Fair Mormon: another source for answers to questions about lds faith

[Snigmorder]

13 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So... because 18% of women identify as feminists, the feminist movement is so successful that it resulted in all Liberals, or even a significant majority of them becoming misogynists that's why they support abortion.  And you don't think that's an extremist view.  Okay.

This makes no sense.

13 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Politics and morality are separate.  If it was not, the Alcohol Prohibition would have remained in the Constitution.  And adultery would be punishable by law among other things.  Actually, there is such a state of politics and morality being inseparable... it's called Sharia.  I'm going to bet that you think Liberals are pro-Sharia.

Politics are determined by morality.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

Same here.  I consider myself a libertarian or anarcho-cap.  I also consider my PERSONAL views in how I choose to live my life to be very conservative.

Okay, TIL moment.

It doesn't make sense to say I choose to live my life very conservative as an Individual statement.  Conservative is in relation to something.  Conservative means that the mores/traditions of society trumps individual liberty.  So you can say, my personal views is conservative because I believe societal (or religious) mores and traditions should supercede my individual desire.

So, let's put this in a context where society is the family.  In that scenario, the parents are naturally conservative - the mores and traditions of the family trump the desire of each individual family member so the parents lay down the family law.  The children are naturally liberal - the desire of the individual trumps the mores/tradition of the family (teen-age rebellion is a common claim).  A well-functioning family is actually the perfect example of how conservatism and liberalism swings into balance for the upliftment of the society (family).  A family that do not put regulations (discipline) on the actions of its individual members is bound to fail.  At the same time, a family that do not make room for individual creativity that challenges the family traditions and adopts changes is also bound to fail.

A libertarian - small l - is the guy who chooses to remove himself from the family altogether and lives by his own individual traditions.

A religious person is naturally conservative - God's law trumps individual desire.  A college student is naturally liberal - challenging all kinds of established thought.  Both are good for society.

P.S.  If you haven't, check out Dave Rubin (he has awesome youtube videos a'la Larry King).  He's a Liberal - used to be with the Young Turks - that has shed that association as he believes Liberalism in America is currently corrupted and it will take a few years for the current leadership to turn over.  When asked, he is more inclined to call himself a Libertarian these days than a Liberal.

Edited September 6, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

This makes no sense.

Exactly.  It makes no sense for you to say Liberal purpose of abortion law is ... feminists wanting to take it to the male population.  It's dumb.

 

3 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

Politics are determined by morality.

Whose morality?  In a democracy, you are putting your entire collection of eggs in the basket of a majority of people who holds the same moral compass as yours.  As you can see in today's America... that's not a very good idea.

[Snigmorder]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Exactly.  It makes no sense for you to say Liberal purpose of abortion law is ... feminists wanting to take it to the male population.  It's dumb.

It makes no sense because it was worded poorly. And that's what feminism is, a superstitious sense of egalitarianism.

 

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Whose morality?  In a democracy, you are putting your entire collection of eggs in the basket of a majority of people who holds the same moral compass as yours.  As you can see in today's America... that's not a very good idea.

One does not reach a political position without first having a morality. They are not separate.

[Grunt]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, TIL moment.

It doesn't make sense to say I choose to live my life very conservative as an Individual statement.  Conservative is in relation to something.  Conservative means that the mores/traditions of society trumps individual liberty.  So you can say, my personal views is conservative because I believe societal (or religious) mores and traditions should supercede my individual desire.

So, let's put this in a context where society is the family.  In that scenario, the parents are naturally conservative - the mores and traditions of the family trump the desire of each individual family member so the parents lay down the family law.  The children are naturally liberal - the desire of the individual trumps the mores/tradition of the family (teen-age rebellion is a common claim).  A well-functioning family is actually the perfect example of how conservatism and liberalism swings into balance for the upliftment of the society (family).  A family that do not put regulations (discipline) on the actions of its individual members is bound to fail.  At the same time, a family that do not make room for individual creativity that challenges the family traditions and adopts changes is also bound to fail.

A libertarian - small l - is the guy who chooses to remove himself from the family altogether and lives by his own individual traditions.

A religious person is naturally conservative - God's law trumps individual desire.  A college student is naturally liberal - challenging all kinds of established thought.  Both are good for society.

 

Of course, it makes sense to choose to live conservatively as an individual.  The very definition of conservative is individual in nature.  You're trying to exchange the definition of conservative with the co-opted practice of a political party that isn't even consistent itself.  

You also appear to be a little confused about libertarianism.  A libertarian isn't removed from society or the family.  Voluntary association doesn't assume disassociation.  

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Of course, it makes sense to choose to live conservatively as an individual.  The very definition of conservative is individual in nature.  You're trying to exchange the definition of conservative with the co-opted practice of a political party that isn't even consistent itself.  

You also appear to be a little confused about libertarianism.  A libertarian isn't removed from society or the family.  Voluntary association doesn't assume disassociation.  

Okay, this is not correct.

I am not American.  So I don't even do political parties except to point out that the Democratic Party is broken.  Republicans are salvageable - we'll see what they do in the next 3 years.

So, let me put the ball in your court.  Define conservatism.  Because... it is not individual in nature.  In a political philosophy, you "conserve" tradition by regulating individual liberty.  Why do you think it is a conservative principle to be against gay marriage?  Why do you think it is a conservative principle to be Constitutionalist?  State rights?  Prohibitionists?

Okay, I used the wrong word for libertarians - removed is the wrong word.  Inapplicable is the better word.  Libertarian philosophy has no comparison within a functioning family.

Edited September 6, 2017 by anatess2

[Grunt]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, this is not correct.

I am not American.  So I don't even do political parties except to point out that the Democratic Party is broken.  Republicans are salvageable - we'll see what they do in the next 3 years.

So, let me put the ball in your court.  Define conservatism.  Because... it is not individual in nature.  In a political philosophy, you "conserve" tradition by regulating individual liberty.

Okay, I used the wrong word for libertarians - removed is the wrong word.  Inapplicable is the better word.  Libertarian philosophy has no comparison within a functioning family.

con·serv·a·tive

kənˈsərvədiv/

adjective

 

1.  holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.  

There is zero regulation of individual liberty.  It would only be regulation of individual liberty of I forced YOU to be conservative.  I won't, though, because I'm a libertarian.

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by Grunt

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Grunt said:

con·serv·a·tive

kənˈsərvədiv/

adjective

 

1.  holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

 

Right.  It's in RELATION to something.  Conservative in relation to Religion/law regulates individual liberty.  Un-regulated individual liberty is bound to change society.  That's why it's called Liberal.  From the word Liberty.  Same word that roots Libertarian.  Liberals challenge the established tradition.  Conservatives conserve it.  The 2 standing in balance is a successful society.  Do you see?

Edited September 6, 2017 by anatess2

[Grunt]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Right.  It's in RELATION to something.  Religion/law regulates individual liberty.  Un-regulated individual liberty is bound to change society.  That's why it's called Liberal.  From the word Liberty.  Liberals challenge the established tradition.  Conservatives conserve it.  Do you see?

Of course it's in relation to something.  However, it's individual in nature and has nothing to do with law or regulation.   I understand what you're trying to say, but you're assigning qualities to parties on the basis of word definitions.  That logic just doesn't translate to the real world.  

These statements hold true:

Personally, I live conservatively.

Politically, I am a libertarian.

 

[anatess2]

21 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Of course it's in relation to something.  However, it's individual in nature and has nothing to do with law or regulation.   I understand what you're trying to say, but you're assigning qualities to parties on the basis of word definitions.  That logic just doesn't translate to the real world.  

These statements hold true:

Personally, I live conservatively.

Politically, I am a libertarian.

 

Parties again.  I have not mentioned anything relating to parties.

And that logic IS its application in the real world, America only being a part of it (which, unfortunately, permeates everywhere so we have to adjust our language to suit especially if we post videos on youtube).

I didn't say those statements don't hold true.  I am simply saying they don't make sense unless it is in relation to something.  So you may live conservatively in relation to X.  I would assume established judeo-Christian morality which includes fiscal responsibility and the rule of Constitutional law.  Because you can also be conservative in relation to, say...  Sharia which I'm sure is not what you mean.  Saudi Arabia, for example is a very conservative country under Sharia.  I am sure you hold a very liberal position in relation to Saudi Arabia's morality/law.  I'm not even sure if you're gonna be conservative in relation to Philippine morality/law.

Politically, you're a libertarian - which may or may not align with conservative.  Not even limiting it to just its application within the USA.

And just to bring this back to the main point.  We started this conversation with your challenge to my statement that Libertarians are natural liberals.  There's a reason they're called Libertarians and not Conservationists.

Edited September 6, 2017 by anatess2

[Grunt]

27 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Parties again.  I have not mentioned anything relating to parties.

And that logic IS its application in the real world, America only being a part of it (which, unfortunately, permeates everywhere so we have to adjust our language to suit especially if we post videos on youtube).

I didn't say those statements don't hold true.  I am simply saying they don't make sense unless it is in relation to something.  So you may live conservatively in relation to X.  I would assume established judeo-Christian morality which includes fiscal responsibility and the rule of Constitutional law.  Because you can also be conservative in relation to, say...  Sharia which I'm sure is not what you mean.  Saudi Arabia, for example is a very conservative country under Sharia.  I am sure you hold a very liberal position in relation to Saudi Arabia's morality/law.  I'm not even sure if you're gonna be conservative in relation to Philippine morality/law.

Politically, you're a libertarian - which may or may not align with conservative.  Not even limiting it to just its application within the USA.

And just to bring this back to the main point.  We started this conversation with your challenge to my statement that Libertarians are natural liberals.  There's a reason they're called Libertarians and not Conservationists.

Then, using your explanation, your entire post that I initially took issues with does not make sense.  You're moving the goal posts, and in doing so have voided your own original position.