Happy Birthday Kong Qiu!

[4est_4est_Gump]

“If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on successfully.”

Kong Qiu, known in the West as Confucius (from Kong Fuzi, “Master Kong”), is the first individual whose birthday we know: September 28, 551. Happy birthday to Qiu.

One of the Master’s core doctrines was “the rectification of names.” As he explained to a disciple, “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on successfully.”

The left has long recognized this. For generations, with great ingenuity and diligence, the cadres have worked at manipulating language.

They had little choice. Marx’s prophesy did not come to pass: the workers failed to rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie. Instead, whenever they could, the ingrates chose to join the ranks of the middle class. So it was up to leftists, mostly disaffected members of the bourgeoisie, to seize power in their name. They did this violently in war-ravaged Russia and more slowly and stealthily in Western Europe and the U.S. But by the time the Long March through the universities and newsrooms was completed, the workers were a distant third among the blessed oppressed, trailing “people of color” and women. Among the sacred Trinity, they were an increasing pale Holy Ghost.

History and biology have not been kind to the left. It’s no accident, as Marxists used to say, that the nomenklatura is so fixated on language, and so ready to persecute violators of its shibboleths. Its grip on power and its programs depend on obfuscation. Leftists have become expert weavers of the emperor’s new clothes....

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...s_on_political_correctness.html#ixzz3n1lQtD35

I keep asking for a definition of conservative and not Lefty has been able to provide one, yet every day, all they do is blast "conservatives."



So far, the best I can figure out is it means anyone who does not agree with me and that means they are wrong, stupid, undeserving of any respect and should be treated as nothing but an object of ridicule (i.e., they're "sub-human" [sic]).

 

[kbate]

“If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on successfully.”



http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...s_on_political_correctness.html#ixzz3n1lQtD35

I keep asking for a definition of conservative and not Lefty has been able to provide one, yet every day, all they do is blast "conservatives."

So far, the best I can figure out is it means anyone who does not agree with me and that means they are wrong, stupid, undeserving of any respect and should be treated as nothing but an object of ridicule (i.e., they're "sub-human" [sic]).

Does there have to be a single easy definition for the radical right wing who calls themselves a conservative? Just because you have a single definition which you use, does not make that the only meaning of the word.

You constantly bash and blast 'Lefties', "progressives', 'democrats', 'feral humans', and a hundred other labels, few of which you can define beyond, someone who does not agree with you.

You call people Leftist as an insult, call them progressive as an insult, and have used other terms by the dictionary load in order to denigrate those who do not join you in the worship of Mises and Rand.

Where is your virtue?

Conservatives come in too many flavours to be defined with a simple sentence.

From the hard right Nationalist to the slightly right of centre pro-lifer - there's a thousand various levels of what everyone except you would classify conservative politics.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I am forced to use so many words, because none of them exist.



There is not a single Socialist, Liberal, Progressive or even Democrat to be found here, they reject all labels always being conveniently something else. However, the ideas the express are variants of Socialism, Liberalism (hell, they even changed the definition of that and replaced it with Capitalism), and Progressivism. They like the use of government to correct behavior and control Human Action. Even you embrace certain aspects of this, so good for you, you are not a conservative, but I rather suspect you believe I am...

What the hell is a conservative?

You offer me nothing.

You know it when you see it is what I gather.

 

[Disgustipated]

I am forced to use so many words, because none of them exist.



There is not a single Socialist, Liberal, Progressive or even Democrat to be found here, they reject all labels always being conveniently something else. However, the ideas the express are variants of Socialism, Liberalism (hell, they even changed the definition of that and replaced it with Capitalism), and Progressivism. They like the use of government to correct behavior and control Human Action. Even you embrace certain aspects of this, so good for you, you are not a conservative, but I rather suspect you believe I am...

What the hell is a conservative?

You offer me nothing.

You know it when you see it is what I gather.

You and I had an entire conversation about how you have changed your position over the past decade and you come at her with this crap? Are you ever going to accept your Cap'n Hypocrite crown?

 

[kbate]

I am forced to use so many words, because none of them exist.



There is not a single Socialist, Liberal, Progressive or even Democrat to be found here, they reject all labels always being conveniently something else. However, the ideas the express are variants of Socialism, Liberalism (hell, they even changed the definition of that and replaced it with Capitalism), and Progressivism. They like the use of government to correct behavior and control Human Action. Even you embrace certain aspects of this, so good for you, you are not a conservative, but I rather suspect you believe I am...

What the hell is a conservative?

You offer me nothing.

You know it when you see it is what I gather.

As you started this discussion in my parody thread to lampoon the demise of many of the self-styled conservatives (yes, that is what Vetteman called himself), perhaps you should ask the question of them rather than of me.

I hold beliefs ranging from radical left to radical right and do not hold with the beliefs of any single group. Yes, I am well aware that such a range of beliefs leaves me without a set political philosophy and thus you can attack me on any angle, even that one.

What labels do you want and demand that I attach to you? Nationalist? Militarist? Oligarch? Republican? Libertarian? You cannot claim any with 100% accuracy any more than can I.

 

[Que]

I am never impressed when someone is in lockstep with any "side." When it comes to political parties how can any particular issue appeal to every Democrat or every Republican. Yet it seems to me looking at things like Facebook post that pretty much people pick a side and believe it all.

My roommate and I were talking about this the other day. About how I piss off social conservatives and he pisses off anti gun liberals. Neither of us are idiologically pure and on about half the things you might talk about we agree and about half the things we disagree, and party lines has nothing to do with it.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yet, at the same time, while I might use a variety of terms, those I direct those labels at share one consistent stylistic trademark (as do you), they know the name of "the enemy" and it is conservative.



There's never any variation unless it is to add radical or right-wing.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I am never impressed when someone is in lockstep with any "side." When it comes to political parties how can any particular issue appeal to every Democrat or every Republican. Yet it seems to me looking at things like Facebook post that pretty much people pick a side and believe it all.

My roommate and I were talking about this the other day. About how I piss off social conservatives and he pisses off anti gun liberals. Neither of us are idiologically pure and on about half the things you might talk about we agree and about half the things we disagree, and party lines has nothing to do with it.

You are clearly a conservative. Ask anyone...

 

[DesEsseintes]

I started a thread several months ago about the ways in which people were conservative, even/especially if they would not describe themselves as a political conservative. It seemed to arouse great passion in some, even making one prominent GBer feel they had to leave Lit altogether, and taught me that, at least in the US, the term is:

a) wholly pejorative, and
b) almost entirely political.

Two nations divided by a common language again, I suppose.

For me, conservative is a broad and fairly neutral term, indicating one who prefers to conserve as far as possible, and who requires considerable proof before acquiescing in change - especially radical change. For example, I would not classify Margaret Thatcher as a conservative, since her prescription for Britain was little short of revolutionary.

Personally, I would welcome the return of conservatism to politics, at least on this side of the pond. Give me a decent old-fashioned squirearchy, with a profound sense of noblesse oblige, over a pin-striped spiv selling our nuclear power to the Chinese for a quick buck, any day of the week.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It is politically pejorative term that indicates that the speaker or subject need not be addressed unless it is by a variation or thematic form of rejoinder that resembles ad hominem, but is declared not to be ad hominem because the target is simply too stupid to understand the strict definition of ad hominem. And we know the target is stupid, because they have been outed as a "conservative."



You know, isolate, freeze, ridicule...

But just because you use the word, it doesn't mean that you are Liberal or on the Left, it just means that you're smart enough to not be a conservative. It's not even subtle anymore. It's out in the open.

 

[kbate]

It is politically pejorative term that indicates that the speaker or subject need not be addressed unless it is by a variation or thematic form of rejoinder that resembles ad hominem, but is declared not to be ad hominem because the target is simply too stupid to understand the strict definition of ad hominem. And we know the target is stupid, because they have been outed as a "conservative."



You know, isolate, freeze, ridicule...

But just because you use the word, it doesn't mean that you are Liberal or on the Left, it just means that you're smart enough to not be a conservative. It's not even subtle anymore. It's out in the open.

Thus, we have your definition of the term. Thank you.

Mine wouldn't be the same. I don't consider it a pejorative, or an insult to call someone a conservative. I consider it nothing but a general label of someone's general political bent.

Vetteman was a Republican's are Right Every Time conservative.
You are an anti-democrat conservative. (for which the main activity is to use the term democrat, liberal or progressive as a pejorative in order to show that you are smart enough not to be a democrat, liberal or progressive.)

See how that works?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I do.

Your go-to is conservative...

:nods:

 

[kbate]

I do.

Your go-to is conservative...

:nods:

No, it isn't. I don't use that as an insult.

It is simply a description of basic political leaning taken from the terminology currently in use in most of the western world.

If you take offense when you are called a conservative, why? What shame are you owning?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm not taking offense. I'm describing a trend...

 

[Sean]

I am forced to use so many words, because none of them exist.



There is not a single Socialist, Liberal, Progressive or even Democrat to be found here, they reject all labels always being conveniently something else. .

I'm happy to define my politics as socialist.

 

[kbate]

I'm not taking offense. I'm describing a trend...

You describe many trends. We should be marrying our dogs to our children by now if you had ever been correct. I did marry my toaster last week, but then junked it when the second slot wouldn't heat up.

Political labels aren't a trend, they're historic. They've been in and out for 2000 years, ever since the Judean People's Front went after the People's Front of Judea.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Polygamy is coming.

The Socialists have insured it and are even now getting comfortable with the idea.



You wouldn't oppose it would you?

 

[kbate]

Polygamy is coming.

The Socialists have insured it and are even now getting comfortable with the idea.

You wouldn't oppose it would you?

I would neither support or oppose it. I do not care about polygamy at all.

I cannot think of a scientific or cultural reason we shouldn't allow a man to marry multiple partners. (or a woman to take multiple partners as well, although this has little historic precedent)

Do you have an objective reason for your opposition to the institution? Are you basing your opposition on 'tradition'? Whose tradition?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Well, I've asked you this question before and I remember your answer...



Now you're just being coy. If you will not oppose it, then you are in fact supporting it while pretending that it is of no concern to you. What was it I was saying? That by redefinition, you cannot stop the redefinition train. What was said of my position? That I was just a conservative homophobe. Again, the Liberal-Socialist shortcut to thinking.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

“If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on successfully.”

 

[Sean]

“If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on successfully.”

"A Republican by any other name would smell as dumb."

 

[kbate]

Well, I've asked you this question before and I remember your answer...



Now you're just being coy. If you will not oppose it, then you are in fact supporting it while pretending that it is of no concern to you. What was it I was saying? That by redefinition, you cannot stop the redefinition train. What was said of my position? That I was just a conservative homophobe. Again, the Liberal-Socialist shortcut to thinking.

No, lack of opposition is not active support. That is overly simplistic thinking unworthy of further comment.

I do not care if a man marries three women, three men, three anyone. I do not think government or law has any business at all in the marriage business. Strange that you (as the anti-government type) think government's job is to regulate human interaction, while calling me socialist (but never as an insult or label to show your superiority) for thinking that government shouldn't be involved.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I like the way you threw in an adjective of your own to change what I said to a meaning more to your liking. So now you're making it about active support the lack of active meaning of course that lack of opposition cannot mean "support." If you have no opposition, then that is support. Oppose has support as its antonym.

If you have no water on you, then you are dry.

Now, if you don't have any interest in men, you don't have to be a lesbian, you might be a nun.

 

[kbate]

I like the way you threw in an adjective of your own to change what I said to a meaning more to your liking. So now you're making it about active support the lack of active meaning of course that lack of opposition cannot mean "support." If you have no opposition, then that is support. Oppose has support as its antonym.

If you have no water on you, then you are dry.

Now, if you don't have any interest in men, you don't have to be a lesbian, you might be a nun.

Why do you support ISIL? I haven't seen you denouncing them, therefore you can only support them.

 

[kbate]

I like the way you threw in an adjective of your own to change what I said to a meaning more to your liking. So now you're making it about active support the lack of active meaning of course that lack of opposition cannot mean "support." If you have no opposition, then that is support. Oppose has support as its antonym.

If you have no water on you, then you are dry.

Now, if you don't have any interest in men, you don't have to be a lesbian, you might be a nun.

You do not have to be one or the other. Indifferent is also a position. Binary thinking is for teaching cats to poop in a box, dogs to poop outside, and kids to poop in the toilet.

If you have no interest in men, you may also be asexual, a heterosexual male, a partnered gay male, a lesbian, a child, a dog, a cat, or just someone who has had enough of men.

The world has many colours; so does thought, so does the dictionary.

Why do you insist on only two states of being?

Tell me exactly, how refusing to oppose something, is the same as supporting it. If I say nothing at all about a topic, how am I supporting polygamy by saying nothing? I must take your side or I am on the other? I cannot have no side and say nothing? You can only be A or B, even though C obviously exists? Left is the opposite of Right, so there are no such words as Centre, Middle or Balance?