion, but they think nothing of putting unnecessary barriers up when purchasing things like guns, cigarettes, or fast food kids’ meals with toys. That are a lot of different kinds of fruit in that last statement’s basket. I agree that many progressives are pro-choice and stricter than conservatives on gun laws. The fast food thing was a political statement that most progressives and conservatives laughed at. It is a myth. Most progressives are not against smoking and a huge percentage of them do, probably more than the percentage of conservatives who smoke. A huge number of progressives are squarely against sin taxes, and I am one of them. I reject all regressive taxation policies ON PRINCIPLE. We are precariously close to venturing into stereotypes produced by political oppositions with this.

    I think that people not only base their views on what they find to be attractive (in terms of their measure of fairness) To be clear, each side believes, based on faith in their interpretation, that their vision of fairness is right and their opponent’s is wrong. A huge percentage of conservatives don’t merely disagree with the progressive view of fairness; it is completely beyond their comprehension. It is an alien mindset.

    [To Be Continued …]

    ReplyDelete
  2. [Part II]

    A good example is the fact that they often measure taxes in dollars received by the government instead of in the opportunity cost to the person paying the dollars. If a rich man has to send some taxes to the government, and so he has his accountant write a check, to some conservatives it is the exact same thing as if a single mother writes a similar check and now cannot get her child braces. The fact that nothing in that rich man’s life has changed suggests he paid very little, but conservatives don’t see it that way. They don’t look at the cost to the payee, not the cost to the payer. They look at the revenue the government received, and from that view of fairness, a dollar is a dollar is a dollar.

    This may introduce the situation where a person adopts a stance they are not very attached to, because it is the de facto socially-acceptable view in opposition to another, less desired stance.

    This is EXACTLY what happens!!! Each side tries to debate the other, instead of arguing their actual position for the reasons they believe it. This leads to people forming positions based on philosophical axioms, and then arguing them by gathering data and trying to prove things (or trying to analyze them to form an opinion if you ask them).

    Take ObamaCare for instance. If you ask progressives, it is more fair and costs less in the long-run. If you ask conservatives it is less fair and costs more in the long run. The cost is a total BS argument made by both sides. They don’t know, and if they did it would still be BS. It is hard to really know what the long-term cost benefit analysis is and each side is making up the best case they can to prove the cost because they need it to be cost-effective because of their philosophical positions on the issue. They refuse to argue the issue on the merits that make them believe it is right or wrong.

    They need all the other “facts” to line up like obedient little soldiers, and they spend a great deal of time “proving” what they already suspect, namely that the “facts” will support their philosophies. It is dishonest. People should argue a position based on the reason they think it, which in the case of ObamaCare has nothing to do with cost. They think universal healthcare is ethical or they do not. Even bringing up the cost is an attempt to support a position you are debating for philosophical reasons is a dishonest ruse. If you wish to analyze that irrelevant detail, you should do it in another context.

    Whether ObamaCare costs more than not ObamaCare has nothing to do with whether was should have it, unless we are creating it as a business decision, instead of trying to get more people insured. Mixing the cost question with the “does it solve the problem it was created to solve question” is dishonest. But, it is exactly how people debate it, and all other positions. They use dishonesty to try to win the argument with “facts” and there are more than enough supporting “facts” and statistics to go around. This kind of deceitful debate could never lead to a conclusion because both sides are denying the very thing that gives them their opinions in favor of other arguments.

    With what I think are few exceptions, principles are arguments formulated or understood long after a view has been adopted. This is all semantics. The view is based on core axioms. When these axioms are concepts of fairness, justice what is right or wrong, they can (and should) always be formulated as a principle.

    [To Be Continued …]

    ReplyDelete
  3. [Part III]

    A principle may explain why a view is right, but unless you can demonstrate that your “principles” span the entirety of your ideology… it is not a principle Again, the discussion is semantics. To paraphrase your statement, “only categorical imperatives can be classified as principles.” I don’t care for that definition. “Thou shalt not murder” is a principle I uphold, but probably is not a categorical imperative for me.

    There no dishonor in that, but there is dishonesty in pretending you base your views on principles when you don’t. I suppose because of the semantic difference, I see things as a bit of the opposite. Most important views are based on principles of some kind.

    Positive liberty is the freedom for every individual to have access the resources necessary to reach their potential (therefore, requiring action) Hmm. In this case, I must not have the progressive view, because I believe some people “should” be helped by the government to go way beyond their potential. I believe some people have very little potential, which even dips below the ability to survive without assistance and I think those people should be assisted.

    There are exceptions, however, as when a conservative restriction is in place (like a ban on gay marriage). I think the issue of gay marriage is not typical of conservative principles. I think the passion around it is born of religious objection and those who are not religious who are still against it, reject it out of a learned, almost trained, prejudice. I don’t think they realize this, so I don’t hold it against them.

    However, it is a good distinction, negative vs. positive liberty. I think you are suggesting that a measure of socialism is an aspect of positive freedom. I actually view your definition of negative liberty as ultimate liberty. It does not mean you can do things. In some cases you can do less. However, it means the sky is the ultimate limit and it is you that are limiting you, instead of you being limited by another, which cannot be considered ultimate freedom. Negative freedom, in my opinion, is more liberty than a civilized society should have. It is hunter-gather liberty. I don’t want a world with that mentality. I don’t want to be that free. We made societies so we could be free of that kind of barbaric freedom.

    [THE END]

    ReplyDelete
  4. One more thing: I would be interested to see your list because Heathen's problem was that he is more conservative than the typical liberal.

    I think your problem will be that you are more liberal than the typical liberal. I could be wrong, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think I could come up with a list of principles that guide you.

    And I could come up with an example where I go against every principle that might seem to apply to me. A principle is not something that is negotiable, otherwise it's just a suggestion.

    Most important views are based on principles of some kind.

    Principles are for fictional characters who live in a world without circumstances and exceptions. I guess you can write of one of my major points as semantics, but I think it's important for people to acknowledge that their ideas are not so profoundly based. "Principles" and "axioms" are not what people believe, it's the underlying logical explanation for views that are ultimately just individual stances on particular scenarios.

    In your attempt to claim "pro-life" is a principle based on "thou shalt not murder," you have left out the broader possibilities. Euthanasia is not murder, but tends to be opposed by pro-life advocates. The stance of being "pro-life" is the principle behind opposing suicide, which isn't murder in the a sense. What's more, plenty of people hold these views without truly basing it on scripture, like HR.

    Hmm. In this case, I must not have the progressive view, because I believe some people “should” be helped by the government to go way beyond their potential. I believe some people have very little potential, which even dips below the ability to survive without assistance and I think those people should be assisted.

    I think you misunderstand. Positive liberty supports things like welfare on the basis that the poor need to be provided with the means of achieving, or barring that, subsisting.

    Ultimate negative liberty should come to the same conclusion that positive liberty comes to, because a negative liberty advocate tends to see all inequality deriving from the government, not individual circumstances, when really the government is largely uninvolved in our lives, and it is accidents of birth and geography that determine a great deal about what happens to us. Any thoughtful negative liberty supporter ought to come to the conclusion that the ultimate good is not no government, but a government that does not add to the difficulties of others, while stepping in to prevent the predatory practices of between citizens.

    But I guess there will always be those who whine, "But I should be free to prey on whoever I want!"

    ReplyDelete
  6. A principle is not something that is negotiable, otherwise it's just a suggestion.

    You are thinking of a categorical imperative. Principle exist without imperatives. Look it up, sir.

    "Principles" and "axioms" are not what people believe, it's the underlying logical explanation for views that are ultimately just individual stances on particular scenarios. I and the field of psychology disagree with this. Axioms are the faith that gives reason a starting point.

    In your attempt to claim "pro-life" is a principle based on "thou shalt not murder," you have left out the broader possibilities. Euthanasia is not murder, but tends to be opposed by pro-life advocates.

    Thou shalt not murder is a principle. Whether euthanasia falls into this category is debatable and probably tends to have more on someone’s view of the sanctity of human life. I do not think there is inherently any such thing. I am sure some other liberals agree, though I know it is the minority opinion. Sometimes killing a human is the right answer.

    The stance of being "pro-life" is the principle behind opposing suicide Again, this is not necessarily murder and is a separate question.

    What's more, plenty of people hold these views without truly basing it on scripture, like HR. “We should obey God is another principle.” You can think something that a God-obedient person thinks without having his principle.

    I think you misunderstand. Positive liberty supports things like welfare on the basis that the poor need to be provided with the means of achieving, or barring that, subsisting. That is my position and also what I understood you to mean by positive liberty. I just don’t think one’s potential is the right question.

    I think you and I are going to get hung up on principles vs. categorical imperatives. Let me just say that I have virtually no categorical imperatives, but I am highly principled, meaning I have rules I tend to live by. When I use the word “principle” I do not mean I consider this rule set inviolable. I mean I live by it. “Do not murder.” “Do not assume someone else’s rights are less than your own.” “Do not deny someone their freedom to be who they are just because I don’t like it.” “Support a political system where the government ensures basic survival and necessities of its people, and assumes the right of those people to not be impoverished and suffering in my nation.” “Support social equality.” Those are all principles I live by. You may be able to distill them into a single greater principle, I don’t know.

    These are principles that I do not have: “Do not kill.” “Ensure equality of results.” “Deny myself the right to pursue happiness, including wealth, if others are poor.” “Follow God’s law.”

    I know now that our dispute is over terms. I don't agree with your definition of principle. We have a term for what you are labeling "principle." It is called "categorical imperative," or person more specifically "moral imperative."

    These are the categorical imperatives (which you call principles) I can say I definitely have:

    ReplyDelete
  7. A categorical imperative assumes that all should abide by a given principle, while a principle is a guiding force for an individual. I'm not trying to reintroduce deontology, I'm trying to say that a person's ideology should be consistent within its own philosophical framework if one claims to be guided by principles. But I guess you know what I'm trying to say.

    Here's the gist of why I think it's ridiculous to believe that most people are actually basing their views on principles:

    There are a few facts which I think one must consider to be true. One is that there were billions of moral decisions made by human beings before the concept of "principles" was invented, and it was even longer before "categorical imperatives" were imagined by Kant in the 18th century. Even once they came about, I suspect the number of people who truly functioned using them in their thought process were few and far between.

    Second, people today form some portion of their morality before they have the mental capability of understanding what a "principle" or "categorical imperative" is. I feel that claiming people base their views (especially to say we base all or even most of our views) on principles is like claiming we love our parents (assuming one does) because of who they are as people, not because they raised us or cared for us. It may turn out after the fact that we like them as people, but it is not as though that was the basis for the relationship.

    Still, even if I use your definition, I don't think the principle is what attracted a person to a point of view, especially initially. Just to give you an example: two people who are almost universally considered to be "acting on principle" were Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi. The fact is, both of them acted in their own self-interests through the interests of their respective oppressed groups, and merely touted the principles publicly long after they initially adopted their cause. A truly principled stance is demonstrated to my satisfaction when someone goes against the other factors which tend to comprise a person's decision making. King and Gandhi were great because they brought the principles to light. A principled stance need not be so grandiose, and may be as simple as correcting a person's error when playing a game against them when the correction adversely affects you. In that case (as well as in some less petty ones), it is almost undoubtedly the principle of fairness that guided the correcting player's action.

    What's more, many principles are incompatible with one another. I suppose one might "prioritize" their principles, but in essence... at least in my view... this means that one can only truly be holding to those principles which do not conflict, because choosing to follow one over another is to abandon the lesser as a principle entirely. Take the principles of "winning is everything" and "fair play." You have to pick one or the other in certain situations, and to me, that means you can only truly adhere to one.

    But if you think people honestly place real value on principles, and that they need not be applied to the whole of one's ethics, I'll have to consider it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "First of all, I will be primarily using the term 'progressive,' rather than liberal. There’s a few reasons for this, the first is that the post by Heathen Republican which inspired my decision to write this primarily uses the terminology 'progressive,' except in its title. I can’t speak for why HR decided upon this change between the title and the bulk of his piece..."

    The reason is quite simple. On my site, I generally use the term "progressive" because that is what progressives want to be called. As it's been described (repeatedly), the right has turned "liberal" into a bad word (which you basically confirm), so now the left wants to be called progressive. I do not equate the two terms; the left equates the two terms.

    I used the term "liberal" in my title because that is the more SEO-friendly term and increases the likelihood that my post will inspire a young skull full of mush. common usage for people using search engines.


    "This is simply one of those times where the fullness of the issue can only be expressed (even partially) if they are examined in some depth, rather than in superficial bullet points."

    Wonderful point. Of course, in the case of my post, my goal was to concisely list the two sets of principles since I have discussed them in depth in other posts, linked from my list. But you know that.

    Another good reason for using lists is that your post is lengthy and requires a great deal of concentration. In other words, it's not well written for the web, and rambles on quite a bit. (I mean that with all due respect.)


    "It is infinitely important to remember that people are not defined by a label."

    Balderdash! Each of us defines ourselves every day with labels. Father, daughter, accountant, atheist, blogger, etc. Even without using the word "infinitely" in this sentence, it's utter nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Ultimately, this is why I don’t view principles as all that important for this discussion, because people don’t make decisions based on principles."

    What do you base this on? Are you extrapolating your own view on the entire population?


    "There are exceptions, however, as when a conservative restriction is in place (like a ban on gay marriage)."

    If your point here is to point out the conservative approach of "negative liberty," this is a very poor example. I am aware of no bans on gay marriage. Perhaps you could cite the amendment or law that bans gay marriage. Instead, conservatives make a "positive" affirmation of the traditional definition of marriage.


    "Euthanasia is not murder, but tends to be opposed by pro-life advocates. The stance of being 'pro-life' is the principle behind opposing suicide, which isn't murder in the a sense. What's more, plenty of people hold these views without truly basing it on scripture, like HR."

    I'm pretty sure I have not yet expressed an opinion on euthanasia, and I am much less pro-life than my fellow conservatives would want me to be. Be careful which ideological positions you attribute to me.


    "...there were billions of moral decisions made by human beings before the concept of 'principles' was invented..."

    This is absurd. There were billions of atoms before we built a microscope small enough to see them and name them, too. Not having a name for "principles" at some mythical time in the past does not mean humans didn't have them. As John describes, humans had/have core axioms, which are sometimes only named "principles" after the fact.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @John
    "Were I so motivated, I think I could come up with a list of principles that guide [Bret "Ginx" Alan]."

    It's not hard. Bret articulated three in his comments on my post, and another one up above: fairness. Bret has his own principles, but feels some sense of moral superiority by denying them. I can't explain it.

    "'Do not murder.' 'Do not assume someone else’s rights are less than your own.' 'Do not deny someone their freedom to be who they are just because I don’t like it.' 'Support a political system where the government ensures basic survival and necessities of its people, and assumes the right of those people to not be impoverished and suffering in my nation.' 'Support social equality.'"

    All good principles that I could also agree to, with the caveat that I'd need to make sure we agree on the definition of "social equality." I actually think we might.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Balderdash! Each of us defines ourselves every day with labels. Father, daughter, accountant, atheist, blogger, etc. Even without using the word "infinitely" in this sentence, it's utter nonsense.

    That's just it, though. Maybe people can't be both a father and a daughter (I'm sure someone in California has found a way, of course), but people are many things. That's why I don't want to define someone only by a political label, since the nuance in people's ideologies is often explained by aspects of the person which go beyond "progressive" or "conservative."

    What do you base this on? Are you extrapolating your own view on the entire population?

    I base my view that people don't apply principles to their ideologies based on a complete lack of any sort of consistency throughout the ideology of everyone I ever met, which does happen to include myself. It is adorable that so many people feel offended by the idea that their ideas are not principle based... I think that little tidbit was the most important concept I will be taking away from this little exercise.

    Perhaps you could cite the amendment or law that bans gay marriage.

    Seriously? Should I go state by state or just point to DOMA? Or, are you just going to argue that barriers for progress are not "bans," like borrowing money is "paying for" the wars?

    I'm pretty sure I have not yet expressed an opinion on euthanasia, and I am much less pro-life than my fellow conservatives would want me to be. Be careful which ideological positions you attribute to me.

    Considering what you attribute to me, I wouldn't feel even the least bit of shame in claiming you torture small animals. But my point wasn't that you held any position on euthanasia, but to remind JM that there are people on the right who don't base everything on scripture.

    Bret has his own principles, but feels some sense of moral superiority by denying them. I can't explain it.

    Why would you think I'm seeking moral superiority? Of all things... I'm not more moral, I'm just more cynical.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Seriously? Should I go state by state or just point to DOMA? Or, are you just going to argue that barriers for progress are not "bans,""

    You could've taken the easy way out and agreed that defining marriage is not the same as an explicit ban, but you always have to be right, so as long as you offered, I would appreciate it if you would go state by state and show us all the bans. Perhaps you've never actually read DOMA...

    I consider th rest of your comments non-responsive.

    ReplyDelete
  13. DOMA explicitly gives states the right to reject marriages in other states. Considering I have seen the right complain about this sort of situation regarding firearm permits, and they see this as infringing their rights, I don't see why applying it to gay people is anything but consistent with the definition of "restriction."

    You can do your own research on which states are doing what you think they are not here.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Heathen,

    If your point here is to point out the conservative approach of "negative liberty," this is a very poor example. I am aware of no bans on gay marriage. Perhaps you could cite the amendment or law that bans gay marriage. Instead, conservatives make a "positive" affirmation of the traditional definition of marriage. You got so excited about Bret’s semantic tangents that you decided to introduce one of your own. Bret’s DOMA rebuttal notwithstanding, Gay Marriages are not allowed and that was his point.

    It's not hard. Bret articulated three in his comments on my post, and another one up above: fairness. Bret has his own principles, but feels some sense of moral superiority by denying them. I can't explain it. He seems to want to redefine the word principle to mean categorical imperative. This has become a tangled logomachy and the posts original mission seems to have been aborted. We just need to remember that when we say principle, we mean principle and when Bret says principle, he means “imperative.” If we remember that, the dispute is over. I now have a Bret to English dictionary containing one word. If Bret teaches me more of his native tongue, I will add those also. (No offense, Bret, really).

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Bret,

    Actually, Bret, I have always loved foreign languages. I learn them, then forget them, due to lack of use and time constraints. I do have a huge affinity for them, though. I have learned elementary Spanish. More advanced French. I used to be able to read at around a fourth grade level of something in French. I learned Hebrew. I used to read the newspaper and the Bible in Hebrew. I wrote a language as a child, Paraquail. My sister and I spoke and wrote it. It had its own cursive and print alphabet, its own elementary grammar and several thousand words. What a waste. More recently, I learned Bret, the easiest one yet. I have always liked foreign languages.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm already working on a Top Ten "What I really mean when I say..."

    ReplyDelete

If your comment is too long, break it into multiple comments and post them all.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...