I am not a conservative according to the opinions of people who call themselves conservative. However, the author makes the best argument for conservativism that I have yet heard. Conservatism is not an ideology. Great! Ideology is merely religion with a shorter life time. Marxism and fascism were the great ideologies of the twentieth century, and they both unleashed horrors. Ideology offers the same certainty as religion and can be just as destructive to reason and humanity.

I prefer the scientific method to any ideology. Be prepared to jettison any opinion when there is evidence to show that it is not valid. Question authority. Be kind. Beware of ideologues who wrap up truth in a nice package.

Left wing commentators continually and incorrectly link Conservatism with Religion when in fact, the Catholic church in particular has been at the forefront of social reform and social justice issues around the world for decades. In Australia last century the vast majority of Catholics voted for the Labor Party and even formed their own version, the DLP, when the communist influence began to dominate the Left.

The Left sees themselves as progressive, fair, and seeking equality when these terms are nebulous and often in the eye of the beholder. Gay marriage is apparently 'fair' and any opposition is seen as 'unfair' rather than a simple difference of opinion.

Conservatives spend most of their time pointing out flaws in Leftist thinking and that is all they need to do. Leave things as they are unless there is a need to change it. What's wrong with that?

Oh beware of those wicked conseravtives especially those who fear and respect their Maker. On the other hand Gillard, Emerson, Thomson, the sisterhood, etc etc etc. Even Mark Latham is ashamed to lumped in with them. You shall know them by their fruit by by weasel words of leftist commentators who are usually totally bereft of morals themselves and want their views forced on others.

"...totally bereft of morals..."

Let it be know that runner's latest stock-in-trade phrase is "weasel words". With this tool he will generalise and castigate any person who fails to think as he does.

End of lesson.

>>leftist commentators who are usually totally bereft of morals themselves and want their views forced on others.<<

Apparently runner is a leftist commentator. Who'd have thought? He always sounds so conservative to me.

Cheers,

Tony

Beware of conservatives? Why? When we started the first parliament/Westminster system, there was no labour party, no socialists, no commies or reds under the bed.
Yet we saw quite massive social reform.
The end of slavery, child labour and the emancipation act that conferred the same civil rights, regardless of religious disposition.
All done by so-called conservatives?
Why? Because at their inception as a political force, conservatives were also progressive and opposed tyrannical Kings, rather than roadblocks forever holding firm in the face of essential reform or progress.
They were progressive because they had empathy, something which seems to be self evidently missing from most of today's conservatives, who'se sole role seems to have deteriorated to the point, where they now simply say no to virtually everything, in their often mindless attempt to maintain the status quo? Or, privilege.
Privilege has become far too important and a goal/endpoint.
And arguably, simply holds us back from the real wealth creation and opportunities, and truly egalitarian society, we could create by a return to a much more progressive empathetic posture.
To my mind there's no left or right in policy settings, just an up or down, or good or bad policy!
Who gives a rat's tail pipe, where good policy or ideas come from.
If conservatism has its foundation in religion, then it has to be founded on the foremost guiding principle; "inasmuch as you do unto the least, you do also unto me". Rhrosty.

The sub-title, which is not mine, is somewhat ambiguous. I did not argue that conservatism is not an ideology - for many people it is; I argued that it was not a moral position, based on values which might constitute a political theory. I believe this is a more interesting question, and one which has practical consequence.

By ideology I mean an interpretation of ideals set in concrete. You cannot argue with ideology because opinions on the meaning of values such as fairness, freedom, honour, patriotism etc. become exalted; hence Marxism, Fascism and in our own time doctrinaire Neo-conservatism.

One can be religious without being ideological and vice versa. No one who has read essays by Frank Brennan SJ and other authors in Eureka Street can fail to be struck by the commitment to values of reason, fairness, tolerance and humanity - the same values David f speaks of.

The main difference between ‘religious’ values and these ordinary, everyday values is that the former presuppose an answer to two questions which preoccupy academic moral philosophy: where do our values come from and why are they important? In real life and for most people, both questions are supremely irrelevant.

<<The sub-title, which is not mine, is somewhat ambiguous.>>

So who the hell writes those subtitles?
I always assumed that it was the author himself/herself!
Based on that subtitle, I usually decide whether to proceed reading the article.

To your attention, Graham!
----

Conservatism, as I shall explain below, is a value, a good and moral value. This isn't to say that there aren't any valid competing values which must be taken into consideration as well, but as such, conservatism deserves a front-seat in every ideology.

Imagine a world where the laws of physics were subject to change, where some demi-creator flips the switch when he feels bored and apples start falling upward...

Predictability allows and motivates us to plan, make efforts and learn from our mistakes.

While the laws of physics don't seemingly change often, the social-laws do and much of our energies are lost in the ensuing chaos.

With predictability, people are willing to work hard, live frugally and save for a rainy day. Others who are not as good, seek to jeopardize the former's savings by changing the rules and creating inflation. If they succeed in doing so often enough, then the former and later generations will no longer want to work and save.

Similarly with knowledge and learning: if changes are too quick, then what's the point in study? Just as with wealth, those with no learning seek to jeopardize the learning and experience of their elders and betters.

In computers, a 25-year-old is already considered old and younger siblings become his professors. More time is wasted on keeping-up and re-training. A cat constantly busy chasing its tail will never get up a tree!

Products only few years-old are replaced and sent to the garbage heap and good old trained tradespeople are sent to dig there for scraps. In anticipation of rapid change, new products are designed to last no more than 5 years and independent tradespeople cannot keep up and lose their job for giant corporations.

The result is STRESS. People constantly chasing "progress", then wondering why they're so tired and where time is gone.

Progressives beware: Conservatism is merely social scepticism. Most ideas are crap, most new music is crap, most new architecture is crap and so it follows the latest flavour of the month is probably crap. Just as we must wash vast quantities of rock to get a few gold grains so to should social ideas be washed with vast amounts of Scepticism.
No system survives without change, it is an absolute fundamental, but it will not survive with wild swings. Stability leading to growth, homeostasis is creative destruction, not a cancer. Those who fashion themselves as Progressives, have been the prime support of big failed social experiments of the last century, whether Bolshevism or Fascism. Both were harking back to more primitive days of Rulers as individuals, Conservatism had advanced to Rulers as a Democratic System. I fail to see offerings to date as an improvement.
Apart from politics we have so many Progressive Greens who are genocidal (the latest is to get rid of all but 500m), Progressive energy purity in Europe is leading to deaths by freezing, Progressive high electricity prices in Sydney are scaring working families off washing their children daily. Progressivism has nothing to do with Advancement; Conservatism just advocates not chucking the baby out with the bath water.

For me, the big difference between conservatives and progressives/liberals is that conservatives think that human nature is inherently bad and we need strong guidance and lots of stick - not carrots - to be good people - the idea of original sin goes with that pretty well. But progressives believe that humans are innately good and people just need to be left alone to be good people.

All the latest psych research shows that very young children (18 months to 2 1/2) do seem to be innately 'good'; they are helpful and they will choose to divide any gift they receive equally with another child.

So the conservatives are wrong about that bit; we do tend to be good people naturally and we don't need to have the devil beaten out of us but conservatives are right about the need for firm guidance and some structure and discipline and rules in childhood and in a decent society.

The evidence then shows that as they grow up, children's attitudes toward equality changes in the obvious ways depending on the family and society values that they learn. As their brains develop they are able to easily absorb and understand the values and morals of all the people who are significant in their lives - in homes, schools, on tv the internet etc.

There are some crap values out there in all parts of our society. Isn't this a good time to clarify what our values are and what morals we want our kids to have; the selfishness and greed that drives the market and the desire to be a mining magnate or the generosity and kindness that drives the desire to be a nurse?

Just saying there is going to be a huge shortage of nurses to look after the old people soon.

Atman,

You are right about Catholics and the Labor Party. A Catholic cardinal, Patrick Moran, even stood in the labour cause for the constitutional convention in the nineteenth century. It’s a pity he didn’t win as that would have given us another unique footnote for Australian history.

However, the story of the formation of the DLP is more complex than you suggest. Dr Evatt attacked the Victorian branch of his own party, which led to the Split and thus the DLP. Most ALP MPs who went with the DLP were Catholics but not all, and many non-Catholics were prominent in the DLP.

I recommend books such as the following:
The Split, by Robert Murray;
Demons and Democrats, by Gavan Duffy;
The Great Labor Schism, by Brian Costar, Peter Love and Paul Strangio;
The Democratic Labor Party, by Paul Reynolds;
The Tumult and the Shouting, by Frank McManus;
The Pope’s Battalions, by Ross Fitzgerald.

I find it entertaining that “social justice” is sneered at as some lefty term. In fact it is a Catholic term, coined by Father Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio in 1840, before the advent of Marxism and various other evils.

McCackie I mostly agree but with the proviso that like any grouping there is a lot of variation. I generally vote with the so called "conservatives" but don't agree with the attempts of the extremes of conservatism.

Mollydukes, interesting outlook. I can see some truth but I think that it's all pretty selective. Not getting into the political philosophy aspect of the discussion but rather how nominal groups play out in practice it's my impression that a lot of those who consider themselves progressive are only tolerant in regard to selected alternatives.

Bill Muehlenberg makes a good point in his article currently on the site regarding the Greens different treatment of same sex marriage and pluralistic marriages.

I tend to view the CSA and it's rules as primarily the creations of the left side of politics and having recently changed arrangements for child residency there is a an utter lack of the values coming from that organisation and the rules it uses that mark what a lot of so called progressives believe that they stand for. Payers complaining about the extremes and damage done by CSA are routinely dismissed as bitter whining men by many so called progressives. I recall one comment (which may have been later retracted) by one long term 'progressive' poster along the lines that the suicide rate amongst men following family break ups was a sign of what losers they are.

My impression is that most of us end up being selective about where our compassion and tolerance lies. A conservative is more inclined to give it to someone following traditional values and withhold it from those following alternative values, the progressive more inclined to the reverse. On both sides are many who try to overcome their own prejudices, with varying degrees of success and some extremists who are so confident in their own position that they rarely if ever do the reflection that a more balanced approach requires.

R0bert

@Atman: "In Australia last century the vast majority of Catholics voted for the Labor Party and even formed their own version, the DLP, when the communist influence began to dominate the Left."

Not quite: yes, the ALP was purged of Communist influence with the aid of the Catholics, but it then became necessary to purge the Catholics, who were equally pernicious and destructive of the party's aims. It is a testament to the party's integrity that this was done, despite the enormous rancour it caused, but it kept Labor out of office for nearly twenty years.

And anyone who wants to associate the DLP with the word "progressive" must be using a dictionary all their own.

davidf:
<Marxism and fascism were the great ideologies of the twentieth century, and they both unleashed horrors. Ideology offers the same certainty as religion and can be just as destructive to reason and humanity.>

Marx initiated a doctrine that was precisely designed to counter the pervasive conservative ideology of his day. What Marx had in mind was precisely a cure--emancipation from ideology. He failed and the vast majority today in the West remain ideologically-enslaved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology#Ideology_as_an_instrument_of_social_reproduction

It's long been the hope of the left that via piecemeal reform of conservative institutions, capitalist ideology (false consciousness) might finally be seen through by its benighted minions.
In response the capitalist state has shown itself to be remarkably flexible--which should point-up the fact for its denizens that there is no sincere morality within liberalism--while its alienated masses have shown themselves to be remarkably obtuse.

In the household where I was raised the word conservative, was usually followed with a mouthful of soap suds. My parents were died in the wool socialists. Why? Well because progressive conservatism died centuries before they were born; and replaced with extreme exploitative capitalism.
Capitalist with a born to rule mindset. Capitalists who needed Inflation to wax fat on the efforts and enterprise of others.
Capitalists who created thing like derivites, so they could virtually print/make trillions, without lifting anything heavier than a pen or engaged in truly productive enterprise or fair-minded profit sharing?
Capitalists who never ever had/have enough money but always want(ed) more; or rather, more of the store bought fair weather fiends, and the pseudo power and prestige; they invariably crave like an alcoholic craves booze.
Capitalist who concentrate more and more of our finite resources in fewer and fewer hands, until a tipping point is reached and a wealth destroying Great Depression or GFC is created.
There is a time to be frugal and a time to throw money around like a drunken sailor. The time to be frugal is when the economy is going well and spend up large when it is not!
However the conservative mindset seems to value even more counter-productive economy shrinking frugality when things are going bad, and generosity, as welfare for the rich and tax breaks for the wealthiest, when thing are going well, only to find it is a false economy that comes back to bite hard, as (a) structural deficit(s)and generational debt.
So, are there any genuinely rational reformers or progressives out there anymore? Well probably.
Just don't go looking for them in any current political party, all of who seem to have political masters, one would be hard placed to describe as the people? Or indeed, the great silent majority or moderate middle? Rhrosty.

I would defend -- and have defended -- science vigorously as the best possible method of getting at the truth. But I have worked in science, and I know that at least half of the claims made by scientists turn out to be false. What does that say about politics, law and the other disciplines which don't have self-correcting factors built in to them, as science does?

Conservatism is the natural result of bearing in mind that most new ideas will turn out to be wrong; and all it requires is a sense of history and some understanding of human nature.

RObert, you said "Bill Muehlenberg makes a good point in his article currently on the site regarding the Greens different treatment of same sex marriage and pluralistic marriages."

You must have missed or possibly ignored my derisive comment on Bill's piece. I was not impressed at all; it seemed quite clear to me that Bill is an old conservative, defending his set of 'morals' as the best for everyone and at the same time attempting to debunk his 'enemy' - the evil Greens.

Bill's argument was twisted and didn't make sense because it is obvious that is attitudes are based on negative feelings about gays and anger and a desire to destroy the evil Greens. It is psychologically impossible to come to a rational analysis of any question if you hold ideas that are based on a religion or 'feeling' that something is wrong.

It is quite clear in the psychology literature that polarised beliefs about others moral values are rarely based on fact. Strongly held beliefs prevent a person seeing the 'facts' as they are.

JonJ, further on in the comment thread says it is all about human nature; which is what I said. JonJ seems to think that human nature is a problem that we don't understand but psychologists do have a very good idea of how our brains basically work.

I fail to understand why you still have a problem with the CSA - along with many men who were treated badly by 'the system' and you blame the left'. I do not mean to minimising your outrage at the things that were done in the name of the children and protecting women from violent and destructive men?

You blame the left for that and blame the conservatives for turning a blind eye to the domestic abuse that was allowed to happen under their watch. I think you are minimising the problems that were caused by men who wanted to punish their ex's rather than care for their kids

But there are always two sides; neither of us is stupid or evil and bad things happen even when good people mean to do well.

But being so close to, and emotional about any issue is not the way to see the truth. This is quite clear from the psych evidence; 'detachment' or objectivity is the only way to see the 'truth'. I've quoted him before but Spinoza, one of the most interesting of the enlightenment philosophers, said the same thing centuries ago. To see the truth, one needs to hold no opinion either for or against.

What you say about bad human behaviour is true but these problems are all caused by our dysfunctional society, by our childrearing methods and failure to help the less fortunate to raise their children well.

We are by no means perfect and never will be, but our natural state is to be 'good' and the conservative idea of humanity is based on a mistaken understanding of the human nature as 'bad'.

If you are interested in human nature and the latest research about this, as well as a critique of 'the left', I recommend Jonathan Haidt's book 'The Righteous Mind'. This is a link to Amazon and some reviews of the book by conservatives. I am sure you will enjoy a look.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/dp/0307377903/ref=cm_rdp_product

He's a psychologist, also writes a blog that you might also find interesting. He's from the US but I've seen Aussies commenting there.

I think RObert that it is time to stop the war and tone down the political partisanship; it's obvious that neither 'party' is as good as we all want them to be and the only way to fix that is to talk co-operatively about what it is that we want.

Rhrosty,
There was no parental precedent for my radicalism; my parents were/are part of the conservative furniture--so are my syblings--albeit they're of the working classes. This is the great coup of neo/liberal ideology, that it blinds people to their own demeaned condition. Ideology is the condition of having been born and socialised into an exploitative order, whose terms appear natural and normal.
The issue was for Marx and remains, "justice". For Marx, in his day, justice was a joke. But what is justice for those who can't see it? For those so inured to their condition?
It must be found in injustice--and this makes denial of gay marriage an instance of it. But justice is still only seen through a glass darkly, so conditioned are we by, for instance, neo/liberal individualism. Never mind that it's patently nonsense--what on Earth does the individual consist in?!
Egoistic individualism works both ways; it justifies injustice and it quells dissent via its victim-blaming discourses. Liberalism affords the "freedom" to comply or be found wanting--if not to exploit then to be deluded.
There is at least that consolation for the exploited; they're not half so deluded as the exploiters!

<In "democratic" mass-consumption society individuality is the dominant form of ideology, the chief way in which subjects are interpellated. It is as "individuals" that we are exhorted to assume responsibility for our own lives, encouraged to fulfill our deepest longings by purchasing and owning commodities, and steered away from collective action toward "personal solutions"--invited to seek deferrals from our own precious, individual selves> (Nancy Fraser).

Mollydukes, I agree with you about Bill and his motives but the point he makes in that instance is valid. There is a double standard in the pro same sex marriage anti pluralistic marriage stance. In some ways the pluralists have a stronger case than the same sex marriage advocates.

I also agree that "it is time to stop the war and tone down the political partisanship", a point I tried to make in my post by pointing out that both extremes operate in a similar manner and for those not in the extreme there is a mix of how well we do at balance.

R0bert

Jon J,

Most Catholics were never “purged” from the ALP at all. The majority outside of Victoria remained members of the ALP.

The following progressive causes were espoused (even pioneered) by the DLP:
The end of the White Australia Policy (the first parliamentary party to call for this)
Land rights for Aborigines
The abolition of capital punishment
The introduction of proportional representation to state parliaments
Votes for 18 year olds
Equal pay for women
Environmental causes
Opposition to freeways
Compulsory savings (now the superannuation guarantee levy).

No doubt you can come up with a few “non-progressive” policies too, but the facts are clear: the DLP was a moderate mostly left-wing social democratic party, whose right-wing aspect was simply a very sensible opposition to communism and support for the US alliance, features strong in the current ALP.

I have never seen so many words used to try to rationalise an irrational ideology.

Max must be very ambidextrous, to be able to do so much patting of his own back.

Thank-you R0bert and everyone else here talking about what we did in Australia in the past that was good. This is a link to an article that says that in Australia;

"For four decades, from 1940 to 1980, there wasn't a single person wealthy enough to make the all-time rich list."

I guess we were missing something back in those decades. Apparently we need super rich people to make our society grow and be better. But it doesn't seem like that to me.

I liked Australian society back then, we lived in suburbs that were diverse; where 'poor' people often lived along side the 'richer' people. We didn't have gated communities where the rich lock themselves away from social problems and take no responsibility for the selfishness that infects our society; their idea is example just look after number one and the benefits will trickle down.

That is the American way which we adopted.

"starting around 1980, Australian inequality began to rise. The income share of the richest 1 per cent (those today with incomes over $200,000) has doubled, while the share of the top 0.1 per cent (incomes above $700,000) has tripled. The ratio of CEO pay to the pay of an average worker has quadrupled."

Is that really what we want more of?

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-return-of-the-australian-magnate-20120501-1xwpv.html#ixzz1w0sEFjai

One thing about communism and the level of fear that the spread of this ideology created in some people; I think my dad was right when he said that communism could never be implemented in Australia; there was no way Australian people would stand for that sort of nonsense.

So I think that a lot of the policies of fear that drove the cold war type thinking in Australia were unnecessary and were part of the move toward adopting US ideas about people and good societies.

With the post Whitlam shift to the right by the ALP as demonstrated by the policies of the Hawke and Keating governments, and the move from liberalism to the reactionary right and neo-conservatism by the Liberals under Howard, a move with its roots in the Fraser years. Couple the conservative dominance of the Gillard government on issues of social justice along with both the main stream media and the institutions of 'The Church' being total slanted in the way of conservatism, a social social justice vacuum was created. This vacuum is now being filled by the progressive party that articulates social justice issues with a semblance of political clout, The Greens. While ever Australia is bereft of a true alternative The Greens can only grow stronger and stronger. The Greens today are somewhat reminiscent of the early Labor Party, and like the Protectionists and Free Traders, Labor is very much in danger of being cast into the political wilderness and like the old two before them becoming another footnote of Australian political history. The Liberal Party, with the continued backing of big business, will live on as the neo-conservatives opposed to all social change, whilst serving the interests of their political masters under the guise of liberalism.

I fear this piece of comment is way beyond the intellectual prowess of conservatives who regularly troll these pages looking for any opportunity to declare themselves as conservatives, but hardly ever (if at all) actually tell us what they believe in, besides being apposed to the Left

I'm wondering where the role of "beliefs" as such should be placed in the ongoing comments to the article? Though I have never been called a conservative, I feel quite comfortable with the idea of my perspective mediating my political stance as long as I articulate my position etc.

One aspect of conservatism is looking at the past and emphasising what we think is good about it. At some times in the past trade unions have had a much greater role, most jobs were not contract labour, advertising techniques played a much smaller role in politics, the olympic competitors were amateurs with little or no government or corporate support, there were fairly frequent disarmament conferences, there were no megachurches or supermarkets, products were not usually made with planned obsolescence, there were more small stores within walking distance, telemarketing had not been invented and ice cream cones were five cents.

My conservatism would like to see all of that back.

Look here, we rich people are suffering. We need more immigration for bigger markets and cheaper labour through more competition. But the masses are whingeing because ALL the social gridlock and violence costs are quite rightly externalised to their suburbs.

So we have hatched a plan where our superior brains accuse their dumb minds of being too conservative and shame them into accepting more immigrants more hardship and eventually oblivion.

And Oh My God its working!

I just love Australia. The best place since the Third Reich was in charge of Europe. They too knew how to use propaganda all right!
Today the propaganda tomorrow the Brown shirts.

What? Those drive by shootings ARE the brown shirts?

Zeich heil!

Look Max,

I was doing to write a critic of your work based on the evidence of how former conservative governments had governed us but, I turned completely off your argument at the final paragraph.

Joe Hockey in his answer did show a 'deep commitment to fairness', he wants a child to have both a father and mother.
Joe Hockey's insult to Wong is much less than Wong's insult to every married parent in Australia ... including her own.
Joe Hockey did show a 'coherent political theory', he showed a conservative theory of maintaining the staus quo on parenting because it is not only the majority practise but also majority belief in Australia.
Joe Hockey had no need to justify his beliefs but he used a reasoning Wong and her partner could never understand, that of a dad's reasoning based in a dad's experience.
Joe Hockey wasn't puzzled and discomforted as the show ended, he was very comfortable in his belief and it's practise. It was Wong with her comment 'What can I say ...' that showed her as puzzled and uncomfortable.
The audience did watch in embarrassed silence.. at Wong's purile reaction and lack rebuttal of Hockey's statement which showed great life experience, empathy with the vast majority and self-belief.

You can't be taken seriously when you start re-writing the past.

You are 'homophobic' imajulianutter but you are right.

Runner: You are 'homophobic' imajulianutter but you are right.

Translation: I have the same prejudice.

david f

I suggest you have the same prejudice as the author.

Dear runner,

The difference is that I don't say someone is right because they share my prejudices. You do.

Dear runner,

Do you get the difference between the two statements:

1. You're right.

2. I agree with you.

The first statement is the type you keep making. The second merely admits that it is a person's opinion.

david f,

Oh I see Davidf you can not accept that an absolute statement such as adultery is wrong can be stated. To you that is only an opinion I take it. Yea I know I am a bigot because I call adultery and fornicatipon wrong.

It seems obvious to me and others that the 'gay'lobby will only ever be happy when everyone not only accepts but endorses and celebrates their lifestyle. Sorry mate but I and many others can't accept what nature and many other indicators show is wrong. The irony is that the twisting of words and meaning have led the liberalist to demonise and label as bigots anyone not only agreeing with them but those who refuse to celebrate their ideals or lifestyles. They themselves are absolutely sure that they are right in their ideals and push for such things as 'gay'marriage. Total hypocrites who fail to see the floors in their own dogma.

Runner,
you're obviously a moron and you are wrong.

In case you don't know what a moron is, here is a definition.

There are two: take your pick.

mo·ron

noun
1.
Informal . a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.

2.
Psychology . (no longer in technical use; considered offensive) a person of borderline intelligence in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.

imajulianutter:
<you're obviously a moron and you are wrong>

I think that's unnecessary. And you're making the same kind of groundless assertion David criticised Runner for: "you are wrong". You forgot to say "in my opinion". Everything's relative, as David's position suggests. To me 'your' opinions are often moronic. All our opinions are based on values systems and none of us is in a position to make absolute statements--except perhaps conservatives.

Squeers,

it is undoubtably an example of stupid to call someone homophobic simply because they disagree with your opinion.

or it shows a lack of good judgement when obviously you've not got the brains to debate contrary opinions ... in my opinion.

Squeers

And if you care to watch a replay of that QandA you'll see I am not wrong.

imajulianutter
'you're obviously a moron and you are wrong.' At least you have enough brains to realise that absolutes exist. Your insults however show your lack of ability to state your case.

Runner wrote: Oh I see Davidf you can not accept that an absolute statement such as adultery is wrong can be stated. To you that is only an opinion I take it. Yea I know I am a bigot because I call adultery and fornicatipon wrong.

Dear runner, Some absolute statements are valid. They are tautologies or definitions such as: Green light has a wavelength of about 510 nanometers.

You are deciding what is right and wrong for others. At 86 my fornicatory activities are minimal, but my life has been enriched by such activities in the glorious past. I also see nothing wrong if both parties are not satisfied in a marital relationship that one person accepts that the other person may seek satisfaction elsewhere. Masturbation is also a pleasure which can be enjoyed alone or with suitable companions.

The definition of adultery varies from time to time and place to place. In Australia at the present time adultery occurs if people have sex and one of them is married to someone else. In the Bible, a book that you seem to set great store by, Abraham is married to Sarah and has sex with Hagar. He is not condemned for that. There is no reason he should be since that was not considered wrong in that time and place. Sexual morality is ever-changing.

In Saudi Arabia at this time a man may legally be married to more than one woman. In Tibet in earlier times a woman could be legally married to more than one man simultaneously.

Your statement about adultery and fornication being wrong is only your opinion, and you have apparently decided that your opinion is one that other people should follow. I see no reason that other people should accept your opinion. Whether or not that is bigotry is moot, but it is arrogant to decide what is right and wrong for others. No one need base their definition of right and wrong on your views.

Cruelty, bigotry, unkindness. NO! Lusty, joyous, erotic, orgasmic sex! Whoopee! YES! YES! YES!

>>You are 'homophobic' imajulianutter but you are right.<<

>>it is undoubtably an example of stupid to call someone homophobic simply because they disagree with your opinion<<

Have I missed something here? I thought runner was calling you homophobic simply because he agreed with your opinion. At least that's the meaning I took from the phrase 'you are right'.

Cheers,

Tony

you are right Tony. imajulianutter obviously turns a compliment into abuse. A little moronic actually!

david f

'our statement about adultery and fornication being wrong is only your opinion,'

It is the opinion that actually made the Western nations great. It is your moral relativity opinion that has led to us having a totally self obessed society bound by lust, greed and self centredness. The results ironicly have led to fatherless kids, upsurge in drug abuse , welfare states and a porn saturated media.

Dear runner,

Whatever happens that is not to your liking can always be blamed on others not conforming to your prejudices. That way one can avoid attacking real problems.

Tony,

yes you missed someting. My original post.

It was about correcting the author of this article on his assessment of the ending of the QandA programme.

Nowwhere did I express any opinion of my own on the content of that program... so it was extremely stupid or moronic of runner to extrapolate from that post any suggestion that I was at all homophobic.

I have great doubt that runner would have seen my assessment of that program as right and if he is homophobic ... well it's an attitude I don't have.

But he may well think the author was re-writing events.

So really he had no reason to call me homophobic. Clearer now? An apology or explanation, similar to yours, from runner would clearly correct the situation ... wouldn't it.

imajulianutter,

you just don't seem to get it. Did you not either look at the quote marks around the word homophobic. I agreed entirely with your post but was making the point that people will label you homophobic no matter how well you lay out your case as you did. Its a pity you then lowered your effort so poorly in failing to see what even some of my usual adversaries (people with diametrically opposed to my opinions) could see so clearly. If you took it that I call you homophobic I apologise. My intention as seen by others was not to do so.

david f
'Dear runner,

Whatever happens that is not to your liking can always be blamed on others not conforming to your prejudices'

Are you absolutley sure of that or is it your opinion.

btw if a man has an affair with Obamas wife is it fair for Obama to call that wrong or is it just his opinion?

Dear runner,

I don't know Obama, his wife or what is happening between them. However, I think what happens between them is their own business. There are family breakups. There is crime and a lot of social disorder. However, I think most crime and social disorder is a reflection of economic conditions and has little or nothing to do with whether people follow your childish religion.

The countries that have the highest standard of living and the smallest gap between rich and poor are the Scandinavian countries. A hundred years ago they had a high crime rate and a great amount of social disorder. Their religion has stayed much the same except for the fact that many people in their countries have abandoned religion altogether. I think the main factor in putting those countries at the top of the list when it comes to a low rate of corruption, crime and social disorder is that people find it easier to be nice to each other and behave decently when they are economically secure. I don't think their abandonment of religion is the cause of their security and good behaviour. I think it is merely a reflection of the fact that they feel less need for such nonsense.

runner

I accept your apology and your explanation. Your explanation negated the need for an apology.

I withdraw my accusations regarding your intelligence and judgement. I was simply wrong.

I expect none of us will ever see the author and those who share his opinions be refered to as 'heterophobic' when they argue in favour of single gender parenting... which I think was the purpose of the article.

david f

your evasion in answering shows the ridiculous position you find yourself in when you claim not to believe in absolutes. Of course it is wrong to steal another man's wife or to lie to a wife or husband. The failure to accept absolutes is an illusion and delusion. You appear to make up your own absolutes as do many others. Chaos is the result of every man doing what is right in his own eyes.

Dear runner,

You wrote: "Chaos is the result of every man doing what is right in his own eyes."

Then I guess we have to live in chaos because I sure wouldn't want you to decide what is right for me. I don't feel I can decide what is right for you.

I have read your posts. They are moralistic screeds where you speak of your absolutes. There was a horrible time in the United States from 1919 to 1933 where liquor was prohibited because some religious moralisers manage to get it outlawed. Great crime empires arose. police forces were corrupted. "Thou shalt not drink" was a moral absolute. The US is still suffering from that period.

There are still people around who want to decide how other people should behave. Some of these people revere ignorance. They deny the findings of science when it conflicts with their superstitions.

You believe in a book of myths and, from that book of myths, you want to tell other people how to behave.

Your morality seems concentrated on controlling other people's sexuality. Those are your absolutes as far as I can see. You don't seem to mention any others.

War, the destruction of the planet, ignorance and prejudice all seem to take second place to your concern with someone poking something into someone else's orifice.

runner,
that's hilarious, or it would be if it wasn't nauseating.
Maybe imajulianutter was right in the first place--I stand corrected.
According to wiki an "Absolute is the concept of an unconditional reality which transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence. It is sometimes used as an alternate term for "God" or "the Divine"

Can't you see that what you're describing are not "absolutes", they're social/domestic constructs and norms, couched in terms of God's law to lend them efficacy. In absolute terms you have no ownership rights over your wife and she has no obligation, these are merely conventional and subject to contingency within "chaos".
It's your absolutes that are illusions and delusion; they're norms designed to keep the peace but are all too often justly broken.
Your brand of conservatism has to be among the most repellent---not to mention tyrannical when empowered.