It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Conservatism a Mental Illness?

page: 11
34
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Punisher75

To be honest, I'm tired of responding. You're posts are hard to read and are all over the place.

Commies and Warren and Sanders....oh my.

You overall argument is "ya, well the left does it too" and the only thing I can do, since it takes quite a bit of observation to recognize the difference in quality and quantity, is that that is not the case by a long shot.

Oh well.


Sure nuance is lost I understand.
Have a nice day.




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I have not watched the video, and I normally don't watch videos online...at all, but yes there are both personality differences and likely biological differences, both which predispose people to certain political leanings, as several studies have shown, and as some posts on here and in other threads have shown. Hell, just google "personality and political leaning" and there's plenty, including valid, scholarly studies and essays.

And yes, it is a comfort thing. Some people are averse to change (I'm just as guilty about some things), but sometimes one has to realize that change is good for the betterment of society, even if one doesn't like that change—and if that change doesn't personally and negatively affect them.

That doesn't make one right or one wrong, but when one seems to go completely against the will of popular opinion, or the natural advancement or progression of society when equal rights are concerned, maybe there's a serious problem.
edit on 3-8-2015 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
To the OP. No more so than liberalism...you just don't become as much of an ass.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom


We are afraid to change, so we keep voting for what we hope is the lesser of two evils, then we blame the "other side" when evil marches on unimpeded.


Apparently, though - MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of us are ready for change. It's already happening. The only people prostrating themselves on the sidewalk and screeching like toddlers who are past nap time and tired of shopping, are those OPPOSED TO CHANGE and new ideas.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: VictorVonDoom


We are afraid to change, so we keep voting for what we hope is the lesser of two evils, then we blame the "other side" when evil marches on unimpeded.


Apparently, though - MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of us are ready for change. It's already happening. The only people prostrating themselves on the sidewalk and screeching like toddlers who are past nap time and tired of shopping, are those OPPOSED TO CHANGE and new ideas.





Word.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: VictorVonDoom


We are afraid to change, so we keep voting for what we hope is the lesser of two evils, then we blame the "other side" when evil marches on unimpeded.


Apparently, though - MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of us are ready for change. It's already happening. The only people prostrating themselves on the sidewalk and screeching like toddlers who are past nap time and tired of shopping, are those OPPOSED TO CHANGE and new ideas.



I'll admit that millions want change.

But is simple "change" always a good thing?

Making prayer in school mandatory would be "change", but you'd be against that, as I would also.

Making taxes 95% for everyone would be "change" but I'd be against that, perhaps you also.

Just because someone is offering "change" doesn't mean that it's an automatic good thing.

Sometimes, change can be bad.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Liquesence

And you are being narrow on purpose.

It isn't about the singular act. If my neighbors decide to have their ceremony, no, not affecting me directly. It's the larger political context.

Do the schools start teaching my child it's normal and natural, that to hold the belief that marriage between man and woman is unnatural and bigoted?

These are just some of the worries.



Seriously?

So by accepting gay marriage it means that heterosexual marriage is on the chopping block and the gays will legislate it as abnormal? Wow. Some illogic there.

No one is suggesting that gay marriage will lead our children being taught that heterosexuality is abnormal...except you.

That's a fallacious argument and an erroneous belief aimed at preventing other people equality under law under the guise of the cliche "but what about the children?!?!?!?"

Wow.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer


Making taxes 95% for everyone would be "change" but I'd be against that, perhaps you also.

Do who in the what, now????

WHO is calling for that?



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: beezzer


Making taxes 95% for everyone would be "change" but I'd be against that, perhaps you also.

Do who in the what, now????

WHO is calling for that?


It'd be "change", wouldn't it?



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Liquesence

And you are being narrow on purpose.

It isn't about the singular act. If my neighbors decide to have their ceremony, no, not affecting me directly. It's the larger political context.

Do the schools start teaching my child it's normal and natural, that to hold the belief that marriage between man and woman is unnatural and bigoted?

These are just some of the worries.



Seriously?

So by accepting gay marriage it means that heterosexual marriage is on the chopping block and the gays will legislate it as abnormal? Wow. Some illogic there.

No one is suggesting that gay marriage will lead our children being taught that heterosexuality is abnormal...except you.

That's a fallacious argument and an erroneous belief aimed at preventing other people equality under law under the guise of the cliche "but what about the children?!?!?!?"

Wow.


Did I say any of that? No. You made most of it up because that's what you would like for me to have said.

Please read what I said and address it.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I didn't make ANYTHING up.

And yeah, you *did* say as much, and alluded to much more by implication, and it's plain as day: That's some of the "worries."

Because I quoted what you said.



Do the schools start teaching my child it's normal and natural, that to hold the belief that marriage between man and woman is unnatural and bigoted? These are just some of the worries.


So yeah. :/
edit on 3-8-2015 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

There are no new ideas. They're the same stuff we've been pitched before. Not even the 90% tax rate is a new idea and it was even done here.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: ketsuko

I didn't make ANYTHING up.

You said as much, and alluded to much more by implication, and it's plain as day: That's some of the "worries."


Do the schools start teaching my child it's normal and natural, that to hold the belief that marriage between man and woman is unnatural and bigoted? These are just some of the worries.




See it's these "allusions" and "implications" that I have a problem with. They are a lot like assumptions. And you know what those make out of you.

It is also a lot easier to have a discussion with someone and come away that "winner" when you are just making up their side of argument as you choose which is, I see, exactly what you are doing.

I asked if the schools are going to start teaching children that all forms of sexuality are normal and valid and if that meant they would also start teaching that the traditional belief of marriage was bigoted? Simple question - no penumbras, emenations or anything else. What do you think I am doing? Writing the Constitution, and who do you think you are? A Supreme Court Justice?



edit on 3-8-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-8-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

There are no new ideas. They're the same stuff we've been pitched before. Not even the 90% tax rate is a new idea and it was even done here.



But just because somethings been done before or is not a new idea, doesn't mean it's wrong or a bad idea. All things come around and all good things come around again.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

So why is being conservative so bad? After all, not all things are bad if they're not new.




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: amazing

So why is being conservative so bad? After all, not all things are bad if they're not new.



Conservatism as It is generally defined or understood is not bad. Neither is liberalism. it's the extremes of both.

Nowadays Liberalism means raising taxes and taking guns and Conservatism means anti Gay, anti woman and is a code word for being Christian. We know that's not exactly what liberals and conservatives only want to be known for.

We need new words, in my opinion. Which means that they'll be old words, re purposed for the modern age.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer


It'd be "change", wouldn't it?


WHO is suggesting that?



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: ketsuko

I didn't make ANYTHING up.

You said as much, and alluded to much more by implication, and it's plain as day: That's some of the "worries."


Do the schools start teaching my child it's normal and natural, that to hold the belief that marriage between man and woman is unnatural and bigoted? These are just some of the worries.




See it's these "allusions" and "implications" that I have a problem with. They are a lot like assumptions. And you know what those make out of you.

It is also a lot easier to have a discussion with someone and come away that "winner" when you are just making up their side of argument as you choose which is, I see, exactly what you are doing.

I asked if the schools are going to start teaching children that all forms of sexuality are normal and valid and if that meant they would also start teaching that the traditional belief of marriage was bigoted? Simple question - no penumbras, emenations or anything else. What do you think I am doing? Writing the Constitution, and who do you think you are? A Supreme Court Justice?


Lol, I didn't make anything up. I'm going directly off what you said.

And you did NOT ask if schools are going to start teaching that all forms of sexuality are normal and valid, you said


Do the schools start teaching my child it's normal and natural, that to hold the belief that marriage between man and woman is unnatural and bigoted? These are just some of the worries.


Emphasis: That marriage between man and woman is unnatural.

Quit trying to weasel out of your statement and twist it differently. You're caught. Own it.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

I'm not. You're the one twisting it by reading inferences into things. I asked a straight question.

If you're going to keep trying to make my plain words into what you want them to be, then there is nothing more to say here.

You are reminding me very much a person we knew from college who finally got so frustrated that he finally just said, "This would be so much easier if you would just admit you hate gays!" Which, of course, we don't hate gays at all, but he kept wishing we would say that so his own hatred and anger would be fully justified.

This reads the same to me. You really, really want me to go off the rails and say those things, so you are creating some inferences that just aren't there.
edit on 3-8-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Not even the 90% tax rate is a new idea and it was even done here.

Yes, it was done here. And it only applied to super rich people - just like it would now. People who will Never Ever have to worry about money for the rest of their lives (nor will their children). It ALSO is what created the middle class and the prosperity that this country enjoyed after WW2.

Denial, hallucinations, delusions, paranoia, alarmist catastrophizing.....etc.

That ^^ is what I see in your posts. Consistently.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join