"They speak as if all gays all women and all blacks think exactly alike. Political conservatives fight for freedom and liberty for all."
---
Conservatives do no such thing. From what I've seen, Conservatives want freedom exclusively for white, heterosexual Christians, and no one else. They even go so far as to define "freedom" as the freedom to engage in discrimination and persecution, and they view Civil Rights as an attack on freedom.

I don't think anyone has done that, actually.

You obviously don't understand atheism. Here's an brief essay you might want to read.

"Morality without religion," by Marc Hauser and Peter Singer:
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/p...

Hitler's philosophy was exactly opposite that of the Communists. It was well known back at the time that Fascism was the capitalist response against Communism, but today people have forgotten that little tidbit of history.

To categorize Liberals as believing that the individual should submit to the collective is a false definition of Liberals, because every group requires its members to submit and follow. And yes, that includes Conservative groups, and even Objectivist groups. Ayn Rand had a low tolerance for dissent, and she frequently expelled anyone from her circle if they didn't completely agree with her.

Which side of the political spectrum put people in mental hospitals because disagreement with their ideology was considered proof-positive of insanity?

Answer: the left.

How is it irrational?

HITLER WAS LEFT WING.

There's no revisionism necessary; his philosophy was no different from the communists whom he fought.

See my reply to khalling regarding atheism.

Yes, a goodly number of *liberals* are anarchists, if you use the classical definition of liberal... in the Humpty-Dumpty way you like to switch the usage of words around to suit whatever your argument of the moment is. But, I was talking about *leftists*, who believe the individual is subsumed to the collective, be that collective called "the state" or "the people".

---
Rudyard Kipling
Macdonough's Song

"As easy as A B C"--A Diversity of Creatures"


Whether the State can loose and bind
In Heaven as well as on Earth:
If it be wiser to kill mankind
Before or after the birth--
These are matters of high concern
Where State-kept schoolmen are;
But Holy State (we have lived to learn)
Endeth in Holy War.

Whether The People be led by The Lord,
Or lured by the loudest throat:
If it be quicker to die by the sword
Or cheaper to die by vote--
These are things we have dealt with once,
(And they will not rise from their grave)
For Holy People, however it runs,
Endeth in wholly Slave.

Whatsoever, for any cause,
Seeketh to take or give
Power above or beyond the Laws,
Suffer it not to live!
Holy State or Holy King--
Or Holy People's Will--
Have no truck with the senseless thing.
Order the guns and kill!
Saying --after--me:--

Once there was The People--Terror gave it birth;
Once there was The People and it made a Hell of Earth
Earth arose and crushed it. Listen, 0 ye slain!
Once there was The People--it shall never be again!
---

Leftists do NOT construct arguments using mathematics. They use mathematics to give their arguments the illusion of reasoned thought, even though the math is bogus and the actual argument is all about feeeeeeeeeelings. Whether it is feeeeelings for the welfare parasite, the illegal alien invader, or the poor Earth being destroyed by the eeeeeevil capitalists, it's still all emotion-driven, not reason driven.

"How do you write leftists so well?"
"I think of a conservative, and take away reason and accountability" - What Melvin Udall *really* said in "As Good As It Gets"....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBz0BTb8...

If conservatives construct arguments using religion and dogma... then I guess it's conservatives who are behind the carbon exchange and the global warming hysteria...

Wrong.
Being born again is not a license to sin.
Parallel example: a Catholic sins, goes to confession... therefore a Catholic can sin all he wants... except A) his confession has to be sincere or it doesn't count and B) he must go forth and sin no more.

We're back to the Objectivist pedophile argument, khalling.
What's the old saying? Figures don't lie, but liars can figure? Some Catholic priests were homosexual pedophiles; does that mean that all Catholics are homosexual pedophiles, or does it mean that some homosexual pedophiles hide in the Church?

Likewise, atheism appeals to the left because there's no daddy or mommy to answer to. You can do whatever you want without restraint, there are no consequences.
And because you're a leftist, you have no guiding character telling you "this is right" and "this is wrong"; everything is morally relative, and therefore ambiguous, so what is "good" is whatever you enjoy and can get away with.

Exactly what is "personal responsibility"? To whom does an atheist answer if one acts irresponsibly? We have the left's answer: force Hobby Lobby to pay for your birth control. Force the responsible to provide a safety net for the consequences of your irresponsible behavior. And there's no moral framework for them to prevent this... for want of a better term... perversion of atheism.

I hope you understand my point, now.

Refusing to read information that goes against your preconceived bias. How very Conservative of you... ;)

Hitler was right-wing. The claim that he was a Liberal is modern historical revisionism. Stalin could also be considered right-wing within the context of his society.

Atheism does not remove personal responsibility. Religion does.

And Liberals are no more attracted to statism than are Conservatives. A significant portion of Liberals are actually anarchists, which is the exact opposite of statism. Also, I've noticed that Conservatives tend to only complain about "statists" when a Liberal is in office. When a Conservative is in office, Conservatives are all for the state.

You claim that nuance is evasion, but you fail to realize that some questions simply do not have an easy, straightforward answer. As Oscar Wilde says, "The truth is rarely pure and never simple." The Conservative demand for pure and simple truths inevitably means they will have little truth.

And Conservatives use emotion in their philosophies far more often than Liberals do. Liberals construct arguments using mathematics. Conservatives construct arguments using religion and dogma. I don't think I need to point out which of those involves logic and which one involves emotion.

You mean people with a Conservative-bias.

It could mean that. It could also cause a person to reach a conclusion prematurely by insisting that the problem is simpler than it actually is. It could also cause a person to refuse to listen to outside sources if those sources are difficult to understand, or if they raise more questions than answers.

And on the left you have Stalin, Mao, Castro, Minh, and let's not forget Hitler.

On the right you have.... ?

You have it backwards; most Christians tend to be more conservative because Christianity, like conservatism, promotes a belief in personal responsibility, whereas liberals are attracted to statism and atheism because they remove personal responsibility.

"error management - Conservatives do tend to be far more concerned about controlling borders and suppressing alternative religions than Liberals."
No, conservatives are far more concerned with suppressing evil and protecting good than are liberals. Liberals live in a gray world where nobody's really bad, so that nobody can be really good...

Conservatives are concerned with allowing individuals to practice their religious beliefs, whereas liberals are only concerned with allowing everyone to practice the liberal's belief du jour.

What you call "nuance" conservatives call "evasion".

By definition, if one is a member of a group, one must be lumped with other members of that group... or one is not a member of a group. You can't define a group without... defining a group.

Oh, gotta have fun with this tidbit:
" Conservatives do absolutely tend to be much more dogmatic than Liberals."
"Conservatives do tend to be far more concerned about controlling borders and suppressing alternative religions than Liberals."

Hmm... didn't someone just say:
" Conservatives like to paint issues with a broad brush, and often lump all members of a particular group together"?

Methinks you project too much, Maph.

You're becoming more fun to play language with than dbhalling...

Edit to add:
Liberals aren't "nuanced". Their philosophies are based upon emotion, not reason, therefore their arguments tend to be vague and unfocused, not "nuanced".

Anybody who's at all familiar with Berkley?

Fear and aggression - Conservatives do generally tend to be more aggressive than Liberals, in my experience, though there are definitely some exceptions.

Dogmatism - Conservatives do absolutely tend to be much more dogmatic than Liberals. This is why most religious people are Conservatives. It's also why Ayn Rand's books are popular among Conservatives but not Liberals. Objectivism is a philosophy which essentially said it's immoral to not subscribe to dogma.

Intolerance of Ambiguity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Need for Cognitive Closure - These three all kind of go hand-in-hand. And yes, they are character traits which are far more prominent among Conservatives. A big example I've personally noticed is in regards to trans* issues. Liberals are generally willing to accept that gender can be vague and ambiguous, and subject to mutation and deviation (just like all aspects of biology), while Conservatives typically are not, even when presented with scientific evidence. To Conservatives, dogma trumps science.

Terror management - Conservatives do tend to be far more concerned about controlling borders and suppressing alternative religions than Liberals. Conservatives like to paint issues with a broad brush, and often lump all members of a particular group together, whereas Liberals will take an approach which is more nuanced, and therefore more accurate.

According to who?