First off, welcome back Ustwo. We missed you (especially host).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
With age comes wisdom, and I received a bit of a dose this last year or two. There is no need to be angry and agitated over that which you can not control. The difference between liberalism and conservatism seems to be one rallies against human nature and tries to force us to become what they think humans should be, while one accepts it and works out the best solutions we can understanding that nature and accepting its short comings.
|
That's an interesting idea, but I might have to disagree with you. Liberalism is a part of a two sided scale, the front side being liberal and the back side being conservative. On the liberal side of the scale, we have people who constantly pull society forward, always trying to reach above and beyond. On the conservative end, we have people who are content with stagnation or the status quo and who pull back against the liberals. As an 'equilibriust' (I just made that word up), and a student of anthropology, I am led to conclude that in a society that is too liberal, things move forward too fast...so fast that mistakes are made. It is in that way that conservatism becomes useful. Move too fast and you won't have time to consider the repercussions of every decision. A society that is too conservative, however, stagnates. As it is the natural state for all life to evolve over a slow period of time through processes of mutation and natural selection, so also society must develop, and therein lies the problem with your assertion. Human nature constantly evolves. We are not the same humans we were 10,000 years ago and we are not the same humans we were 1,000,000 years ago. As with all evolution, what is new today will eventually become old. Likewise, notions that are liberal today will become less liberal and eventually conservative. Take, for example, the idea of transfusion. When the idea of sharing blood for medical purposes was originally introduced, conservatives overwhelmingly condemned it as wrong. That is no longer the case except in very specific cases today. I doubt we would see Rush Limbaugh telling people not to give blood today. As such, liberal notions today such as homosexual marriage being accepted by the state or universal health care will either be destroyed by conservatism or undoubtedly become less liberal over time. Even you, Ustwo, are a product of societal development occurring for hundreds of thousands of years. That's liberalism eventually coming out on top consistently throughout human existence.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
It takes decades to see a change from one mind set to the other, and some never accept it, but regardless it makes arguing with someone who thinks the individual exists to serve the collective pointless with someone who thinks collectives form because they serve individuals.
|
Ironically, I must disagree. Meaning is relativistic. A 'personalist' and socialist could easily decide based on precedent and reason what the real world applications would be of each philosophy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Over my years posting here, I've had a number of PM's from people thanking me for posting or showing them there is another side of the debate. I was glad to know at least someone was gaining something from my efforts but such education wasn't worth having to deal with the rest. There was SOME good debate, but it gets buried in a mountain of over the top biased articles, communist pseudo-intellectual drivel, and cut and paste insanity which was once controlled a bit by the mods and no longer was (art was the best at this and he wasn't any easier on me).
|
Communism is one type of socialism. Not only is the term 'communist' inaccurate in referring to your adversaries here, but it carries with it a negative connotation because of McCarthyism. Just so you're aware, that's what a lot of people get mad about. I'm sure you'd be just as pissed if I inaccurately called you a fascist.
Just fyi, a new feature was added so that ultra-long articles can be better organized for the ease of the reader.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
So I came to a conclusion. Why bother getting mad? The politics of the world haven't changed because I no longer post on tfp. I have a mountain of personal goals to work on and a family which I'd rather spend more and more of my time with. I could argue with some 20 something who hasn't even figured out his own life about how the world should be run, or enjoy the life I have worked for and created myself without getting mad at the interweb political debate.
|
Personal goals are awesome. I agree that it's important to spend time with family an all that jazz. I wish you all the best in that.
You were a 20 something once upon a time, and I'm sure you had just as many big opinions on things as you do now. I'm also sure that you would have been pissed off if some older person tried to dismiss you and/or your ideas based solely on your age. Have the courtesy of showing others the respect they earn. If someone is an idiot, call them an idiot for the things they say and do, not their age.