The Corrosion of Conservatism

[annabenedetti]

c'mon anna - you can do better than that

You've only been reigned in, and that's a good thing for the forum, if only too late.

We could've had some great discussions if you'd been willing to try to understand the viewpoint of those who didn't agree with you. The Granites, the Barbarians, the zoos, the quips the PureXes, and on and on. You wanted them gone, and most of them are. Please don't pretend now that you're the slightest bit interested in having a real discussion with them.

 

[WizardofOz]

absolute private ownership negates a state with taxes and assets

If someone pays their taxes should they continue to own their property? If someone owns property on the border where Trump wants to build a wall, what should happen to their private ownership of said property?

Not sure who said anything about absolutes (the taxman must be paid) but eminent domain can certainly be abused. "I'm from the government, I'm here to help."

Do you think the average land owner who lives in Texas is conservative?

absolute free enterprise negates any state interference (and any state action will be interference to someone, in some form)

OK...:idunno:

 

[ok doser]

Not sure who said anything about absolutes

that would be me, in post 76, in an attempt to get at what constitutes "conservatism" and how it does or doesn't differ from "statism"

i suspect there's a great deal of overlap

 

[ok doser]

.. The Granites...

i don't remember having all that much interaction with granite - as i recall, his persona here changed after his marriage, he became bitter and acerbic, his only interest seemed to be to confront those who held the core values of the site

the Barbarians,

the epitome of dishonesty, widely recognized by dozens of regulars back in the day

the zoos,

a weirdo (knight's words) who had an unhealthy obsession with my relationship with my wife

the quips

like thehorn, not interested in engaging in a substantive conversation

the PureXes

i do so miss purex - his bloviating was fascinating and so often spectacularly wrong :chuckle:

one of my faves: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...d-race-issue&p=4645405&viewfull=1#post4645405

and my response: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...d-race-issue&p=4645416&viewfull=1#post4645416



off the top of my head two of the folks i miss most are kmo and rex

and trad

and zippy

 

[WizardofOz]

that would be me, in post 76, in an attempt to get at what constitutes "conservatism"

I was using the definition [MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION] provided.

Is it not to your liking?

and how it does or doesn't differ from "statism"

i suspect there's a great deal of overlap

Are trade tariffs a conservative ideal? Is that an example of overlap?

 

[ok doser]

I didn't say that, though, did I? I said you'd been reigned in. Anyone who read your posts from a few years ago would have a hard time believing that person was the same you here now. If only... if only...

there's an example in the post just before this - do you see a significant difference?

As for free expression, it's a very good thing and vital for forum life. I'm all for light-handed moderation, but you know very well how you were then and how you were now.

blunt and offensive

If we did it's because I ignored half the crap you threw at me and stuck it out to make my point. Everyone on that list I gave you had to ignore half your crap, but I'm glad they did, I learned so much from them. I have to think other people did too and that's what was scary to some on the right.

see - this is why i enjoy these discussions - i find it fascinating that you believe that "some on the right" were scared

No. You're trying to rewrite history. How many times did you call PureX "Purexcrement," for example? That's not "intellectual insult" now, is it? Be honest.

it was a blunt assessment of the load that he was often caught shoveling, especially (as i remember) when it came to matters racial

in fact, i don't recall being interested in anything else that he discussed, just the racial stuff

No. That's simply not true, they all should've been accorded the same freedom of speech you want for yourself.

and they were - they weren't forced out, they chose to leave

As for quip, I think you're trying to paint him in such a light as to get him an infraction.

if i was, i would have reported him already

Remember when you said you knew what buttons to push?

context? cite?

That's manipulation.

it can be - it isn't necessarily

When you enjoy manipulating people, what does that make you?

somebody who enjoys manipulating people? :idunno:

are you manipulating me by the choice of the words you are using, by your decision to respond to me?

Stop telling lies about you?! That's some classic gaslighting going on there.

yes - zoo was caught telling lies about my relationship with my wife before we were married, rusha picked up on it as did others of a specific cabal at the time

you didn't, which is why i've never held any ill-will toward you

I do believe you that you're up for a discussion.

i can't imagine why people would post here otherwise unless they're trolls

I think that's a part why most of us are here.

oh, i think for some it's an opportunity to heap scorn and abuse upon people they dislike, people who hold views they dislike

and my, how they whine when it's turned back on them :chuckle:

It's just such a shame that you destroyed so many good opportunities.

i never saw many opportunities with dishonest game-players

here's a great example of a thread that, predictably, took forever to get past the dishonest game-players like barbie and get traction and generate a decent discussion - http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...y-Dangerous-And-Will-Attack-You-At-Any-Moment!

 

[JudgeRightly]

That trade tariffs do not fit the definition of 'conservative' that you provided.

And I'm against tariffs.

Am I missing something?

Ah, after going through your post, I think I see what you're getting at. You're mistaken in your intent, but I see your point.

And women have the right to abort.

No, it's just legal for them to do so.

Let me ask you a question I asked someone else earlier:

At what age is it no longer okay to rip a baby's arms from his or her body?

The question is not that they have they right

:nono:

(they clearly do)

Saying it doesn't make it so.

it is whether or not they should have that right and whether a self-described 'conservative' should support such.

They don't have the right to take the life of an innocent person, whether the law says they can or cannot.

The only One with that right is God Himself, and that's because He is our Creator.

But what does any of that have to do with this discussion?

Again, you provided the definition but eminent domain does not seem to fit it, does it?

Eminent domain: the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation.

How does that not fit what I said? Please explain.

Does the government taking away private property support private ownership? :think:

Is that taking away of real property being compensated for with payment?

Or is it being taken and used without payment?

Once again, your definition is mutually exclusive to modern 'conservative' ideology.

Then maybe you should stop calling it conservatism, and call it what it is.

:think:

That would seem to be the conservative thing to do...

That's right. Hopefully by now you see my point.

:AMR:

Exactly. Trade tariffs are statist,

They're certainly not conservative.

eminent domain land grabs are statist.

Sorry, but no.

Eminent domain is a right that the government has, because governments need to be able to purchase and use real property for infrastructure and criminal justice/defence. That falls well within a conservative government should be like.

The definition that you provided does not support what we see a "conservative" president trying to do.

Then perhaps those who are applying the term "conservative" need to go buy a dictionary, because I, for one, do not consider our current government to be conservative at all, and if you think I do, I'm not sure why you would think that.

To be sure, on a spectrum with liberalism on the left and conservatism on the right, 'the right' is more conservative than 'the left,' but 'the right' has been moving left for decades, and is no longer on the right side of the spectrum.

 

[ok doser]

I was using the definition [MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION] provided.

right, and i was pointing out that those qualities can't logically be taken as absolutes or they lead to anarchism

Are trade tariffs a conservative ideal? Is that an example of overlap?

ideally, tariffs would be in opposition to conservationism

in the real world, in dealing with states like china whose government subsidizes steel and aluminum manufacture, or Canada, which offers governmental protection of what they consider to be key Canadian industries?

it's a tool to be used

 

[ok doser]

Sorry, sport...you burnt that bridge long ago. You've lost all respect from those not residing in the ToL echo chamber. Admittedly though, that's what makes poking you with the occasional stick all the more entertaining. :up:

thank you for admitting you're not interested in a real discussion, only in trolling

 

[Town Heretic]

:think:

Too easy...

Like shooting fish in a market. . . except for all the commotion and police, of course. :think:


All your posts today have been great, by the way. Some of your best work.

Keep it up.

 

[ok doser]

... on a spectrum with liberalism on the left and conservatism on the right, 'the right' is more conservative than 'the left,' but 'the right' has been moving left for decades, and is no longer on the right side of the spectrum.

:thumb:

 

[Arthur Brain]

you think reining in free expression is a good thing for a forum like this? I disagree - i think it's the death of a forum like this

No, reigning in deliberate trolling and baiting is a good thing. Following people about, obsessively stalking them and inventing up gossip and lies doesn't benefit any forum, it detracts from its worth.

we've had some great discussions anna

When? I've seen anna dismantle your 'positions' many a time and you calling her "bananahead" as "response" plenty of times but that hardly constitutes a "great discussion". Only a coupla days ago you posted this "gem" about her:

i would venture that any thread you start is by default flame-bait, simply by virtue of the fact that you are a troll

Anna quoted you on that so deleting it didn't exactly work although I'm curious as to why you did? Any regular on here knows that anna is as far removed from a troll as is possible to get.

all were unwilling to be shown the illogic of their positions, all were unable to handle the intellectual insult of being proved wrong

and all of them save purex were game-players - seeing that with quip at the moment

You really do seem to have an incredibly over active imagination or suffer from absolute memory loss. You never proved any of these people wrong about anything. What you did do was spam up thread after thread with obsessive stalking to the point of a hundred posts a day with 78% of them comprising of calling people retards, invented up rumour spreading or the most bizarre of all, your ultimatum to TH etc. Do you honestly think your track record of trolling has or is ever going to be forgotten about on here?

no, not really - wanted them to stop playing games and arguing dishonestly, wanted them (some of them) to stop telling lies about me

Did you type that out with a straight face?

if they or anybody, is interested in having a real discussion and not in trolling and playing games, i'm up for it

Okay, you really are kidding around now, right?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Like shooting fish in a market. . . except for all the commotion and police, of course. :think:


All your posts today have been great, by the way. Some of your best work.

Keep it up.

:mmph:

 

[ok doser]

No, reigning in deliberate trolling and baiting is a good thing. Following people about, obsessively stalking them and inventing up gossip and lies doesn't benefit any forum, it detracts from its worth.

this is a discussion i'm having with anna, not you

if you're interested in engaging in a substantive discussion, i'm up for it

what are your thoughts, for example, on the current brexit crisis that looks likely to topple your government?

 

[ok doser]

Sorry, sport...you burnt that bridge long ago. You've lost all respect from those not residing in the ToL echo chamber. Admittedly though, that's what makes poking you with the occasional stick all the more entertaining. :up:

although, i would have liked to see you continue in the thread in which we were discussing the rationale behind allowing the mother the choice to kill her baby pre-birth but not post-birth

iirc, you were pretty much boxed into a corner of your own making and bailed out

 

[ok doser]

all were unwilling to be shown the illogic of their positions, all were unable to handle the intellectual insult of being proved wrong

and all of them save purex were game-players - seeing that with quip at the moment

You never proved any of these people wrong about anything.

you're a brilliant man with a keen intellect arthur, so I'm sure you just overlooked this one that I posted earlier in the thread:

one of my faves: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...d-race-issue&p=4645405&viewfull=1#post4645405

and my response: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...d-race-issue&p=4645416&viewfull=1#post4645416

 

[annabenedetti]

you're a brilliant man with a keen intellect arthur,

You could start numbering them, that would make it easier, wouldn't it?

1. You're a brilliant man with a keen intellect...
2. If you're interested in engaging in substantive discussion...
3.
4.
5.

 

[Arthur Brain]

deliberate trolling
baiting
following people about
obsessively stalking
inventing up gossip and lies

all of those are subjective

Hardly and certainly not when they're obvious. Your continual stalking of TH for example was beyond the pale and even earned you a warning from Knight to knock it off on pain of a long term ban on the score some time back, or had you forgotten that?

lots of times

Link to one.

which doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a great discussion - the best discussions i've had here are those in which i learn something new

Oh, such as?

haven't been doing that today

Well of course not, you won't get away with that stuff now.

for which i received a timeout and have since deleted - it met with JR's disapproval - knight, on the other hand, would have known exactly what i was talking about - anna's attempt to publicly shame him for zoo's loss of faith

Um, you don't get to speak on behalf of Knight and the thread you're referring to was hardly troll baiting either, it was genuine. Unlike ones such as your "prayers for anna" thread that was roundly recognized and criticized all ends up for being baiting garbage.

as i said, knight would have understood

As above.

:yawn:

give it a rest artie

Then stop trying to reinvent things that didn't happen on here.

boring :yawn:

Convenient.

:chuckle:

if you're interested in engaging in a substantive discussion, i'm up for it

what are your thoughts, for example, on the current brexit crisis that looks likely to topple your government?

Eh, it's been a complete farce and a shambles for ages now.

 

[ok doser]

Hardly and certainly not when they're obvious. Your continual stalking of TH for example was beyond the pale and even earned you a warning from Knight to knock it off on pain of a long term ban on the score some time back, or had you forgotten that?



Link to one.



Oh, such as?



Well of course not, you won't get away with that stuff now.



Um, you don't get to speak on behalf of Knight and the thread you're referring to was hardly troll baiting either, it was genuine. Unlike ones such as your "prayers for anna" thread that was roundly recognized and criticized all ends up for being baiting garbage.



As above.



Then stop trying to reinvent things that didn't happen on here.



Convenient.

:chuckle:

sorry, artie, i'm not going to tag team with you and anna - anna is welcome to continue the discussion she and i were having, i'm not interested in responding to you about it :wave2:

 

[ok doser]

Eh, it's been a complete farce and a shambles for ages now.

can the conservative party hold onto power with a new PM?

and what happens to TM - does she become just another backbencher?

or does she get appointed to some post in the new govt? :think: