TTBN What a cop out. If I wasnt prepared to learn and maybe change my opinions I wouldnt have asked.
You obviously cant refute what I said so just stay out of it please.

Thanks mhaze
I disagree that family is the purview of conservatives alone. Everyone I know loves their family and sees the worth of "family". Maybe our views of what is a family differ. I see single parent, blended and traditional families all the same. They are all family. Even unrelated people can belong to a family. Maybe this is where we differ in that I dont restrict "family" to the rigid, patriarchal, traditional family structure.

I too believe in free speech but it seems many conservatives have a problem with MY free speech if it the opposes things they say. A lot of conservatives feel they are being "cancelled" if anyone uses their own free speech to criticise something conservatives say.

A difference I have noted is while I support democracy, I see it as the will of the people and not some rigid government has to do this. If the majority of people want governments to support single mothers then so be it irrespective of what I think. I see government as servants to the will of the people and if they can do things to help then they should. That is what they are for. Once upon a time governments ran businesses like banks, engineering companies even heavy industries like comsteel etc. This seems like something conservatives dont like but many people do. They want government to come to their aid if needed.

I disagree about property rights being freedom. It is freedom for me but not for you. The essence of property rights is this is mine and you can pay me or go away. Fences hardly allow freedom only restriction. For both parties. I agree we should be allowed to have our share but that is not how it is working today is it? When a few at the top own everything and everyone else has little. How can that equal freedom?

Hi mikk,

I do not agree with your premise that conservatism is simply a serious of ignorant prejudicial negative attitudes..."racism, bigotry, inequality, etc etc", that to me is extremism, not conservatism. Conservatives often allay themselves with radicals, believing the old adage "my enemies, enemy is my friend", often with disastrous consequences for the conservatives. The great example is the way the conservative elite aligned itself with Nazism in Germany in 1933, we know what happened there.

I had to laugh when the old forum radical ttbn attacked you as making a "disgusting rant", words from the great ranter himself.

I truly am amazed that such ignorance as portrayed by mikk is actually possible !
It clearly demonstrates how power in the wrong hands i.e. Education hijacked by the Woke can go so dismally wrong !

Dear Mikk,

Thank you for your response, but I still find it vague:

«By progress I sort of mean improvement. Making something better than it was.»

Who doesn't want improvement and making things better?

But where is up from down?

«Finding and learning new ways and things.»

Ah, more lethal weapons, more painful implements of torture, new gadgets to spy on your wife and know where she is at any moment, hormonal solutions to deter and keep away people of the wrong race, micro brain implants to make others believe that all they want is to serve you, new smart methods to hack into your competitor's computers...

Where is up from down?

«By equality I mean everything the world has to offer being shared fairly and not allowing some to take everything for themselves.»

Share to what extent?

Suppose they receive half what is yours but then consume it all up as alcohol, then again they find themselves having nothing so again they want half of what is yours - or else you would have everything for yourself.

Or suppose they procreate irresponsibly and bring forth 8 children while you, being responsible for yourself and for the environment, bring none - now for all to be equal don't you have to give up 9/10th of your possessions?

Where do you draw the line?

mhaze,

Chesterton’s take on the situation accurately reflects the distorted perspective of many conservatives, but inaccurately reflects what is usually the reality.

Modern reformers push for change after recognising that a law or institution is outdated or harmful. They rely on new information and data that highlight the necessity for reform. Chesterton's analogy, however, assumes that the purpose of the existing structure is either valid or unknowable without deep reflection.

Reformers typically support their arguments with empirical evidence and data, showing that the current system is flawed or no longer serves its intended purpose. This approach contrasts with the simplistic notion of someone not seeing the use of a gate and wanting to remove it without any substantial reasoning.

The conservative response often involves a knee-jerk rejection of proposed changes, denial of the presented data, then resorting to conspiracy theories. This behaviour is not accounted for in Chesterton's analogy, which portrays the conservative as the more intelligent and reflective party.

The analogy misrepresents the motivations of reformers by suggesting they act on a whim, rather than on informed critique and evidence. It also overlooks the conservative's potential resistance to change for reasons unrelated to the actual merit of the institution or law in question.

To use your real-life example, reformers in the 1970s recognised that stigmatising single motherhood and leaving single mothers without financial support was detrimental to their well-being. They advocated for welfare policies to provide financial support, believing that these changes would promote social equity and help vulnerable populations.

Reformers used data and social research to argue that supporting single mothers could reduce poverty and provide better outcomes for their children. Conservatives opposed these changes and viewed them as an attack on the family; eventually concocting conspiracy theories about elites who were supposedly plotting to destabilise society by destroying traditional values.

May I suggest that nobody, neither conservatives nor reformers, acts on evidence: we all have our a-priori likes and dislikes, then some people tend to look for evidence to justify theirs. If the data supports what they want then they advertise and use it, otherwise they hide and ignore the information.

There is nothing wrong about wanting whatever one wants.
What is wrong, is the failure to own it and trying instead to cover one's desires with a false coat of "objectivity", science and/or conspiracy theories.

No evidence in the world can "prove" that some policy is better than another, because "better" is all relative to the bottom line, the "I WANT".

It is OK for different people to want different things!