Conservatism is a losers philosophy. Discuss Watch

SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#61
Report 3 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by Davij038)
Decisions made by our representatives will have effects on other countries does that mean non British citizens should have the right to vote in the U.K.? The crowning achievement of allowing women to vote is allowing women to have abortion on demand which I think is a wonderful example as to why women should not be allowed to vote. I think we’d all be better off if only married men in employment were able to vote.

I think you missed my point. The NHS takes away choice from people but it is better for everyone rather than letting people choose for themselves. It’s the same with defending traditional families , even if it what isn’t what some people want and even if it it always isn’t the most effective of systems, it is what works the best for the majority and society. Granting the same privileges to other types of family as the nuclear family is the same as if you privatised the NHS and let people choose it for themselves- it devalues it and allies it to be undercut and do naturally less people are going to want it.

A home for everyone is a home for no one.
If anything can be a family nothing can.
If anyone can be European/ whatever nobody can be.

I’m not saying for a moment that wives should stay with abusive husbands. That is obvious legitimate grounds for a divorce provided it cannot be worked through. But this is a minority of divorce cases.

Why should people be allowed to do whatever they want, particularly if it’s known to be destructive such as becoming morbidly obese? How dare anyone do such a disgusting and shameful thing, it’s sickening.

According to my number of posts I post an average of 2.5 posts every day, I don’t think that’s a lot. I also don’t watch TV and have a job which occasionally involves me commuting where I’m doing nothing.

As for you not saying it

A: well, you kinda did.

B: you’ve basically just admitted that you DO think about it but simply don’t care enough about to help them. One of the many masks of liberalism is that it masks selfishness as kindness and generosity.
The crowning achievement of allowing women to vote is the fact what women can vote; that they're allowed to have a say in how the country, of whom almost all live in, is run. This is the merit in itself. The actions of our government are clearly going to have a much more direct effect on the people who live here, overall, than those who live elsewhere. With regards to abortion: men by a huge majority support the right of women to have abortions so this isn't a voting issue exclusively for women. Also when the laws about abortion were first relaxed women made up only 4% of MPs in the House of Commons. If you wish to take this out on anyone it's male voters and male MPs, not women.

Your comparison between the nuclear family and the NHS is flawed because the NHS doesn't take away choice from people. If anything it only gives people more choices (especially those who are poor and cannot afford private healthcare). Treating non-nuclear families or non-traditionally inclined families the same way as nuclear families also isn't the same thing as privatising the NHS because you're not taking anything away from anyone. If you privatise the NHS you're taking healthcare away from millions. If a society accepts families which don't fit the nuclear model then all you're doing is accepting a different kind of family; you haven't stopped people from having a nuclear family and you certainly haven't stopped nuclear families from being accepted by a society/culture.

If a nuclear family works for a majority of people then by all means they should go for it. What shouldn't happen, however, is people with whom a nuclear family doesn't work being either forced or shunned into one or rejected if they opt for a different kind of family. A society more open to different family models doesn't devalue a more traditional model or make people less inclined to have one. Why? Because that hasn't happened. Traditional families make up a majority of all families in the UK and there are more now than there were 10 years ago. The number of single-parent families has also remained fairly constant over the last 20 years. So clearly we haven't all packed our bags and said sod off to the tradtional family, have we? The only non-traditional family model which has grown in popularity is the cohabitating family model, which is essentially the same as a traditional family just without marriage.

The reason I mentioned opposition to divorce is because it's a social conservative belief (albeit a strong one) and that you had mentioned that social conservatism is health, or at least healthier than liberalism. It's good that you seem to accept some kind of divorce, at least.

With regards to the last part, I said it but I don't believe it. I don't know anything about your life outside of what you have written on this forum. My point was that if I put on a Davij038 thinking cap then suddenly I get to determine what kind of life you live because, clearly, you seem to have the capacity to know everything about someone solely on the basis of one thing, in this case whether someone plays video games or likes Marvel. Of course you don't and I was taking the piss out of that. If someone who I have never spoken with before tells me that they play video games or like Marvel then all I know about them is that they play video games or like Marvel.

Of course if I know more about a person and I'm aware that there are problems in their life (social, medical, etc) then I will do whatever I can to help them. What I won't do is lecture someone I don't know about how they should live their life because I think I know what their life is like and think I know how they should live their life better than they do.
0
reply
Violet Femme
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#62
Report 3 weeks ago
#62
This thread started badly and has now descended into why we'd we better off with removing the voting franchise from the majority of people.

Davij038 all you are doing is demonstrating why conservatism or at least your brand of pub-bore conservatism is so unpopular.
Last edited by Violet Femme; 3 weeks ago
2
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#63
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by Violet Femme)
Davij038 all you are doing is demonstrating why conservatism or at least your brand of pub-bore conservatism is so unpopular.
I’d rather be unpopular than unprincipled and boring. According to YouGov UKIP is paradoxically the least popular political party AND the most popular political party. The Same could be said of Corbyn.

My brand of ‘conservatism’* is actually increasingly popular and growing world wide (US, Brazil, Italy, Poland, Philippines etc.,


*and I don’t identify as a conservative- economically I’m to the left of Corbyn and favour large radical overhauling of existing laws and institutions that mainstream conservatives would be aghast by...
1
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#64
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by SHallowvale)
The crowning achievement of allowing women to vote is the fact what women can vote; that they're allowed to have a say in how the country, of whom almost all live in, is run. This is the merit in itself. The actions of our government are clearly going to have a much more direct effect on the people who live here, overall, than those who live elsewhere. With regards to abortion: men by a huge majority support the right of women to have abortions so this isn't a voting issue exclusively for women. Also when the laws about abortion were first relaxed women made up only 4% of MPs in the House of Commons. If you wish to take this out on anyone it's male voters and male MPs, not women.

Your comparison between the nuclear family and the NHS is flawed because the NHS doesn't take away choice from people. If anything it only gives people more choices (especially those who are poor and cannot afford private healthcare). Treating non-nuclear families or non-traditionally inclined families the same way as nuclear families also isn't the same thing as privatising the NHS because you're not taking anything away from anyone. If you privatise the NHS you're taking healthcare away from millions. If a society accepts families which don't fit the nuclear model then all you're doing is accepting a different kind of family; you haven't stopped people from having a nuclear family and you certainly haven't stopped nuclear families from being accepted by a society/culture.

If a nuclear family works for a majority of people then by all means they should go for it. What shouldn't happen, however, is people with whom a nuclear family doesn't work being either forced or shunned into one or rejected if they opt for a different kind of family. A society more open to different family models doesn't devalue a more traditional model or make people less inclined to have one. Why? Because that hasn't happened. Traditional families make up a majority of all families in the UK and there are more now than there were 10 years ago. The number of single-parent families has also remained fairly constant over the last 20 years. So clearly we haven't all packed our bags and said sod off to the tradtional family, have we? The only non-traditional family model which has grown in popularity is the cohabitating family model, which is essentially the same as a traditional family just without marriage.

The reason I mentioned opposition to divorce is because it's a social conservative belief (albeit a strong one) and that you had mentioned that social conservatism is health, or at least healthier than liberalism. It's good that you seem to accept some kind of divorce, at least.

With regards to the last part, I said it but I don't believe it. I don't know anything about your life outside of what you have written on this forum. My point was that if I put on a Davij038 thinking cap then suddenly I get to determine what kind of life you live because, clearly, you seem to have the capacity to know everything about someone solely on the basis of one thing, in this case whether someone plays video games or likes Marvel. Of course you don't and I was taking the piss out of that. If someone who I have never spoken with before tells me that they play video games or like Marvel then all I know about them is that they play video games or like Marvel.

Of course if I know more about a person and I'm aware that there are problems in their life (social, medical, etc) then I will do whatever I can to help them. What I won't do is lecture someone I don't know about how they should live their life because I think I know what their life is like and think I know how they should live their life better than they do.
They also showed that a majority favour lowering the time limit for abortions...But in any case, I am well aware that the trend of political opinion is against me on some issues (for now). I agree that this is chiefly the fault of men who have been negligent in their duties but have also been led astray by various state actors. There is a reason why succession civilisations around the world have been patriarchal for millennia.

I’m afraid the NHS DOES take away choice from people:

1: it’s taking away your freedom to choose your own health provider (if indeed you want any). If you are an economic libertarian you are being denied your economic freedom.

2: The Monopoly of the NHS is not allowing other health providers to flourish

The poor people that do undoubtedly benefit from the NHS are NOT given choice (which would be an open healthcare market) as it is known to be against their interests and benefits wider society.

If the NHS works for a majority of people then by all means they should go for it. What shouldn't happen, however, is people with whom the NHS doesn't work for being forced into it. A society more open to different forms of health service doesn't devalue a National Health Service or make people less inclined to have one (it does but I’m using your point against you)

....
Your link about marriage showed that marriage has in fact halved since the 1970s. The nuclear family is a MARRIED family not a cohabiting one. So clearly things have changed and gotten worse from my perspective. Also a good percentage of married families are from religious minorities, not native brits.

I am not an Catholic. I think there are times when divorce and indeed abortion are morally right. But I do believe that the majority of these cases are morally wrong.
...

We can actually infer a lot about people from basic information which more often than not is accurate. In epistemology this is known as phenomenal conservatism and is the belief in ‘general truths’ about the world its various phenomena appears.

We all do this. For instance- imagine a gay, immigrant married to a black man. With this information you can get a relatively accurate impression about who that person is. So imagine who such a person is more likely to vote for in the US 2016 election.
.
.
.
That would be Donald Trump , because the person that it happens to be is Milo Yiannopoulos. Does that make your first initial response inaccurate? Actually no, because your first initial impression would actually be very correct in the vast majority of cases. The Milo example is a statistical improbability: possible in theory but highly unlikely- probably less than a 1% chance.

So, whilst I concede that in theory it is possible for a person who is addicted to video Games and covered in marvel tattoos to be a healthy and productive member of society, I would view it as a statistical improbability which is far less important than the overwhelming trend.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#65
Report 3 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by Davij038)
They also showed that a majority favour lowering the time limit for abortions...But in any case, I am well aware that the trend of political opinion is against me on some issues (for now). I agree that this is chiefly the fault of men who have been negligent in their duties but have also been led astray by various state actors. There is a reason why succession civilisations around the world have been patriarchal for millennia.

I’m afraid the NHS DOES take away choice from people:

1: it’s taking away your freedom to choose your own health provider (if indeed you want any). If you are an economic libertarian you are being denied your economic freedom.

2: The Monopoly of the NHS is not allowing other health providers to flourish

The poor people that do undoubtedly benefit from the NHS are NOT given choice (which would be an open healthcare market) as it is known to be against their interests and benefits wider society.

If the NHS works for a majority of people then by all means they should go for it. What shouldn't happen, however, is people with whom the NHS doesn't work for being forced into it. A society more open to different forms of health service doesn't devalue a National Health Service or make people less inclined to have one (it does but I’m using your point against you)

....
Your link about marriage showed that marriage has in fact halved since the 1970s. The nuclear family is a MARRIED family not a cohabiting one. So clearly things have changed and gotten worse from my perspective. Also a good percentage of married families are from religious minorities, not native brits.

I am not an Catholic. I think there are times when divorce and indeed abortion are morally right. But I do believe that the majority of these cases are morally wrong.
...

We can actually infer a lot about people from basic information which more often than not is accurate. In epistemology this is known as phenomenal conservatism and is the belief in ‘general truths’ about the world its various phenomena appears.

We all do this. For instance- imagine a gay, immigrant married to a black man. With this information you can get a relatively accurate impression about who that person is. So imagine who such a person is more likely to vote for in the US 2016 election.
.
.
.
That would be Donald Trump , because the person that it happens to be is Milo Yiannopoulos. Does that make your first initial response inaccurate? Actually no, because your first initial impression would actually be very correct in the vast majority of cases. The Milo example is a statistical improbability: possible in theory but highly unlikely- probably less than a 1% chance.

So, whilst I concede that in theory it is possible for a person who is addicted to video Games and covered in marvel tattoos to be a healthy and productive member of society, I would view it as a statistical improbability which is far less important than the overwhelming trend.
Yet despite our ever evolving non-patriarchal culture, Western civilisation is undoubtably the best civilisation that humanity has seen yet. I could argue with you about why abortion isn't wrong, or at least why the laws regarding abortion should remain where they currently are (roughly speaking) but that's another topic for another time.

How does the NHS takes away the freedom of people to choose their own health care provider? Private health care still exists in this country and if people want to opt for that then they're free to do so. Do you have any evidence that private healthcare would "flourish" (in other words, become affordable) if the NHS didn't exist?

Your attempt to use the same argument I made about family models against the NHS doesn't work because whether or not someone uses the NHS isn't an issue of societal expectation. Nobody is 'forced' to use the NHS is a cultural sense; if I stopped using the NHS and went for something private my family and friends aren't going to ostracise me. Someone who wants private healthcare and can afford it can get private health care. Someone is only 'forced' to use the NHS if they cannot afford private healthcare; it's the high cost of private health care, not the NHS, that is at fault here. Indeed if you take away the NHS then they have nothing at all (private health care doesn't suddenly become less expensive).

The number of traditional families hasn't changed in the last 20 years. Divorce has been on the decline but those who get married don't necessarily have to have children. To me a nuclear family involves two parents and children, but perhaps your interpretation of that is different to mine. Also why should it matter that a family is only a cohabiting one and not a married one? If they function the same as a nuclear family (two parents and a child/children) what's the issue (in a cultural sense, not a legal one)?

Statistical inference can only be used to make predictations about a population, not absolute statements (unless the statement is just the statistic). For example, black people overwhelmingly vote democratic in the US elections. If you take one black person at random, however, you can only say that it's likely that they voted democratic and not that they did vote democratic. Your example of Milo is an excellent example as to why you cannot say with absolute certainty that they (in this case gay people) vote democratic. Whilst we're on the topic, 22% of LGBT voters did not vote democratic in the 2016 election so this isn't as much of a "stastical improbablity" as you seem to think it is. Now if you want to make the claim that video gamers and Marvel fans are, with some high 90% probablity, unhealthy and unproductive members of society then the burden of proof of on you to demonstrate those numbers.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#66
Report 3 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Yet despite our ever evolving non-patriarchal culture, Western civilisation is undoubtably the best civilisation that humanity has seen yet. I could argue with you about why abortion isn't wrong, or at least why the laws regarding abortion should remain where they currently are (roughly speaking) but that's another topic for another time.

How does the NHS takes away the freedom of people to choose their own health care provider? Private health care still exists in this country and if people want to opt for that then they're free to do so. Do you have any evidence that private healthcare would "flourish" (in other words, become affordable) if the NHS didn't exist?

Your attempt to use the same argument I made about family models against the NHS doesn't work because whether or not someone uses the NHS isn't an issue of societal expectation. Nobody is 'forced' to use the NHS is a cultural sense; if I stopped using the NHS and went for something private my family and friends aren't going to ostracise me. Someone who wants private healthcare and can afford it can get private health care. Someone is only 'forced' to use the NHS if they cannot afford private healthcare; it's the high cost of private health care, not the NHS, that is at fault here. Indeed if you take away the NHS then they have nothing at all (private health care doesn't suddenly become less expensive).

The number of traditional families hasn't changed in the last 20 years. Divorce has been on the decline but those who get married don't necessarily have to have children. To me a nuclear family involves two parents and children, but perhaps your interpretation of that is different to mine. Also why should it matter that a family is only a cohabiting one and not a married one? If they function the same as a nuclear family (two parents and a child/children) what's the issue (in a cultural sense, not a legal one)?

Statistical inference can only be used to make predictations about a population, not absolute statements (unless the statement is just the statistic). For example, black people overwhelmingly vote democratic in the US elections. If you take one black person at random, however, you can only say that it's likely that they voted democratic and not that they did vote democratic. Your example of Milo is an excellent example as to why you cannot say with absolute certainty that they (in this case gay people) vote democratic. Whilst we're on the topic, 22% of LGBT voters did not vote democratic in the 2016 election so this isn't as much of a "stastical improbablity" as you seem to think it is. Now if you want to make the claim that video gamers and Marvel fans are, with some high 90% probablity, unhealthy and unproductive members of society then the burden of proof of on you to demonstrate those numbers.
Davij038 is a fascist. Not someone who is a victim of a bit of left wing name calling, but someone who believes in fascism. You are debating with someone who does not accept the premises of your argument. It is like debating whether churches should have episcopal or Presbyterian government with a Hindu.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#67
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Davij038 is a fascist. Not someone who is a victim of a bit of left wing name calling, but someone who believes in fascism. You are debating with someone who does not accept the premises of your argument. It is like debating whether churches should have episcopal or Presbyterian government with a Hindu.
What are the premises of your argument then SHallowvale? 😂
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#68
Report 2 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Davij038 is a fascist. Not someone who is a victim of a bit of left wing name calling, but someone who believes in fascism. You are debating with someone who does not accept the premises of your argument. It is like debating whether churches should have episcopal or Presbyterian government with a Hindu.
Oh I'm perfectly aware of this, I still enjoy it though. It's a nice mental exercise to engage in the opinions of those who disagree with me, even if said opinions may be a bit abhorrent at times. Plus if there's any route out of fascism for Davij it'll be through dialogue.

---

There are various arguments I've made in this thread but most of them have been counter-arguments to the ones you've made. If we go back to square one then my argument would be that there are many aspects of social conservatism which aren't healthy, such as those which have been discussed, therefore it cannot be considered healthy for society to live by these. This is where liberalism comes in, where liberal ideas replace socially conservative ideas which people have grown to dislike. Each generation people seem to have naturally gravitated towards a more open/free culture. Davij038
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#69
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Oh I'm perfectly aware of this, I still enjoy it though. It's a nice mental exercise to engage in the opinions of those who disagree with me, even if said opinions may be a bit abhorrent at times. Plus if there's any route out of fascism for Davij it'll be through dialogue.

---

There are various arguments I've made in this thread but most of them have been counter-arguments to the ones you've made. If we go back to square one then my argument would be that there are many aspects of social conservatism which aren't healthy, such as those which have been discussed, therefore it cannot be considered healthy for society to live by these. This is where liberalism comes in, where liberal ideas replace socially conservative ideas which people have grown to dislike. Each generation people seem to have naturally gravitated towards a more open/free culture.
Fair play for actually being open to honest conversation. Most people who proclaim to be open minded and tolerant tend to be anything but. As for dialogue getting me out of Fascism, the thing is a lot of people who get into that sort of politics get into it when they’re going through an edgy rebellious phase when they’re growing up and they don’t know anything (for me that was communism). I however have been at various points a liberal, an anarchist, a conservatives etc and am more than familiar with the arguments for each: i happen to find fascism the most convincing by far.

As for your second paragraph I would argue that people (generally speaking) haven’t disliked social conservatism as much as they’ve begun to tolerate social liberalism (and this tolerance is at breaking point). For instance there has for decades been consistently high support for the death penalty and harshly dropping immigration figures. Whilst a majority of young people support the liberal status quo a significant minority forming the counterculture does not.

Back to where we left off;

As to the west today being the best civilisation to date, it depends by what metrics you are using. A lot of this is due to technological superiority rather than social liberalism as the ruling ideology.

As to our nhs/ lgbt comparison-.the NHS being the monopoly makes it harder for private healthcare to thrive and operate in with it being the dominant state funded monopoly. My point isn’t that the abolition of the NHS would lead to free market companies providing a better alternative (which they wouldn’t) but that they would provide more choice/ freedom (which they would). Therefore: having their harmful choices taken away from leads to a better outcome.

The problem with the decline of married families is a spiritual issue- which does have real life implications. It wouldn’t matter in a materialistic sense if we knocked down all our cultural relics and changed the Union Jack to a white flag but the sense of spiritual and identity loss would be profound. The Swedish Social Democrats had a booming economy, high wages etc but suffered their worst defeat in history because they like so many others neglected and even attacked these important issues.

As to statistical inference...

I didn’t say just gay but a gay immigrant which makes it even less likely they voted Trump ( I would estimate prob less than 2%)

At what point do you draw the line?

Let’s say that Nottingham all voted to Leave the EU apart from five people. Would it be a true statement to say that ‘people of Notting ham have voted to leave the EU’ despite technically. 0.00009% of Nottingham’s population voting remain.

Lastly, I don’t need to prove that People with marvel tattoos and video game addictions are unhealthy and unproductive (which is generally true) but that these people could be healthier and more productive than they are now (which is certainly true, or if you want to be pedantic over 99% of the time likely to be true)
_________
I find liberal skepticism towards general truths so tiresome and selective and verging on arguing in bad faith.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#70
Report 2 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by Davij038)
_________
I find liberal skepticism towards general truths so tiresome and selective and verging on arguing in bad faith.
If by general truths you mean fash mythology. That and the whole point of skepticism is you deliberatly do no accept general truths ffs. There is lot to be skepticle about your beloved nuclear family, nationlaism and ethnicity.

You make a load of incredible statements with profound implications for the nature of humanity based on **** all evidence of anything, in fact it is counter to the evidence. And when shown evidence you can't even be arsed to look at it.

You do not have a problem with liberal skepticism, you have a problem with skepticism full stop.
Last edited by ChaoticButterfly; 2 weeks ago
2
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#71
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#71
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
If by general truths you mean fash mythology. That and the whole point of skepticism is you deliberatly do no accept general truths ffs. There is lot to be skepticle about your beloved nuclear family, nationlaism and ethnicity.

You make a load of incredible statements with profound implications for the nature of humanity based on **** all evidence of anything, in fact it is counter to the evidence. And when shown evidence you can't even be arsed to look at it.

You do not have a problem with liberal skepticism, you have a problem with skepticism full stop.
You can indeed be skeptical of Social conservatism but you can also be skepticsl of social liberalism. A true skeptic (a rare thing) is consistent and bordering on nihilistic, which is where the consumerist negative freedom of liberalism inevitably ends.

you and me are not idiot liberals or conservatives , and like most normal people are quite prepared to make general statements because that is how the world works.

For instance we both know that brexit and trumps wall are self-evidently (what you would call) racist policies, where’s liberals snd conservatives will come up with a plethora of nonsensical reasons to justify their positions (some of this is dog whistling but a good chunk are genuine true believers)

The only difference is we are both strongly oppposed to each other’s respective views because we view them as evil not because we’re ‘skeptical’ about gay marriage or traditional families.
__________

Pleade don’t pretend you’re concerned about ‘evidence’ or ‘facts’ which is laughable, and is actually what dumb conservatives like Ben Shapiro sprout all the time. What evidence is going to make you change your mind and think like me? (If you are willing to accept such evidence could exit)

In any case, most of the facts I could potentially throw at you would presumably get me banned, which you are well aware of.

I fail to see what point you’re making in the Humanist article? What profound point does it make which will BTFO my beliefs? It says that some Inuits used to be cuckolds? So what? We used to worship giant penises and have child sacrifices. Thanks to Greek philosophy and the coming of Christ , European civilisation helped to free us from this barbarism for two millennia.,
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#72
Report 2 weeks ago
#72
(Original post by Davij038)
Fair play for actually being open to honest conversation. Most people who proclaim to be open minded and tolerant tend to be anything but. As for dialogue getting me out of Fascism, the thing is a lot of people who get into that sort of politics get into it when they’re going through an edgy rebellious phase when they’re growing up and they don’t know anything (for me that was communism). I however have been at various points a liberal, an anarchist, a conservatives etc and am more than familiar with the arguments for each: i happen to find fascism the most convincing by far.

As for your second paragraph I would argue that people (generally speaking) haven’t disliked social conservatism as much as they’ve begun to tolerate social liberalism (and this tolerance is at breaking point). For instance there has for decades been consistently high support for the death penalty and harshly dropping immigration figures. Whilst a majority of young people support the liberal status quo a significant minority forming the counterculture does not.

Back to where we left off;

As to the west today being the best civilisation to date, it depends by what metrics you are using. A lot of this is due to technological superiority rather than social liberalism as the ruling ideology.

As to our nhs/ lgbt comparison-.the NHS being the monopoly makes it harder for private healthcare to thrive and operate in with it being the dominant state funded monopoly. My point isn’t that the abolition of the NHS would lead to free market companies providing a better alternative (which they wouldn’t) but that they would provide more choice/ freedom (which they would). Therefore: having their harmful choices taken away from leads to a better outcome.

The problem with the decline of married families is a spiritual issue- which does have real life implications. It wouldn’t matter in a materialistic sense if we knocked down all our cultural relics and changed the Union Jack to a white flag but the sense of spiritual and identity loss would be profound. The Swedish Social Democrats had a booming economy, high wages etc but suffered their worst defeat in history because they like so many others neglected and even attacked these important issues.

As to statistical inference...

I didn’t say just gay but a gay immigrant which makes it even less likely they voted Trump ( I would estimate prob less than 2%)

At what point do you draw the line?

Let’s say that Nottingham all voted to Leave the EU apart from five people. Would it be a true statement to say that ‘people of Notting ham have voted to leave the EU’ despite technically. 0.00009% of Nottingham’s population voting remain.

Lastly, I don’t need to prove that People with marvel tattoos and video game addictions are unhealthy and unproductive (which is generally true) but that these people could be healthier and more productive than they are now (which is certainly true, or if you want to be pedantic over 99% of the time likely to be true)
_________
I find liberal skepticism towards general truths so tiresome and selective and verging on arguing in bad faith.
With regards to the NHS; the "harmful choices" haven't been taken away. Private healthcare still exists and as is a very big industry even with the NHS existing. If anything what we have is the liberal equivalent of family models but in this case with healthcare providers; choice and no social expectation to use either.

What spiritual/identity implications are there in the decline of marriage? It's worth mentioning that our understanding of marriage has changed since the past; some 60-70 years ago it wouldn't be uncommon to marry someone within the first few months of knowing them. Today this is very rare and people usually wait a couple of years before they get married. This, and I think you'll probably agree, is a lot more sensible. Plus some people do not feel the need to get married at all because there's often no benefit (in terms of the relationship) of doing so. Weddings are also very expensive and marriage comes with a load of legal implications which people don't want to have to deal with in the event of them splitting up in future.

If 0.00009% of people from Nottingham voted remain then you could say, in a colloquial sense, than the people on Nottingham voted to remain. It wouldn't be absolutely true but it'd be almost unconditionally true. That said the only reason you could say this is if data existed which actually supported that statement. What you've been saying about people with Marvel tattoos and gamers has not been supported by data. It's basically meaningless at this point. I can understand why you'd think that gaming addicts are unhealthy/unproductive (addiction is never healthy and typically addicts struggle with maintaining jobs) but you can't simply just extend this to all gamers.

We could, if you wanted, have a hypothetical conversation about how these people could be more healthy and more productive if we already assume that they are unhealthy and unproductive... but what exactly is the point of that conversation? If pre-suppose that someone unhealthy then, yes, they could be healthier by definition. It's just a non-discussion at that point. Plus you're not just saying this; you think that these people are unhealthy and are unproductive, by some 99% majority, and that is what I am being skeptical of. I'm certainly aware that some are unhealthy and unproductive but I do not believe this represents nearly everyone.

Going back to your original point on fascism and finding their arguments convincing; I have listened to fascist arguments before and one of the reasons why I don't find them convincing is that they don't support what they're saying with evidence. I'm not going to accept something as a "general truth" if it cannot be shown to actually be true. That's not "liberal skepticism" either, it's just skepticism.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#73
Report 2 weeks ago
#73
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
You make a load of incredible statements with profound implications for the nature of humanity based on **** all evidence of anything
You've put this very nicely!

If you expect others to agree with you then you should be prepared to demonstrate the validity/truth behind what you're saying, especially if, as you've mentioned, the claims you're making aren't just trivial and have huge implications in the context of the discussion.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#74
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#74
(Original post by SHallowvale)
With regards to the NHS; the "harmful choices" haven't been taken away. Private healthcare still exists and as is a very big industry even with the NHS existing. If anything what we have is the liberal equivalent of family models but in this case with healthcare providers; choice and no social expectation to use either.

What spiritual/identity implications are there in the decline of marriage? It's worth mentioning that our understanding of marriage has changed since the past; some 60-70 years ago it wouldn't be uncommon to marry someone within the first few months of knowing them. Today this is very rare and people usually wait a couple of years before they get married. This, and I think you'll probably agree, is a lot more sensible. Plus some people do not feel the need to get married at all because there's often no benefit (in terms of the relationship) of doing so. Weddings are also very expensive and marriage comes with a load of legal implications which people don't want to have to deal with in the event of them splitting up in future.

If 0.00009% of people from Nottingham voted remain then you could say, in a colloquial sense, than the people on Nottingham voted to remain. It wouldn't be absolutely true but it'd be almost unconditionally true. That said the only reason you could say this is if data existed which actually supported that statement. What you've been saying about people with Marvel tattoos and gamers has not been supported by data. It's basically meaningless at this point. I can understand why you'd think that gaming addicts are unhealthy/unproductive (addiction is never healthy and typically addicts struggle with maintaining jobs) but you can't simply just extend this to all gamers.

We could, if you wanted, have a hypothetical conversation about how these people could be more healthy and more productive if we already assume that they are unhealthy and unproductive... but what exactly is the point of that conversation? If pre-suppose that someone unhealthy then, yes, they could be healthier by definition. It's just a non-discussion at that point. Plus you're not just saying this; you think that these people are unhealthy and are unproductive, by some 99% majority, and that is what I am being skeptical of. I'm certainly aware that some are unhealthy and unproductive but I do not believe this represents nearly everyone.

Going back to your original point on fascism and finding their arguments convincing; I have listened to fascist arguments before and one of the reasons why I don't find them convincing is that they don't support what they're saying with evidence. I'm not going to accept something as a "general truth" if it cannot be shown to actually be true. That's not "liberal skepticism" either, it's just skepticism.
With regard to traditional families ‘harmful choices’ haven’t been taken away either, it’s still going to exist to some degree. There is a lack of choice today because of the NHS and there is no choice when it comes to paying for it. (As to the universal ness of the NHS- Any gay person can be in a heterosexual family too
______________

What spiritual/ identity implications are there in the decline of marriage? Plenty- as evidenced by our broken society.

This paper does a pretty good job as to show the cost of the decline if marriage:

https://www.centreforsocialjustice.o...the_family.pdf

As to the legal costs of marriage etc, this wasn’t always the case, and is due to again no fault divorce plus the cultural impetus towards social liberalism - divorce and instant gratification. I’m all for early marriages. Your early 20s is the optimal time to have children as well as other social benefits
_______

I always said video game addicts who have marvel tattoos , I was not talking about people who play the PlayStation occasionally, obviously. Just as I said that gay immigrants are almost certainly going to vote against trump rather than just gay people. I’ll assume these are innocuous mistakes but please take care not to misrepresent what I am saying.

Do you acknowledge that the majority of people are unhealthy but don’t think we should be concerned because a minority isn’t?
______

Are there any unconditionally true statements about people you would be willing to make then?

————

As for evidence, there’s plenty eg see above. But firstly know that we do not look at evidence through a vacuum. Modern liberalism and the existing power structures are not remotely concerned about evidence but about power.

1: we are born to a society which has existing power structures
2:,we develop a morality from this.
3: we view ‘evidence’ through a prism which is shaped by our surroundings eg the media and entertainment

For instance, when reporting about the famous Nobel scientistJames Watson getting sacked and stripped of his awards and titles for talking about IQ differences between races, the media all uniformly say that these remarks are ‘unscientific’- all without evidence.

If you’re in power you can have all the evidence you need. History is written by the winners.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#75
Report 2 weeks ago
#75
(Original post by Davij038)
With regard to traditional families ‘harmful choices’ haven’t been taken away either, it’s still going to exist to some degree. There is a lack of choice today because of the NHS and there is no choice when it comes to paying for it. (As to the universal ness of the NHS- Any gay person can be in a heterosexual family too
______________

What spiritual/ identity implications are there in the decline of marriage? Plenty- as evidenced by our broken society.

This paper does a pretty good job as to show the cost of the decline if marriage:

https://www.centreforsocialjustice.o...the_family.pdf

As to the legal costs of marriage etc, this wasn’t always the case, and is due to again no fault divorce plus the cultural impetus towards social liberalism - divorce and instant gratification. I’m all for early marriages. Your early 20s is the optimal time to have children as well as other social benefits
_______

I always said video game addicts who have marvel tattoos , I was not talking about people who play the PlayStation occasionally, obviously. Just as I said that gay immigrants are almost certainly going to vote against trump rather than just gay people. I’ll assume these are innocuous mistakes but please take care not to misrepresent what I am saying.

Do you acknowledge that the majority of people are unhealthy but don’t think we should be concerned because a minority isn’t?
______

Are there any unconditionally true statements about people you would be willing to make then?

————

As for evidence, there’s plenty eg see above. But firstly know that we do not look at evidence through a vacuum. Modern liberalism and the existing power structures are not remotely concerned about evidence but about power.

1: we are born to a society which has existing power structures
2:,we develop a morality from this.
3: we view ‘evidence’ through a prism which is shaped by our surroundings eg the media and entertainment

For instance, when reporting about the famous Nobel scientistJames Watson getting sacked and stripped of his awards and titles for talking about IQ differences between races, the media all uniformly say that these remarks are ‘unscientific’- all without evidence.

If you’re in power you can have all the evidence you need. History is written by the winners.
It may still exist but under a socially conservative culture non-traditional families are shunned. You don't get that in a liberal culture, much like how nobody is shunned for not using the NHS. Plus, again, there are options other than the NHS which people can pay for. You've been clinging onto this analogy for ages and it really doesn't compare very well at all.

I have a feeling you haven't read that paper. A lot of it seems to delve into the importance of parenting and stable families, which I definitely get behind, not into the importance of marriage itself. For example it says that marriage is superior to cohabitation because the separation rate of the latter is higher, however if a cohabiting couple don't separate then what's the difference? It cites some weak psychological differences between the two which comes from a study that's over 30 years old. Are you in support of people rushing into marriage? Early marriages are different.

When you say "people who play the PlayStation occassionally" something tells me that your understanding of video game addiction, or just addition in general, is different to how it is currently defined. You can play video games every day for many hours and not be addicted. I don't accept your claim that some 99%~ of people with Marvel tattoos are unhealthy (at least significantly more unhealthy than the general population). I'm aware that a lot of people in this country are unhealthy which we should care about whether they are a majority or minority.

I could make unconditionally true statements about individual people I know though I can't think of any unconditionally true statements which could be made about groups of people, especially groups which aren't homogenous. Unless, of course, they're very trivial statements.

What you've said about evidence and power is great and all but for the purposes of the discussion it really doesn't have any relevance. If you've come to me with a claim which you're saying is factual I'd like to see the evidence which supports that claim. The fact that we've come this far and you still haven't presented any evidence that, say, people with Marvel tattoos are unhealthy and unproductive members of society shows me that you have no evidence to support it and believe it only because of prejudice and/or anecdotal experiences.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#76
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#76
(Original post by SHallowvale)
When you say "people who play the PlayStation occassionally" something tells me that your understanding of video game addiction, or just addition in general, is different to how it is currently defined. You can play video games every day for many hours and not be addicted. I don't accept your claim that some 99%~ of people with Marvel tattoos are unhealthy (at least significantly more unhealthy than the general population). I'm aware that a lot of people in this country are unhealthy which we should care about whether they are a majority or minority.

I could make unconditionally true statements about individual people I know though I can't think of any unconditionally true statements which could be made about groups of people, especially groups which aren't homogenous. Unless, of course, they're very trivial statements.

What you've said about evidence and power is great and all but for the purposes of the discussion it really doesn't have any relevance. If you've come to me with a claim which you're saying is factual I'd like to see the evidence which supports that claim. The fact that we've come this far and you still haven't presented any evidence that, say, people with Marvel tattoos are unhealthy and unproductive members of society shows me that you have no evidence to support it and believe it only because of prejudice and/or anecdotal experiences.
I don’t know what you’re on about RE video game addicts, I said addicts NOT people who play only occasionally....

Why don’t you accept my claim that people with marvel tattoos AND video game addictions aren’t healthy either to themselves or society? Where is your evidence that they are not? If you don’t have any, why do you not think they are?

What unconditionally true statements would you be able to make about homogenous groups? Now i’m my very interested.

youve said evidence and power aren’t relevant to this discussion. I beg to differ: You’ve just said my views are prejudiced.

If so , where’s do you think that prejudice came from if not related to power in some form? Aren’t we taught about institutional racism? Power ultimately dictates everything. Whilst 2+2 will always equal 4, it matters little if everyone is brainwashed to believe otherwise.

(ChaoticButterfly )
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#77
Report 2 weeks ago
#77
(Original post by Davij038)
I don’t know what you’re on about RE video game addicts, I said addicts NOT people who play only occasionally....

Why don’t you accept my claim that people with marvel tattoos AND video game addictions aren’t healthy either to themselves or society? Where is your evidence that they are not? If you don’t have any, why do you not think they are?

What unconditionally true statements would you be able to make about homogenous groups? Now i’m my very interested.

youve said evidence and power aren’t relevant to this discussion. I beg to differ: You’ve just said my views are prejudiced.

If so , where’s do you think that prejudice came from if not related to power in some form? Aren’t we taught about institutional racism? Power ultimately dictates everything. Whilst 2+2 will always equal 4, it matters little if everyone is brainwashed to believe otherwise.

(ChaoticButterfly )
When you mentioned that you were talking about video game addicts and not "people who play the PlayStation occasionally", the comparison between addict and someone who only plays games "occassionally" gave the impression that by addict you meant someone who simply played games 'a lot'. I was pointing out that addiction involves a lot more than simply doing something a lot. What do you consider to be addiction?

I'm happy to accept that gaming addicts are unhealthy (at least to themselves). This is simply a matter of definition; addiction is by definition unhealthy. What Marvel tattoos have to do about it I don't know; you've presented no evidence that people who are gaming addicts with Marvel tattoos are any more unhealthy than gaming addicts without them so I have no reason to believe that this is the case. The default position is "I don't know", which is where I'm at.

Take a group of 10 people who are all 6ft or taller. You could say that these 10 people are all at least 5ft tall, or something like that. Again, as I've said, this is a lot more trivial than the kind of things you've been saying.

I said "prejudice and/or anecdotal experiences". I don't know why you believe the things you do but I suspect it's because of either of those two things, maybe both.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#78
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#78
(Original post by SHallowvale)
When you mentioned that you were talking about video game addicts and not "people who play the PlayStation occasionally", the comparison between addict and someone who only plays games "occassionally" gave the impression that by addict you meant someone who simply played games 'a lot'. I was pointing out that addiction involves a lot more than simply doing something a lot. What do you consider to be addiction?

I'm happy to accept that gaming addicts are unhealthy (at least to themselves). This is simply a matter of definition; addiction is by definition unhealthy. What Marvel tattoos have to do about it I don't know; you've presented no evidence that people who are gaming addicts with Marvel tattoos are any more unhealthy than gaming addicts without them so I have no reason to believe that this is the case. The default position is "I don't know", which is where I'm at.

Take a group of 10 people who are all 6ft or taller. You could say that these 10 people are all at least 5ft tall, or something like that. Again, as I've said, this is a lot more trivial than the kind of things you've been saying.

I said "prejudice and/or anecdotal experiences". I don't know why you believe the things you do but I suspect it's because of either of those two things, maybe both.
I would say an addiction is a compelling to do something generally harmful beyond your ability to control. I believe in free will though and I think the majority of the time is due to a lack of will.

If gaming addicts are unhealthy to themselves how are they not unhealthy to society? Do you think unhealthy people benefit society?

You’ve changed your position from gaming addicts with marvel tattoos aren’t unhealthy to ‘I don’t know’. So ultimately you’ve made a moral judgement regardless of the evidence, and then when confronted with the lack of evidence changed your position to ‘I don’t know’. This is why I make the claim that evidence ranks far below morality and power, even your supposedly rational, evidence based liberalism.

You have a liberal moral view that we are all special individuals, which has been cultivated and reinforced by our institutions around us. You then seek out evidence to justify your world view via confirmation bias through most of our liberal media and think tanks who present evidence to fit their narrative.

This is the same as it has been throughout history, but the modern left have excelled themselves into duping people into thinking that their mainstream, conditioned views are revolutionary and ‘bottom up’ rather than imposed on us by corporate overlords. Totalitarianism has been mass marketed and sold to us as freedom.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#79
Report 2 weeks ago
#79
(Original post by Davij038)
I would say an addiction is a compelling to do something generally harmful beyond your ability to control. I believe in free will though and I think the majority of the time is due to a lack of will.

If gaming addicts are unhealthy to themselves how are they not unhealthy to society? Do you think unhealthy people benefit society?

You’ve changed your position from gaming addicts with marvel tattoos aren’t unhealthy to ‘I don’t know’. So ultimately you’ve made a moral judgement regardless of the evidence, and then when confronted with the lack of evidence changed your position to ‘I don’t know’. This is why I make the claim that evidence ranks far below morality and power, even your supposedly rational, evidence based liberalism.

You have a liberal moral view that we are all special individuals, which has been cultivated and reinforced by our institutions around us. You then seek out evidence to justify your world view via confirmation bias through most of our liberal media and think tanks who present evidence to fit their narrative.

This is the same as it has been throughout history, but the modern left have excelled themselves into duping people into thinking that their mainstream, conditioned views are revolutionary and ‘bottom up’ rather than imposed on us by corporate overlords. Totalitarianism has been mass marketed and sold to us as freedom.
Addiction is similar to that but it doesn't necessarily have to involve something which is harmful on it's own. How would you define video game addiction?

Whether an addicted person has an unhealthy impact on society will depend on the circumstances. The addiction of one person alone, for example, may not have any negative affect on the people around them, or on society as a whole, even if it is bad for their own health as an individual.

My position was not that gaming addicts are unhealthy. I've said, for a while now, that gaming addiction is unhealthy. What I don't know is whether those with addiction and Marvel tattoos are any more unhealthy with those who are just addicted. In other words, I have no reason to believe that tattoos have any influence on your health/productivity/etc (likewise I have no reason to believe that they don't). The only "moral judgement" I've made, if you can even call it that, is to recognise that addiction is unhealthy to an individual which, again, is a matter of definition.

Your last two paragraphs are a bit of a stupid rant to be honest. You can try and tether me to "the modern left", the "liberal media", etc, and so on but I really don't care about either. I've found myself aligned with a liberal view of morality/the world without 'they' telling me to do so. I try to make sure that the things I believe are supported by good reason and evidence. For example when I first read of the media's take on the native American being harassed by teenage protesters I looked more into the story, found original footage and concluded that their judgement of the situation was not correct. Also it's a bit hypocritical for you to say I "seek out evidence to justify [my] world view via confirmation bias through... think tanks" when you had done exactly that earlier in the thread to justify your opinions on the decline of marriage.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#80
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#80
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Addiction is similar to that but it doesn't necessarily have to involve something which is harmful on it's own. How would you define video game addiction?

Whether an addicted person has an unhealthy impact on society will depend on the circumstances. The addiction of one person alone, for example, may not have any negative affect on the people around them, or on society as a whole, even if it is bad for their own health as an individual.

My position was not that gaming addicts are unhealthy. I've said, for a while now, that gaming addiction is unhealthy. What I don't know is whether those with addiction and Marvel tattoos are any more unhealthy with those who are just addicted. In other words, I have no reason to believe that tattoos have any influence on your health/productivity/etc (likewise I have no reason to believe that they don't). The only "moral judgement" I've made, if you can even call it that, is to recognise that addiction is unhealthy to an individual which, again, is a matter of definition.

Your last two paragraphs are a bit of a stupid rant to be honest. You can try and tether me to "the modern left", the "liberal media", etc, and so on but I really don't care about either. I've found myself aligned with a liberal view of morality/the world without 'they' telling me to do so. I try to make sure that the things I believe are supported by good reason and evidence. For example when I first read of the media's take on the native American being harassed by teenage protesters I looked more into the story, found original footage and concluded that their judgement of the situation was not correct. Also it's a bit hypocritical for you to say I "seek out evidence to justify [my] world view via confirmation bias through... think tanks" when you had done exactly that earlier in the thread to justify your opinions on the decline of marriage.
A compulsion to play video games beyond your ability to control , often to a unhealthy degree.

Video game addiction is not happening in isolation, and in many cases is preventing people living positive lives.

If gaming addiction is unhealthy, then surely by definition gaming addicts are unhealthy? In the same way Smoking and smokers are considered unhealthy.

Ah nice try but you let the cat out of the bag in your earlier statement about me
Judging others:

‘Who are you to say "it's not healthy or and fulfilling for them to be preoccupied with children’s entertainment" People can do what they want with their life (within reason) and if they decide they wish to spend it playing video games...

If you were genuine about forming opinions based on evidence you would not have reacted the way you did about a subject which in your own words you ‘do not know’ about. Instead of raising doubts about the verity of my claims you first attacked me, and then made a moral argument/ claim (with a subjective disclaimer).

My use of the think tank article was as per your request for ‘evidence’, which of course did not change your mind, Just as it wouldn’t have for me . I don’t form my beliefs through cherry picked evidence from ‘experts’... no one does, including as demonstrated above, do you.

As I said earlier:

Power/Morality
.
.
.
.
Evidence
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you give blood?

Yes (49)
9.37%
I used to but I don't now (14)
2.68%
No, but I want to start (188)
35.95%
No, I am unable to (122)
23.33%
No, I chose not to (150)
28.68%

Watched Threads

View All