See if you can spot the objectivist here. 
You have earned the responses that you get.
…and that is how.
PSsss… Conservatism is about building up. Liberalism is about tearing down.
Peter Kropotkin: it is easy to attack and tear something down instead of building up…
J: PSsss… Conservatism is about building up. Liberalism is about tearing down.
[/quote]
K: defend that statement because I believe you can’t…
Kropotkin
If someone says “this ‘thing’ is good and it is a result of conservatism”, then PK will respond by saying that it is not good or if he admits it is good then it is not the result of conservatism.
The same goes for arguments about capitalism.
Why bother?
Right, which is why you’re demanding people put a bunch of time and effort into building up a position, so you can dismissively tear it down and declare victory. Remember?
It’s the best you’re going to get because it’s the best you deserve.
Anyway, this is a distressingly common tactic- Liberal spends years making himself an utterly revolting person to talk to and proving that trying to reason with him is completely fruitless. Same liberal declares that nobody wanting to debate him must mean his position is so strong, declares victory. Ecmandu is doing the same thing as we speak in other threads.
=D>
This made my day. Thanks Ucci.
Or, of course:
[b][i]If someone says “this ‘thing’ is good and it is a result of liberalism”, then Uccisore/James S. Saint, et al., will respond by saying that it is not good or if he admits it is good then it is not the result of liberalism.
The same goes for arguments about socialism.
Why bother?[/i][/b]
The bottom line is always the same for authoritative minds like this:
Yes, there is but one truly rational and virtuous manner in which to construe these social, political and economic relationships. And how do they know this? Because they have already found it.
Really, it’s not the folks on the other side that perturb them nearly as much as the folks like me. We attempt to deconstruct the idea [and then the practice] of objective morality itself.
Sure, it might exsit. So, we ask them, come down here and demonstrate it.
Show us how/why your own values are not just a set of political prejudices predicated on a particular set of political premises.
What you are not recognizing is that when those arguing for “liberalism” do this, they do it without facts or truth, they rely on feelings and lies, hence the three line deconstructions. While those arguing for “conservatism” often fail and stoop to the same level, in most cases there is a factual and truthful basis for the argument (of course this isn’t absolute and is patently false when dealing with certain topics, though this is a failing with the people not “conservatism” like it is with leftism). When they resort to ad hom it is usually in mockery to the typical reaction from a ‘liberal’, whereas when a liberal does it, they may claim the same but really they are using the ad hom as their actual argument.
Those arguing for “liberalism” like to claim the same thing, but really they are just exhibiting cognitive dissonance and predictable dishonesty. You can bet your ass that when a leftist accuses you of something, you are almost certain to find out they are guilty of it themselves.
Right, like the liberals can’t argue much the same regarding conservatives.
I’ll tell you what…
You pick an issue that liberals and conservatives are often at odds regarding.
And note how your own values are in sync with the most [or the only] rational and virtuous assessment.
We can also explore the part about “cognitive dissonance” and “predictable dishonestly”.
Just a bit less…abstractly?
Conservatism is backed by the existing and long standing framework of our societies and their natural parallels/sources/evolution. (That isn’t to say perfect by any stretch.)
Liberalism (the only working definition of such) is attempting to “change” (cough destroy cough) those existing frameworks and therefore must rely on new concepts they are making up as they go along which have no scientific or truly logical basis. Everything is ideological. Made up. Just like they accuse various social norms to be. (Remember, whatever you are being accused of, you can bet it’s the opposite.)
I’ve gotten more reasons from Uccisore and James to justify their points of view than I ever got from PK. Maybe I don’t agree with those reasons but it’s still better than PK’s “capitalism is nihilistic”, “conservatives are about death, liberals are about life”, “republicans are terrorists”, etc.
See, iambiguous?
lol
Let’s examine this PK idea :
To say that since 1516 “we have peace”, you must completely ignore the continuous warfare throughout that period of time, including two world wars which killed more than 75 million people.
But let me guess … PK will say that conservatives wanted the wars and liberals always wanted peace … conservatives caused the wars. Right? 
Even Iambig must see the absurdity here.
Why aren’t you directing this horseshit at the guy who created a thread specifically to declare that everybody’s ideology except his was wrong and who laid down a challenge for anybody to objectively prove him incorrect?
Oh, right, cause you’re just a liberal pretending to be above it all.
I hate to be the one to break it to you (and I’m probably not) but most conservatives stopped being confused/impressed by the “Everything is oh-so-subjective and that’s why conservatives are wrong about everything and liberals are right” flavor of the left back in high school. It’s extremely transparent.
What the fuck? 500 years? What the hell was going on in the 1600’s that PK or liberals would approve of? Was it the authoritarian king who the left enjoyed, or his ultra-religious fundamentalist opponents? Jesus Christ, you only have to go back 50 years to hit a time that, according to Democrats, everybody was racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted, vile, and etc. According to the left we finally had a decent period of human history from about 2008 to 2016, but then a Republican won the U.S. election and it’s time to go back to shaming us all for being sexist white supremacists again.
The only time the left isn’t condemning modern civilization is when they’re taking credit for it.
Okay, but what about this part:
[i][b]I’ll tell you what…
You pick an issue that liberals and conservatives are often at odds regarding.
And note how your own values are in sync with the most [or the only] rational and virtuous assessment.
We can also explore the part about “cognitive dissonance” and “predictable dishonestly”.
Just a bit less…abstractly?[/b][/i]
I agree that KP is basically the liberal rendition of Uccisore.
And I suspect that your sympathies with the conservatives here reflects the manner in which – existentially – you are predisposed to share much of what they argue.
But what I am looking for are reasons from either the liberals or the conservatives that reflect the most [or the only] rational manner in which it is said that the virtuous human being is obligated to behave.
Which brings me back to this:
[i]You pick an issue that liberals and conservatives are often at odds regarding. And note how your own values are in sync with the most [or the only] rational and virtuous assessment. [/i]
I refer you back to:
I for one have no intention on arguing with a moral relativist.
Also, from the people that came up with things like the Argument From Marginal Cases…sorry, not interested. We’ve had enough of your poison.
I don’t make a distinction between you and KP. And I recognize as well that my own political prejudices are no less the embodiment of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
My values are in turn no less an existential contraption cobbled together [re an issue like abortion] out in this particular world:
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
I merely speculate that your own values have been cobbled together experientially in much the same manner.
In fact, with respect to our conflicting moral and political values, I explored them in this manner on another thread:
[b][i]Is this because, at a particular point in our lives, we set aside days, weeks, months in order to explore the question of _____ in depth — from the perspective of theology, philosophy, anthropology, sociology, psychologically, political science, etc.?
Or, instead, are our views far, far more likely to be embodied in our own particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.
In other words, we lived a particular life, had particular experiences, met particular people, had access to particular sources of information and knowledge and, as a result, came existentially to be predisposed to one or another [frame of mind].
Which seems most likely, most reasonable, most in sync with the lives that we actually live?[/b][/i]
Now this is horseshit. I challenge you to note where I have ever argued that my own values are not just political prejudices rooted subjectively/subjunctively in such a trajectory as noted above.
No, what is extremely transparent is objectivism itself. It is rooted far more in human psychology than in anything that the tools of philosophy [or any particular ideology] are able establish.
Again, choose a moral or political issue of note and broach your own values regarding it.
Let’s explore that which can in fact be established objectively regarding the arguments embraced by those on the left and those on the right.
Note to KP:
Please feel free to participate in this discussion. Your liberal values [like my own] are no less existential contraptions.
Unless of course I’m wrong.
Note to others:
Decide for yourself what this exposes.