Do Conservatives lack Freewill

[canceled.2021.1]

Below is another piece supporting the contention of the OP that conservatives today in America lack freedom to think on their own. A lack of freewill or responsible decision making. I've repeated how those ten hands rose as if some puppet master pulled their strings, the below outlines the string controllers.

"Out of that session, held one morning in a location the members insist on keeping secret, came a little-noticed “blueprint to defunding Obamacare,” signed by Mr. Meese and leaders of more than three dozen conservative groups.... It articulated a take-no-prisoners legislative strategy that had long percolated in conservative circles: that Republicans could derail the health care overhaul if conservative lawmakers were willing to push fellow Republicans — including their cautious leaders — into cutting off financing for the entire federal government." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us...-planning.html


Consider too the comment from one conservative republican in the house that they did not even know what they would get out their radical shutdown. Again an example of a lack of responsible thought. Blind followers instead of leaders.

"[P]eople like the Republican in the House who said he and his colleagues “have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is."" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/op...-congress.html

Well if you say so.

[Lorca]

Is it possible to lack freewill: the basic idea that consciousness guides your decisions. I think it is certainly worth our consideration. It may just be that conservatives lack the capacity both genetically and culturally to exhibit freewill. This interplay of genes and culture make them easily susceptible to the influence of ideas that oppose change or revision. Most cognitive processes never reach consciousness, thus if you are conservative, thought would require an awareness you are not capable of. Given the widespread power of their media today, you witness an opposition to change repeated over and over again. No rational discussion is possible when you have the answer already. The final question becomes, are conservatives then a threat to a dynamic, open, democratic society?

See 'The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy' Albert O. Hirschman

I've seen them try to correlate conservatism with genetics but that's all it was and it was very circumspect. I think it's more 'environmental' than inborn.

Find the correlation between families and post data on that.

I only have anecdotal data of course. I come from conservative, Republican parents. I tend more toward liberal and Democratic lines. I started out a Republican and changed (for the most part) after the 1980 election for Reagan. Who among us doesnt see families completely split re: parties or conservative/liberal?

I think life changes more people than any type of genetic predisposition.

[Lorca]

Having read quite a bit on Islam and the societies that integrate that into their culture, I found one thing very interesting and troubling.

But it seems to run in fundamentalist type conservatives as well. In Islam, in the fundamentalist societies, they reject free will and believe that society and laws should be used to FORCE people to act in a certain way. In this way, it's almost like zero tolerance policies....someone ELSE makes all your decisions for you and (you hope) forces others to make as well. Instead of free will, they rely on the state...often run by religious men or laws....to MAKE people adhere to laws based on personal choices, rather than allowing individuals to do so thru free will.

I've read this a few times. In one case, it was a biography of a woman who was a hostage in the Phillipines for a yr and had a day to day relationship with her Muslim captors. They explained this to her several times.

They preferred to have others take personal responsibility away and in its place, use punitive sanctions on those who broke Allah's laws. They preferred this and expected it for themselves as well. Like needing and preferring structure.

I think that any social conservative that wants the govt in America (fed or state) to make laws based on people's private choices (that do not infringe on the rights of others) is looking for this as well.

[Minister of Truth]

I'm always happy when I make some list, is this a good or bad list? Does it matter, hmm, money power in the form of think tanks and media sources controls much of the mind of America today. The journey to here is a fascinating one for the student of ideas. A few commentaries below. Hopefully you will take the time to learn how you've come to believe what you've come to believe. Or maybe it's more comfortable believing?

I guess that depends on your opinion, as there is no right or wrong, but merely your perspective.

[Don Quixote]

Having read quite a bit on Islam and the societies that integrate that into their culture, I found one thing very interesting and troubling.

But it seems to run in fundamentalist type conservatives as well. In Islam, in the fundamentalist societies, they reject free will and believe that society and laws should be used to FORCE people to act in a certain way. In this way, it's almost like zero tolerance policies....someone ELSE makes all your decisions for you and (you hope) forces others to make as well. Instead of free will, they rely on the state...often run by religious men or laws....to MAKE people adhere to laws based on personal choices, rather than allowing individuals to do so thru free will.

I've read this a few times. In one case, it was a biography of a woman who was a hostage in the Phillipines for a yr and had a day to day relationship with her Muslim captors. They explained this to her several times.

They preferred to have others take personal responsibility away and in its place, use punitive sanctions on those who broke Allah's laws. They preferred this and expected it for themselves as well. Like needing and preferring structure.

I think that any social conservative that wants the govt in America (fed or state) to make laws based on people's private choices (that do not infringe on the rights of others) is looking for this as well.

i go with environment or nurture, i have been an anarchist, dem, rep and independent

[canceled.2021.1]

Having read quite a bit on Islam and the societies that integrate that into their culture, I found one thing very interesting and troubling.

But it seems to run in fundamentalist type conservatives as well. In Islam, in the fundamentalist societies, they reject free will and believe that society and laws should be used to FORCE people to act in a certain way.

You mean like forcing people to use certain light bulbs or drive certain cars or use certain energy sources or force people to buy insurance? Those types of fundamentalist acts? Is that what you are talking about? Cuz if so, you are right, conservatives are always trying to force people to buy SmartCars

In this way, it's almost like zero tolerance policies....someone ELSE makes all your decisions for you and (you hope) forces others to make as well. Instead of free will, they rely on the state...often run by religious men or laws....to MAKE people adhere to laws based on personal choices, rather than allowing individuals to do so thru free will.

I've read this a few times. In one case, it was a biography of a woman who was a hostage in the Phillipines for a yr and had a day to day relationship with her Muslim captors. They explained this to her several times.

They preferred to have others take personal responsibility away and in its place, use punitive sanctions on those who broke Allah's laws. They preferred this and expected it for themselves as well. Like needing and preferring structure.

I think that any social conservative that wants the govt in America (fed or state) to make laws based on people's private choices (that do not infringe on the rights of others) is looking for this as well.

This is laughable. Apparently your worldview about legislating personal choices revolves around abortion and homo's.

You think nothing of the personal choices that lefties legislate. Oh yeah, you are doing it for everyone's own good and you have noble purposes. I forgot

[Lorca]

This is laughable. Apparently your worldview about legislating personal choices revolves around abortion and homo's.

You think nothing of the personal choices that lefties legislate. Oh yeah, you are doing it for everyone's own good and you have noble purposes. I forgot

What personal choices are the Democrats or liberals trying to legislate? I'm sure there are some but we are talking about the social conservative's signature move here.

What are some examples for Dems/liberals? I can put Affirmative Action and the consequent anti-discrimination laws possibly in that category but those apply to employers/businesses open to the public....not true 'personal' choices but I see the overlap there. Generally social conservatism is about legislating morals. HIring/serving people you dont agree with doesnt seem to affect your own morals.

And since conservatives arent forced to have abortions or be gay, I think they are just more areas they should keep out of.

[Lorca]

You mean like forcing people to use certain light bulbs or drive certain cars or use certain energy sources or force people to buy insurance? Those types of fundamentalist acts? Is that what you are talking about? Cuz if so, you are right, conservatives are always trying to force people to buy SmartCars

Lead-based gas, terrible pollution that literally killed people, asbestos, etc were all 'phased out' too. Most of what you named is to to encourage more of the same and you are not forced to do so...nor are the car companies forced to create them (for ex.). It's called 'incentives.' $$$$$$

As for insurance, is that a liberal construct? Please demonstrate. It's BIG business. HUGE lobby. Who are they lobbying in DC?

(I know it was super-intrusive into people's lives when it was legislated to take lead out of paint and save all those kids from mental retardation,)

[canceled.2021.1]

What personal choices are the Democrats or liberals trying to legislate? I'm sure there are some but we are talking about the social conservative's signature move here.

What are some examples for Dems/liberals? I can put Affirmative Action and the consequent anti-discrimination laws possibly in that category but those apply to employers/businesses open to the public....not true 'personal' choices but I see the overlap there. Generally social conservatism is about legislating morals. HIring/serving people you dont agree with doesnt seem to affect your own morals.

And since conservatives arent forced to have abortions or be gay, I think they are just more areas they should keep out of.

I went back and re-read your post that I responded to and you didn't specify "social" conservatives. You were speaking broadly about free will. Now you may have thought that is what you meant in your head, but you didn't specify it in your post.

As for social conservatism being about legislating morals, doesn't everyone do that? I mean, when we were getting this healthcare abomination forced down our throats Obama made a "moral" argument that everyone should be covered. What is the difference?

[canceled.2021.1]

Lead-based gas, terrible pollution that literally killed people, asbestos, etc were all 'phased out' too. Most of what you named is to to encourage more of the same and you are not forced to do so...nor are the car companies forced to create them (for ex.). It's called 'incentives.' $$$$$$

As for insurance, is that a liberal construct? Please demonstrate. It's BIG business. HUGE lobby. Who are they lobbying in DC?

(I know it was super-intrusive into people's lives when it was legislated to take lead out of paint and save all those kids from mental retardation,)

Seems like you are admitting that lefties legislate choices away from people. Who is always opposing school choice? That would be lefties. Who opposes privatizing social security to give people choices to fund their own retirement? Oh yeah, that would be democrats. You have to be forced into social security. You don't have a choice.

Now, since you make the claim that all of those things you legislate is to save lives, then I could make the argument that banning abortions is to save the life of an unborn baby that is being murdered. Additionally, I could argue that we need to outlaw homosexuality since that behavioral choice is a leading risk factor for contracting AIDS and dying. So if we can save the life of just ONE HOMOSEXUAL, we should outlaw homosexual behavior.

That is your argument right?

[Lorca]

Seems like you are admitting that lefties legislate choices away from people. Who is always opposing school choice? That would be lefties. Who opposes privatizing social security to give people choices to fund their own retirement? Oh yeah, that would be democrats. You have to be forced into social security. You don't have a choice.

?

Nice try. We're discussing SOCIAL conservatism which concerns moral issues and personal choices (meaning things that affect people's personal lives. If you need to dissect that to distract from your argument, have at it. I wont play.)

And I certainly stated SOCIAL conservatism in my original post discussing free will and Islam. I also referred to it as fundamentalist-based conservatism. You understood it. Dont bob and weave now.

[Lorca]

I went back and re-read your post that I responded to and you didn't specify "social" conservatives. You were speaking broadly about free will. Now you may have thought that is what you meant in your head, but you didn't specify it in your post.

As for social conservatism being about legislating morals, doesn't everyone do that? I mean, when we were getting this healthcare abomination forced down our throats Obama made a "moral" argument that everyone should be covered. What is the difference?

Nice try. We're discussing SOCIAL conservatism which concerns moral issues and personal choices (meaning things that affect people's personal lives. If you need to dissect that to distract from your argument, have at it. I wont play.)

And I certainly stated SOCIAL conservatism in my original post discussing free will and Islam. I also referred to it as fundamentalist-based conservatism. You understood it. Dont bob and weave now.

Works here too.

[Lorca]

Now, since you make the claim that all of those things you legislate is to save lives, then I could make the argument that banning abortions is to save the life of an unborn baby that is being murdered. Additionally, I could argue that we need to outlaw homosexuality since that behavioral choice is a leading risk factor for contracting AIDS and dying. So if we can save the life of just ONE HOMOSEXUAL, we should outlaw homosexual behavior.

That is your argument right?

Nah, your arguments dont work. Any sexual behavior is a big risk factor for sexually transmitted diseases and those can be 100% prevented. Are you saying that the govt should MANDATE that everyone use condoms? And MANDATE that everyone wash their hands to prevent the flu? heh, No, that's not bigger govt and the govt intruding more into our lives, lol.

As for abortion, not gonna resolve that in a few sentences because you wont recognize that you cannot make decisions about a 'potential' life without infringing on the rights of the mother...her life, health, or privacy. (Can really just break those down into Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.)

[canceled.2021.1]

Nah, your arguments dont work. Any sexual behavior is a big risk factor for sexually transmitted diseases and those can be 100% prevented. Are you saying that the govt should MANDATE that everyone use condoms? And MANDATE that everyone wash their hands to prevent the flu? heh, No, that's not bigger govt and the govt intruding more into our lives, lol.

As for abortion, not gonna resolve that in a few sentences because you wont recognize that you cannot make decisions about a 'potential' life without infringing on the rights of the mother...her life, health, or privacy. (Can really just break those down into Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.)

Well, there is only one way to 100% prevent STDs and a condom ain't it. Here is a question for you. Would you have sex with a known AIDS positive individual if you wore a condom?

Additionally, there is only ONE STD that leads to DEATH. That would be the one that is mainly acquired through deviant homosexual activity

As for the murder of a baby, you are infringing on the rights of the baby. Its life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in order not to inconvenience the mother.

You will not win this argument. You will twist yourself in knots until you no longer recognize yourself.

[Lorca]

Well, there is only one way to 100% prevent STDs and a condom ain't it. Here is a question for you. Would you have sex with a known AIDS positive individual if you wore a condom?

Additionally, there is only ONE STD that leads to DEATH. That would be the one that is mainly acquired through deviant homosexual activity

As for the murder of a baby, you are infringing on the rights of the baby. Its life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in order not to inconvenience the mother.

You will not win this argument. You will twist yourself in knots until you no longer recognize yourself.

Yes I would have sex with someone I loved with a condom if they had AIDS. And that's my bar in general for sex...real emotional investment.

Gay sex referred to as 'deviant' behavior is a moral judgement. You are proving my point :-)

And if life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are 'inconveniences' for the mother, why arent they 'inconveniences' for the fetus? SHe is entitled to the same rights. She could die in childbirth. The fetus could die before ever being born.

Please tell me how you can do anything with the fetus without infringing on the rights of the mother? Please tell me why the fetus' rights come above the mothers?