-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Simplified Psychology: Conservative and Progressive Ideology
- Thread starter joe1776
- Start date
joe1776
Well-Known Member
(1) Earlier you claimed that you found an inconsistency between two of my statements but in your previous post you refer to only one statement. Thus, it's obvious that you realized you couldn't support your original claim. So, you are floating a substitute.
(2) You altered my statement by clipping off the first sentence and changing my words to create a straw-man argument. It's not my statement. It's your creation.
Last edited:
Augustus
…
Surely you can use you famous powers of logical deduction to work this out. Changing your words and highlighting them in pink was kind of the point seeing as it seemed beyond you to work it out yourself.
Your logical inconsistency: Christians are arrogant for feeling morally superior to 'nasty' atheists and atheists are arrogant for feeling superior to 'dumb' Christians, yet you rule out the possibility for progressives to arrogantly feel morally superior to 'dumb, 'nasty' conservatives.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
I can't tell from your statement whether you are nit-picking by saying that there are exceptions to my general statement or if you have missed the logical deduction that...
Progressives, who generally see other human beings as equal in human worth, are not generally seeing themselves as superior in human worth. In other words, do you not understand that equality and superiority are mutually exclusive perceptions?
Arrogant Christians and arrogant Atheists,(those highest in arrogance within each group) on the other hand, both see themselves as superior to their 'opponents.'
Last edited:
Augustus
…
The problem with your 'logical deductions' is that they completely ignore reality. You seem to have absolutely no understanding of either current events or humans in general.
Here are some examples of progressives "not" feeling superior to conservatives from the last few days:
“[Boris Johnson] is a pig and I’m so ashamed that he’s the prime minister of my country, it’s disgusting and I wish him the worst, I wish him a horrible death,”
“What I hate the most about Boris is literally everything he stands for. I can't begin to pin it down to one thing. Everything about him is revolting, and on a moral level, disgusting. He represents everything that is wrong with the current political climate globally, not just here. He is a racist, Islamophobic, misogynistic – to repeat, racist – ****. He is trash.”
“I hate that he represents everything we, and I, are trying to change: a racist, oppressive system that is bent on othering minorities and the disadvantaged. Boris has proven himself to be consistently racist and misogynistic, he is the antithesis of the positive, modernistic, inclusive Britain I want, and we need. So, **** him.”
If you had the slightest clue about what has been happening over the past 5 years, you would understand that these kind of views are not uncommon in some progressive circles. Anyone who opposes them can only do so because they are stupid, bigoted morons.
You would also understand that some progressives feel it is ok to violently assault peaceful conservatives, and many more find it funny when it happens.
The 'logical deduction' that if you have an ideological commitment towards governments helping minorities then you can't feel superior to your political opponents, people who you judge as being literal fascists bent on destroying everything you hold sacred, is beyond inane.
(and no, this isn't 'nitpicking a general statement', it is a complete rejection of the logical basis for your 'argument')
Anyway, no doubt you'll find some special pleading to engage in, or quibble something unimportant to the main point, so, to use your favourite phrase, I'll leave it to 'intelligent, unbiased people to decide' if your opinions are representative of reality or simply your own prejudices and ideological bias.
Last edited:
joe1776
Well-Known Member
No matter how highly you value them, your opinions are worthless as debate.
(1)Do you label someone progressive if they are in favor of one progressive issue? (2)If you had asked me first, I would have been willing to stipulate that you could cherry-pick a few examples to support your point from the media that loves outrageous comments and saved you the trouble of searching.
You are claiming with no support that the exceptions disprove my general statement.
Another unsupported opinion offered as debate.
I disagree. Nit-picking a general statement with exceptions is exactly what you're doing.
By all means; let's do that.
I hope they will note that, at the end of this discussion, it took you five or six posts to finally state what you thought was an inconsistency between two of my statements. I countered by pointing out the logical deduction you missed and, in this post, you offered no counter whatsoever.
Last edited:
Unless the evidence supports greater or lesser complexity.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
I'm using the word theory as it's understood in common usage not as scientists use it. So, there's no evidence because the theory hasn't been tested.
I don’t know that the common usage of the term is very useful.
How would you go about testing it?
joe1776
Well-Known Member
Think of it as a synonym for the scientific term hypothesis.
I've tested it personally and so can you.
I inherited an above-average problem with arrogance. By identifying the specific kinds of arrogant behavior among my habits, and then using willpower to reform those habits, I have reduced the problem.
Social scientists could test the hypothesis with any group with the same problem, bullying for example, that they can follow long-term. Lifers in prison might be their choice.
A theory and a hypothesis aren’t synonyms though. A theory is a working hypothesis that has been thoroughly tested in a way that yields explanatory power, ergo can make effective predictions and have practical applications.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
From Dictionary.com:
1) a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:Einstein's theory of relativity.
2) a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Since I'm writing for non-scientists, definition No. 2 is the meaning in common usage for the word "theory.".
joe1776
Well-Known Member
Researchers would want a group that is easy to follow. The fact that they are in a more negative environment would make any improvement more significant.
Perhaps. I’m beginning to follow your train of thought.
What causes arrogance? How would we go about reconditioning the mental states associated with it?
I think it has more to do with an ego centric perspective, delusions of isolation, and perhaps flawed hypotheses about moral agency rather than conservative or progressive ideologies.
Last edited:
joe1776
Well-Known Member
In previous posts on the topic of arrogance, I explained that I begin with the thought that human behavior satisfies unconscious needs and that arrogant behavior logically is the attempt to satisfy the unconscious need to feel superior to others.
Arrogant behavior, like all behavior, is mostly habitual. So, reducing our own arrogance would involve recognizing arrogant habits and reforming them.
If you browse my previous posts, I explain a great deal about human misbehavior with arrogance as its cause.
If you read the OP again, you might now have a better understanding that it's an argument explaining how higher than average arrogance explains why conservatives resist the upward moral trend toward equality.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
There is a difference between equal rights and equal results. For example, in sports everyone plays by the same set of rules, no matter the age. However, not everyone makes it to the big leagues or the championship.
This is based on equal rights where the rules are the same for all. This does not lead to equal results since talent is not the same for all. Equal results, with variable talent, would require special rules for certain people and worse rules for others; quota system, so different skills levels balance,
Different rules for different people is defined as moral injustice. The ten commandments applies to all with some people unable to keep up with the program. To get equal results in terms of sins, do you allow only thieves to steal; make it legal, and honest cannot steal, we can decreases the sins of the thieves? One set of rules and different natural talents is the moral system.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
Please take another look at the list I gave you in the OP.
equality for slaves
equality for women
equality for homosexuals
equality for the children of the poor
equality for the insane or the handicapped
equality for all minority groups
Legal slavery has been abolished worldwide. The other trends are in the process of spreading from culture to culture. The equality I'm referring to isn't something that I'm saying OUGHT to happen. It HAS BEEN happening. It IS happening. It's a conscience-driven moral upgrade which informs us that all of us are equal in human worth.
You used the rules in competitive sports as an analogy. Why do you think a society, which is a cooperative endeavor, should make survival competitive? Why do you think it fair that someone born with a 150 IQ should be rewarded as though his/her good fortune at birth was an achievement to be rewarded and not a gift to be used in the service of all?
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
You are confusing equal rights with equal results. All the groups you mention are under the same rules as the person with the IQ of 150. They all have to obey the same speed limit on the road, and they all can get their license at the same age. Some will be better drivers, but nobody is treated differently by the law. Each may behave differently behind the wheel, but this is not due to an outside agent lording over them.
The problem with equal results is it discriminates against someone else, from the outside, since there are now more than one set of rules. This is where injustice occurs. Progressives thought the quota system was just. However, it created more than one set of rules, that targeted even those who never did anything wrong. All this did was swap the injustice in a zero sum game.
In the USA, there are now more females in college and universities than there are men. According to you, this needs to change since this is no longer equal results. We can use quotas, so there are as many men in college as woman. Yet there is no outcry for this. The progressives who preach fair are not concerned with fair, but with an agenda that promotes their voter base. This is where injustice can appear, all dressed up in sheep's clothing.
On the other hand, if we have equal rights=rules for all, and women dominate the college population, then this is natural result, and is not a dual standard agenda from the outside, that violates the rights of others. Men are using more common sense, wanting to avoid the huge debt associated with college education. Now the left wants two sets of rules where the tax payer, who does not go to college, has to pay for the education go those who do not wish to pay their debt. The poor college student needs a free ride at the expense of those who are making ends meet. One that one set of rules is often an agenda driven scam. The Progressive want to play God, rather than accept the God given talents and/or lacks thereof.
In the political system the leaders often get away with crimes and offenses; Russian collusion delusion, since they are above the laws given to everyone else. That is the dark side of more than one set of rules. Socialism creates more than one set of rules, where Big Government has all the power and free enterprise is inhibited.
The Royal family used to make all the rules, but in a way that gave them all the cards regardless of their talent and humanity. One set of rules was an upgrade allowing natural talent to be nurtured, everywhere. This is how nature works. More than one set of rules is regressive and immortal. If is often disguised in sheep's clothing.
The better way to deal with the "disadvantaged" is through charity. Charity can produce the same results while retaining one set of rules for all. You're giving does not take away from another. Progressives do not want to give from their own supplies, but prefer change the rules to they can extort others, and then take credit for caring.
If illegal immigration was important to you, have an illegal immigrant family move in with you. This takes nothing away from anyone else, one set of rules can still apply and the ideal result can occur. It is not about playing god with the rights of others, so you can get credit for caring, without having to give.
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Very wrong. Violent and repressive regimes, violent and cruel druv cartels, Machavellian politics, businesses that put profit before people, and many Muslim countries have went backwards. The Western idea of social progress being of a linear progression and inevitable is wrong.
No. Arrogance is a characteristic. Narcissism is a personality disorder. Anyone in the mental health field as well as physical health will use both terms, and not interchangeably because they do not describe the same thing.
You are the one posting unsupported rubbish. This forum alone is sufficient evidence that people on "both sides" can be insufferably and intolerably arrogant. That doesn't mean--inherently, necessarily, or automatically--they are narcissists.
Last edited: