Paradox for Conservatives

Timshel said:
Again, you are dropping context. No one ever suggested it is a view that is universally held. The rights are universal in that they are not limited by place. I have repeated this several times now.

I have not argued that natural rights exist in a concrete form. You are only pointing towards unreality. You have done nothing but flail at straw man arguments. Meanwhile, you fail to support your claim " liberty and freedom are fine without the existence of natural rights" by citing even a single example of where or how liberty and freedom are secure without a strong and widespread belief in the concept of natural or human rights.

I don't see much point in continuing as you are not engaging in debate. Rather you are just skipping in the same place over and over.
Click to expand...

You may have repeated it several times, but that does not make it true. Your gelatin concept of law just doesn’t fly. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”? What does that even mean? Your concept is different than mine, which makes it subjective AND spatial. And since my ideas may change, it makes that concept temporal as well.

And again, I have asked you to offer a single example of a universal/natural right and you have yet to offer one. Zero. Zip. Only ambiguity. Sorry, societies do not function on vague “natural” law. They run on codified law.
 
Wrong, I gave you examples of natural rights.

You are the one refusing to answer questions because you can offer no alternative argument to support justice, liberty and freedom or give a single example of where those qualities exist without the widespread belief in natural or human rights.

You naively put the cart before the horse. Most of our codified law is based on a shared belief in natural or human rights. Further the power of the law is largely dependent on the same.

The power of President Trump and his laws just bent under the pressure of a populace outraged over his violation of human rights.
 
sear said:
I believe that's intrinsically contradictory.

"Conservative" means:

Your comment "do not apprehend subtlety or nuance"

a) What's the difference between "subtlety" and "nuance"?

b) The definition of conservative indicates that they (we) favor tradition.
But they (we) can't favor the conservative, without
1) knowing our own principles
2) knowing the alternates
3) and based upon that information, favoring tradition. Upon what would that favor be based, if not "subtlety or nuance"?

I think you're just trying to insult conservatives or conservatism, and instead have merely embarrassed yourself.

* Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
Click to expand...

Sure, that is "a" definition of conservative but hardly applied in the present context.
The modern conservative...wants to conserve..the status quo, Lord's and paupers, the one percent vs the 99%.
The facts just get in the way of your silly argument, get over yourself already.
I would hate to have to put you on ignore, since you do make good points now and then, but this argument is silly.
 
"Sure, that is "a" definition of conservative but hardly applied in the present context.
The modern conservative...wants to conserve..the status quo, Lord's and paupers, the one percent vs the 99%.
The facts just get in the way of your silly argument, get over yourself already." R #208
Click to expand...
"Facts" like the dictionary definition of the word I used?
44a259045d6bc18697b7bc4ddaaf002acfc7ea0.gif

"I would hate to have to put you on ignore" R #208
Click to expand...
Abandon your hateful prejudice. Try it for a few decades. You may be surprised at what an improvement to your life it provides. And if after that test period you decide to take another approach, you retain that option.

As a point of clarification, over the centuries the meanings of words evolve.

"It [liberal] is pretty much now a lost word, in the original sense of being an effort to restrain government; and one has to keep that in mind when using it." William F. Buckley Jr. April 2, 2000 on C-SPAN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top