What does the American Conservative stand for anymore?

[Hygro]

It's spiritual damage. You're right that the economy played a significant role in causing it, but an ideology like gay pride ensures that the wound can't heal.

Okay say these places attract the investment or government spending needed to make a complete economic recovery. How does "spiritual damage" prevent that recovery from taking place?

I'm sorry, but your arguments just aren't making much sense to me.

That sounds like cognitive dissonance. What I've written here is actually clear. Reread it, reread Farm Boy's posts. "I don't want to live in your universe" well yours involves mentally sexualizing kids while assuming I'm turning a blind eye (I presume?) while in mine all the experienced people are like "we know the real signs of sexy things and this is missing them all". In both of our universes that youtube clip of the kid on drag already exists. If you're hiding time travel in your universe I'll join yours. Alas.... Fortunately, in "my universe" you can grow out of your neurosis by having actual sexual experience like a healthy person would. Win-win.

But I wasn't referring to this thread. This has been going on for ever. Not everything is an "argument". You have few defenders here, I'm one of them. Not in this thread as you started with some bad stuff. You're trying to point out progressivist colonization of traditional communities and I'd love to highlight your point there but:
a) you'll leave me hanging if I do and it's not my horse in the race so why bother.
b) you're saying some actually bad things that need more attention.

 

[Peuri]

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Those 2 commandments are in conflict with the law of Moses, the Sabbath commandment is just one, divorce law is another. The adultery example shows the difference too, Moses would have stoned the adulterer and Jesus would not.

Yes, I get it. You subscribe to a pauline interpretation of Jesus' position to Mosaic law. Like modern (all? I'm sure there is some weird sect of Christians that keep parts of the Law) Christians do. But my point was that it can't be said without question what Jesus intended, because what we have left of what the writers of the New Testament said he said can be used to defend two opposing interpretations of Jesus' position to Mosaic law. Personally I think it is more logical to suppose that Jesus' own position was more closer to Peter's and James' (Jesus' brother, fellow leader of the Jerusalem faction) interpretation, because, well, they knew him. Paul didn't.

Those two quotes can be used to argue the opposite what you are saying, that is that what Jesus really meant was that he is not abolishing the Law, but indeed he is intesifying it. In this interpretation not only is adultery punishable according to the Law, but even thinking about it is!

 

[Hygro]

My God is an awesome God. Suck it "pride is spiritual damage". Suck it, telling community there's no community while demanding a self-serving new,-but-pretend-it's-old, "community".

Rainbow emerges during Pulse remembrance ceremony


Link to video.

 

[Hrothbern]

Those two quotes can be used to argue the opposite what you are saying, that is that what Jesus really meant was that he is not abolishing the Law, but indeed he is intesifying it. In this interpretation not only is adultery punishable according to the Law, but even thinking about it is!

"Fulfill"
Is that: the intention behind ?, or bringing to the point ?, or ..... a diplomatic bending towards ?
2,000 years discussion behind us on that

I do not believe that Jesus was a diplomatic person.
I do not believe he had a diplomatic message.
And he was not concerned about the tribe, like Moses, who needed strict obedience rules for the tribe.
It was for Jesus about "you" and God... and how that should take precedence in "how" you should relate to others.


Mosaic Law is more about societal "being",
Jesus more about human "being"

Mosaic Law your supposed role to God and tribe.
This is much easier to comply to.

Jesus provoking into your being... no easy "by the book" escape possible... from yourself or from God.
And love (and forgiveness) as consequence the only escape from that conflict-tension really left over to pursue.

 

[Mouthwash]

Okay say these places attract the investment or government spending needed to make a complete economic recovery. How does "spiritual damage" prevent that recovery from taking place?

I'm unsure how that's pertinent to this discussion.

That sounds like cognitive dissonance. What I've written here is actually clear. Reread it, reread Farm Boy's posts. "I don't want to live in your universe" well yours involves mentally sexualizing kids

I'm not mentally sexualizing anything. I'm pointing out an objectively sexualized child, and the fact that you can't see it is a sign of how deeply morals have been trashed.

Let me guess, child beauty pageants also just harmless fun?

My God is an awesome God.

The real God is a righteous God.

Rainbow emerges during Pulse remembrance ceremony


Link to video.

Ah, the rainbow: the reminder that humanity was once nearly destroyed for its sins.

 

[El_Machinae]

Actually, that's just another lie about God told by people who believe in the abrahamic god.

 

[EnglishEdward]

what Jesus really meant was that he is not abolishing the Law, but indeed he is intesifying it. In this interpretation not only is adultery punishable according to the Law, but even thinking about it is!

How can one punish someone else for adultery without oneself thinking about it?

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm not mentally sexualizing anything. I'm pointing out an objectively sexualized child, and the fact that you can't see it is a sign of how deeply morals have been trashed.

You're whiffing the definition of objective there. You've linked the video for inspection, we've inspected it. Analysis offered, you disagree but offer no specific points of contention from the video that you would hold out as sexualized. I mean, if you want hoop skirts, at least let me know that's what you're looking for so we can debate it. In the vacuum lack of feedback to attempt to debate in a quest for objectivity I'm coming up, mostly, with a presumed relative Lolita fetish combined with confusing attraction for behavior. It'd be nice to at least address the confusion aspect, but hey, no pressure if you don't want to.

Let's try priming the pump some, since you offered an inkling with child beauty pageants. I have problems with those, sometimes. There are styles of makeup(I don't know terms, but can speak roughly to resultant impact) that can semi-effectively minimize pre-pubescent childish features and present the appearance of an older stage of physiological development. I'm not particularly a fan, kids should be presented roughly as kids. If the world treats people how they look, and 12 year olds struggle with initial stages of sexualization, I don't see a particularly compelling or healthy reason to kickstart the process artificially 3, 4, or more years earlier. There are poses that can be sexual, a bikini contest in high heels for 9 year olds rubs be significantly wrong on the creep factor upon first consideration. A contest of social graces with 9 year olds? Even ones wearing dresses/fancy clothes? Not really my thing, but probably less sexually tangential than 9 year olds competing in some varieties of sport like gymnastics, and gymnastics aren't a sexual activity.

Actually, that's just another lie about God told by people who believe in the abrahamic god.

A moral lesson on hubris of increasing importance by the year. I wouldn't toss that one out so quickly.

 

[El_Machinae]

How can one punish someone else for adultery without oneself thinking about it?

God imagines everything and doesn't have the same moral laws his Creations do. It's only later Christians that insisted that Jesus himself was without sin, but there's no reason to believe their ability to judge such things.

 

[Patine]

Of course, you and a few others here (you most of all) speak of a mythical, delusional, fairy-tale world where there was a universal consensus and agreement on what "religion" and "tradition" MEANT, and how they were to be applied, and what rules, tenor, and ideology came from them, and the equally mythical, delusional, and fairy-tale view that these times were "better," "more functional," "more stable," and "more prosperous," rather than instead putting down socio-political dissent in much more brutal, barbaric, savage, and downright Medieval ways, or settling such disagreements with bloody, vicious, vitriolic wars far more often (or completely to the exclusion of) elections or social activist movements. I suggest re-studying your history, sociology, and anthropology right from Grade 1 again.

I want to hear @Mouthwash's response to this post. I want to hear when this "consensus" of "tradition" and "religion" and this "halcyon, better time" really existed, and how it's not just a fairly-tale. His whole narrative and argument falls apart unless he can explain this one point coherently.

 

[Hygro]

I'm not mentally sexualizing anything. I'm pointing out an objectively sexualized child, and the fact that you can't see it is a sign of how deeply morals have been trashed.

Let me guess, child beauty pageants also just harmless fun?

No dude, you’re not presenting anything objective but your own internal reaction. Farm Boy’s analysis of the video is spot on. Again, trust the people with skin in the sex game. Aren’t you telling others to trust more? Aren’t you telling others to listen to those with tangible experience? Here’s your chance to take your own advice.

 

[Hygro]

I'm unsure how that's pertinent to this discussion.

It IS the conversation. What does the modern conservative believe? You agree the damage began economically and then assert those wounds were salted spiritually. Implicit in my question is that there is recovery to be had ending the everlasting and ongoing economic wounds. I am now asking you what spiritual harm and wounds will be left over, what those wounds do and what they look like.

 

[Patine]

It IS the conversation. What does the modern conservative believe? You agree the damage began economically and then assert those wounds were salted spiritually. Implicit in my question is that there is recovery to be had ending the everlasting and ongoing economic wounds. I am now asking you what spiritual harm and wounds will be left over, what those wounds do and what they look like.

It's obvious @Mouthwash believes what most modern social conservatives indeed have shown, empirically, to all believe - quote "tradition" and "religion" that are cherry-picked from the heterogenous smorgasbord that existed historically, even revising, remixing, and repackaging them into forms that were never actually ever practiced, as such, and a "halcyon, better, golden age" that never existed, and, when this line prevents them from doing what they want, a hypocritical, two-faced contrivance or a "do as I say, not as I do" spiel. That's it all comes to, really.

 

[Traitorfish]

It is brought into existence by building communities not dependent upon the structures enforcing the liberal order (like corporations, public schools, or the Internet). It's not quite secession, but now that the judicial system has fallen there's not much else to do beyond passive resistance.

Breaking the structures is a matter for the distant future, and I want no part of it. My goal is to preserve something out of this collapse.

Who is doing this building? With what resources? With what motivation? What you're describing is a sort of conservative version of the failed utopian socialism of the nineteenth century. Perhaps even less plausible, in that it doesn't proceed in any clear way from the practices and visible aspirations of the conservative movement: utopian socialism, at least, was the logical-if-you-squint conclusion of the existing co-operative movement; what in contemporary American conservatism points towards the sort of project you describe?

 

[Patine]

Who is doing this building? With what resources? With what motivation? What you're describing is a sort of conservative version of the failed utopian socialism of the nineteenth century. Perhaps even less plausible, in that it doesn't proceed in any clear way from the practices and visible aspirations of the conservative movement: utopian socialism, at least, was the logical-if-you-squint conclusion of the existing co-operative movement; what in contemporary American conservatism points towards the sort of project you describe?

Unless, he's saying set a bunch more Amish-, Hutterite, and Kibbutzim Haredi-type settlements and just hole them in and isolate themselves even more.

 

[Cutlass]

Question from a non-understanding foreigner.

How libertarian is the traditional US culture ?
And is conservatism as well a kind of protecting of the libertarian roots ?
the trapper, the freebooter, the farmer settler in nowhere, the golddigger, etc

This is a pretty complicated question.

To a large degree 'self-reliance' is part of the American national character. And this is true to a greater extent the further you go into the rural areas, and generally the further west you go. The more you are on the 'frontier', the more powerful that is as a cultural touchstone. But this isn't the same as 'libertarian'. It is an opposition to welfare, as the belief that the undeserving shouldn't be helped. As if they deserved help, they would help themselves. Therefore anyone who doesn't help themselves isn't 'deserving'.

Of course, those rural people are dependent on public assistance, of one form or another, at greater rates than other Americans. But don't let a good narrative stop you from believing what you want.

As to 'libertarian', that implies not just a 'don't help others', but also a 'leave others alone', and a 'don't harm others'. And America isn't very libertarian in those senses. There are many people who believe government should 'leave me, and people like me alone', but don't make the next step from there where they will leave people who are not like them alone. Both through private actions, and what they want government to do, they want to do harm to others. And think themselves entirely justified in doing so. And so long as that means that they, and those like them are left alone, they think that that is 'libertarian'.

 

[Patine]

This is a pretty complicated question.

To a large degree 'self-reliance' is part of the American national character. And this is true to a greater extent the further you go into the rural areas, and generally the further west you go. The more you are on the 'frontier', the more powerful that is as a cultural touchstone. But this isn't the same as 'libertarian'. It is an opposition to welfare, as the belief that the undeserving shouldn't be helped. As if they deserved help, they would help themselves. Therefore anyone who doesn't help themselves isn't 'deserving'.

Of course, those rural people are dependent on public assistance, of one form or another, at greater rates than other Americans. But don't let a good narrative stop you from believing what you want.

As to 'libertarian', that implies not just a 'don't help others', but also a 'leave others alone', and a 'don't harm others'. And America isn't very libertarian in those senses. There are many people who believe government should 'leave me, and people like me alone', but don't make the next step from there where they will leave people who are not like them alone. Both through private actions, and what they want government to do, they want to do harm to others. And think themselves entirely justified in doing so. And so long as that means that they, and those like them are left alone, they think that that is 'libertarian'.

"Your rights end where my rights begin." Makes everyone's "rights" pretty flimsy and arbitrary at the end of the day. One's own personal rights only have any validity, and any security, if you're willing to stand up for the rights of those whose enactment of them you personally disagree with.

 

[Mouthwash]

In the vacuum lack of feedback to attempt to debate in a quest for objectivity I'm coming up, mostly, with a presumed relative Lolita fetish combined with confusing attraction for behavior. It'd be nice to at least address the confusion aspect, but hey, no pressure if you don't want to.

Being sexualized =/= something you want to bone.

Let's try priming the pump some, since you offered an inkling with child beauty pageants. I have problems with those, sometimes. There are styles of makeup(I don't know terms, but can speak roughly to resultant impact) that can semi-effectively minimize pre-pubescent childish features and present the appearance of an older stage of physiological development. I'm not particularly a fan, kids should be presented roughly as kids. If the world treats people how they look, and 12 year olds struggle with initial stages of sexualization, I don't see a particularly compelling or healthy reason to kickstart the process artificially 3, 4, or more years earlier. There are poses that can be sexual, a bikini contest in high heels for 9 year olds rubs be significantly wrong on the creep factor upon first consideration. A contest of social graces with 9 year olds? Even ones wearing dresses/fancy clothes? Not really my thing, but probably less sexually tangential than 9 year olds competing in some varieties of sport like gymnastics, and gymnastics aren't a sexual activity.

Wearing makeup is going too far for preteens. 'Strutting your stuff' around (as can clearly be seen in the video - an exaggerated girly walk) is definitely wrong, and so is the bare midriff.

No dude, you’re not presenting anything objective but your own internal reaction. Farm Boy’s analysis of the video is spot on. Again, trust the people with skin in the sex game. Aren’t you telling others to trust more? Aren’t you telling others to listen to those with tangible experience? Here’s your chance to take your own advice.

I don't understand what special insight not being a virgin gives you about dancing children. Anyway, Desmond isn't the worst example. Here's one from the pride parade a few years ago (NSFW).

It IS the conversation. What does the modern conservative believe? You agree the damage began economically and then assert those wounds were salted spiritually. Implicit in my question is that there is recovery to be had ending the everlasting and ongoing economic wounds. I am now asking you what spiritual harm and wounds will be left over, what those wounds do and what they look like.

No, the economic damage (by which I mean liberal market policies, not just being laid off or poor) caused the spiritual injury. We have to undermine capitalism in order to eventuate healing, but people who think that the new social order is good are making things worse.

Who is doing this building? With what resources? With what motivation? What you're describing is a sort of conservative version of the failed utopian socialism of the nineteenth century. Perhaps even less plausible, in that it doesn't proceed in any clear way from the practices and visible aspirations of the conservative movement: utopian socialism, at least, was the logical-if-you-squint conclusion of the existing co-operative movement; what in contemporary American conservatism points towards the sort of project you describe?

I assume what you're thinking of are the practices and visible aspirations of the Republican party, which in 2019 has no conservative characteristic besides wanting a bit less internationalism than the liberal consensus.

Unless, he's saying set a bunch more Amish-, Hutterite, and Kibbutzim Haredi-type settlements and just hole them in and isolate themselves even more.

I want those communities to start reaching out instead. It's the millions who still subscribe to something like virtuous living - Evangelicals, Catholics who actually take their faith seriously, and Mormons - who need to take action to protect themselves, muy pronto.

 

[MaryKB]

Wearing makeup is going too far for preteens. 'Strutting your stuff' around (as can clearly be seen in the video - an exaggerated girly walk) is definitely wrong, and so is the bare midriff.

You have to start practicing with makeup when you're younger ... do you think you just wake up one day and know how to do it perfectly? When you start out, you look almost like some kind of circus clown, but again that's what practice is for. Hopefully you have someone to teach you that makeup's about trying to look natural and like "you're not wearing any", but at first you just feel so grown up. I started around ten years old, and I didn't have anyone who would teach me, so I had to learn on my own.

Your other comments are frankly disgusting. She's allowed to walk and dress however she wants, and doesn't need your approval.

I don't understand what special insight not being a virgin gives you about dancing children. Anyway, Desmond isn't the worst example. Here's one from the pride parade a few years ago (NSFW).

You do realize you linked to a satire website??

 

[Patine]

Being sexualized =/= something you want to bone.



Wearing makeup is going too far for preteens. 'Strutting your stuff' around (as can clearly be seen in the video - an exaggerated girly walk) is definitely wrong, and so is the bare midriff.



I don't understand what special insight not being a virgin gives you about dancing children. Anyway, Desmond isn't the worst example. Here's one from the pride parade a few years ago (NSFW).



No, the economic damage (by which I mean liberal market policies, not just being laid off or poor) caused the spiritual injury. We have to undermine capitalism in order to eventuate healing, but people who think that the new social order is good are making things worse.



I assume what you're thinking of are the practices and visible aspirations of the Republican party, which in 2019 has no conservative characteristic besides wanting a bit less internationalism than the liberal consensus.



I want those communities to start reaching out instead. It's the millions who still subscribe to something like virtuous living - Evangelicals, Catholics who actually take their faith seriously, and Mormons - who need to take action to protect themselves, muy pronto.

As a Christian, who follows the actual MINISTRY OF CHRIST as a guiding spiritual path, I find your viewpoint of religion, society, "tradition," and a perceived RIGHT to force your abomination on others, defying the one, single, inalienable right given by God of His own Providence - Free Will regarding salvation - and embracing as a central core ideal of your twisted beliefs the judgementalism, self-righteousness, vindication, unforgivingness, and willingness to violence that Christ, himself, warned against to not only be repugnant, but put you and those who share your beliefs in the camp of the target demographic to come, attend, and serve the Anti-Christ and False Prophet when they may arrive. Your beliefs are a warped, vile, twisted mockery and affront of all that ANY GOOD Christian holds dear.