Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

In typically GDF, Broly fashion...

link




Discuss.

Since no one is responding:

Saw this same article on reddit. r/atheism or something.


And, yeah, this should be obvious. By the definition of "conservative", this is something you'd expect. They are almost invariably Deotenologists (Kant).

https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/deontology

Adherents to deotenological ethics are, by definition, dogmatic. Their tenets can also be referred to as dogmas.




To put that research into perspective, they looked at block of silver and determined that the block of silver is silver. This seems tautological but research sometimes confirms what everyone considers common knowledge. Nothing should be taken as a given which is why we have empiricism and epistemology.

^ Hm.. you taught me a new word. Deontology. Thanks.

Yeah, I know it seems obvious, but it's worth discussing...

If you think about the general associations we have with "Liberals" vs "Conservatives," (again speaking generally, because of course there are exceptions): Conservatives tend to be associated with religious thinking, especially old time religion, which is by its very nature very dogmatic. And Liberal thinking is closely associated with Hollywood and the entertainment industry, the arts. But think about what that means. The arts and TV/film industry is all about learning new perspectives, understanding and empathizing with other people, cultures, circumstances, etc. It's the very antithesis to dogma and inflexible thinking.

That's not to say that dogma doesn't bleed into Left thinking, because of course it does. But like the article brings up, there is often at least empirical evidence to back it up (climate change I think was the example used). But that's what's great about scientific thinking is that it doesn't say definitively THE static answer. It compiles the best evidence and draws reasonable conclusions while still remaining open to contrary evidence and is perfectly willing to fold in any new evidence that may affect current thinking.

It's not complicated. Liberals seek out the new, conservatives seek to preserve the old. It's a balance and neither is superior

Originally posted by Surtur
It's not complicated. Liberals seek out the new, conservatives seek to preserve the old. It's a balance and neither is superior

Are you sure about that?

Just think about survival of the fittest. Evolution. Is the dogmatic, stubborn species going to be able to adapt to changing circumstances and survive as well?

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Are you sure about that?

Just think about survival of the fittest. Evolution. Is the dogmatic, stubborn species going to be able to adapt to changing circumstances and survive as well?

Yes, I'm sure neither is superior. 100%.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, I'm sure neither is superior. 100%.

You avoided the question: which one would be more adaptable to change?

And since you're so dogmatically certain that neither is preferable to the other, if you had to pick a side, which side would you... side with?

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
You avoided the question: which one would be more adaptable to change?

Depends. If you go with the extremes on either side the answer is neither. Conservatives can adapt and I'd chill with this dogma stuff because just because a side isn't dogmatic about religion doesn't mean they are dogmatic. Again, if we go by the extremes of either, neither can say "i'm better".



And now this makes it come off like this thread is a clumsy thinly veiled attempt to bash one side, but I don't do ultimatums as I share views from both sides. I don't know how I'd react unless I was truly put on the spot with a gun to my head or something.

But mostly, if given true choice, I'd float from one side to the other because both have value. So I do hope I'm wrong about your intent with this thread

I'm just asking questions, sur. And you're avoiding them.

Yeah you remind me of a puppy who just shit on the floor and then looks at you like "what I didn't do anything" lol.

https://media.tenor.com/images/f138dba7b30add3558584ac5c66200e5/tenor.gif

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Are you sure about that?

Just think about survival of the fittest. Evolution. Is the dogmatic, stubborn species going to be able to adapt to changing circumstances and survive as well?


No such thing as evolutionism. It's just a garbage religion. Literally zero evidence for that nonsense except for evolution at the micro-level which really isn't evolutiuon as no new information was added.. Not gonna waste my time arguing it with your brainwashed self.

Change simply for the sake of change is retarded. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Conservative views are far superior.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah you remind me of a puppy who just shit on the floor and then looks at you like "what I didn't do anything" lol.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
No such thing as evolutionism. It's just a garbage religion. Literally zero evidence for that nonsense except for evolution at the micro-level which really isn't evolutiuon as no new information was added.. Not gonna waste my time arguing it with your brainwashed self.

Change simply for the sake of change is retarded. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Conservative views are far superior.


Case in point.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
^ Hm.. you taught me a new word. Deontology. Thanks.

Yeah, I know it seems obvious, but it's worth discussing...

If you think about the general associations we have with "Liberals" vs "Conservatives," (again speaking generally, because of course there are exceptions): Conservatives tend to be associated with religious thinking, especially old time religion, which is by its very nature very dogmatic. And Liberal thinking is closely associated with Hollywood and the entertainment industry, the arts. But think about what that means. The arts and TV/film industry is all about learning new perspectives, understanding and empathizing with other people, cultures, circumstances, etc. It's the very antithesis to dogma and inflexible thinking.

That's not to say that dogma doesn't bleed into Left thinking, because of course it does. But like the article brings up, there is often at least empirical evidence to back it up (climate change I think was the example used). But that's what's great about scientific thinking is that it doesn't say definitively THE static answer. It compiles the best evidence and draws reasonable conclusions while still remaining open to contrary evidence and is perfectly willing to fold in any new evidence that may affect current thinking.


New perspectives is not what Hollywood stands for at all. They stand for making money without any risk.


Bruce Lee had to fight tooth and nail for his place in stardom, because Hollywood mogul's thought he had the look, but his movies were not "Bankable".

Originally posted by Surtur
It's not complicated. Liberals seek out the new, conservatives seek to preserve the old. It's a balance and neither is superior

Depends on which definition of Liberal you're using.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
You avoided the question: which one would be more adaptable to change?

And since you're so dogmatically certain that neither is preferable to the other, if you had to pick a side, which side would you... side with?

The side that doesn't exploit people.


Take immigration. The narrative is "Let them in or kick them out."


This is a convenient narrative, because it obliterates any nuance and takes the microscope off the process.


Such as: Who is demanding undocumented immigrants?

How are undocumented immigrants treated?

What risks are there for the general population in terms of bringing in outside diseases.

What risks are there of human traffickers exploiting the system to ship sex slaves and children?


At the bare minimum, the pro sanctuary side isn't demanding they get paid the same as anyone else, get to form a union, get gurenteed protections. It simply isn't part of the conversation, because the leaders of the Democratic party are letting these issues slide in favor of attacks on the opposition party.


This kind of thing means the sleazy exploiting of human beings can continue unchecked, as everyone looks in the other direction arguing pointless issues that never act as restraints on power.

Originally posted by cdtm
New perspectives is not what Hollywood stands for at all. They stand for making money without any risk.


Bruce Lee had to fight tooth and nail for his place in stardom, because Hollywood mogul's thought he had the look, but his movies were not "Bankable".

You're talking about the financial profit motive of the industry.

I'm talking about the artists and creative people that produce the art.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
You're talking about the financial profit motive of the industry.

I'm talking about the artists and creative people that produce the art.


Is it any different in any other industry?


Does not the lowly employee in "conservative corporate America" have big dreams to break molds and chart new frontiers against the entrenched establishment dinosaurs?


But the fact is, an industry is defined by its leadership. If the executives place profit motives above all else to the point of squashing creativity, then you are no longer in a creative industry.


And the trend has been towards less creativity, less risk, more homogenized content. Something that appeals to as wide a range of audiences as possible, using tried and true methods.

You're switching the conversation to finance/profit, which changes from the analogy that I brought up which was...

Convervatives - religion (which is fundamentally dogmatic)
Liberals - entertainment industry (which is fundamentally creative)

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
You're switching the conversation to finance/profit, which changes from the analogy that I brought up which was...

Convervatives - religion (which is fundamentally dogmatic)
Liberals - entertainment industry (which is fundamentally creative)


And my response: Is rehashing the same thing really so creative?


Because that's what Hollywood had become. Those lauded Avengers movies made so much money because they are PREDICTABLE.



And sure, you can argue an artist is more creative, but that doesn't make Hollywood itself creative. An artist is a mere tool, to be exploited.


Always has been.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's not complicated. Liberals seek out the new, conservatives seek to preserve the old. It's a balance and neither is superior


I'd say it's more accurate to say that conservatives seek to preserve what they know works and what is absolute truth. 2 + 2 = 4 was just as true 5,000 years ago as it is today. And it will still be just as true 5,000 years from now assuming time will still exist then (which I seriously doubt; yes, I base that on my christian views, btw).


An unborn child is a human life. It has always been a human life (even 6,000 years ago) and always will be....and killing it is wrong because it is murder. That was just as true thousands of years ago as it is today.

There are two and only two genders. That is yet another absolute truth that doesn't magically change with time.

People have a God-given (or natural if you prefer for those that don't believe in God) inherent right to be able to adequatelly protect themselves. That was just as true thousands of years ago as it is today. It hasn't changed and never will.

Also, true classical liberalism is fine, imo. It's this modern leftist so-called "progressive" nonsense that is retarded.

Originally posted by cdtm
And my response: Is rehashing the same thing really so creative?


Because that's what Hollywood had become. Those lauded Avengers movies made so much money because they are PREDICTABLE.



And sure, you can argue an artist is more creative, but that doesn't make Hollywood itself creative. An artist is a mere tool, to be exploited.


Always has been.


Whether or not Hollywood is creatively bankrupt is not related to this topic, heh, but the profit model is tailored around what people will pay to go see, so if you feel that Hollywood is largely creatively bankrupt, then it is the patrons who you probably should blame. And I do. But the Oscars just aired last night and it was a night where they honored the most creative and thought-provoking films of the past year. They were not rehashes of the same thing. Parasite, a subtitled foreign (South Korean) film won Best Picture and several other big awards.

To bring this back around to the topic at hand: Is there a comparable religious award ceremony (that attracts many political conservatives) that would (at least in theory) be willing to award outsiders for creativity and doing something fresh and original and thought-provoking?

I'm hard-pressed to think of something comparable. And it's because religious/conservative thinking is rigid and close-minded.

Originally posted by cdtm
And my response: Is rehashing the same thing really so creative?


Because that's what Hollywood had become. Those lauded Avengers movies made so much money because they are PREDICTABLE.



And sure, you can argue an artist is more creative, but that doesn't make Hollywood itself creative. An artist is a mere tool, to be exploited.


Always has been.


Also, continuing the religion/entertainment industry analogy:

Even if Hollywood is totally irredeemable and creatively bankrupt it was presumably the profit motive that did it. Whereas religion is creatively bankrupt and stagnant from the start, at its very core. It can't blame in on profit motive that suppressed its inherent flourishing.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
^ Hm.. you taught me a new word. Deontology. Thanks.

Awesome. estahuh It's all the philosophy stuff. Utilitarians, Virtue Ethics, etc. All part of the normative ethics family.


Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, I know it seems obvious, but it's worth discussing...

True. Like I stated, people take these things for granted but it's nice to get more concrete confirmation.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
If you think about the general associations we have with "Liberals" vs "Conservatives," (again speaking generally, because of course there are exceptions): Conservatives tend to be associated with religious thinking, especially old time religion, which is by its very nature very dogmatic. And Liberal thinking is closely associated with Hollywood and the entertainment industry, the arts. But think about what that means. The arts and TV/film industry is all about learning new perspectives, understanding and empathizing with other people, cultures, circumstances, etc. It's the very antithesis to dogma and inflexible thinking.

That's not to say that dogma doesn't bleed into Left thinking, because of course it does. But like the article brings up, there is often at least empirical evidence to back it up (climate change I think was the example used). But that's what's great about scientific thinking is that it doesn't say definitively THE static answer. It compiles the best evidence and draws reasonable conclusions while still remaining open to contrary evidence and is perfectly willing to fold in any new evidence that may affect current thinking.


You and Surtur discussed this fairly well. I think a blend of both is the best approach.


Too stubborn to change old ways and you risk opportunity which could have preserved your tribe.

Take too many risks and you could die or your tribe could die.


Making the best choices to fit the situation is a better approach. However, not all information is available to make the optimal choice. Rational Choice Theory? Maybe. Exchange Theory? Maybe.



Blend all this shit together (normative ethics and various choice theory systems) and that's probably right. It's just so damn complicated and I'm too ignorant of a choice theory system that blends RCT and Exchange Theory into a "third system" that works. But if someone solves this, we can rule the stock market...

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I'd say it's more accurate to say that conservatives seek to preserve what they know works and what is absolute truth. 2 + 2 = 4 was just as true 5,000 years ago as it is today. And it will still be just as true 5,000 years from now assuming time will still exist then (which I seriously doubt; yes, I base that on my christian views, btw).


...

^^