Post by: jeepmor on September 06, 2007, 04:50:55 PM
But reading on here, I see those leanings too, and as much as I get bashed for thinking differently, I still respect all your opinions and value them greatly. They change my perspective for the better. Although, some of you are pretty self righteous in your arguements, and you pose good damn arguements to boot. I just don't have the energy to compete. I did once, but now, as I get older, I don't really give a hoot as long as I can pursue my interests, the rest of you can take it or leave it. Albeit, I do agree with the conservative angle more than the liberal angle, notably on the 2nd Amendment and all the freedoms the liberals neglect to understand that it protects. And the fact that I'm really into guns right now because it is just another excuse to get outside and be isolated from the morons. I do live in Portland, OR btw, so liberal over the top attitudes are the norm. Maybe its just my environment.
However, is it just me, or do some people just think they have all the answers in "cocktail discussion mode."
meh, give me a campfire, a stout rifle and pistol and a trail that none of your wimpy off the showroom floor 4x4s can even hope making it up and I'm a happy camper. Because I'll be up there. If your rig can make, I understand, if not, hike up and I'll toss some extra meat on the fire for you for your troubles.
jeepmor
Post by: grampster on September 06, 2007, 04:57:22 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 06, 2007, 05:01:38 PM
The difference between them and me is that I'm right and they're wrong.
I'll vouch for that. Grampster is always right.
Post by: grampster on September 06, 2007, 05:13:26 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 06, 2007, 05:26:37 PM
Does that make things any clearer?
Post by: jeepmor on September 06, 2007, 05:26:53 PM
I respect my grandfather's views (RIP recently) more than anyone else's. Clear as mud fistful, but still, clearer than the liberal mud.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 06, 2007, 06:46:55 PM
I'm curious what you mean by self-righteousness. It's not a trick question, I'm just not sure what strikes you as self-righteous.
I don't think you've been singled out for thinking differently. About the only thing most of us agree on here is the right to keep and bear arms. And we still have disagreements about what that means. If you think anyone here was bashing you, rest assured we all bash one another equally.
Post by: Paddy on September 06, 2007, 08:10:55 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 06, 2007, 09:08:31 PM
Then you didn't hear Alan Colmes, after the debate last night, smugly trying to get Ghouliani to admit that the Brady bill caused a drop in crime, which is a total lie. It was a "want to reach through the TV and whack upside the head" level of smugness.
The overall difference to me is that while conservatives tend to propose solutions based on the fact that the real world is a nasty, gritty, brutish place where there are indeed bad guys who wish to kill you out there, liberals propose utopian solutions based on a reality that never existed and never will. In doing so, they leave us vulnerable to those vicious sorts, and in doing so, have enabled the bloodiest leftist dictators of the past century.
Post by: Bogie on September 06, 2007, 09:10:38 PM
Post by: Antibubba on September 06, 2007, 10:08:11 PM
The Right knows all that Commie stuff is garbage, and that anyone who buys into that will burn in Hell for all eternity--knowing beyond question that their own *expletive deleted*it don't stink at all.
It's a toss up. And I'm sick of both of them.
Post by: jeepmor on September 06, 2007, 11:27:18 PM
Quote
I'm curious what you mean by self-righteousness.
I just know a few liberals that think they have all the answers, but realistically, they're just whining about the current crop in administration at present. I am a person that does entertain the conspiracy theories to the degree that too many facts line up that don't get adequate answers. For example, the blast cut looking steel in some 9/11 photos. I discussed the steel itself and just went and found a picture of an image to discuss. I was then ridiculed for where the image came from and the topic degraded to namecalling on some peoeple's parts from there. When it degraded to name calling, that's when I consider the arguers self righteous.
Quote
The overall difference to me is that while conservatives tend to propose solutions based on the fact that the real world is a nasty, gritty, brutish place where there are indeed bad guys who wish to kill you out there, liberals propose utopian solutions based on a reality that never existed and never will.
Well put, and this is a distinct difference between myself and some of my more liberal friends. They tend to argue in idealistic utopian terms, I tend to argue in realistic terms. This creates some long discussions. I just had one a few night ago with a liberal leaning friend and he seem somehow convinced the entire world operates on a somewhat fair basis, or should, Idealistically anyhow. It doesn't, never has, and this is where it quickly segways to this....
I've had physics related arguements with folks who don't know anything about physics degrade to namecalling all based upon the first law of thermodynamics.I also tend to lack good arguement skills in regards to politics myself and often "step in it" by choosing my words improperly or not doing adequate homework first. But, as all things internet, I tend to think people are a little overboard on forums compared to when you meet them out in the world.
Post by: Nitrogen on September 07, 2007, 12:03:38 AM
It's one thing to say, "The [liberals|conservatives] are wrong because..."
It's another thing to say, "The [liberals|conservatives] ARE ALL STUPID BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE..."
The latter is what we have now. Sometimes the conservatives are right in my eyes. (gun rights, illegal immigration, religious freedom, etc) and sometimes I think the liberals are right (Health care, workers rights, the war in Iraq, etc).
Being wrong doesn't make them stupid.
Post by: LadySmith on September 07, 2007, 01:38:43 AM
Personally, I prefer self-righteous conservatives who basically leave people alone to learn the hard way even though they might give you no pity & several "I told you so's" afterwards. Since I don't mind constructive criticism and don't seek pity, this is ok by me. Liberals tend to want to micromanage your affairs with the attitude that they know what's best for you better than you do. This rubs against my wanting to be left the heck alone.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 07, 2007, 01:58:32 AM
If fistful and Rush and Hannity are any indication, conservatives are waaaaaayyyy more self righteous.
This is great! Wow, I've really gotten under your skin, huh? Yes!
jeepmor, I don't think self-righteous is the term you're looking for. Name-calling doesn't have a lot to do with self-righteousness.
Post by: roo_ster on September 07, 2007, 05:49:13 AM
Quote
I'm curious what you mean by self-righteousness.
I just know a few liberals that think they have all the answers, but realistically, they're just whining about the current crop in administration at present. I am a person that does entertain the conspiracy theories to the degree that too many facts line up that don't get adequate answers. For example, the blast cut looking steel in some 9/11 photos. I discussed the steel itself and just went and found a picture of an image to discuss. I was then ridiculed for where the image came from and the topic degraded to namecalling on some peoeple's parts from there. When it degraded to name calling, that's when I consider the arguers self righteous.
Quote
The overall difference to me is that while conservatives tend to propose solutions based on the fact that the real world is a nasty, gritty, brutish place where there are indeed bad guys who wish to kill you out there, liberals propose utopian solutions based on a reality that never existed and never will.
Well put, and this is a distinct difference between myself and some of my more liberal friends. They tend to argue in idealistic utopian terms, I tend to argue in realistic terms. This creates some long discussions. I just had one a few night ago with a liberal leaning friend and he seem somehow convinced the entire world operates on a somewhat fair basis, or should, Idealistically anyhow. It doesn't, never has, and this is where it quickly segways to this....
I've had physics related arguements with folks who don't know anything about physics degrade to namecalling all based upon the first law of thermodynamics.I also tend to lack good arguement skills in regards to politics myself and often "step in it" by choosing my words improperly or not doing adequate homework first. But, as all things internet, I tend to think people are a little overboard on forums compared to when you meet them out in the world.
"Conservatism is, at best, a partial philosophy of life."
----Jonah Goldberg
I not only agree with JG on the above point, I think it is one of the things that keeps conservatives (in all their flavors) in America from getting utopian in (political) outlook and keeps them more flexible in their (political) alliances.*
I also think the left is much more invested in their ideology as a total philosophy, with the repercussions that entails.
One example of the difference in attitudes would be Christopher Hitchens. Truly, a man of the left over the years and not friendly to tradition, social conservatism, or the like (He wrote a hatchet bio of Mother Teresa and one of the recent god & Christian-despising athiest books, for the love of Pete). Yet, when he strayed off the path of leftist orthodoxy with regard to the war on militant Islam, he was excoriated and effectively excommunicated from the left. He still hates God, religion, pro-lifers, and all...but because of his break with orthodoxy on one topic, he is no longer welcome in lefty circles.
One of the reasons for the growth of conservative philosophy and action in the last few decades is because the left has been active on so many fronts. Even if you do not think that some topics ought to be politicized, conservatives have had to organize and develop counter-arguments for the damnedest of things folks would not have considered political, just to keep living life without some lefty social-engineer bending you over and giving it to you up the poop chute.
It is my opinion that total political philosophies and belief in the plastic/perfectibility of human nature are the prerequisites of totalitarian societies, as we have seen since the French Revolution. Political philosophies that are partial and leave room for spheres without political content as well as a belief that human nature is immutable & imperfect are much less likely to lead to mass-murder and agents of the state crawling over the citizenry.
* You see some brittleness, lately, as some of the members of the fusionist conservative movement have gotten more doctrinaire the past few years. This is most apparent on (but not confined to) the libertarian side of the tent, as libertarians have drifted into utopian territory.
Post by: HankB on September 07, 2007, 07:53:13 AM
Liberals appear to be more likely to say things like "The time for debate is OVER" or attempt to have "someone" take punitive action against those they disagree with - they often prefer to silence the opposition, rather than meet it with a reasoned response.
And . . . they're less likely to take a "live and let live" attitude . . . on more issues, they're more likely to want to impose THEIR ideas on you; unlike conservatives whose idea of "rights" involve basically the right to live your life without hinderance so long as you don't harm others, liberals think nothing of imposing obligations on you, whether you're willing or not.
That, to me, does much to define "self-rightous."
Post by: K Frame on September 07, 2007, 07:54:51 AM
Post by: Ben on September 07, 2007, 08:29:26 AM
Post by: JonnyB on September 07, 2007, 09:40:59 AM
Assuming we're not considering the extreme fringe on either side, it's been my observation that conservatives are more willing to engage in a reasonable debate about the issue of the day, be it gun control, nationalized health care, global warming, or whatever. (Note that I didn't mention abortion, evolution, or drug laws.)
Liberals appear to be more likely to say things like "The time for debate is OVER" or attempt to have "someone" take punitive action against those they disagree with - they often prefer to silence the opposition, rather than meet it with a reasoned response.
And . . . they're less likely to take a "live and let live" attitude . . . on more issues, they're more likely to want to impose THEIR ideas on you; unlike conservatives whose idea of "rights" involve basically the right to live your life without hinderance so long as you don't harm others, liberals think nothing of imposing obligations on you, whether you're willing or not.
That, to me, does much to define "self-rightous."
Liberals appear to be more likely to say things like "The time for debate is OVER" or attempt to have "someone" take punitive action against those they disagree with - they often prefer to silence the opposition, rather than meet it with a reasoned response.
And . . . they're less likely to take a "live and let live" attitude . . . on more issues, they're more likely to want to impose THEIR ideas on you; unlike conservatives whose idea of "rights" involve basically the right to live your life without hinderance so long as you don't harm others, liberals think nothing of imposing obligations on you, whether you're willing or not.
That, to me, does much to define "self-rightous."
Having watched portions of the handgun carry bill discussion in the Minnesota Senate in 2003, I have to agree. It was amazing to hear some of the (so-called) arguments against people carrying guns from the left. The supporters, nearly all Republicans, were exceedingly logical and calm while the opponents were (in a couple cases) sobbing about how our children would be gunned down by gun-toting devils.
The facts have spoken loudly in nearly every case they argue (and, of course, don't support their argument) but they plow on, relying on emotion and utopian thinking to carry them forward.
And besides, they know what's best for us. *That* typifies self-righteous thinking for me.
jb
Post by: jnojr on September 07, 2007, 10:53:29 AM
When someone else makes an argument that my freedom can be restricted, that they might know better than I how I should live my life, that I owe them or someone else a living, yes, I might become "self righteous" in my denials of their claims. Of course, the label of "self righteousness" in such situations is applied in an attempt to undermine me, personally, since they cannot undermine the basic rightness of my position.
I'm perfectly willing to consider another viewpoint in an argument where another viewpoint has some legitimacy, or some possibility of being correct. But only a fool would lend the slightest credence to a claim that 2+2 really equals 5, because it just isn't fair that it should equal 4.
Post by: wooderson on September 07, 2007, 11:46:00 AM
Yes, conservatives are equally as self-righteous as liberals.
Post by: Tallpine on September 07, 2007, 12:33:09 PM
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 07, 2007, 12:48:41 PM
Liberals tend to react to events by wanting to pass new laws, whereas I would like to repeal laws that don't work. The prohibition on concealed carry in Wisconsin, for example, does not work.
Self-righteousness, though, is a personality trait, not a political ideology.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 07, 2007, 12:58:27 PM
How many times do we see 'Democrat' get equated with Leninist, gun control with Stalin, affirmative action with "reverse racism," etc. etc. etc.?
Yes, conservatives are equally as self-righteous as liberals.
Yes, conservatives are equally as self-righteous as liberals.
How do those things relate to self-righteousness?
Post by: RevDisk on September 07, 2007, 06:30:00 PM
Absolutely.
Post by: stevelyn on September 07, 2007, 07:43:27 PM
If fistful and Rush and Hannity are any indication, conservatives are waaaaaayyyy more self righteous.
Riley, you beat me to it.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 07, 2007, 07:47:09 PM
Post by: Tuco on September 09, 2007, 07:04:30 AM
Those who bother to draw attention to their superiority are generally those who can be quickly labeled as "liberal" or "conservative".
Also, those who bandy around terms "liberal" or "conservative" are generally not doing so as a term of endearment, thus placing themselves in "superiority".
We can speak in general terms, as the original question is posed, and my answer is "Yes"
And, regrettably, as we speak of more specific subclasses within the two original genera, I still say "Yes".
Perhaps a more telling question is "What are some of the characteristics of self righteous people?"
We then can categorize those characteristics as liberal or conservative traits, and after a significant sample, draw conclusions....
Soakers, intellectually bored.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 09, 2007, 09:52:49 AM
They're of course blaming the right for the fact that their pet philosphies have appeal to one of the world's worst murderers, but they shouldn't be surprised, being that every leftist dictator of the 20th century used them as useful idiots in exactly the same way.
What truly disturbs me are the ones who are now outright voicing that OBL is somehow not as bad as Bush, Hallburton, et all.
THAT sort is why we need to be armed. It's only one step beyond that to recruitment to radical extremism.
Post by: BakerMikeRomeo on September 09, 2007, 04:14:02 PM
Quote
Are the conservatives as self righteous as the liberals?
Think you're really righteous? Think you're pure in heart?
Well, I know I'm a million times as humble as thou art!
~WeirdAl