As a conservative, my thinking and rationalizations are made on the basis of collective experience. What works is what has worked for mankind, and this is the basis for what I think will work in the future. Ideas that emerge from the political left are often very idealistic and frivolous. Based on some 'theory' that has yet to ever be proven in practicality. Hopeful and wishful thinking, not critical or reasoned thinking at all. "Hope and Change" is a prime example. Simply changing for change sake and hoping things will turn out for the better, is not a well-reasoned or well-thought-out plan, as it turns out. Conservatives could have saved you the time in trying this experiment.
I am a psychologist, and I guess I have always been interested in the way people think and rationalize things. I was probably in about the 5th grade when I realized I wanted to be a psychologist. In my case, the profession picked me, I didn't pick the profession. When it's your 'calling' to study the way people think and rationalize, you certainly have to master your own thinking and rationalization. You very seldom see psychologists going to a psychiatrist. Therefore, I tend to be very comfortable with what I think and believe, and it takes a tremendous amount of hard core information to change what I think. I don't change my mind based on the opinions of others, and in fact, I am very skeptical when someone is attempting to change my mind.
Logical fallacies, or "formal" and "informal" fallacies, are errors in logic. These should never be a problem to isolate and point out to the individual employing them. It's simply a matter of articulation. If you cannot articulate why something is a "logical fallacy" it probably isn't one.
You are clearly intelligent and I appreciate your posts. But to think a field of study takes on human intention by choosing you is not very rational. I respect this belief however, and am aware when I am on the "right track" in life and when I'm not. Your premise seems more narrative based then in objective reality. I'm not saying we have total access to objectivity in the world and can understand it fully, but if we can't differentiate between what our values /opinions are and mistake them for fact, we are making rational discussion and compromise more difficult. There is more brush to clear then. If we both could come to common ground, work from a common premise from which to discuss, then I think we can have fruitful discussion. So let's see what you wrote,
Take you uncritical blanket statements about liberals and idealizing. What is a principle, such as many conservatives talk about, if not an ideal? An ideal for which to strive? Maybe you don't listen to you conservative representatives much. Neither do I but enough to know they use idealistic language. In fact, ideology, which has caused the gridlock in congress is in fact NOT WORKING. I take practicality seriously too and the ideological gridlock in congress is a result of neither side compromising, neither side modifying principle in order to make the system work so that our current system doesn't work, except for the super rich 1%. They have much access to our politicians and fund their campaigns.
But actually that's what congress was designed to do: represent the interests of those who own the nation (1%/corporations) but this is a different topic and I won't say anymore.
I wanted to address your Hope and Change objection. You speak as if either concept is idealist. If we take hope at face value, hope is essential to wake up in the morning. Without a motivation that you haven't yet achieved though are striving for, then you don't get out of bed, even if it's just a vague estimate. So Hope sounds very essential to human thinking and life in general, a belief that things can get better.
Take change. Well, taken at face value again, change simply means a different and new situation. Well, I doubt many people think there should be no change from this moment on. Change is happening each day and without adaptation, humans could not survive. Thus, we were born into a constantly changing world and we must keep up if we want to play the game. So yeah, change also seems critical for our lives. Plus I doubt many people think the government and politics are how they should remain...so yeah, change
is and can be good, depending on what the change is. Such vague terms are really malleable for use as political strategy.
Even McCain's 2008 campaign sought "Hope and Change" for their campaign slogan but didn't pull it off as well--I'm simply talking in marketing/advertising terms, I don't care about who won or who is better. Why did both candidates choose this slogan? Look at the polls around the time. What was the country wanting? Hope. Change. That's what a billion dollar campaign can get you, brilliant strategists who read public polls. In fact, CPAC speech by Ted Cruz yesterday or recently also invoked Hope and Change as something Cons need but obviously not of the liberal variety.
So your attack on Hope and Change and idealism of liberals seems far less based in rational discussion then some personal antipathy towards liberals. I am sorry that liberals in the past have rubbed you raw so that you don't genuinely respect liberals from the get-go (I don't think your accusing me of this, I'm merely making what appears to be a factual observation about how you treat a liberal). Given that fact I am skeptical to the quality of discussion we can have. So I want to be clear I am opposed to both parties so you don't box me in as lib or con. like those are the only two possible positions. Perhaps working from the common ground of critical thinking and discussion instead of personal feeling and invocations of intuition, we can reach some common ground. That would feel like a warm cup of delicious tea if we could accomplish this. The ball is in your court. Tear this apart, ask me a question, anything, just please let's try to remain as close to rationality and reason as we can.
