Do Conservatives Think They Have A Monopoly On Truth ?

[Defiant1]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

I would imagine you have a monopoly, by default, if all your competition disappears.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

How many lies has the nominal leader of the GOP been caught telling in the last year and a half?

Conservatives don't even really have a tenuous grasp of the truth, much less a monopoly.

Liberals don't either. It's an open question as to who is worse, and IMHO not worth the argument cuz nobody is going to agree on the answer.

Regardless, the op is a load of horseshit.

You are typing without thinking....which is normal for you.

The OP is asking a question.

You are the one who if full of shit.

I answered the question.

Only in your own fantasy world. Why don't you find some other thread to clutter with your barf.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

False premise - troll thread

The question is...what would say to this.

If the premise if false, you should have some way of countering it.

 

[Votto]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

So let me get this straight, conservatives think they know everything and want to impose It through central planning?

I thought conservatives stood for limited government and, therefore, oppose central planning on the premise that none of us are as smart as all of us.

Conservatives are not the central planners nor have been dolt.

The reason conservatives are always on the outside looking in is, they don't believe in consolidating power for the sake of power itself. Instead, they sit back warning people about the dangers of collectivist regimes that history has shown are the biggest threat to world peace and liberty.

 

[Crepitus]

How many lies has the nominal leader of the GOP been caught telling in the last year and a half?

Conservatives don't even really have a tenuous grasp of the truth, much less a monopoly.

Liberals don't either. It's an open question as to who is worse, and IMHO not worth the argument cuz nobody is going to agree on the answer.

Regardless, the op is a load of horseshit.

You are typing without thinking....which is normal for you.

The OP is asking a question.

You are the one who if full of shit.

I answered the question.

Only in your own fantasy world. Why don't you find some other thread to clutter with your barf.

SMH. I try to educate, but......

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

How many lies has the nominal leader of the GOP been caught telling in the last year and a half?

Conservatives don't even really have a tenuous grasp of the truth, much less a monopoly.

Yes, we hear it all the time.

Only problem is that you define what is a lie and what isn't.

Go fuck yourself.

I love how whenever the conservatives on this site can't really refute what you said they post a profanity-laced insult as if that will hide their abject failure to address the subject.

It would be funny if it wasn't just sad.

A standard is something you apply to your own side first, liar

Lol, what makes you think I didn't?

Because you've proven to be mentally lazy, sloppy and without any real understanding of logical arguments.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

So let me get this straight, conservatives think they know everything and want to impose It through central planning?

I thought conservatives stood for limited government and, therefore, oppose central planning on the premise that none of us are as smart as all of us.

Conservatives are not the central planners nor have been dolt.

The reason conservatives are always on the outside looking in is, they don't believe in consolidating power for the sake of power itself. Instead, they sit back warning people about the dangers of collectivist regimes that history has shown are the biggest threat to world peace and liberty.

That is the claim.

Now, it would be great if there were counter examples.

In my world, the 10th amendment is not discussed near enough and it was hardly mentioned in the case against Obamacare until the very end. In that case they simply argued against it on it's merits and not on standing.

They voted in GWB's drug bill. That was great.

I see them doing nothing to get out from under big government programs like No Child Gets A Good Education.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Liberals don't either. It's an open question as to who is worse, and IMHO not worth the argument cuz nobody is going to agree on the answer.

Regardless, the op is a load of horseshit.

You are typing without thinking....which is normal for you.

The OP is asking a question.

You are the one who if full of shit.

I answered the question.

Only in your own fantasy world. Why don't you find some other thread to clutter with your barf.

SMH. I try to educate, but......

You'd need some knowledge first.

 

[Votto]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

So let me get this straight, conservatives think they know everything and want to impose It through central planning?

I thought conservatives stood for limited government and, therefore, oppose central planning on the premise that none of us are as smart as all of us.

Conservatives are not the central planners nor have been dolt.

The reason conservatives are always on the outside looking in is, they don't believe in consolidating power for the sake of power itself. Instead, they sit back warning people about the dangers of collectivist regimes that history has shown are the biggest threat to world peace and liberty.

That is the claim.

Now, it would be great if there were counter examples.

In my world, the 10th amendment is not discussed near enough and it was hardly mentioned in the case against Obamacare until the very end. In that case they simply argued against it on it's merits and not on standing.

They voted in GWB's drug bill. That was great.

I see them doing nothing to get out from under big government programs like No Child Gets A Good Education.

First of all, don't get conservatives confused with Republicans. They are not one in the same.

Conservatives have no place in the Federal government because the Feds have chosen to run the world by themselves via centralized planning. This was not the design.

Secondly, to think that there is one single piece of legislation for health care that is right for everyone and for all time is not only arrogant, it's just stupid.

No one has all the answers for everyone.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

Nobody who is partisan tells the truth

 

[Votto]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

Nobody who is partisan tells the truth

Well who tells the truth all the time?

No one.

Why then do we let a select chosen few decide everything for us all?

As a conservative, I had to endure the lies of Obama regarding Obamacare. First he said he could insure millions more for less money and the same coverage, an obvious lie, but people thought he seemed nice and on average people are stupid.

Then Obama claimed that he would not raise taxes on the Middle class in order to get votes, so he sold Obamacare anything other than a tax.

Then we were told that it was 100% constitutional, and I had to endure being laughed at on these boards suggesting there were issues with it being Constitutional. Well it turned out that SCOTUS agreed with me and said for it to be remotely Constitutional, it had to be a tax. Obamacare then became the largest tax hike on the Middle Class in US history.

And I also said that Obamacare was not meant to last, rather, it was only a precursor to the goal of a single payer system. Again, I had to endure mocking and laughter at this notion and now what do we see? The ink is not even dry on Obamacare and these same people are pushing a single payer system that sold us Obamacare.

We were sold so many lies it's hard to keep track, like the process being filmed on CSPAN. Instead, it was done behind closed doors where Obama had to bribe members of his own party to pass it.

Disgusting!

 

[Crepitus]

How many lies has the nominal leader of the GOP been caught telling in the last year and a half?

Conservatives don't even really have a tenuous grasp of the truth, much less a monopoly.

Yes, we hear it all the time.

Only problem is that you define what is a lie and what isn't.

Go fuck yourself.

I love how whenever the conservatives on this site can't really refute what you said they post a profanity-laced insult as if that will hide their abject failure to address the subject.

It would be funny if it wasn't just sad.

A standard is something you apply to your own side first, liar

Lol, what makes you think I didn't?

Because you've proven to be mentally lazy, sloppy and without any real understanding of logical arguments.

Lol, sure. That must be it.

 

[kaz]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

How many lies has the nominal leader of the GOP been caught telling in the last year and a half?

Conservatives don't even really have a tenuous grasp of the truth, much less a monopoly.

Yes, we hear it all the time.

Only problem is that you define what is a lie and what isn't.

Go fuck yourself.

I love how whenever the conservatives on this site can't really refute what you said they post a profanity-laced insult as if that will hide their abject failure to address the subject.

It would be funny if it wasn't just sad.

A standard is something you apply to your own side first, liar

Lol, what makes you think I didn't?

Because you're completely consistent.

Winston Churchill ran into a reporter in the mens room who'd been writing tough stories about him in the papers. He said to Churchill, sorry, I know I've been hard on you. Churchill replied, in the future I'd appreciate if you insult me in the mens room and apologize in the papers ...

No idea where you're holding your side to any standard, but it sure isn't on the board

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How many lies has the nominal leader of the GOP been caught telling in the last year and a half?

Conservatives don't even really have a tenuous grasp of the truth, much less a monopoly.

Yes, we hear it all the time.

Only problem is that you define what is a lie and what isn't.

Go fuck yourself.

I love how whenever the conservatives on this site can't really refute what you said they post a profanity-laced insult as if that will hide their abject failure to address the subject.

It would be funny if it wasn't just sad.

A standard is something you apply to your own side first, liar

Lol, what makes you think I didn't?

Because you're completely consistent.

Winston Churchill ran into a reporter in the mens room who'd been writing tough stories about him in the papers. He said to Churchill, sorry, I know I've been hard on you. Churchill replied, in the future I'd appreciate if you insult me in the mens room and apologize in the papers ...

No idea where you're holding your side to any standard, but it sure isn't on the board

He's a lefty.

BY DEFINITION: Their own shit does not stink.

 

[Unkotare]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

False premise - troll thread

The question is...what would say to this.

If the premise if false, you should have some way of countering it.

Arguing from a false premise is inherently illogical. Maybe you should go learn something about logic and then try this again.