Hypocrisy in Liberal and Conservatives Ideals and Platforms

[Deuce Dropper]

Not about being granular, it is about the big picture, because if we did get granular we could say that social welfare is indeed Darwinian because we are trying to do this to better our communities (that which surrounds us) to ensure we can more easily thrive and procreate in a safe environment (survival of the fittest).

So there is no doubt that the initial premise can be shot down, but the question is why do such diametrically opposed viewpoints go undiscussed or observed when they are so often key components of the rhetoric.

No, it's all about getting 'granular' - that is if you truly want to get to the bottom of your question.

What you are really asking is why do we engage in objectification and making stereotypes and broad generalizations. It's a whole lot easier to bash people when you've turned them into a stereotype and then stripped away their humanity. After all, when a person is no longer a person, and is now an object, it's easy to destroy them.

People manipulate us into engaging in conflict by keeping us from getting down to the human level.

If you're not really interested in resolving the question, and just want to get into a few self-satisfying whacks because you're upset, I understand. It's cathartic. Whack away.

But, let's not confuse this with reasoning and conflict resolution.

Where is the conflict? I am simply asking why 'Ideals' and 'Platforms' (as in the title) are portrayed in such contrasting ways. Not looking for a few self-satisfying whacks, and if anything you came into this thread with a bit of beef and perhaps a bone to pick, so it might be wise to take a bit of your own advice (unless this was a crafty sarcastic example of further hypocrisy and if that is the case, I applaud you for guile).

What 'beef' or 'bone' would I have to pick with you?

Would you believe that I really wasn't being sarcastic?

And yes, there is conflict. It's inherent in the subject that you chose, and in some of what you said.

You ask the question about hypocrisy. You can't call it hypocrisy until you've thoroughly examined the motives of either side, and when you do that, the issue gets a lot more complicated.

The only way to understand the issue is to get down to the level of the individual. Of course, when you get down to the level of the individual, you find out that 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are false dichotomies.

There it is, the ultimate truth.

[urodacus]

EVERYBODY wants cheezburger.

They just want different sauce.

[Weinstock]

I think that labels like "liberal", and "conservative" are made up by the ruling class to divide people, so they can't rise up against the oligarchs. Most people are neither liberal nor conservative, and have unique views on everything. Like for example, who really cares one way or the other if people are gay. You can have gay sex like John Travolta, and no one would know about it. He even has a wife.

[johnny138]

For example, it would be fair to assume that Christians tend to side with Conservative politicians and Conservative ideals when they vote. However the conservative approach to economics is in direct contrast with the 'help thy neighbor' Christian ethic, and is much more Darwinian in nature.

Most Christian conservatives support charity, not taxation and government mandated handouts. Charity is an individual religious act that is supported. There's nothing contradictory about it.

[fred smith]

Bingo. This is not the dichotomy or hypocritical stance that you think that it is.

First of all, how do you really HELP people? hand outs? saw how well that worked didn't we? Or by actually getting people to take responsibility for their lives?
Second, the Bible also says if any would not work neither should they eat... sounds good to me...
Over to you...

[SuperSneakyCow]

In the latest installment of my 'hypocrisy' series I want to talk a little bit about Liberals and Conservatives and how their policies are in direct contrast with their core values (this pertains more to Western politics).

For example, it would be fair to assume that Christians tend to side with Conservative politicians and Conservative ideals when they vote. However the conservative approach to economics is in direct contrast with the 'help thy neighbor' Christian ethic, and is much more Darwinian in nature.

Liberals on the other hand are more likely to have Atheists and Darwinists in their tent, yet they believe in providing a social safety net for the downtrodden which is in direct contrast to the 'survival of the fittest' ideal that many of them think molded our world.

Why do we have these diametrically opposing schools of though stumping for the wrong side of the argument? Shouldn't the Darwinists be conservatives, and shouldn't the Christians be Liberals?

Or is it all just a festering pile of donkey shit?

Atheism is not a belief. Just as well, "survival of the fittest isn't, either." It's just a model for how organisms reproduce with traits that appear to be selected by the environment. In a society, i.e. a group of people banding together to form terms of co-existing, you do not have survival of the fittest, because you are all relying on each other to survive.

Bingo. This is not the dichotomy or hypocritical stance that you think that it is.

First of all, how do you really HELP people? hand outs? saw how well that worked didn't we? Or by actually getting people to take responsibility for their lives?
Second, the Bible also says if any would not work neither should they eat... sounds good to me...
Over to you...

One way we could help people is by banning banks from charging usury-rate interest on loans in minority neighborhoods, and from intentionally impoverishing people.

But that's also anti-conservative.

Maybe we can prevent giant, multinational corporations from donating to politicians.

But that's also anti-conservative.

Maybe we can regulate the banks so they can't do things like shorting against loans that they-themselves put together, or insuring other banks' bets without keeping record of all the current insurance policies.

But that's also anti-conservative.

Maybe we can tax American corporations that take their business abroad, so that we can create business and jobs here.

But that's also anti-conservative.

[SuperSneakyCow]

The only way to understand the issue is to get down to the level of the individual. Of course, when you get down to the level of the individual, you find out that 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are false dichotomies.

There it is, the ultimate truth.

Not really. Conservativism is about evidence before investigation, while liberalism is about investigation before evidence. They lead to totally different means of thinking and acting. Some people have mixes of liberal and conservative views, but that doesn't mean you can't define ways of thinking.

[Tigerman]

Conservativism is about evidence before investigation, while liberalism is about investigation before evidence.

Conservatism = Evil

Liberalism = Good

Ain't that right?

[GuyInTaiwan]

SuperSneakyCow: Your definition of conservative (including some of the supposed positions of conservatives) is way off the mark. It's a label that both liberals and neo-liberals/neo-conservatives use for their own political ends, but it is not actually accurate of the tradition of conservatism.

Here's an accurate definition of conservatism:

Cut to 4:40 if you want to get right to the heart of it. Then again, if you'd invetigated the tradition of conservatism before assuming you already had the evidence of what it is, you'd already know this. By your definition, I guess that actually makes you a conservative, not a liberal.

[SuperSneakyCow]

Well, I have to say that I disagree with him, what with the idea that "assigning a national identity" is what progressives were meant to do.

In the US the spectrum has shifted to the extent that what used to pass for conservative now passes for liberal, and people who call them selves conservative, are on the verge of being fascists. I'm not basing this just on basic conjecture, I'm basing it on how I observe people behaving across different systems, in different countries, who call themselves liberal or conservative.