BS: Conservatives at Mudcat

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 04:51 PM

I spend a long time on my posts, Al, which really ought to signify to you, whether you agree with what I say or not, that I don't think life is clear-cut. And I'm certainly not pretending. A couple of negative comments above from other posters don't deserve much time. The one about lefties conforming is about fifty years out of date. We don't all turn out on parade on May Day any more, goose-stepping behind vast arrays of military might, in case you haven't noticed. I even need a crib sheet to sing the Internationale or The Red Flag these days. Last time I sang it I accidentally broke into a verse about Christmas trees. By the way, you're not one of those who were outraged because Jeremy didn't, er, "conform" by singing God Save The Queen, were you? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 06:00 PM

' By the way, you're not one of those who were outraged because Jeremy didn't, er, "conform" by singing God Save The Queen, were you? :-)'

on first name terms already?

on the contrary i hope Jezza gives the tories a pasting.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 06:40 PM

McGrath said: "I'm still puzzled by why so many people seem to think that beliefs about religion have some intrinsic relationship to opinions about politics."

Because there are often similar thought processes and basic logical syllogisms involved. From a purely technical, philosophical point of view, an analysis of the form of many of such beliefs & opinions reveals similar structure. Of course it is not always the case.... but in some instances there are ways in which data is presented, authority cited and defenses mounted that use rhetoric to evade direct confrontation with strict rules of presentation. (Yes... we are all guilty occasionally).
This does not necessarily imply dishonestly or evil intentions.... it can just mean that someone learned a cultural or family bias, and automatically start with the assumption that it is 'truth'. (I read a quote once that said: (paraphrased) "Theology is the formal process of finding bad reasons for what you already believe."
   In politics the point was made in a joke about a Democratic politician giving a stump speech and being interrupted every few sentences by a guy yelling "I'm a Republican!". Finally the speech maker stopped and looked right at the offender... "And just WHY are you a Republican?..."Because, my daddy was a Republican, my granddaddy was a Republican, my great granddaddy was a Republican... and I'll always be a Republican!"
"So," asked the politician, "If your daddy, your granddaddy and your great-grandaddy had been jackasses, what would YOU be?"
   "Oh," said the heckler, "I'd be a Democrat!"

The point is, many people don't need or want clear, unambiguous logical reasons for what they believe... some things just 'feel' right, and they often can't begin to tell you exactly why they think that way. IF we could get their total family history, personal history, school history and a detailed psychological profile done by a team of psychologists, we 'might' have some idea of how & why they think as they do... and it would do little good in most cases.
In the awkward human process of learning to think, it takes a real effort to, as Socrates and others said, "Know thyself". Examining every decision critically is never easy.... and even running important decisions about religion & politics & science thru fact checking and logical analysis is not common. Those who DO make the attempt more often are just... different... from those who do not.... and that is why is is said that "beliefs about religion have some intrinsic relationship to opinions about politics".

It is a lot of damned work to even explain the issue in an succinct way..(as those who have read this far will agree)... and WAY too much work for "Joe Average" to follow Socrates' admonition. He'd just rather be a jackass... I mean, Republican...

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 06:48 PM

You seem to take it that stuff like attitudes towards freedom and tolerance and so force are criteria that correlate with left right opinions, Steve. I don't see it working like that. If a left wing regime is tyrannical and repressive and intolerant, that doesn't mean it's less left than one which is the reverse. If a right wing regime is tyrannical and repressive and intolerant, that doesn't mean its more right wing than one which is the reverse. That kind of thing just means that that is the kind of regime it is, and gives good reason to struggle against it.

Many people, especially on the right, assumed that if Russia turned against aspiring to be a socialist regime, that would mean it would be safe from being an oppressive regime and an intolerant society.It didn't work out that way. It was a fallacy to think it would.

Poor old Gorbachev had a vision of it giving up the oppression and remaining every bit as committed to Socialism, and so did Dubcek before him. The tragedy was that on both cases, in different ways, the experiment wasn't allowed to run its course.

I don't accept the idea that all the different ways we have of seeing the world fit on a left right spectrum. I prefer the model in which left/ right and libertarian/authoritarian are plotted on different axes on the same chart. Except I think there are a good few more axes in play. There's religion, for one, and there's ethics for another, and various others. Multidimensional. But we all fit on there somewhere, and we all have some funny neighbours on some who are far away on others, and the other way round. Not appreciating that is a big reason why revolutionaries and similar end up tearing each other to pieces so often.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 07:32 PM

Steve's waiting for an answer from me, and I'm not sure I want to give the answer he wants to hear. I think this discussion, which I find very fruitful and interesting, illustrates that it's far harder to label people than one might think. It's much more productive and reasonable to discuss various issues separately, rather than to pre-assume the opinions of others based on the labels we've given them.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 08:03 PM

"I spend a long time on my posts" StevE Shaw,
Steve I wish you would not, in fact I wish you would not post at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 08:18 PM

I don't know what makes you think I want to hear particular answers, Joe. If, by now, you haven't spotted that I relish a good controversy, you've clearly mistaken me for someone else. As for labelling people, I've tried to be at pains to avoid that, and, instead, to try to sharpen up how we use labels like left and right. I agree that we should try to take issues separately, which, in my clumsy way, is what I was trying to tell Bill.

Kevin, I am definitely not trying to correlate ethics with left and right. In fact, I am trying to tease out the fault line between ethics and place on the political spectrum.. Like everyone else on the left, though, I'm clearly going to be suspicious of right-wing people who claim to be compassionate, etc., as one of the values I always associate with the right is self-interest. I freely admit that I can't help that. My mum and dad were (actually, still are, as they're both alive and kicking) lefties. Being a leftie for me is an accident of birth (note, believers, how I admit to that), though I'd like to think I'd have gone that way anyway.

I think that an outcome of this thread, if I'm honest, is that the terms left and right have become almost too controversial to be of much use any more. I say almost because I think there are still some useful applications of the terms. For example, it is entirely useful to say that Keith, Teribus and pete are very right wing. On the other hand, it is entirely undiplomatic and reckless of outcome to say so. Which is why I'm not saying it.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 08:23 PM

"Steve I wish you would not, in fact I wish you would not post at all."

Well Dick, I hate to tell you this, but the one and only reason I ever post here at all is because I know how much you don't want me to post. Outcomes, dear boy, always consider outcomes...

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 08:45 PM

For example, it is entirely useful to say that Keith, Teribus and pete are very right wing. On the other hand, it is entirely undiplomatic and reckless of outcome to say so. Which is why I'm not saying it.

This is the kind of shit the so-called left like to sling nowadays, totally pathetic, and they think themselves progressive....hah!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 08:51 PM

Heheh.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 08:53 PM

"Teasing out the fault lines between ethics and place on the political spectrum" sounds to me very much the same thing as correlating ethics with left and right. What I mean is it does seem to regard different ethical positions as being more or less left or right on the same spectrum.

So you aren't saying automatically "the left" is ethically superior to "the right" on the macro scale, but you do seem to say that ethically superior forms of socialism should be seen as more authentically left than ethically inferior forms. And I see tye difference not as lying in one being more authentically socialist than the other, but rather in being more ethical, and therefore preferable.

Genuine conservative beliefs - by which I mean a preferance for minimising change to what is seen as essential - are quite compatible with rejection of selfish self interest. But then attitude towards change in society should not perhaps be seen as in itself fitting on the left/right axis at all, but on another one specifically about such attitudes. After all in a
Socialist society which was working well, being suspicious about attempts to change it would be quite compatible with left-wing beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 09:02 PM

' By the way, you're not one of those who were outraged because Jeremy didn't, er, "conform" by singing God Save The Queen, were you? :-)'

on first name terms already?

on the contrary i hope Jezza gives the tories a pasting.

To be clear, Al, my comment was directed at Guest 3.59 pm, not you.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 09:06 PM

I love the banter, Kevin, but in your world and mine it's two in the morning, and I'm supposed to going to Bude's annual food festival in the morning. See you later!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 04:05 AM

I think that there needs to be some acknowledgement of BillD's brilliant post of 6:40PM; thanks, Bill, I'm more enlightened after that!

I loved your definition of theology: "Theology is the formal process of finding bad reasons for what you already believe."

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 04:24 AM

singing old songs, playing old tunes is preservation, in the sense that we sing/play as we think it should be played within our limited ability & conceits. There are those that try to re-create the rendition as closely as possible, they are nearer to conserving the original.

As I remember from my days in college. We were asked a lot of questions and noted our answers. Then they asked us to plot them on a 2D graph. What came out surprised me. Left and right were obvious but the vertical axis was labelled "Tough" & Tender". Labour & Tory came roughly where you would expect, liberal (UK flavour) somewhere central. BUT the Nazis were, if anything, left of centre but high on the tough side.
There is a problem with perception and therein (herein to be more pertinent) lies the arguments above.

OK, once you remember that "Nazi" was an contraction of National Socialist it just tells you: perceptions are about as perfect as you & I.

Would the perfect of this parish please reveal themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 04:25 AM

Theology is the art of taking a completely false premise and constructing a whole ringfenced philosophy around it. That isn't to say that you can't accidentally find truths with it, but it's a peculiar way of seeking truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 04:31 AM

I think that the very suggestion that the Nazis were left of centre is another time-honoured and disingenuous ploy for smearing the left.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Stu
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 04:35 AM

Following from Bill's earlier post (which as Shim says was very good) although many people do express an affiliation to a certain political party in truth a heck of a lot don't. Many people are far too busy with getting on with the job of working or raising a family to care about the machinations of the political class; I guess these people are co-opted by politicos into that section of society known by that awful term "the silent majority" (invariably used by politicians with no support for their argument and raised voices against).

Most modern political parties are coalitions themselves; in the case of Labour this encompasses a very broad church of opinion ranging from the (actual) hard left of the Socialists Workers Party and a myriad of communist and Marxist groups to the virtual tories like Blair, Campbell and Mandelson. What unites these people are broad aims and values rather than a shared vision of a socialist utopia.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 04:43 AM

I prefer the model in which left/ right and libertarian/authoritarian are plotted on different axes on the same chart. Except I think there are a good few more axes in play. There's religion, for one, and there's ethics for another, and various others. Multidimensional. McGrath of Harlow

Great post! I think the 'silent majority' understand that, but mainly express it as something like "it's complicated". It's a shame that it usually suites politicians and the press dumb things down.

That wouldn't happen here of course...

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 04:49 AM

it's far harder to label people than one might think
Consider my example of the 2D graph. In reality people have more than 2 dimensions but we are hidebound by only perceiving 3 or at best 4 if you include time.

Now when you consider Jeremy of the clan Cobyn there are at least a million spin doctors on the loose. Plus one on his team, who didn't remain silent on the anthem.
I've got news for them, JC is a POLITICIAN. He is in parliament. His job is to unite a divided party AND convince a jaded public.
Michael Foot had a similar aura of integrity and a fine way with words, that "buttered no parsnips".
& That is why a goodly number of undeclared conservatives voted for Jezza.
And on this forum I would put money on there being many undeclared conservatives in this parish. Maggie the Thatcher knew there were many at large, they voted her in.

Some folks stay schtum when politics & religion rear their heads. They score heavily on the polite side of the Polite/Rude dimension.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 05:14 AM

I'd like to say that, assuming things don't go dramatically downhill from here, this thread should be preserved as a 'how to do it' exemplar. Lots of different viewpoints, many contradictory, but airing them in a considered and thoughtful manner. The occasional slip into abuse (or near it), which the abused calmly ignores or deals with quietly without getting into a slanging match.

Well done chaps!

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 05:23 AM

Just a thought but:

"There is a bit of polite in politics". A bit.

Ask: which bit are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 05:55 AM

Seve,
For example, it is entirely useful to say that Keith, Teribus and pete are very right wing.

No it is not.
Have I ever expressed a "very right wing view?"
No.
And nor have the others.
It is just your far left perspective.
We express centre views which are mainstream and the majority views in England.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 06:37 AM

I'm still clinging to left and right as terms that retain some utility. However, it jars with me when Stalin, Mao and even Hitler are described as left-wing. Even "state communism" doesn't cut it with me. And just because Hitler's party was called National Socialist doesn't mean he was a socialist. What happens with these guys is that, ostensibly, they start out with a utopian ideal of the massive state working as a big, single, well-oiled machine, filled with happy, enthusiastic workers with a common goal. North Korea still projects that to us as the only image of itself that is permitted. Of course, it's a damn sight easier in this world of mass, instant communication than it used to be for the rest of us to know better. These regimes (and they are regimes) always mutate into exactly the same thing as if they had been military dictatorships in the first place. Nothing to do with any socialist (aka, to me, true left-wing) ideal that I've ever harboured. If you are going to call the regimes of Mubarak, Salazar, Pol Pot, Pinochet and a dozen others military dictatorships, then the regimes of Mao, Stalin and Hitler turned into exactly that as well. They end up exercising extremely severe control over their citizens in almost every aspect of their lives, the ideal turned on its head.

To dumb down and cause trouble. ;-). Here are some buzzwords to go with left and right. I'm not even going to say which ones I agree and disagree with. Add your own with gay abandon. And I'm thinking of today, not Cold War.

LEFT: compassionate, spending, greater equality, trade unions, workplace democracy, more affordable housing, more welfare, more nationalisation, demilitarisation, tax-funded public services, public education, end to austerity, taxation of wealth, more financial regulation, republican, protest, big government.

RIGHT: self-interest, reactionary, emasculation of unions along with control of public sector pay, sell off council housing, military spending, less job security, blind workings of the market, removal of regulation, private schools, land ownership equals power, hereditary, low taxation, tax havens, tax evasion, austerity for the poor, an end to welfare, small government, especially at local level, God Save The Queen.

I couldn't bring myself to include anything about religion, gay rights, race or immigration because in my head I couldn't tease out any real left-right differences.

Biased? I should think so. Silly? Definitely! Fire away? Go ahead, my tin hat's on!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 06:48 AM

"Go ahead, my tin hat's on!"
A tin hat, A Condom would be more suitable, and a big one, to encapsulate the biggest pompous prick, and the pissy utterances that pour out of your orifice, stick to playing the harmonica your fairly good at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 06:56 AM

Steve I could give you two lists of good things pertaining to the RIGHT, and bad things pertaining to the LEFT in this society.
They would prove no more than your lists do.

Survival will have nothing to do with political ideology.
We will do what has to be done to secure a future.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 07:08 AM

On a left/right spectrum I'd see the Nazis as more or less centrist. "Third way" is actually very much a Nazi way of talking about politics. But the more significant things about them weren't anything to do with being right, left, or centre, they were to do with being way out authoritarian and and at the evil end of the ethical scale.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Smedley
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 07:34 AM

Speaking as a serial lurker (and very occasional contributor), this thread is a very interesting read. And civil, too.........mostly.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 08:26 AM

Steve, by your lists I am thoroughly left wing, so please refer to me as that in future.
I would just want clarification on "demilitarisation" and "military spending."
To be left wing, must I want the armed forces disbanded?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 08:43 AM

I didn't say which ones I agreed with. I also deliberately left out "authoritarian". Can o' worms, that one.

Cheers Dick. I'll commission Steve Bell to draw me wearing a condom on my head. Maybe they'll do what you've always failed to do, make a mug out of me. :-)

Keith, you voted Blair and are an avid supporter of one of the most right-wing administrations in the world, the one in Israel. Whatever else you are, you are not left-wing.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 09:25 AM

Keith, you voted Blair and are an avid supporter of one of the most right-wing administrations in the world, the one in Israel.
Most of the lefties on here voted for Blair with me.
Who did you vote for Steve?

Why do you say I am an "avid supporter of Israel?"

I am not.
Like you I believe it has a right to exist, so we are the same.

What I have done is put Israel's side of the story when almost all contributors were putting the version of its enemies.
Was that wrong or right wing?
How?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 09:25 AM

Keith, you voted Blair and are an avid supporter of one of the most right-wing administrations in the world, the one in Israel.

Most of the lefties on here voted for Blair with me.
Who did you vote for Steve?

Why do you say I am an "avid supporter of Israel?"

I am not.
Like you I believe it has a right to exist, so we are the same.

What I have done is put Israel's side of the story when almost all contributors were putting the version of its enemies.
Was that wrong or right wing?
How?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 09:42 AM

Earlier in this thread:

[i]'I notice rudeness and intolerance from people of all political persuasions on this site, some left and some right.
quite frankly they are boring' [/i]

Later on, same thread:

A Condom would be more suitable, and a big one, to encapsulate the biggest pompous prick, and the pissy utterances that pour out of your orifice[..]

Yawn...

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 12:36 PM

Take no notice, Guest. I've already tried and I couldn't find a big enough condom (tsk -story of my life...)

Keith, we have just about every western politician and media outlet putting Israel's side. What you do is not that at all. You either deny or defend their leaders' wrongdoings. That is not putting Israel's side. I've done a damn sight more than you've ever done to put Israel's side, but your ears are covered. Anyway, don't get me going about Israel again. If there's one person who it's never worth talking about Israel to, it's you.

I just thought of another tricky word I left out: totalitarian.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 12:44 PM

Keith, we have just about every western politician and media outlet putting Israel's side.

So it is clearly not right wing but centre and mainstream to do that.

You either deny or defend their leaders' wrongdoings. That is not putting Israel's side.

Yes it is because Israel denies the accusations of its enemies.
I have not defended any wrong doing.
I have put Israel's version of events, and as you acknowledge, all Western governments including the very left wing French government and our own Labour governments accept that.

You have failed to make a case that I am right wing.
I am not.
You can find no example of me expressing right wing views.
Centre, mainstream and majority is me.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 12:48 PM

I don't know Steve, you do have appreciate the irony of someone called dick giving advice about getting inside a condom.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 01:50 PM

"Centre, mainstream and majority is me."

That's what all right-wingers choose to believe!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 02:33 PM

Good point, Shimrod. Harks back to what I got told off for saying at the top of this thread, that right-wingers hate to be called right-wingers (I suggested there was no badge of honour in it, then HiLo misquoted me in speech marks, á la Keith, and had a shout). You can call me a leftie any time!

Oh, one word, Keith, before you bother asking me to prove that: Wheatcroft!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 07:38 PM

I wonder if a good right-left litmus test, might be one's opinion of Rupert Murdoch? I would guess that those Mudcatters labelled "right-wing" by our local lefties, are probably not big Murdoch supporters. That would put them in the middle, not the right.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 07:56 PM

Interesting thinking, Joe. But, having rather undeliberately ;-) put the cat among the pigeons apropos of left-right definitions, I feel that we first have to agree on whether Rupert is actually right-wing. It's been suggested that Hitler, Stalin et al. are actually not really that right-wing at all. Next to them, Murdoch, much as I hate the bugger, is actually a bit of a pussycat! The other thing about right-wingers, though maybe not so much the Mudcat right, is that they will often deny that they read the Murdoch press or watch Fox. You do have to wonder where they get their prejudices from in that case, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 08:09 PM

I didn't have a shout. I disagreed with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 08:44 PM

In a rather unfocused way. I did invite you to address your disagreements point by point. Just look at the flak I get in this thread (yeah, OK, for being idiotic enough to raise a controversial issue, but at least I have the skin of a rhino). See how unbothered I can be!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 10:24 PM

wonder if a good right-left litmus test, might be one's opinion of Rupert Murdoch?

That's not a left/right question, Joe. Its a question of who believes and supports the absolute lies, rubbish and bullshit that Murdoch/Ailes/Fux News vomits forth and those who prefer to deal in facts and reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 10:35 PM

I appreciate the compliments earlier, but must enlarge on one point to examine Steve's post:

"Theology is the art of taking a completely false premise and constructing a whole ringfenced philosophy around it."

I can't take credit for the original, even though it strikes a chord.... but its relevance is that it doesn't assert what premises are true OR false. It merely suggests that theological contortions of reason usually include some 'bad' reasons. We really can't demonstrate that its premise is "completely false".... but we can infer that IF you run into contradictions in logic and/or fact and discover that 2 or 3.... or many... conclusions that cannot all be true follow from the original premise(s), then at least one premise must be false.... and of course, perhaps all of them. **From false premises, anything follows**

An argument is 'sound' if it has both true premises AND correct structure. (It may be trivial, but that's another issue)

The real, simple, basic point is that there are certain claims that we cannot construct sound arguments for, because we can't determine what the required true premises are.... and "how the Universe began" ...or even IF it had a beginning... is just speculation and subjective opinion. It may be that we cannot even formulate the question correctly, given our mental & scientific limitations. But.... people being what they are, most WANT a satisfying answer, and all this 'logic' stuff is just tedious blather to most of them.
Somehow, I got the bug early on to try to figure out what made sense, not just sink into some comfortable belief system. Once I had a couple courses in comparative religion and saw how many competing 'comfortable systems' there were, none of them seemed comfortable. ;>)... so I post these long bits, mainly to sort out my own thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 12:49 AM

Shimrod,
That's what all right-wingers choose to believe!

It is also what centrists like me believe.

Steve,
Good point, Shimrod. Harks back to what I got told off for saying at the top of this thread, that right-wingers hate to be called right-wingers


I remind you that I have never expressed a right wing view, because I have none, so on what grounds do you make your malicious and vindictive smears?

Steve clearly believes that there is no centre position at all!
Anyone who does not hold his fringe far left extreme views must be far right!

He says,
"Keith, we have just about every western politician and media outlet putting Israel's side. " then says I must be far right for doing the same!

He says voting for Blair makes me far right, even though Blair got the majority vote and lefties like Musket voted the same way!
Steve chose not to answer if he voted Blair too!

You people have absolutely no reason to call me right wing, and until you find something, which you never will, please stop doing it.

When you have no reply, you smear and name call.
It is lying.
Stop it.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 01:04 AM

Steve Shaw says: Theology is the art of taking a completely false premise and constructing a whole ringfenced philosophy around it.

Well, since my college major was Theology, I might tend to disagree. If a theology is built upon a mythology that is taken to be historically and scientifically factual, then I might buy your argument. But you're defining a fundamentalist theology, not all theology. Most theologies are an exploration built upon a perception of a spiritual nature or meaning of what we observe and experience in life. Most theologies call that spiritual nature divine, in one way or another. So, the basic premise is that we are surrounded by a universe that has a spiritual essence that is worthy of exploration, partly through tools such as mythologies and rituals and traditions and sacred texts.

I would submit that one cannot prove or disprove that some or all aspects of our universe have a spiritual nature. That's a matter of perception - of faith, if you will. I find that perception to be rich and worthwhile. I have no quarrel with those who do not share my perception - they just see things differently. But when they say my perception is "false," then I have a quarrel with them. My perception is NOT false - it is simply different from theirs.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:20 AM

I agree, Joe. There is certain mindset - and this is not an accusation! - which likes to think of the world in true/false terms. And there's good reason to do that, since it is the basis of much of the advancement of the last few millennia, whether we are talking science or philosophy. As an approach to life, it is pretty solid and I have built my own career on it as well.

But no-one should fall into the trap of assuming that mindset is sufficient for everything. It would be an odd stance to say Beethoven's Pastoral is true or false. [I pick music as less contentious, but I think these points also apply to religion]. You can build theories of music, certainly, but they are not like scientific theories because they can never be true or false; the best they ever get to is 'usually, often'. And to an extent they are also 'ring-fenced philosophies' (on the assumption I understood what that term meant). We might perform MRI scans and observe which parts or the brain are stimulated when certain music is heard, but I can't really see any composer doing what they do differently as a result of learning that.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:22 AM

Careless phrasing on my part: I should not have described scientific theories as true or false, but everyone knows what I meant, so please don't pick me up on it!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:53 AM

Ha. I made a mistake there that let both Bill and Joe in to give me a bit of grief. What I should have said was "almost certainly an entirely false premise." Yes, I see you can get round that by studiously avoiding the word God from your riposte and speaking of "spiritual nature" instead. And "getting round it" seems to me precisely what theology has to do in order to legitimise itself. What you can't avoid, and I know I'm being facile, is that the word theology itself has God in it. And don't forget that I did not say you couldn't find truth via theology, just that it's a peculiar way of looking for it. Theology is doing a lot of thinking. Science is doing a lot of doing AND a lot of thinking, and we have the advantage of the null hypothesis. I love life and nature, etc, but it's all plenty beautiful enough for me from here on the ground. Spiritual if you like. You can't take that away from me, he sang.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 04:12 AM

Keith dearest fellow, once again if you insist. Putting Israel's side is not right-wing. I do that far better than you do and I don't think I'm especially right-wing. Defending a very right-wing regime's obvious atrocities or even denying their wrongdoings is what you do, and that is why you're right-wing. I don't like what Hamas do and have said so many times, and I never deny what is demonstrably the case. I defend the right of Israeli people to live in peace and security and I only ever castigate their leaders, wishing that the people would elect less bellicose ones. I've said all these things many times. Put it to bed now Keith or start another thread on it, there's a good chap.