Mixed on that one myself... Corner case but worth discussing.
Republicans have nuts I will say that
- Thread starter HighStickHarry
- Start date
Other polls say otherwise per Google. It's irrelevant anyway. I know who you think "us" is and that's fine.
It's irrelevant because? You assert something demonstrably false with no credible counter and it's an irrelevant point...
Conservatives are more intellectually grounded? Perhaps not so much.....
Few items,
First, citing a single example, then extrapolating that out as a rebuttal to a statement demonstrates you are lazy with your usage of statistics and defunct in your understanding of them.
Second, I can't find any polls that back up what squeak stated. I used google.
Back to you again, it's irrelevant bc the supreme court has ruled. The debate itself is irrelevant, or at least he finds jousting with you about it on the interwebs to be something not worth his time, demonstrating his view of irrelevance on the matter. I don't blame him with your casual application of "statistics" and your Kim Davis, apples to oranges, example.
Now, circling back to this...
I never brought a "religious" supset into the conversation, that was you.
I should have spoken more clearly about what I meant in my original statement: the conservatives and libertarians that I listen to/are exposed to, are generally better able to articulate the grounding for their thinking. Further, that grounding, again generally speaking, isn't about how something or someone makes them "feel," which seems to be the predominant trait of the herd espousing leftist positions. I'll gladly listen to a nuanced and articulate leftist that can drill down into numbers or principles that guide their leftist thinking, that's a foundation from which we can both argue/debate, and ultimately agree or disagree. That foundational basis of taking/defending/pushing a position is something I can respect, even if I ultimately disagree.
With your stealthily coupling of my initial statement with the subset you introduced of "religious" people within the conservative party, I question your ability to either 1. stay on the task/topic at hand or 2. Not intentionally misrepresent that which someone is speaking about. To quote Andy Dufresne "How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?"
I'll end with a question:
If someone has the conviction of believing that Jesus is their Lord and savior, that he died on the cross, and that their acceptance of His sacrifice, repentance, and attempt to live as He instructed (to the best of their ability and understanding), is a basis for truthfully not baking a cake for a couple celebrating a lifestyle choice that they do not celebrate, are you pigeon-holing that individual into the "not intellectually grounded" category?
Because that is what I interpret from what you are communicating. How can you defend your position simply because you do not share that same conviction? And is your characterization and labeling of that cake-baker not a reason for me to think that you are a bigot?
Precisely 1 assertion of a statistical fact was made in this thread by me and by your own admission it is true. Presuming you are calling me out for a the logical fallacy of faulty generalization - if so then you need to have your sarcasm meter looked at - "Not so much" - more a statement of irony than a categorical assertion of a fact from a single anecdote. Dr. Luebke would have my ass if I tried to create a categorical fact from a single anecdote.
I have been very clear that I am talking about a subset, albeit a substantial subset, of the conservative electorate in the US when I talk about the lack of "intellectual grounding". It is my opinion that your opinion that conservatives are more intellectually grounded is wrong when you consider the body of conservatives including those who make judgements based on appeal to a moral authority. If you had said "libertarians tend to be more intellectually grounded" I would have likely agreed with you. Inserting them now into the dialog changes things - so there you go. You accuse me of sneakily working something in when I was very clear that I was talking about a specific subset then you expand your definition and expect that to just sneak right by? Intellectually grounded? Not so much.Is it deliberate that you are trying to change your OP three pages in?
Finally, on the whole Oregon baker issue I have a nuanced opinion. Will get to that in a separate response as it takes a bit more explanation than I am have the energy for tonight after a long game of charades...
I don't know about "intellectual grounding" but I can tell you that the general liberal mindset is ridiculous.
The utopia of everyone is equal and all people should share everything equally sounds good when you say it or read it but it is a totally unattainable pipe dream.
Human beings are not equal, some are smarter, some are more talented, some are nice, some are evil, some are ambitious, some are lazy.
Libs like to throw religious intolerance as being the conservative norm but that is like saying communists are the liberal norm. Both groups can be loud and get a lot of attention but most of us do not fall into those categories.
Wide open capitalism built the greatest country in history in just one century yet for some reason libs want "democratic socialism" what ever the hell that means.
It's failed everywhere it's been implemented and it's failing in Europe right now.
Limited government, self reliance and personal responsibility that's what a conservative believes. Many do have strong religious believes but only a small but loud group want to force those on others. But liberals will always continue to paint with a broad brush.
The utopia of everyone is equal and all people should share everything equally sounds good when you say it or read it but it is a totally unattainable pipe dream.
Human beings are not equal, some are smarter, some are more talented, some are nice, some are evil, some are ambitious, some are lazy.
Libs like to throw religious intolerance as being the conservative norm but that is like saying communists are the liberal norm. Both groups can be loud and get a lot of attention but most of us do not fall into those categories.
Wide open capitalism built the greatest country in history in just one century yet for some reason libs want "democratic socialism" what ever the hell that means.
It's failed everywhere it's been implemented and it's failing in Europe right now.
Limited government, self reliance and personal responsibility that's what a conservative believes. Many do have strong religious believes but only a small but loud group want to force those on others. But liberals will always continue to paint with a broad brush.
Last edited:
I would say that statement as phrased is a mild pigeonhole. It's still kind of defensible.
It was the first thing that popped up when I googled "percent in favor of gay marriage." I can't post a screen shot from my mobile. It was a dated poll. I agree over half are at least somewhat in favor or don't think it should be illegal. Im guessing the change was because people had opinions on gay marriage, not convictions, much like Obama and Hillary.
One other thing, if liberals were more intellectually grounded same-sex marriage would have been legal a long time ago. Hell, I've worked for three organizations the past 17 years. All had benefits for domestic partners. Of course it takes the gov't forever to come around. Part of the problem is that leaders like Barack have opinions that will benefit them politically, and his supporters are sheep.
I saw a recent poll where a majority were in favor of it. But when they asked "do you support the redefinition of the word marriage" a majority opposed it.
I will say among young people a clear majority support it, regardless of how the question is phrased.
??? 10 years ago republicans were cputting the issue on ballot measures to drive voters to the polls. How exactly would being intellectually grounded have changed that sooner?
I'm just saying that if it was about what's just and not about votes, then your party's leaders would have been pushing this long ago.
Specifically on the Sweetcakes by Melissa issue here in Oregon:
I don't believe the state can compel someone to take a commission. Meaning if Mellissa had decided not to accept the commission, for whatever reason she had, I would have supported her and Aaron on that decision. Unfortunately that is not what occurred. Instead Melissa accepted the commission, took payment, and scheduled the tasting and delivery of the order. Only subsequent to that acceptance of the order, days after entering into a contract, did Aaron come to know that the cake would have two brides and decided to try and cancel the contract. That Aaron further quoted Leviticus as his justification for cancelling the contract, that he posted the couples personal information including phone numbers and address to the public, that he went on a variety of media decrying an "antiChristian Crusade by the militant homosexual community", only exacerbated the situation. Aaron conveniently left out the bit about the $250 deposit, the fact that this couple was a prior customer of theirs.
My position is as follows: if you sell cupcakes over the counter you need to serve the public without restriction. If you make custom cakes in the back of your shop and you want to only make those for select clientele that is your business. If you decide that you want to publicly state your reasoning then be prepared for a backlash from the community if your position isn't main stream or popular - the cost of doing business on your own terms. If you enter into a contract to deliver a cake, then you deliver the damned cake.
Last edited:
Overcoming cultural biases takes time. No one claims perfection for any group in this thread - quite far from it actually...
If we want to get very precise I would say the social liberal capitalist is the smartest of the whole lot... but it is a very small segment - I can only think of one of those in these parts...
I think this is a solid, grounded position. Kudos. We're brothers from a different mother.
Indeed. Pinned me with my own logical structure on the conservative-libertarian linkage I created. We both moved the goal posts.
On the subject of your subset, how do you, the observer, know the level of conviction of someone professing a faith for a reason for seeing the world a certain way?
You call it a "substantial" part of the conservative side, and leverage that faith (or belief) as a genreal reason for a lack of intellectual grounding. Just so I'm clear on what you're saying, is my interpretation of what you've said accurate?
You are correct in interpreting me to have said that an appeal to a moral authority (religious tradition, cult leader, holy book, etc) is not intellectually grounded.
I would have no issue with saying religious conservatives are more "spiritually grounded" than another demographic.
Last edited:
