Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Psychology: What is a conservative?
- Thread starter casualbb
- Start date
F
Frackal
Guest
Will address this later.
Ambiguity is all fine and good, but you're using it here to imply character flaws simply because most of us think your article is partisan fodder.
Ambiguity is all fine and good, but you're using it here to imply character flaws simply because most of us think your article is partisan fodder.
atlantabiolab
New member
casualbb said:
WOW!! Because YOU think that they are the cutting edge, which they are when it comes to retarded psycho-babble, then that is all that is necessary for the masses to convert, right?? If that is your defense of the tenets of this article, then you have lost before you started.
Not all of those who posted are conservative, simply that some conservative values coincide with their own values.
As for the idea that "ambiguity" is a value, this is the kind of garbage that Berkeley promotes. Lets take this concept to its fruition. Should we push for "ambiguity" or objective judgemental conclusions in the natural sciences? Would you wish to have your physician treating you with guesswork or definitive knowledge of human physiology and biochemistry? Would you wish to have "ambiguity" in our system of law? Would you rather have a frame of reference in which you knew which actions were illegal and which were not, or simply have it up to the discretion of the police? What about going to court? Would you rather have known penalties for crimes or have it totally up to the judge, no matter how ludicrous?
Man has a cognitive function to cut through "ambiguity" and search for "truths", to not use this capability is to live as primitives, or Californians.
Your examples are all moot because they're impertinent. We're not talking about a code of laws or a realm of science. We're talking about trying to enforce certainty on systems that are, by definition, ambiguous.
This is what they were referring to:
Conservative: We don't need social programs. Poor people should be held accountable for their laziness and lack of motivation.
Liberal: It's not that simple. There's an unequal starting line; these people are forced to contend with poor public schools, lack of healthcare, and crime-filled neiborhoods, among other things. We need social programs to help give these people a chance.
Actually they said "intolerance of ambiguity," which is a trait if not a value. QED
This is what they were referring to:
Conservative: We don't need social programs. Poor people should be held accountable for their laziness and lack of motivation.
Liberal: It's not that simple. There's an unequal starting line; these people are forced to contend with poor public schools, lack of healthcare, and crime-filled neiborhoods, among other things. We need social programs to help give these people a chance.
Actually they said "intolerance of ambiguity," which is a trait if not a value. QED
I
Imakarum_Mirabilis
Guest
Casualbb has not experienced the real, unprotected world. All the same, I do like him and his soft self.
atlantabiolab
New member
casualbb said:
Actually you are talking about a system; life is a system, and if we cannot discern the value of its components, then we live in an illusion. Philosophy attempts to understand this system.
And how is the ambiguous nature of the latter any better? You do realize that both answers can be and are incorrect? So, substituting a fanciful reality of people being "forced", as you stated, to live in a world of such disparity, is better than the opposite incorrect idea that all people under "x" dollars a year are lazy?
You do realize that the former answer is the non-judgemental, non-offensive answer that is used to alleviate personal responsibility from all human actions? Not to mention it is not "ambiguous", for it definitively states the reasons for a certain human condition. Their definition of "ambiguity" is "not pertaining to personal control".
Human action can be objectively studied, it is the study of ethics.
atlantabiolab
New member
casualbb said:
Incorrect. People are equal in "rights" nothing more. They have rights due simply to their nature of being rational animals. There is no equality of abilities, which is the fantasy of egalitarianism, only the equality of "rights".
Situations, being derived from the actions of infinite causes, are totally unequal, but being presented to man, are then judged to determine the value of each situation. Thus if man is presented with the decision of how to spend money, either on food and shelter or drink and women, his action will provide him with consequences, one beneficial the other detrimental. Because others in his community drink and solicit whores does not mean that he has no choice in the matter; he willfully decides his course. He does not have to decide correctly and will be limited by his understanding, but he is a free agent for his personal happiness.
T
The Republican
Guest
atlantabiolab said:
I said pretty much this same thing yesterday, dumbass
Similar threads
