"A little mistake"

[tvashtarkatena]

Given the near total absurdity of existence, I'm not sure we have the option of taking anything seriously.

[j_b]

I am too down to earth to find existing absurd.

[tvashtarkatena]

You are too down on Earth to find the existing absurdities.

[tvashtarkatena]

A universe that destroys everything it builds, including itself.

 

Pointless. The very definition of absurd.

[tvashtarkatena]

Rent the video Abs of Urd. It's all explained.

Edited October 2, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

Men and Women.

 

Case closed.

[j_b]

Ha! but there is a point/reason to it all. It's just that we can't explain everything.

[tvashtarkatena]

There is a point to everything any time you want there to be one.

 

Life is convenient that way.

Edited October 2, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[j_b]

Men and women make for very good friends. The tricky part is to get sex out of the way.

Edited October 2, 2009 by j_b

[tvashtarkatena]

I like to get sex out of the way pretty much as soon as I can, with the option to revisit the subject as often as possible.

[tvashtarkatena]

Well, I"m off to an artificial indoor lake heated by a long dead swamp that comes from a country that hates us to move through the water even though I'm a land animal in a most likely futile attempt to die from trauma rather than waste away in a hospital until someone finally pulls the plug out of disgust in the guise of mercy.

 

Later.

[ivan]

42

[rob]

sure is smokey in here

[RuMR]

Well, I"m off to an artificial indoor lake heated by a long dead swamp that comes from a country that hates us to move through the water even though I'm a land animal in a most likely futile attempt to die from trauma rather than waste away in a hospital until someone finally pulls the plug out of disgust in the guise of mercy.

 

Later.

oh i don't know if i'd call a walrus a land animal...

[tvashtarkatena]

And here all this time I've wondering where I put my lawn gnome...

Edited October 2, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[RuMR]

*yawn*

[tvashtarkatena]

It's spelled with an 'L'.

[RuMR]

*snore*

[JayB]

You're saying that you're not right wing?

 

Did I just read that correctly? Anyone? A little help here....

 

dude, he called Ivan right wing in the last day or two.

 

liar. show us.

i may have just been collateral damage from standing too close to jay on the "suffer the fucking children" thread

 

you can poke around page 7 of that gem and infer what you will for yourself, and if you catch yourself doing it, you probably should seek counseling

 

 

I'm actually curious about what constitutes a conservative and/or right wing outlook. I don't necessarily take offense at being labeled as such here, but I'm curious about a definition of "right wing" that can encompass agnosticism, complete legalization of drugs and prostitution, support for gay marriage, etc.

 

"This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles,[6] it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. Macaulay, Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and Lecky certainly considered themselves liberals, and with justice; and even Edmund Burke remained an Old Whig to the end and would have shuddered at the thought of being regarded as a Tory.

 

Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.[7] Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.

 

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

 

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.

 

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - bet he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[olyclimber]

i only have a moment as i'm stopping over from the dance party thread, so i only read the first sentence of you post Jay. i don't think many people here bother to differentiate between the nuances of political spectrum...i.e. moral vs. fiscal conservative, etc. its harder to troll when things are not black and white. same goes for the liberal side of things.

 

of course you already knew that.

 

back to the dance party!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

I'm actually curious about what constitutes a conservative and/or right wing outlook...

 

STFU YOU XENOPHOBE!

[t_rutl]

i'll tell ya who wasnt a xenophobe...Balky...he liked strangers

[ivan]

like all words, liberal or conservative mean whatever the hell the person using it thinks it means - it is a living language of course, and the meanings are constantly evolving, within and without us. the meanings are always relative, and typically equate to "good" and "bad" with the "good" one being whatever the speaker self-identifies with, no?

[JayB]

All true (minor quibble about the meaning of words thing) - just hoping to get the homonym to articulate his personal sine qua non of right-wingism.

[t_rutl]

right or left?

 

well...all depends on what direction you're facing...