Jump to content

Debating With A Neo-con


Yaoi Huntress Earth
 Share

Recommended Posts

A neo-con who is trying to convert people on the weirdcrap MB and I wanted to have some good points to debate with him. He's been very civil with me in my first post, but I hope you guys don't mind in helping me a bit with a responce.

 

 

I said: but I find their beliefs a little more compassionate towards others. I

don't like abortion, but I wish the pro-lifers would show the same

compassion towards the already-born as they do to fetuses (like help

the women who gave birth to those babys find employment to raise them).

 

He said: Pro-lifers are compassionite by their own nature.

 

What about this?: Since when is ignoring the mother and\or the baby once it's born compassionate?

 

I said: Not to mention that more liberal eras like the 60's were fighting for

the rights of non-whites, the disabled, women, gays, and people from

forgien countries that didn't fit the 1950's brainwashed, WASP ideal of

what a human being should be. (While people like Pat Robertson and

Falwell were praising segragation.)

 

 

He said: Actually, conservatives were the ones pioneering for civil rights. Not

liberals. And I don't agree with gay rights anyway. And show me

evidence that Pat Robertson and Falwell were praising segragation.

 

What about this?: Do you know of any good links that can prove Robertson and Falwell's prasises of segragation. And were conservitives really civil right pioneers?

 

I said:I also find a lot of the mouthpeices of the conservitive movement to be very hateful, hypocritical and\or racist\sexist (Rush, Couliter, Vox Day, etc.)

Maybe I have been exposed to too many of the jerks, but I guess I had

to vent as well.

 

He said: Oh that's all part of the liberal media.

For example Ann Coulter shows off the liberal agenda, so it's no wonder

they hate her.

Rush Limbaugh uses logic and reason in his political dialog. Liberals

just love to call him a dumbass.

 

How about this?: Then how come Ann childishly calls Arabs "raghead" and "terrorists" (contrary to public opinion, not all Arabs are radical Muslims nor wear turbans or headscarves), makes anti-woman statement about how they shouldn't vote (despite being a woman herself), and I find her childish, mean-spirited, and thrieves on attention her comments make. Now Rush, it was just plain cruel for making fun of Michael J Fox and claiming he was "faking it." As for Vox DAy saing that women over 25 should give up getting married, hello, the 1950's just called and they want their conceptions on women back.

 

He said: But thanks for your input anyway, I hope to have further discussions

with you.

 

END

At least he's polite. I don't know, but why is it that no matter how civil they can be, I want to frenzy like a Brujah at them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said: but I find their beliefs a little more compassionate towards others. I

don't like abortion, but I wish the pro-lifers would show the same

compassion towards the already-born as they do to fetuses (like help

the women who gave birth to those babys find employment to raise them).

 

He said: Pro-lifers are compassionite by their own nature.

 

What about this?: Since when is ignoring the mother and\or the baby once it's born compassionate?

You would do well to avoid implying that Christians 'ignore' people as they can be very family-minded and socially-oriented. True, pro-lifers focus on the fetus, as do pro-choicers. Many churches run services which encourage young women to keep the baby for later adoption. I never saw pro-lifers ignoring young mothers, as a group any way.

 

What about this?: Do you know of any good links that can prove Robertson and Falwell's prasises of segragation. And were conservitives really civil right pioneers?

He may be referring to the fact that southern Democrats blocked a lot of the civil rights bills. But they were more conservative than many Republicans at the time. A whole lot of them switched parties so the Republicans gained a lot of bigots all at once. I don't have a reference for that though.....

 

By the way, you may find this Wikipedia entry on 'neoconservative' enlightening....

 

NeoCon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a deist and a libertarian, I think he's being overprotective and you may be overreacting. I like a lot of what Coulter and Limbaugh say. Coulter has a wit that rarely meets its match, but as with Rush, they have a terrible blind spot with religion--reason goes out the window there for them, as it does with politics for liberals more often than conservatives.

 

The goods on Coulter, and what put her on my blacklist, was trying to defend McCarthy. He is the lightening rod for the evils of '50's conservatism, so she tried to defend him. Too bad. The Rush/Fox controversy was sound-byted and therefore misreported. He merely accused Fox of using sympathy for garnering votes by manipulating his symptoms for the ad--which Fox apparently admits doing in a book he's supposed to have written (but I haven't read).

 

Most of the political criticism of Rush comes from people who don't listen to the show. The religious criticism he gets is deserved. For instance the issue of stem cell research brought up by the Fox add. He's not only against it for fear of almost any post conception abortion, but also for some unspecified fear that it will lead to cloning. (If God had meant people to fly...) When he get's like that, I just turn to the top 40 station until that gets old (about 30 minutes), and then go back hoping he'll be on another subject. He does slant the news (avoids news negative to his position) just as the mainstream media do from the liberal side. The main reason I have a degree of loyalty to Rush, is because he opened my eyes to the media bias. I used to think Dan Rather was God.

 

(If you want the Truth, listen to Neal Boortz if you can get him; he almost always has it right.)

 

I wouldn't worry about Falwell or Robertson. Falwell is faded typical, and Robertson is a known fool. Billy Graham was the last evangelical/cleric with any real widespread respect (however undeserved), and he's all over but the funeral.

 

As a libertarian and especially as an exchristian, I think we need to take a real hard look a the concept of compassion and what its good (and bad) effects are. Another thread perhaps.

 

 

 

Ditto Trashy, he was posting while I was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main reason I have a degree of loyalty to Rush, is because he opened my eyes to the media bias. I used to think Dan Rather was God.

I have great difficulty listening to Rush any more. After reading a good bit of Noam Chomsky I have had a bit of a 'de-conversion' regarding conservatism, patriotism, etc. The last election was fun sport to watch, whereas just a few years ago it would have been depressing to see so many Democrats elected. Now I just don't give a shit. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well first of all you're dignifying them by giving them the "pro-life" label. They're not pro-life; they're pro-birth. Generally the idea of women having control of their reproductive destiny is pretty off-putting for many old-skool religious types.

 

Undoubtedly, some then like to use their Calvinism and Social Darwinism in various ways, so that they can say, "Well stupid idiot should've kept her legs closed." Or "I'm tired of people having kids they can't afford!" It's also a lot easier to do this when you don't really have that many resources to get people back on their feet. And of course, this says nothing about relationships that go sour during pregnancy or even right after. (I'm the product of the latter type of marriage.)

 

In my opinion, this is all about abrogating their end of the social responsibility that's a feature of the vast majority of Western nations. It's kinda like gaining the benefits like freedom that we get here without giving back. At least that's how I'm calling it.

 

So it's very easy to say, "You bore this kid, you're irresponsible, you'd better take care of yourself." It's a lot harder to say, "Let's work together to give a suitable environment and make sure this child becomes a benefit to society instead of a disadvantage."

 

On edit: An addendum - you might want to consider pointing out that by not forcing people to have children they're not ready to have, you reduce the burdens and possible negative social phenomena to society. For example, maladjusted kids. People that don't want to be parents are the absolute WORST people to be parents. People who aren't ready (but might be later) are only slightly better, in that there's a critical formative period where stress can make or break the child's temperament. And I've seen it first hand in my teaching duties, the danger of disaffected parents.

 

In addition, providing for care of children, especially to parents that have been forced to come to term, will actually save everyone money in the long run, especially businesses. Taking care of that sort of thing reduces times that the parent has to call in for an emergency because of no sitter or no family to watch the spawns, that sort of thing.

 

-Seth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trashy wrote:

After reading a good bit of Noam Chomsky I have had a bit of a 'de-conversion' regarding conservatism, patriotism, etc.

 

Chomsky? He describes himself as a libertarian socialist (As a libertarian, I can't think of a greater political contradiction) and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (which is almost as incomprehensible). The guy's a certifiable nut case.

 

I find it difficult to defend Rush many times, but his contradictions are a molehill by comparison.

 

Forget Democrats and Republicans. They're just socialists and socialists lite. Shove capitalism up against socialism in your head and see what pops out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your help. As I typed my responce, I realized something, when it comes to republicans and democrats, there is no true conservitives or liberals, just people who want to use those labels as ways to take advantage of us. (From the so-called "liberal media" to anti-liberal pundits.) There's still a few good ones in the big two like Kucinich and Obama, but there soooo need to be a change. Just can't believe it took me that long to figure it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chomsky? He describes himself as a libertarian socialist (As a libertarian, I can't think of a greater political contradiction) and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (which is almost as incomprehensible). The guy's a certifiable nut case.

Wow, that's a big leap, especially considering that many consider him one of the leading intellectuals in the world today. He is also a long-time MIT professor of linguistics and a world leader in that field. I'm not necessarily on the same page as him in all areas, but he makes very good points on a regular basis, especially on US foreign policy.

 

Have you actually read any of his books or interviews or lectures?

 

There's a whole Wikipedia page on Libertarian Socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are also "intellectuals" who've been the inspiration for the term psycho-babble. Acolytes and self-proclamation does not an intellectual make. I'm sure you can think of a whole galaxy of examples. In a world where Jimmy Carter can sell his soul for be "awarded" the Nobel Peace Prize, people can choose to recognize anyone as a righteous champion of their irrational/corrupt cause.

 

 

There's a whole Wikipedia page on Libertarian Socialism.

There's also a Wiki-page for social-capitalism. :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are also "intellectuals" who've been the inspiration for the term psycho-babble. Acolytes and self-proclamation does not an intellectual make. I'm sure you can think of a whole galaxy of examples. In a world where Jimmy Carter can sell his soul for be "awarded" the Nobel Peace Prize, people can choose to recognize anyone as a righteous champion of their irrational/corrupt cause.

All good points, but irrelevant. Many have done that, but I'll repeat my unanswered question:

 

"Have you actually read any of his books or interviews or lectures?"

 

There's also a Wiki-page for social-capitalism. :lmao:

Believe it or not, most socialist countries had/have elements of capitalism and many capitalist countries have elements of socialism. It's easy to say "The Soviets were Marxists" since that's a simple formula we were taught for many years when, in fact, the true Marxists in the Soviet Union held power for less than a year after the last Tsar was toppled, being overthrown by Lenin's Bolsheviks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it or not, most socialist countries had/have elements of capitalism and many capitalist countries have elements of socialism. It's easy to say "The Soviets were Marxists" since that's a simple formula we were taught for many years when, in fact, the true Marxists in the Soviet Union held power for less than a year after the last Tsar was toppled, being overthrown by Lenin's Bolsheviks.

 

For example, in the United States, we have had numerous periods of central government spending on infrastructure, in the case of the Interstate Highway System. Additionally Social Security, Medicare and numerous other features of government like price controls for gas are socialist ideas. Generally most Western countries practice democratic socialism (which would be kinda like the social capitalism), which is to say, capitalism with some controls.

 

There is no such thing as a pure economic system, in my opinion. There will always be blends. What we know as Communism, for example, is more like a brand name totalitarian scheme based on socialism, more properly called Stalinism. (True Communism, in my opinion, is completely impossible.)

 

And I think the USA in the Gilded Age was the closest we might get to pure capitalism in a sense. But there are assumptions built into such economic systems that there's a level playing field and that there's an equal chance of entry into the market. That is obviously not the case. So the best we can do in any system is blend in what works in the particular social context. In the USA, a blend of free market and socialism, much like we've had since the 1930s, can work very well.

 

-Seth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.