The Conservative mindset

[BJohnsonPP]

@Abrupt, I was going to let my last comments be my last comments in the other thread but forgot to respond to one thing you pointed out in your second to last comments. I made a new thread because we're weren't talking about "Romney 2012" anymore. I really try to be brief but can't do it to save my life. So I'm sorry if this turns into a long essay again.

Again with your socialistic "collectively" argument. 

It's not my "socialistic 'collectively' argument", it's reality. Like I said, we have a balance between collectivism and individualism and there are plenty of things that you take part in and benefit from (roads, bridges, public schools, police, military, yadda, yadda, yadda) that are socialistic. You point out the constitution calls to provide some of these things but that doesn't change the fact that they are socialistic. You're absolutely fine with them until someone points out what they actually are. If reality conflicts with a conservatives ideology, they reject reality and substitute their own. I'm not saying this to be mean, I truly believe if there was a study done for cognitive dissonance, you'd find extremely high levels in the conservative population (then they'd dismiss the study as being conducted by a liberal think tank or something). Again, I'm not taking a jab, I genuinely believe this based on what I hear and see conservatives say and do all the time.

The mentality is pretty much to define yourself as always agreeing with A and always rejecting B and you cannot veer from that. So when your acceptance of B is reality, you throw the baby out with the bath water and reject reality because you've been convinced, and convinced yourself, that you can never accept B no matter what.

Richard Nixon:
“When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.”  (I can't accept illegality so I'll define myself as never accepting illegality therefore nothing I do is illegal by how I define myself)

Condi Rice:
"The United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture, and so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture." (The US isn't supposed to torture so I'll define the US government as a government that doesn't torture therefore making whatever we do not torture)

Elderly tea party member signs:
Keep government out of medicare! (I can't accept anything socialized so I stay completely oblivious to the fact that medicare, which I love, is run by the government)

Craig T Nelson on government bailouts:
"We're a capitalistic society. Ok, I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on foodstamps and welfare, anyone help me out? No." (Foodstamps and welfare are help... by the government no less, but I can't even entertain that thought because I'd have to rethink this idea of what our society actually is.) 

Conservative Christians:
1) Hatred for hippies and socialism... quote Jesus though he was clearly a hippie socialist. 2) Extol the virtues of capitalism while Jesus says “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” and  “...any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.” Hate handouts? Jesus doesn't "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 3) Claim the nation was founded on Christianity and ignore the treaty of Tripoli "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." 4) Keep government out of peoples lives... except when it comes forcing your religious beliefs on others through policy in the form of school prayer, don't ask don't tell, same-sex marriage, etc. 5) Claim a need for a strict adherence to the constitution, ignore the establishment and free exercise clauses and article VI "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." 6) Pro-life ("thou shalt not kill")... support the death penalty and never ending wars.

That point is entirely moot at best since we would each have the exact same benefits and opportunities and that only the truly exceptional would rise above.  From that sort of argument we can easily deduce that everyone should pay the exact same 'amount' of taxes and not just percent and it would reason then that the rich should pay no more than the poorest in dollar amounts (I know that isn't what you are arguing so you seriously need to rethink the implications of your ideology).  Furthermore all the wrong and crime would also be a product of this government benevolence so at the best possible case (from your position) it could only be "a wash" with nobody owing the government anything nor it owing us.

If that's what you "deduced", I can deduce you are no Sherlock Holmes. If you start out with nothing, you haven't utilized anything to your advantage. If you climb up, you utilize more and more. The more you use, the more you should put back. The rich utilized more of what we all chipped in on to become rich and continue to use more than the rest of us to stay rich. Public schools continue to provide them with workers, roads and bridges have provided them a way to get their products back and forth and a way for their workers to commute and I could go on but you get the gist (or at least you should). So, no, you seriously need to rethink your ideology.

Second, we didn't all start out on the same foot in this country. You know this and you know I can provide example after example to back up my point. Again, the problem with the conservative view point is that when reality conflicts with your ideology, ideology wins. You want to believe what this country is supposed to be so you ignore what it actually is.

I liken it to looking at the tower of Pisa. I'm seeing it's construction while conservatives never pick their heads up from the blueprint. I see something wrong with building the foundation, so I suggest we do X (I know nothing about construction so solve for X and fill in whatever it is you do to correct a bad foundation). All you see is me veering from the blueprint that you never looked away from and not why I'm veering from it. Getting back to the blueprint is fine, but you can't get there unless you correct mistakes made while trying to follow the blueprint. So now we have a leaning tower and any suggestion to fix the lean is seen by conservatives as an attempt to tear the tower down.

You mentioned slavery and something about me not being a slave. To even say something like that implies I'm trying to make some argument about currently being a slave which is just false. It also implies that you think events of the past don't effect the present which is also false. If you break someone's legs, they have to go through a healing process. The time it takes to heal takes much longer than the time it took to do the damage. Conservatives seem to think an act only has an effect in the time it happened. Bringing up a past event is an attempt to show you where current problems came from and why they persist today. You can't fix a problem unless you know its roots. Apply a cast to the broken legs or provide a crutch and you try to strip it away screaming about handouts and personal responisbility and standing on your own two ironically dismissing the responsibility of the one who broke the leg in the first place (file that under cognative dissonance). You call it special treatment because you completely ignore the mistreatment because, of course, if it's not happening now, it has no effect today. In the meantime, the legs never properly heal and you blame the person with the broken legs.

Lastly, you bring up an adherance to the constitution saying since it doesn't mention things like healthcare so the government shouldn't provide it. This is an example of following your GPS into a brick wall. It says turn right, so you just do. What could they have written about healthcare back then that would apply now? How was their healthcare "system" back then? They couldn't have forseen how our coutry would change, they only knew that it would change. The constitution is not written in stone for a reason. There are amendments that remove things that no longer make sense or apply and added things that do.

I asked this in another thread: What is the difference between someone yelling "Help me! Help me! This guy is trying to kill me!" to a cop and someone saying "Help me! Help me! This cancer is trying to kill me!" to a docotor? What's the difference between a doctor giving you a check up when you're fine, and a cop patrolling the streets when there's no criminal activity happening? They're the same yet one is paid for by tax dollars and one is not. You're fine with one and not the other because your ideology forces you to ignore the contradiction.

My "ideology" is one of common sense. Money should stand in the way of big screen tv's and Cancun vacations not justice, health, education, and saftey. Also, when needed (like for correcting mistakes and broken promises), the government should have a presence, and when not needed, they should back off. Whatever is best for the situation is what I support, not rigidly adhering to an ideology no matter what. 

[Abrupt]

I consider myself to be more of a libertarian in most areas with some conservative views and very few liberal views.  With such declarations I will attempt to respond as if you were directing your post at me and not at a "conservative mindset".  This is the best I can do.

First off I would like to address the concerns you had with starting a new thread or the potentiality for any of it to be perceived as a 'jab'.  Worry not about a new thread as that is perfectly fine with me and as I am fairly thick skinned and I don't mind any intended jabs, much less possibly misconstrued ones -- you can even curse me if you like as that doesn't really bother me.  I have been called about everything imaginable and insulted in ways I could never imagine and found much of it to be funny.

Conservatives may well have a greater degree of cognitive dissonance and it would make sense considering that they have a much stronger value system.  If you have a loose set of principles you are going to less likely experience internal confliction and turmoil.  Liberals also display such and it was viewed recently in the uproar over Chick-fil-A (liberals proclaim to espouse tolerance and understanding and yet when someone doesn't have the same opinion as them they wish to band them and remove them from existence).

Richard Nixon, Condi Rice, Elderly Tea Party member signs, Craig T Nelson -- I am not these people or things.  Regarding the 'elderly' Tea Party member signs, can you actually even find one that is an elderly person as everyone I saw looked to be people in their 20's or 30's (maybe that old).  Medicare is ran by the government but it is paid out of mandatory deduction on your paycheck.  They were speaking specifically to the cuts and planned overhauls of the system (the system they had no choice in participating in) and although their signs would seem to suggest a disconnect to those who were not familiar with the particularly controversy, those who paid attention would understand the meaning (although I suspect a "don't overhaul" or "don't cut" would have been clearer than "keep government out of").

Regarding conservative Christians.  I don't see where you get the 'hate' part as that isn't a Christian value (they can and likely will experience hate but it isn't a collective trait and to qualify Christians with it indicates a misidentification on your part.  I will assume you use the word 'hate' for 'dislike' or 'disprove of' and continue from there.  Christians tend to not favor 'hippies' (damn haven't seen one in a long time, honestly) because of a vast difference in values and such would be expected.  Christians don't like socialism as it is recognized by them as the slavery it is.  It relies on force to achieve cooperation and its mandatory nature denies the very act of generosity.  Socialism is anethma to the teachings of Christ.  Because an act is good if done freely does not mean that the same act is good if done by force.  Liberals have such a problem with this.  An easy example is Warren Buffet and his stance on taxing, but yet he takes every tax exemption he can and he never gives to the government any more than he is forced to.  Yet he would force everyone to give more and consider the thing then somehow good.  Christ taught that to perform your 'good' works for the crowds was all the reward you would get as it was only those done in secret that had any real importance -- this alone should be enough for most to recognize the difference.


Regarding the socialistic part.  We do utilize many things that are of a collective cooperation, such as roads.  There are also private roads that perform as well or better.  Roads don't have to be collective in nature and it appears that the private ones are cheaper and superior.  Because I know this one cannot suggest to me that I can only function with the collective ones.  I paid my share of taxes to have them built and kept up.  I owe no more obligation for the cost than anyone else that uses them and I don't fell that I owe less than those that didn't contribute towards the cost as perhaps they may not have wanted them even if they do use them.  The people that want the goods that I provide may well desire these roads far more than I do because they already proved that they want what I have and they do so enough to pay me for it.  I don't mind cooperation to achieve a goal as that makes perfect sense.  What I do have a problem with is for others to assume they have a right to my additional successes because I utilized the very roads I participated in building/maintaining.  That is where I have a problem.  If it was reasonable enough to build these things before I had success then it served a purpose then and satisfied its intent.  Because I later succeed beyond the others why do I have to be eternally bound to the fate of the others because I once cooperated in helping us all?

You claim the rich use more and I see it tends to be the opposite.  Certainly those that don't pay any federal income tax and make use of the government handouts use more would you not say?  If people want the product that the rich make so bad that they are willing to pay for it do they not then each use the road the exact same each as the rich use to manufacture and deliver the product?  The rich produce wealth where none existed, they provide jobs and opportunities to people that had none.  How are they the villain and how is that they should owe more for simply filling a need that people have?  If you removed the rich and sent them and their wealth and products away what would you be left with?

My slave stipulations to you were about the distinction you made of being black when I mentioned slavery.  I had ancestors who died in the civil war fighting against slavery and yet I don't hate people from the South.  I don't see self loathing from blacks (particularly non African born blacks) or perhaps more particularly a hatred of African born blacks for their ancestors selling them into slavery.  I was not brought up to hate nor was I brought up to indulge in self pity.  I was taught to take responsibility for my actions and all actions that occur around me.  Considering such, anger, resentment, guilt, self pity, etc were not luxuries I could easily afford.  That is not to say that I never experience these things as I am human and obviously have, but I also knew they were weakness of character and needed to be addressed.  It is to the point now that there is this liberal guilt that tells me it is time to Let It Go already.  You were obviously brought up to think differently so only you can address your own demons.  Your talk of wounds and casts and healing suggest you are not your own person and that you are not accountable or in control of yourself.  If you don't control yourself, then what are you?

Regarding the Constitution, blueprint, etc.  The founding fathers were actually pretty wise when writing the Constitution and that is why they stipulated  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".  States are to take up these issues each to themselves and this allows us free people to remain free and "vote with our feet" if need be.  We ended up weakening the entire nation over a few weak people (instead of addressing these people locally) and now we have a culture of weakness inherent and about today.  Things like SSI, medicare, Medicaid, welfare, and all these other social programs have made us weak and put our nation at the risk it faces today.  To use your building analogy, you wouldn't take stones from the strong side of the building to prop up the weak side would you?  No you would let those at the weak side address it locally as they best understand it and you would never put the whole building at risk (it was built with a particular strength in mind and to reduce its strong sides intentionally defeats the original purpose -- it cannot be handled that way).

I don't see a contradiction between law enforcement and free medical care.  We are a nation of laws and as such we must conform to these laws.  We are not a nation of slaves and thus we do not have to conform to the same habits, exercises, diets, etc.  There is no way we could ever deliberately not get sick, but we can deliberately not break laws.  It is about freedom and choice, words liberals so often like to use together.  We have the freedom of choice about laws and habits and diets and exercise, but we do not have the freedom of choice about getting sick.  There is then a purpose for having law enforcement, but should we then create a group of police that arrest people for getting sick?  Obviously not, but your path would necessitate a group of law enforcement to punish those that adopt any habit or lifestyle that promotes sickness or any medical costs -- otherwise it is entirely unjust and unlawful to those of us that choose to live healthy.  You never ever saw it that way did you?  Do you see the hidden implications of it all now (not in a conspiratorial way that suggest it will be implemented but in a way that suggest that the only fair way to enforce such things of sharing expenses is to actually implement penalties for those that violate the principles that ensure health and longevity).  No, the two concepts you present are quite different and easily dispelled by a simple cursory examination.  Again it always comes back the the liberal and tyrannical view of "the ends justify the means" or "the greater good".  Remember those phrases as they almost always precede a loss of freedom or an unjust action.

You speak of common sense as if it is a rare thing, but it is called 'common' for a reason.  What you want to label as common sense is a particular ideology that seems reasonable to you, but as you are aware by the very nature of ideological disagreement it is not reasonable to all or likely most.  This disqualifies it as 'common sense'.

[BJohnsonPP]

Conservatives may well have a greater degree of cognitive dissonance and it would make sense considering that they have a much stronger value system. If you have a loose set of principles you are going to less likely experience internal confliction and turmoil. 

 

Wow. You're seriously trying to make cognitive dissonance out to be a good thing? Cognitive dissonance is about holding conflicting ideas and being in denial of, or oblivious to the conflict. There is no struggle, there's no turmoil, there's no attempt to resolve the conflict because you've convinced yourself that there is none.

The rest of us actually are conflicted because we don't pretend that these ideas can share the same space. We know they can't. We have to actually think about them and reject one.

You've just added another example of dissonance to the pile:
Declare moral superiority knowing full well your actions prove time and time again, you have no moral superiority at all. How many "family values" republicans have to get caught in the same scandals they've bashed someone else for before they realize no one believes them? How many times does it have to happen in these oh so moral churches and communities before you get a clue?

Conservatives have a much stronger value system huh? Because they/you declare it to be so? Sounds familiar doesn't it? Sounds like those quotes I gave you. Give me a break. 

Liberals also display such and it was viewed recently in the uproar over Chick-fil-A (liberals proclaim to espouse tolerance and understanding and yet when someone doesn't have the same opinion as them they wish to band them and remove them from existence).

Uh, no. This is called false equivalence. Only a conservative would think not being ok with someone's bigotry is itself
bigoted. Only the conservative brain can turn someone who stops a bully into a bully themselves. You do it all the time.

For example:
Attack the president for every single thing he says and does no matter how benign, refuse to work with him on anything then declare him divisive. Not just divisive, but the most divisive president every. (Really?) Not liking or agreeing with something someone says or does doesn't make them, or you, for that matter, divisive. Spinning everything someone says or does into some evil plot does make you divisive though.

You prove this with your analysis of his "you didn't build that" comments which I'll address below.

Richard Nixon, Condi Rice, Elderly Tea Party member signs, Craig T Nelson -- I am not these people or things.

There's that cognitive dissonance again. You absolutely are them. You display that here
http://www.fusioncash.net/forum.php?topic=43672.0 in this thread you opened about the presidents comments. You break his comments down, NOT based on what he's actually saying, but based on what you've decided he means which is determined by how you've decided to define him. (Also, you conveiniently leave off his last statements where summarizes what he was saying).

Nixon: "I'm saying when the president of the united states does it, that means it's not illegal" (I define myself as law
abiding therefore everything I do abides by the law given how I define myself).

Abrupt (or any conservative): I declare that the president is a commie-*bleep*-socialist-facist (or whatever the hell you guys decide to call him on any given day) therefore everything he says and does, no matter what he actually says or does, must be interpreted as being inline with communism, socialism, whatever-the-hellism.

For example:
sigmapi1501 gives you a clip of Mitt Romney expressing the EXACT same sentiments (you didn't get here by yourself) to Olympians in 2002. http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/23/565491/romney-to-olympians-you-didnt-get-here-solely-on-your-own/?mobile=nc . First, as I pointed out, you proceed to throw the baby out with the bath water and deny reality with this gem...

This was the best they could come up with since their attempts at a walk-back have failed. I disagree with Romney as much as Obama on the statements.

This clip of Romney is equivalent to someone being caught on cam committing murder while holding up their social security card and driver's license and you're the defense attorney standing up saying "Psht. You call that evidence?" It just makes you look ridiculous. Disagreeing with Romney and Obama's statements (baby and bath water) is just to say screw reality. What the hell is wrong with you? 

The two, while similar in some areas are not quite the same.

They're exactly the same.

Romney says to also cheer for the parents, coaches, and communities

In other words, give credit to people other than yourself?

whereas Obama says you couldn't have done it on your own.

Not doing it on your own is a true statement and Romney absolutely agrees: "You Olympians, however, know you didn’t get here solely on your own power." You're so full of crap, it's unbearable.

Romney wants to share credit with the people and Obama give credit to the government.

  I honestly can't stomach you at this point. Nowhere does Obama say or imply this. Infact, he's not even saying to share credit, he's just saying stop denying reality like you're continuing to do.

One uplifts others and the other puts down those that achieve -- while both mediate the success they are not all that similar when you break it down.

God, you're so full of s.hit. You didn't break anything down. You tore it apart, left pieces out, and arranged it to look
nothing like it once did.

One extends and the other apportions.

No, both express the same exact sentiments and you spin in an embarrasing attempt to reject reality because it doesn't line up with your view point.

Regarding the 'elderly' Tea Party member signs, can you actually even find one that is an elderly person as everyone I saw looked to be people in their 20's or 30's (maybe that old). 

Uh, maybe you were actually there and saw something different, but from what I saw on t.v., and what was pointed out often

because it stood out so much was how many older people were a part of the tea party movement.



http://youtu.be/nggq31L8zWw?t=1m10s

There's a sea of white hair here.

Medicare is ran by the government but it is paid out of mandatory deduction on your paycheck. They were speaking specifically to the cuts and planned overhauls of the system (the system they had no choice in participating in) and although their signs would seem to suggest a disconnect to those who were not familiar with the particularly controversy, those who paid attention would understand the meaning (although I suspect a "don't overhaul" or "don't cut" would have been clearer than "keep government out of").

No they were not. Those that opposed overhauls or cuts displayed signs to express that. They also interviewed these people, and their dissonance was confirmed beyond the signs and posters. Regardless though, if you're screaming about socialism, you can't support medicare at all. Period. Spin all you want, that disconnect is still there. 

Christians tend to not favor 'hippies' (damn haven't seen one in a long time, honestly) because of a vast difference in values and such would be expected.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. Hippies are about peace, love, and no wars. So... are you trying to prove my point or what?

Christians don't like socialism as it is recognized by them as the slavery it is.

I won't even address you calling socialism slavery. I'll just point out that dissonance on display again. Are Christians of today against slavery? Sure, but is their god/bible against it? Nope. I hate slavery but my god doesn't. Either reject my slavery condoning god or reject my modern views of slavery.... hmm... I'll just hold on to'em both. Cognative dissonance for the win!

An easy example is Warren Buffet and his stance on taxing, but yet he takes every tax exemption he can and he never gives to the government any more than he is forced to. Yet he would force everyone to give more and consider the thing then somehow good. 

This is an example of not understanding the situation. What makes more sense to accopmplish the task of breaking a wall down:

A) Break a boulder down into rocks and pebbles and have everyone, whenever they felt like it, throw their handfulls of rocks at the wall. Or B) Keep the boulder intact, having everyone push it down a hill at once to give it the moment it needs to break the wall.

Him giving his money back as an individual has no impact. We have the same goal and it can only be accomplished if we all get behind the boulder and push. Allowing you to sit it out screws us all.

Christ taught that to perform your 'good' works for the crowds was all the reward you would get as it was only those done in secret that had any real importance -- this alone should be enough for most to recognize the difference.

Riiiiight.... the same way he teaches that you should pray in private and not in public like hypocrits. Who wants to force prayer in public schools again? Diss-o-nance... Diss-o-nance. Go team!

Regarding the socialistic part.  We do utilize many things that are of a collective cooperation, such as roads.  There are also private roads that perform as well or better. Roads don't have to be collective in nature and it appears that the private ones are cheaper and superior. Because I know this one cannot suggest to me that I can only function with the collective ones.

I don't have any statistics on private roads so I don't know this to be true however, taking 2 seconds to think about it should tell you that the fact that they're private means that they're not used by many people which may lead to them seeming "superior". I mean, what do you think... they have special concrete or something? No, they just get less use.

Now, you mentioned a bunch of stuff about what you do and don't owe and other stuff related to roads and what we all use. You can look at it like this: I pay my netflix bill ahead of time, before I use the service. The assumption is that I'll continue to use the same service each month. So I'm paying for future use here. If you have netflix, you have no problem with that. You don't call it slavery or anything else. My electricity bill is based on how much I actually use but, if they can't read the meter, I pay based on what I paid before. My bill is based on my history of use. If you have electricity, you have no problem with that. Stop using the services all together and you don't have to pay a dime.

The rich produce wealth where none existed, they provide jobs and opportunities to people that had none.  How are they the villain and how is that they should owe more for simply filling a need that people have?  If you removed the rich and sent them and their wealth and products away what would you be left with?

Who said anything about them being villains? You're shifting the goal post to say they're paying more to fill a need that people have. Who said that? They're paying for what they use. If they use more, it doesn't matter why they're using more. Who the hell said anything about removing the rich? You're errecting strawmen as conservatives typically tend to do. If you can't deal with what someone is actually saying, just assign them a position and if it's easier to argue against that.

My slave stipulations to you were about the distinction you made of being black when I mentioned slavery. I had ancestors who died in the civil war fighting against slavery and yet I don't hate people from the South.

You mentioned slavery and building the country among some other things. Saying you don't know how being black would come up from mentioning those things is nonsense. 2nd, who the hell said anything about hate?

I don't see self loathing from blacks (particularly non African born blacks) or perhaps more particularly a hatred of African born blacks for their ancestors selling them into slavery.

I'm an American. My concern is slavery here. Other than knowing that whites didn't just go to Africa with a big net to round up some slaves, I don't know a damn thing about slavery in Africa nor do I care. Slavery in America, and how blacks were treated after slavery has had an undeniable lingering effect now and stands out especially when you consider what this country was supposed to be founded on. Rights and freedoms weren't extended to all, yet this country was presented as one that stood for freedom and upholding rights.

I was not brought up to hate nor was I brought up to indulge in self pity.  I was taught to take responsibility for my actions and all actions that occur around me.  Considering such, anger, resentment, guilt, self pity, etc were not luxuries I could easily afford.  That is not to say that I never experience these things as I am human and obviously have, but I also knew they were weakness of character and needed to be addressed.  It is to the point now that there is this liberal guilt that tells me it is time to Let It Go already.  You were obviously brought up to think differently so only you can address your own demons.  Your talk of wounds and casts and healing suggest you are not your own person and that you are not accountable or in control of yourself.  If you don't control yourself, then what are you?

The fact that you bring up what you deal with as an individual in regards to this topic shows how much you don't know about race. It's always those that never have and never will deal with issues regarding race that want pretend they know what the hell they're talking about in regards to it when everything you say shows without doubt how clueless you are. This is a whole other subject that requires too much time. You coming to that question in regards to my analogies means not only do you not have a clue, but you really don't want one.

I don't see a contradiction between law enforcement and free medical care.  We are a nation of laws and as such we must conform to these laws.  We are not a nation of slaves and thus we do not have to conform to the same habits, exercises, diets, etc.

Who the hell said we have to conform to "the same habits, excercises, diets, etc."? However, though this is not even a point I'm trying to make, I'll just do it for fun, if we decide those diets, habits and such were laws, wouldn't we just be abiding by the laws if we followed them? If I don't agree with a law, I'll get locked up if I break it right? So I must conform or otherwise be punished. We're the ones that decide what the laws are. Something can be a law one day and not one tomorrow.

There is no way we could ever deliberately not get sick, but we can deliberately not break laws.

What the hell are you talking about? Take medication, throw on a condom, don't do a backflip off a garbage can. Those are ways you can "deliberately" not get sick. You can also accidentally break laws. Nod off and go through a red light.

It is about freedom and choice, words liberals so often like to use together.  We have the freedom of choice about laws and habits and diets and exercise, but we do not have the freedom of choice about getting sick.  There is then a purpose for having law enforcement, but should we then create a group of police that arrest people for getting sick?  Obviously not, but your path would necessitate a group of law enforcement to punish those that adopt any habit or lifestyle that promotes sickness or any medical costs -- otherwise it is entirely unjust and unlawful to those of us that choose to live healthy.  You never ever saw it that way did you?  Do you see the hidden implications of it all now (not in a conspiratorial way that suggest it will be implemented but in a way that suggest that the only fair way to enforce such things of sharing expenses is to actually implement penalties for those that violate the principles that ensure health and longevity).  No, the two concepts you present are quite different and easily dispelled by a simple cursory examination.  Again it always comes back the the liberal and tyrannical view of "the ends justify the means" or "the greater good".  Remember those phrases as they almost always precede a loss of freedom or an unjust action.

Dude, you say some nonsensical bs then pat yourself on the back. Who the hell does that? The reason I didn't "see it that way" is because I'm not retarded and your whole analysis is retarded. You really think you made some deep point though... smmfh. To make your entire retarded point you have to compare the (for example) bad eating habit to the crime or the criminal and have law enforcment round up all those eating donughts. NO! The scenario was "Help me, this cancer is trying to kill me!" compared to "Help me, this guy is trying to kill me!". The crime or criminal is the cancer! Smoking cigarrettes may lead to cancer the same way walking through a bad neighborhood with money hanging out your pockets may get you robbed. Do we arrest people for smoking? No! Do we arrest people for having money hanging out of their pockets in a bad neighborhood? No! So why the hell would we arrest people for eating donughts?  SMMFH The doctor helps the VICTIM of the illness and the cop helps the VICTIM of the crime.

You speak of common sense as if it is a rare thing, but it is called 'common' for a reason.  What you want to label as common sense is a particular ideology that seems reasonable to you, but as you are aware by the very nature of ideological disagreement it is not reasonable to all or likely most.  This disqualifies it as 'common sense'.

Common sense has nothing to do with ideology, it has to do with seeing things as they are. Get a dictionary. It shouldn't be a rare thing. It should be common to all but ideology gets in the way. You prove this.

[Abrupt]

Wow. You're seriously trying to make cognitive dissonance out to be a good thing? Cognitive dissonance is about holding conflicting ideas and being in denial of, or oblivious to the conflict. There is no struggle, there's no turmoil, there's no attempt to resolve the conflict because you've convinced yourself that there is none.

The rest of us actually are conflicted because we don't pretend that these ideas can share the same space. We know they can't. We have to actually think about them and reject one.

You've just added another example of dissonance to the pile:
Declare moral superiority knowing full well your actions prove time and time again, you have no moral superiority at all. How many "family values" republicans have to get caught in the same scandals they've bashed someone else for before they realize no one believes them? How many times does it have to happen in these oh so moral churches and communities before you get a clue?

Conservatives have a much stronger value system huh? Because they/you declare it to be so? Sounds familiar doesn't it? Sounds like those quotes I gave you. Give me a break. 

How on earth did you come to that absurd and obviously incorrect interpretation from what I wrote?  Cognitive dissonance does not require being in denial or obvious to the conflict, and in fact it generally occurs when the conflict is well obvious to the individual -- if you are as familiar with cognitive dissonance theory as you seem to claim then you should know this.  A good example of this is abusing drugs and knowing full well that such a habit is bad.  There is no denial involved as it is holding both the thought about the usage and the voluntary pursuit of using.

Please show me where I have declared moral superiority and then was proven otherwise -- much less where I have done this time and time again.  I have been quite clear with everyone here that I am not a very good person and that it is my wish that I will become a better person.

I must assume that you wish to imply that there is a disparity between the "family values" republicans exploits into scandals and depravity as compared to democrats ventures?  Do you really think that many of those so called "family values' republicans experience dissonance?  I would be willing to bet you that very very few of them ever experience any discomfort with such -- other than discomfort of being caught and not from conflicting beliefs.  Do you really give that much weight to the words of typical politicians that you would hold them to higher standards than you would yourself?  Personally, when I see a politician I almost invariably see a liar, but it seems that you see something else.  Few politicians will qualify within the scope of the constraints of the peoples of their platforms (this is easier for democrats, though, as they have more of a platform of "anything goes as long as it includes a larger government control of the population").  That is one reason that I have such a problem with the media these days as it is their main duty to hold the fire to the feet of politicians and government and instead they are their mouthpieces. 

Yes, conservatives have a stronger value system and that is why the contrasts for breaching them are more obvious and punished in the public eye more harshly.  When Bill was caught cheating on Hillary is an example of how the lack of such a value system within the party holds to the overwhelming view of others about the actions of a violation.  How differently things would have been if that were a conservative, eh?

Uh, no. This is called false equivalence. Only a conservative would think not being ok with someone's bigotry is itself
bigoted. Only the conservative brain can turn someone who stops a bully into a bully themselves. You do it all the time.

For example:
Attack the president for every single thing he says and does no matter how benign, refuse to work with him on anything then declare him divisive. Not just divisive, but the most divisive president every. (Really?) Not liking or agreeing with something someone says or does doesn't make them, or you, for that matter, divisive. Spinning everything someone says or does into some evil plot does make you divisive though.

You prove this with your analysis of his "you didn't build that" comments which I'll address below.

First off, you need to read what I wrote, which was how liberals display their loose set of values in the obvious disparity between their tolerance of the beliefs of others and their intolerance for someone that actually holds a belief that they don't.  This would be a prime candidate for cognitive dissonance if liberals truly felt a strong connection to a belief in tolerance.  Since their value system regarding tolerance is actually quite weak (if it actually even exists and isn't simply intolerance of a certain more restricted position reflected back as tolerance of whatever isn't inclusive to that restrictive position), they experience no uneasiness bashing anyone that doesn't hold to their beliefs/oppositions.

Secondly, this man has displayed no bigotry.  His exact words that are being condemned and labeled as bigotry were “We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit.  We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives.  We give God thanks for that.”.  It seems to me that the true bigots would be anyone claiming to be tolerant of the beliefs of others and then attacking this man for his beliefs -- beliefs which support his way of life and yet don't condemn the actions of others.

I am having difficulty following you here in some parts.  Am I supposed to be playing the role of someone else other than myself?  Are you just ranting your views about someone at me or do you think I am whoever it is you are venting at?  I will address these as best I can (as myself with conjecture where appropriate when it seems you wish me to address the beliefs of others that are not myself).

In your "For Example" here, I am assuming you are speaking of Republican politicians and projecting your venom for them onto me, you can set the record straight here if it is otherwise.  Well you are describing politics in your example.  Do you think it has ever been any different than a turmoil of positions and posturings?  Do you realize they used to disagree so much that they have actually had duels to the death?  How many politicians these days would go that far?  Our political system was designed to be in conflict with itself, and this was because it was generally considered that the less the government did the better it was for the people.  When you see disagreement in Washington, you can rest assured that it is the government functioning exactly as it was intended to.

For my personal beliefs of the President, I do find him to be the most divisive president I have ever known.  He pits groups of Americans against other groups and the Federal government against the states.  He polls for effect and then aligns himself with whatever group polls the best and pits them against the other with him as the representative of the majority of this split.  That has always been how politics works, but he has carried it to an extremists level with the usage of the force of the Federal Government to punish the States and private sector.

You display a rather naive view if you think things are that much more unique or different in the modern political arena as compared to earlier times.

There's that cognitive dissonance again. You absolutely are them. You display that here
http://www.fusioncash.net/forum.php?topic=43672.0 in this thread you opened about the presidents comments. You break his comments down, NOT based on what he's actually saying, but based on what you've decided he means which is determined by how you've decided to define him. (Also, you conveiniently leave off his last statements where summarizes what he was saying).

This is not cognitive dissonance, you seriously need to think about what you just said rather closely -- I can't believe you would actually make such a claim and not realize what you just said.

I was rather clear that I thought confirmation bias would play a role in how the speech was interpreted.  I broke them down based on what he said, not based on what you want me to think he said -- that is the difference.  I didn't conveniently omit anything, and the part you refer to has no relevance if included or omitted as it doesn't change what he said.  You seem to suggest that he contradicted his earlier statements, where I think he was talking about cooperative efforts en masse.  I would have loved to have included and expanded upon that last effort, though, as he suggest in it that everything should be socialistic because he makes the distinction that some things which we do with coordination would be absurd to do individually.  Why would you make distinction of the obvious?  That is the whole point of the speech.  He is making distinction of the insignificant and taking away from the significant.  His point was to drive a wedge between those that succeed and those that never even try by implying that those that succeed could not have done it on their own and then directing that back as if they were saying they absolutely did and didn't need the others.  The fact is that they were not saying this, but if they did say this they would be correct.  Again, and to stress this point, why do you think he gave the speech he did over a claim that wasn't voiced (but one he knows to be true).  Think about it closely, what was the point of his speech?

Nixon: "I'm saying when the president of the united states does it, that means it's not illegal" (I define myself as law
abiding therefore everything I do abides by the law given how I define myself).

Abrupt (or any conservative): I declare that the president is a commie-*bleep*-socialist-facist (or whatever the hell you guys decide to call him on any given day) therefore everything he says and does, no matter what he actually says or does, must be interpreted as being inline with communism, socialism, whatever-the-hellism.

Do you realize that you are trying to make your point by including a deliberate and obvious lie about me as part of your comparison of how I am Nixon?  Doesn't that seem a little bit insane to you (or anyone that might be reading this)?

For example:
sigmapi1501 gives you a clip of Mitt Romney expressing the EXACT same sentiments (you didn't get here by yourself) to Olympians in 2002. http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/23/565491/romney-to-olympians-you-didnt-get-here-solely-on-your-own/?mobile=nc . First, as I pointed out, you proceed to throw the baby out with the bath water and deny reality with this gem...

This was the best they could come up with since their attempts at a walk-back have failed. I disagree with Romney as much as Obama on the statements.

This clip of Romney is equivalent to someone being caught on cam committing murder while holding up their social security card and driver's license and you're the defense attorney standing up saying "Psht. You call that evidence?" It just makes you look ridiculous. Disagreeing with Romney and Obama's statements (baby and bath water) is just to say screw reality. What the hell is wrong with you? 

The two, while similar in some areas are not quite the same.

They're exactly the same.

Romney says to also cheer for the parents, coaches, and communities

In other words, give credit to people other than yourself?

whereas Obama says you couldn't have done it on your own.

Not doing it on your own is a true statement and Romney absolutely agrees: "You Olympians, however, know you didn’t get here solely on your own power." You're so full of crap, it's unbearable.

Romney wants to share credit with the people and Obama give credit to the government.

  I honestly can't stomach you at this point. Nowhere does Obama say or imply this. Infact, he's not even saying to share credit, he's just saying stop denying reality like you're continuing to do.

One uplifts others and the other puts down those that achieve -- while both mediate the success they are not all that similar when you break it down.

God, you're so full of s.hit. You didn't break anything down. You tore it apart, left pieces out, and arranged it to look
nothing like it once did.

One extends and the other apportions.

No, both express the same exact sentiments and you spin in an embarrasing attempt to reject reality because it doesn't line up with your view point.

You seem to forget that I deliberately stated that I didn't agree with what Romney said.  How can you have read that and then in here you want to use it as if to back up your claim of cognitive dissonance?  You actually quoted where I said I disagreed with Romney and posted it here.  Was my denouncement invisible to you?  How does my disagreeing with Obama and disagreeing with Romney support your claim?  Your bias towards me is so great that in addition to your previous projection of your villains onto my likeness you entirely interpret my opinion to be the exact opposite of what it was (i.e. I said I didn't agree with Romney and  you somehow have it as if I do agree with him).  Please take notice of the animosity you exhibit towards me in your missive and realize that you are holding me in a very harsh light simply because I don't agree with you.  I don't feel that way towards you and I encourage your disagreement and I wish you to realize it isn't a personal dislike against you and wish you would think the same about me.  Now I do realize that when debating points that sometimes there can be stronger emotional attachments that will reveal themselves more aggressively, and if that is so then it is fine but perhaps you could tone down your judgement of me just a bit (honestly, when I typed that I had to look back and try to see if I said something like "Are you insane" as I am prone to such usage of language to drive a point of contention and perhaps that is all you are doing here too -- it is just that some of the things you said seemed to be injected with extra ire than is typical).

Regarding the 'elderly' Tea Party member signs, can you actually even find one that is an elderly person as everyone I saw looked to be people in their 20's or 30's (maybe that old). 

Uh, maybe you were actually there and saw something different, but from what I saw on t.v., and what was pointed out often

because it stood out so much was how many older people were a part of the tea party movement.



http://youtu.be/nggq31L8zWw?t=1m10s

There's a sea of white hair here.

Medicare is ran by the government but it is paid out of mandatory deduction on your paycheck. They were speaking specifically to the cuts and planned overhauls of the system (the system they had no choice in participating in) and although their signs would seem to suggest a disconnect to those who were not familiar with the particularly controversy, those who paid attention would understand the meaning (although I suspect a "don't overhaul" or "don't cut" would have been clearer than "keep government out of").

No they were not. Those that opposed overhauls or cuts displayed signs to express that. They also interviewed these people, and their dissonance was confirmed beyond the signs and posters. Regardless though, if you're screaming about socialism, you can't support medicare at all. Period. Spin all you want, that disconnect is still there. 

I don't support medicare or any government socialistic welfare programs and have stated that repeatedly.  So, back to your point, that can only mean I am not an "elderly tea party sign" and thus you are again incorrect to claim I was/am.  So far every thing you I was like I have clearly demonstrated I am not and you are proving my point and the error of your assumptions.  This is fun.

[Abrupt]

-- Continuation of above because word limit was surpassed

Christians tend to not favor 'hippies' (damn haven't seen one in a long time, honestly) because of a vast difference in values and such would be expected.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. Hippies are about peace, love, and no wars. So... are you trying to prove my point or what?

Peace and love are certainly Christian values, but you certainly know that those are not the sticking points with Christians.  I will give you a point though that I have known some Christians who tended to prejudge men with long hair in a bad light and I have always had a problem with people calling themselves Christians behaving that way towards others based upon appearance (mostly in white churches, in black churches it was clothing instead of hair).  I don't expect everyone to have my sense of tolerance and realization of what is truly important, though.  The use of drugs and promiscuous sex is where Christians conflict with the hippie culture, and if it was just peace and love there would be no problems.

Christians don't like socialism as it is recognized by them as the slavery it is.

I won't even address you calling socialism slavery. I'll just point out that dissonance on display again. Are Christians of today against slavery? Sure, but is their god/bible against it? Nope. I hate slavery but my god doesn't. Either reject my slavery condoning god or reject my modern views of slavery.... hmm... I'll just hold on to'em both. Cognative dissonance for the win!

The Christian God is against slavery and this is evident throughout the bible.  I know the parts you might have problems with but you are wrong in your thinking.

- regarding enslaving another
"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)

- Leviticus dealt with slavery and detailed much about it.  Slavery was common in those times, and many people sold themselves into slavery to pay off debts but also for safety to avoid enemies.  It wasn't quite the same type of slavery as one normally thinks of and it wasn't permanent.  While one might purchase a slave from another, it was still a temporary thing that lasted until the debt of purchase was repaid through service.  It was entirely economical in nature as there were no bankruptcy laws or such methods to escape debt and you were forced to pay your obligations. 

"He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee" (Leviticus 25:40)

An easy example is Warren Buffet and his stance on taxing, but yet he takes every tax exemption he can and he never gives to the government any more than he is forced to. Yet he would force everyone to give more and consider the thing then somehow good.

This is an example of not understanding the situation. What makes more sense to accopmplish the task of breaking a wall down:

A) Break a boulder down into rocks and pebbles and have everyone, whenever they felt like it, throw their handfulls of rocks at the wall. Or B) Keep the boulder intact, having everyone push it down a hill at once to give it the moment it needs to break the wall.

Him giving his money back as an individual has no impact. We have the same goal and it can only be accomplished if we all get behind the boulder and push. Allowing you to sit it out screws us all.

Wait, I already argued that all of them giving the money over 10 years would only accumulate to 8 total days of government operating expenses and that such was insignificant so I obviously know his would be alone.  Buffet knows this as well and isn't even arguing that it would do any good but is portraying it as what is 'fair' which is a measure of morality.  He suggests that it bothers him "what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office.".  If it bothers him then he can easily fix it by refusing deductions or voluntarily paying more, it is that simple.  Liberals have a problem with this and instead of fixing what bothers them about themselves they would force everyone else to comply to their views and never voluntarily fix the very issue that only they themselves have with only themselves.  I find that quite insane.

Christ taught that to perform your 'good' works for the crowds was all the reward you would get as it was only those done in secret that had any real importance -- this alone should be enough for most to recognize the difference.

Riiiiight.... the same way he teaches that you should pray in private and not in public like hypocrits. Who wants to force prayer in public schools again? Diss-o-nance... Diss-o-nance. Go team!

Nobody wants to force prayer in public schools.  They want to allow prayer in public schools and not to have it disallowed by force.  Show me where anyone wants to force involuntary public prayer in school?  You can't do it!  What we do have, though, is those that want to prosecute people that voluntarily pray in public schools.  You sound like a radical liberal extremist with your statements here.  It is like you are saying that if you cannot force everyone to comply to your wishes that you are somehow being forced to allow them to voluntarily do what it is they wish to do and that is unsettling to imagine how you could hold to such a position.

And about your cries of "diss-o-nance", I will quote 'Inigo Montoya'  and say "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Regarding the socialistic part.  We do utilize many things that are of a collective cooperation, such as roads.  There are also private roads that perform as well or better. Roads don't have to be collective in nature and it appears that the private ones are cheaper and superior. Because I know this one cannot suggest to me that I can only function with the collective ones.

I don't have any statistics on private roads so I don't know this to be true however, taking 2 seconds to think about it should tell you that the fact that they're private means that they're not used by many people which may lead to them seeming "superior". I mean, what do you think... they have special concrete or something? No, they just get less use.

Now, you mentioned a bunch of stuff about what you do and don't owe and other stuff related to roads and what we all use. You can look at it like this: I pay my netflix bill ahead of time, before I use the service. The assumption is that I'll continue to use the same service each month. So I'm paying for future use here. If you have netflix, you have no problem with that. You don't call it slavery or anything else. My electricity bill is based on how much I actually use but, if they can't read the meter, I pay based on what I paid before. My bill is based on my history of use. If you have electricity, you have no problem with that. Stop using the services all together and you don't have to pay a dime.

Government operated roads are partly paid for by the gas tax (10% to 35%). The rest comes from taxes on the purchase of vehicles, other taxes, borrowing from the general fund, and about 5% from tolls.  95% of this funding is taken from our pockets against our will to be used for a product that we may not even use.  Private operated roads are better maintained and have better planning to avoid congestion.  They do cost money to travel on but if you don't want to use them you don't have to pay.  Mitch Daniels leased the Indiana toll road to a private company, Indiana received $4 billion, free and clear, no taxes, no debt left to the kids and nobody was forced to use the road if they didn't want to and nobody was forced to pay for the road even if they didn't use it.

I don't get your discussion of your netflix and electricity bill.  What does that have to do with socialism as you are not forced to use those services?  Are you now arguing for capitalism where previously your position was for socialism?

The rich produce wealth where none existed, they provide jobs and opportunities to people that had none.  How are they the villain and how is that they should owe more for simply filling a need that people have?  If you removed the rich and sent them and their wealth and products away what would you be left with?

Who said anything about them being villains? You're shifting the goal post to say they're paying more to fill a need that people have. Who said that? They're paying for what they use. If they use more, it doesn't matter why they're using more. Who the hell said anything about removing the rich? You're errecting strawmen as conservatives typically tend to do. If you can't deal with what someone is actually saying, just assign them a position and if it's easier to argue against that.

It was you that brought up rich and said that they used more and more of what we all chipped in.  It was you that said that and thus cast them in a negative light and as a burden or a villain.  My question about their absence was to prove a point, if you remove them what do you have left?  You have a bunch of poor people left, that can no longer afford all the socialistic programs that have been constructed and overwhelmingly paid for by the rich (roads, bridge, libraries, public schools, etc).  You are left with the undeniable truth that instead of them being the 'users' as you implied, they were in fact the providers as you can no longer sustain your society without them.  For it to qualify as a strawman I would have to have presented it is your argument and attacked it, but what I did was presented it as my argument and asked for the outcome of such a course.

My slave stipulations to you were about the distinction you made of being black when I mentioned slavery. I had ancestors who died in the civil war fighting against slavery and yet I don't hate people from the South.

You mentioned slavery and building the country among some other things. Saying you don't know how being black would come up from mentioning those things is nonsense. 2nd, who the hell said anything about hate?

Slavery is not unique to blacks, nor is building the country.  Being black has no exclusivity to those things to you other than whatever tortures you wish to subject yourself to.  I am the one that mentioned hate, you must have seen it above as you addressed it in your reply asking who said anything about it.  This could become quite circular if we do that each time and so from now on I will simply state that when I say something about something that it is actually me that is saying the something about the something unless I attribute it otherwise (now I mean that in a comical sense, but sometimes I wonder does it sound rude from your end to read it or does it sound funny like I type it -- this is a genuine question as sometimes humor doesn't transfer well over a medium like this).  But to the point of your question with the mentioning of 'hate'.  I use that where you bring up 'heal'.  I don't know if your heal is isolated to pain and sadness or to animosity and hatred.  I certainly see displays of hate in those portraying black suffrage and less so do I see pain.  I cannot really imagine how someone black today could feel pain about slavery in the past but I can understand how they would feel hate (I would if I allowed myself to indulge in the scenery as a victim of the wrongdoing).  I mean, I could understand how a black person today could hate a white person today if the black person today thought he was a slave of the past and thought the white person was one of the slavers or slave traders or slave owners (although there were significantly more African and Spanish slavers/traders/owners than there were white).  I could understand hate, but only under such delusions and I do not indulge in self pity (well not often, I suppose maybe I get down at times) so that is the emotion that would manifest itself in me if I were to try and make a connection of myself to the past under the conditions that you invoke as being significant to your race.

[Abrupt]

-- And the rest of the continuation from above --

I don't see self loathing from blacks (particularly non African born blacks) or perhaps more particularly a hatred of African born blacks for their ancestors selling them into slavery.

I'm an American. My concern is slavery here. Other than knowing that whites didn't just go to Africa with a big net to round up some slaves, I don't know a damn thing about slavery in Africa nor do I care. Slavery in America, and how blacks were treated after slavery has had an undeniable lingering effect now and stands out especially when you consider what this country was supposed to be founded on. Rights and freedoms weren't extended to all, yet this country was presented as one that stood for freedom and upholding rights.

I can understand that.  You must understand me though in that my ancestors gave their lives fighting to free an enslaved people and somehow to this day I am counted among the villains of the tragedy.  That bothers me tremendously as I feel I am always put into the position of having to defend something I never participated in from the wrong side instead of the right side that my ancestors participated in.  I see people equally, I don't treat them any worse or any better because of their race (well I once asked a Chinese born associate of mine if he could show me some kung fu and he told me that he felt that was sort of racist -- and perhaps it was but I don't know as I was considering it more culturally). 

I was not brought up to hate nor was I brought up to indulge in self pity.  I was taught to take responsibility for my actions and all actions that occur around me.  Considering such, anger, resentment, guilt, self pity, etc were not luxuries I could easily afford.  That is not to say that I never experience these things as I am human and obviously have, but I also knew they were weakness of character and needed to be addressed.  It is to the point now that there is this liberal guilt that tells me it is time to Let It Go already.  You were obviously brought up to think differently so only you can address your own demons.  Your talk of wounds and casts and healing suggest you are not your own person and that you are not accountable or in control of yourself.  If you don't control yourself, then what are you?

The fact that you bring up what you deal with as an individual in regards to this topic shows how much you don't know about race. It's always those that never have and never will deal with issues regarding race that want pretend they know what the hell they're talking about in regards to it when everything you say shows without doubt how clueless you are. This is a whole other subject that requires too much time. You coming to that question in regards to my analogies means not only do you not have a clue, but you really don't want one.

But I do know about race, as I indicated above.  I know how I am viewed as somehow being a racist because I am White (mostly by white liberals, which is an entirely racist implication).  You are correct, I don't want a clue, especially if it seems to be as you hint that I must give special considerations to people because of their race (which would be a most racist thing to do).  I treat people equally as they are with no distinction based upon color or ethnicity.  No racist policies or people will force me to ever treat people as anything other than people.  You identified yourself as black and I have not altered one bit how I address you -- not to harden or soften my language or tone.  You are not one bit different to me than anyone else in my eyes (well except your liberal traits I suppose, lol).

I don't see a contradiction between law enforcement and free medical care.  We are a nation of laws and as such we must conform to these laws.  We are not a nation of slaves and thus we do not have to conform to the same habits, exercises, diets, etc.

Who the hell said we have to conform to "the same habits, excercises, diets, etc."? However, though this is not even a point I'm trying to make, I'll just do it for fun, if we decide those diets, habits and such were laws, wouldn't we just be abiding by the laws if we followed them? If I don't agree with a law, I'll get locked up if I break it right? So I must conform or otherwise be punished. We're the ones that decide what the laws are. Something can be a law one day and not one tomorrow.

If we are to enforce the health and well-being of the citizens of this nation then they must conform to the healthiest lifestyle possible.  You posed the connection of law enforcement and sickness.  Where lawbreaking is voluntary, getting sick isn't.  It is possible to live healthier though and we don't all voluntarily do that either.  If we are to enforce the health and well-being though it necessitates us to enforce the lifestyles of those being provided for.  You cannot arrest cancer and lock it up in jail, so the only enforcement left to make is upon the individual.  Remember, it was you that made the connection between law enforcement and getting sick and I am only demonstrating how dissimilar the two are.

There is no way we could ever deliberately not get sick, but we can deliberately not break laws.

What the hell are you talking about? Take medication, throw on a condom, don't do a backflip off a garbage can. Those are ways you can "deliberately" not get sick. You can also accidentally break laws. Nod off and go through a red light.

If we could deliberately not get sick, nobody would ever get sick.  Show me one person with cancer that would voluntarily get cancer?  Show me one person with tuberculosis or malaria that said "I think I will get tuberculosis today, or I think I will go out and find me some malaria today".  Accidentally breaking laws is not the same as "deliberately not breaking laws".

It is about freedom and choice, words liberals so often like to use together.  We have the freedom of choice about laws and habits and diets and exercise, but we do not have the freedom of choice about getting sick.  There is then a purpose for having law enforcement, but should we then create a group of police that arrest people for getting sick?  Obviously not, but your path would necessitate a group of law enforcement to punish those that adopt any habit or lifestyle that promotes sickness or any medical costs -- otherwise it is entirely unjust and unlawful to those of us that choose to live healthy.  You never ever saw it that way did you?  Do you see the hidden implications of it all now (not in a conspiratorial way that suggest it will be implemented but in a way that suggest that the only fair way to enforce such things of sharing expenses is to actually implement penalties for those that violate the principles that ensure health and longevity).  No, the two concepts you present are quite different and easily dispelled by a simple cursory examination.  Again it always comes back the the liberal and tyrannical view of "the ends justify the means" or "the greater good".  Remember those phrases as they almost always precede a loss of freedom or an unjust action.

Dude, you say some nonsensical bs then pat yourself on the back. Who the hell does that? The reason I didn't "see it that way" is because I'm not retarded and your whole analysis is retarded. You really think you made some deep point though... smmfh. To make your entire retarded point you have to compare the (for example) bad eating habit to the crime or the criminal and have law enforcment round up all those eating donughts. NO! The scenario was "Help me, this cancer is trying to kill me!" compared to "Help me, this guy is trying to kill me!". The crime or criminal is the cancer! Smoking cigarrettes may lead to cancer the same way walking through a bad neighborhood with money hanging out your pockets may get you robbed. Do we arrest people for smoking? No! Do we arrest people for having money hanging out of their pockets in a bad neighborhood? No! So why the hell would we arrest people for eating donughts?  SMMFH The doctor helps the VICTIM of the illness and the cop helps the VICTIM of the crime.

Wow, 'dude', why loose your venom on me like this?  Do you see some photo of me patting myself on the back that I don't see?  Are there streaming accolades flying about from me to me that are hidden from my eyes?  I must know.

Actually, liberals have already enacted policies to arrest people for smoking, so yes we now do that it seems....

Wait a minute, did you just make the robber in your delusion out to be the victim?

I cannot really understand this babbling you presented here.  It is most irrational and full of insults about my intellect and rationale and presentation.  For you to react in such a manner betrays any wisdom you would wish to impart with your words.  You put a lot of time in responding so I am going to let this pass and request that you approach the situation a bit differently if you are actually trying to impart your point of view to me and any other readers brave enough to wade through our tangle of words and responses and counters.

You speak of common sense as if it is a rare thing, but it is called 'common' for a reason.  What you want to label as common sense is a particular ideology that seems reasonable to you, but as you are aware by the very nature of ideological disagreement it is not reasonable to all or likely most.  This disqualifies it as 'common sense'.

Common sense has nothing to do with ideology, it has to do with seeing things as they are. Get a dictionary. It shouldn't be a rare thing. It should be common to all but ideology gets in the way. You prove this.

Ideological difference prove that what you think to be common sense is not.  Touching a flame burns a liberal as much as a conservative and both ideologies know this.  This makes it common sense among them.

[BJohnsonPP]

First, You are correct in the definition of cognative dissonance. So, my points are incorrectly labeled but still stand. My points are about the conservative reaction too that dissonance. When experiencing this dissonance conservatives do not seek to resolve the conflict. They deny it and find ways to live with it and make anyone who brings it up the bad guy. "They have a problem, not me." So, for example, the conflict of being anti-socialism while pro-medicare is a matter of ignorance/stupidity (HIV). When made aware of this conflict, they are now suffering from full blown cognitive dissonance (AIDS) but they deny it or make excuses for it. There's no attempt to reject one conflicting idea for the other. They suffer from a disease, deny they have it and refuse any treatment.


Second, let me clarify, the topic is the conservative mindset. When I point to you I'm pointing to your connection to that mindset and where your comments fit. So, for example:

Please show me where I have declared moral superiority and then was proven otherwise -- much less where I have done this time and time again. I have been quite clear with everyone here that I am not a very good person and that it is my wish that I will become a better person.

I don't care if you're a good person or not. I wasn't saying you declared yourself morally superior. Conservatives in general do, however. By you saying conservatives have stronger values and the values of others are loose, you're agreeing with the morally superiority lie that conservatives tell themselves and to anyone who will listen. The examples I pointed to where scandals in churches and conservative communities as well as in republican politics. You zeroed in on politicians (which I knew you would) but conveniently and noticeably ignored the churches and communities.

So, 3rd, In an attempt to be brief (which I find it extremely hard to do), when I see the lie, omission, distortion, or cluelessness, I'll address it and and move on to the next segment of your response as the rest of your response for that segment are based on those lies, distortions, or cluelessness. That should mean I will skip to the next quote of mine that you addressed but I have to address what you wrote here:

Yes, conservatives have a stronger value system and that is why the contrasts for breaching them are more obvious and punished in the public eye more harshly.

No, they don't. They simply DECLARE it which is what you're not getting. "I declare it to be so, therefore it is so." Their actions show time and time again, that what they declare is not so. If I did agree that what they declare to be their values were indeed stronger than everyone esle's (which I don't), they don't follow these values which just makes them liars. If they don't follow these values, then no, they don't have a stronger value system.

When Bill was caught cheating on Hillary is an example of how the lack of such a value system within the party holds to the overwhelming view of others about the actions of a violation.

This sentence is just worded wierd.

How differently things would have been if that were a conservative, eh?

Uh, yeah. Why wouldn't it be? Conservatives are the bible thumpers declaring moral superiority that they just don't have. So when they get caught doing the same exact things, they prove they don't hold the values they say they do and they're shown to be the extreme hypocrits they are. Stop declaring you're something you're not and you'll receive the same scrutiny as everyone else. If I declare myself the greatest ballplayer on the planet and stink, I will get booed and made fun of. A player that stinks but doesn't brag doesn't get that same treatment because they don't deserve it. What don't you get about this?

Newt Gingrich called for Clinton's resignation knowing all the while about having the same skeletons in his own closet. When no one knew, funny enough, he felt himself fit to stay in office, when he got caught though, all of a sudden, NOW, his own resignation was the right thing to do. So, sgain, declaring it doesn't make it so. The rest of us know we are flawed and make mistakes no matter how hard we try to do the right thing, but still we try to do the right thing. We have somethnig called shame. Lying and basically saying you're not flawed while wagging your fingers at others knowing full well how flawed you are makes conservatives the ultimate scumbags. They get caught time after time after time after time... at a certain point you'd think your side would get tired of looking like hypocritical morons but they don't because they have no shame. To an extent, the conservative mindset is a sociopathic one.

Honestly, I was going to go through all of this piece by piece as I normally do, and I did read all of it, but I just can't take it anymore. I read what you write and just want to punch through the effing screen. There's so much nonsense I want to pick apart but my brain is on fire right now. I can't be bothered to quote anymore either. I'll just pick a few things...

You mention in the presidents speech that he's saying we should be socialistic because of certain things we do together. NO HE's NOT SAYING THAT! Jesus effing Christ. Again, this is YOU wanting that to be what he said. He's pointing out a REALITY that you/conservatives want to deny. We already ARE socialistic in many ways which you are fine with. We wouldn't change these things simply because we can label them socialistic. It doesn't make sense and wouldn't not be efficient to have us do these things as individuals. You're so caught up on effing words instead of these realities. You're like kids in highschool that won't console a male friend because you're afraid of being called a sissy. You'd rather reject reality and look like morons rather than admitting to accepting something (you already accept it which is what makes you look like such idiots when you speak ill of it) because you don't want to be labled socialist... even though you wouldn't be. You just wouldn't be called deaf, dumb, and blind anymore. You're just accepting the reality of the mix we have and need. A mix we put in place simply because it makes the most sense. We're capitalistic in many areas and socialistic in others. Grow the hell up and deal with it. That is our country and it has been our country for a long time now.

Pointing out that more and more with continues to concentrate at the top, is a reality. Conservatives hate reality and you call anyone pointing reality out to you divisive. So no, I don't put any weight on you calling anyone divisive. Seriously, you're children. Obama says something and you go to another kid and say "ooooh he said something about your mother" when you know he didn't. You seek to get him expelled when you're the trouble maker. You say this president is the most divisive president and that he's pitted the federal government against the states. I think you're thinking of Abraham Lincoln. I think a war happened or something regarding states and their rights or something like that. I don't know, I'm no history buff. 

Speaking of that civil war dealy... your god most certainly condones slavery. If he has the power to abolish it but doesn't, he absolutely condones it. I wish one of these days Christians would actually read their bibles. I really have no time to teach Christians about their own religion. It's tiresome. If you refuse to open it and read it, just type bible and slavery in your fusioncash toolbar. You'll get 2 cents literally and figuratively. If you can beat a slave to death and receive no punishment or at most, a slap on the wrist for killing another human being, they're not simply your butler that owes you money like Christians try to make it out to be. Just spare me. Just please spare me.

Lastly, "Help me, this cancer is trying to kill me" and "Help me, this guy is trying to kill me". Only one word changes in that sentence. There's nothing hard to understand there. Either you're thick or a liar. My "venom" is warranted. You can't deal with what I'm actually saying so you try to contort it so that you have something to respond with.

Money hanging out of your pocket in a bad neighborhood increases the risk of getting robbed.
Eating nothing but donughts increases the risk of obesity or heart attack or both.

The doctor and cop deal with the result of your bad habit (heat attack/roberry). NEITHER arrest you for your bad habit but they do give you advice regarding your bad habit (stop eating donughts/stop walking through bad neighborhoods with money hanging out of your pockets). It's clear what I'm saying so either you're trying to *bleep* me off or you're just an idiot. Neither one makes this conversation worth continuing so I won't continue it.

[Abrupt]

First, You are correct in the definition of cognative dissonance. So, my points are incorrectly labeled but still stand. My points are about the conservative reaction too that dissonance. When experiencing this dissonance conservatives do not seek to resolve the conflict. They deny it and find ways to live with it and make anyone who brings it up the bad guy. "They have a problem, not me." So, for example, the conflict of being anti-socialism while pro-medicare is a matter of ignorance/stupidity (HIV). When made aware of this conflict, they are now suffering from full blown cognitive dissonance (AIDS) but they deny it or make excuses for it. There's no attempt to reject one conflicting idea for the other. They suffer from a disease, deny they have it and refuse any treatment.


Second, let me clarify, the topic is the conservative mindset. When I point to you I'm pointing to your connection to that mindset and where your comments fit. So, for example:

Please show me where I have declared moral superiority and then was proven otherwise -- much less where I have done this time and time again. I have been quite clear with everyone here that I am not a very good person and that it is my wish that I will become a better person.

I don't care if you're a good person or not. I wasn't saying you declared yourself morally superior. Conservatives in general do, however. By you saying conservatives have stronger values and the values of others are loose, you're agreeing with the morally superiority lie that conservatives tell themselves and to anyone who will listen. The examples I pointed to where scandals in churches and conservative communities as well as in republican politics. You zeroed in on politicians (which I knew you would) but conveniently and noticeably ignored the churches and communities.

So, 3rd, In an attempt to be brief (which I find it extremely hard to do), when I see the lie, omission, distortion, or cluelessness, I'll address it and and move on to the next segment of your response as the rest of your response for that segment are based on those lies, distortions, or cluelessness. That should mean I will skip to the next quote of mine that you addressed but I have to address what you wrote here:

I will start off a little combative, but I will limit it to the first quotation reply.  The reason for this posture is based upon you realizing that there was confusion about who/what you wanted the person you were addressing to be/pretend to be.  You acknowledge that and clarify but yet you continue to assail me knowing that my response was as if you were addressing me and not me interpreting these qualities as if I were someone else.  With that preface let the battle begin.

You can't just point at me and make me become someone other than who I am, it doesn't work like that.

Of course you don't care if I am a good person or not, as your claims of me declaring morale superiority would fall flat.

So you are saying I was mistaken to assume you were referring to me in your reply to me when you posted:

Declare moral superiority knowing full well your actions prove time and time again, you have no moral superiority at all.

You are speaking to me, if you wish to speak to someone else do it in another post or give sufficient indication.  If you wish to indicate you are talking about someone else other than me when you are replying to me then do not use "you" when indicating who that someone is.  You must understand it is confusing for me to follow in the manner you have written and I can only ever assume that your use of "you" means it is meant for me.  When you 'point' at me and say 'you' I can only suppose that you mean me.

Because you failed in your responsibility of indicating a deviation from the standards of communication into a sort of "role play" session, you hold me as being at fault and assign to me the qualities of displaying "lies, distortions, or cluelessness".  The confusion was entirely your responsibility, and as I mentioned above even after you realized it you continued to berate me.

Yes, conservatives have a stronger value system and that is why the contrasts for breaching them are more obvious and punished in the public eye more harshly.

No, they don't. They simply DECLARE it which is what you're not getting. "I declare it to be so, therefore it is so." Their actions show time and time again, that what they declare is not so. If I did agree that what they declare to be their values were indeed stronger than everyone esle's (which I don't), they don't follow these values which just makes them liars. If they don't follow these values, then no, they don't have a stronger value system.

You only recognize the straying of values by self-ascribed conservatives exactly because you hold them to the higher standards of conservationism.  If you will pay attention you will realize that most of these so called conservatives are in positions of power and seeking more or to retain that which they have.  They are using their claims as a means of reaching that end and if they so easily violate the values of conservationism then it is because, more often than not, their appearance was false.  If you contrasted/compared the ideology of conservationism against liberalism you would easily recognize which had the stronger value system.  What would a liberal have to do to violate their 'value' system?  Spend their own money instead of someone else's?  I think the only value system that modern liberals cling to is that you hold the collective value system of whatever the herd displays.

When Bill was caught cheating on Hillary is an example of how the lack of such a value system within the party holds to the overwhelming view of others about the actions of a violation.

This sentence is just worded wierd.

Since you cannot understand it I will rephrase it for you as is required by me if I wish to present myself as communicating.  What I mean is that few democrats really cared about the actions of Clinton when he was caught in the sex Scandal.  While their were a few, they quickly shifted in to a protection mode after Clinton was impeached.  Had this been Bush we can all agree that such sympathy would have never been exhibited by Democrats or Republicans either (although I am sure there would be some Republicans that would but not to the same degree).  Some of this is political ideology but it also greatly involves the liberal and conservative components.

How differently things would have been if that were a conservative, eh?

Uh, yeah. Why wouldn't it be? Conservatives are the bible thumpers declaring moral superiority that they just don't have. So when they get caught doing the same exact things, they prove they don't hold the values they say they do and they're shown to be the extreme hypocrits they are. Stop declaring you're something you're not and you'll receive the same scrutiny as everyone else. If I declare myself the greatest ballplayer on the planet and stink, I will get booed and made fun of. A player that stinks but doesn't brag doesn't get that same treatment because they don't deserve it. What don't you get about this?

AS you already acknowledged, because they declare they are conservatives doesn't make them conservatives.  It is not through a persons declarations that you know what they are, it is through their actions so you must ignore titles and focus on performance and traits.  You need to quite trusting politicians, as history is full of very few that were ever very good and often they were not even thought to be that way until after enough passage of time washed away their dislikes.

Newt Gingrich called for Clinton's resignation knowing all the while about having the same skeletons in his own closet. When no one knew, funny enough, he felt himself fit to stay in office, when he got caught though, all of a sudden, NOW, his own resignation was the right thing to do. So, sgain, declaring it doesn't make it so. The rest of us know we are flawed and make mistakes no matter how hard we try to do the right thing, but still we try to do the right thing. We have somethnig called shame. Lying and basically saying you're not flawed while wagging your fingers at others knowing full well how flawed you are makes conservatives the ultimate scumbags. They get caught time after time after time after time... at a certain point you'd think your side would get tired of looking like hypocritical morons but they don't because they have no shame. To an extent, the conservative mindset is a sociopathic one.

Their is as much hypocrisy on the left as their is on the right.  Liberals love to claim to be tolerant, but try holding a different view than them and see just how tolerant of you they are.  And with liberals, it isn't limited to those in power it extends into the entire core of the liberal culture which makes it more prevalent.  Once again it isn't my side as I am a more libertarian with traditional values (which would come from conservatism).  It is because they promise to hold to strong values and they fail that they are ostracized and they are held as harshly by the base they pretend to represent as they are the opposing views.  Once again you focus on the title they give themselves and not on what they really are and you only see them as conservatives because you are naive and gullible enough to fall for such deception.  It is the liberal behavior that is sociopathic, and not the conservative mindset.

Honestly, I was going to go through all of this piece by piece as I normally do, and I did read all of it, but I just can't take it anymore. I read what you write and just want to punch through the effing screen. There's so much nonsense I want to pick apart but my brain is on fire right now. I can't be bothered to quote anymore either. I'll just pick a few things...

You mention in the presidents speech that he's saying we should be socialistic because of certain things we do together. NO HE's NOT SAYING THAT! Jesus effing Christ. Again, this is YOU wanting that to be what he said. He's pointing out a REALITY that you/conservatives want to deny. We already ARE socialistic in many ways which you are fine with. We wouldn't change these things simply because we can label them socialistic. It doesn't make sense and wouldn't not be efficient to have us do these things as individuals. You're so caught up on effing words instead of these realities. You're like kids in highschool that won't console a male friend because you're afraid of being called a sissy. You'd rather reject reality and look like morons rather than admitting to accepting something (you already accept it which is what makes you look like such idiots when you speak ill of it) because you don't want to be labled socialist... even though you wouldn't be. You just wouldn't be called deaf, dumb, and blind anymore. You're just accepting the reality of the mix we have and need. A mix we put in place simply because it makes the most sense. We're capitalistic in many areas and socialistic in others. Grow the hell up and deal with it. That is our country and it has been our country for a long time now.

Pointing out that more and more with continues to concentrate at the top, is a reality. Conservatives hate reality and you call anyone pointing reality out to you divisive. So no, I don't put any weight on you calling anyone divisive. Seriously, you're children. Obama says something and you go to another kid and say "ooooh he said something about your mother" when you know he didn't. You seek to get him expelled when you're the trouble maker. You say this president is the most divisive president and that he's pitted the federal government against the states. I think you're thinking of Abraham Lincoln. I think a war happened or something regarding states and their rights or something like that. I don't know, I'm no history buff. 

Speaking of that civil war dealy... your god most certainly condones slavery. If he has the power to abolish it but doesn't, he absolutely condones it. I wish one of these days Christians would actually read their bibles. I really have no time to teach Christians about their own religion. It's tiresome. If you refuse to open it and read it, just type bible and slavery in your fusioncash toolbar. You'll get 2 cents literally and figuratively. If you can beat a slave to death and receive no punishment or at most, a slap on the wrist for killing another human being, they're not simply your butler that owes you money like Christians try to make it out to be. Just spare me. Just please spare me.

Lastly, "Help me, this cancer is trying to kill me" and "Help me, this guy is trying to kill me". Only one word changes in that sentence. There's nothing hard to understand there. Either you're thick or a liar. My "venom" is warranted. You can't deal with what I'm actually saying so you try to contort it so that you have something to respond with.

Money hanging out of your pocket in a bad neighborhood increases the risk of getting robbed.
Eating nothing but donughts increases the risk of obesity or heart attack or both.

The doctor and cop deal with the result of your bad habit (heat attack/roberry). NEITHER arrest you for your bad habit but they do give you advice regarding your bad habit (stop eating donughts/stop walking through bad neighborhoods with money hanging out of your pockets). It's clear what I'm saying so either you're trying to *bleep* me off or you're just an idiot. Neither one makes this conversation worth continuing so I won't continue it.

With the hostility of your reply I will not waste my time reading any more then.  Perhaps you should seek treatment to deal with whatever instability is causing you to become so angry when someone dignifies you with responses to your inquires.  It was you that put the questions to me and I respectfully read every sentence you wrote word for word.  I put a lot of effort into responding to you with well thought out replies and that you would want to punch me because of this bothers me quite a bit.

[BJohnsonPP]

Ah.... I really want to... I just won't. Anyway... Typical conservative response. Let me sum the conservative mindset:

Cognitive dissonance (or reaction to it): When made aware that you're holding mutually exclusive ideas, don't seek to resolve the conflict, just pound the hell out of that square peg until it fits into that round hole.

Binary (which makes your sig so appropriate): If your argument is "black" any other argument regarding that particular issue must be "white". Gray, blue, purple, etc. just don't exists. Application: When someone presents an argument #1 just ignore it, #2 assign them a position that is the exact opposite of yours, #3 whip out the only argument you have regarding this issue now that you've made it easier for yourself to handle.

WWE referee syndrome: Ignore (ostensibly on purpose) one wrestler hitting another with a chair, conveniently turn around when the assaulted wrestler retaliates. Example 1) Ignore the mistreatment of a group then complain when any attempts to repair damage done by this mistreatment are tried and call the attempts at repair "special treatment" ignoring the mistreatment in the first place. Example 2) drive someone bat $h!t crazy, ignore everything you said and did to drive them nuts even after it's pointed out to you, then declare that they're the one that needs help when you're the one that drove them to insanity. 

This is not really a 4th because it fits into all categories but... Refuse to understand anything that conflicts with your beliefs simply because it conflicts with your beliefs.

[falcon9]

Ah.... I really want to... I just won't. Anyway... Typical conservative response. Let me sum the conservative mindset:

Cognitive dissonance (or reaction to it): When made aware that you're holding mutually exclusive ideas, don't seek to resolve the conflict, just pound the hell out of that square peg until it fits into that round hole.

Binary (which makes your sig so appropriate): If your argument is "black" any other argument regarding that particular issue must be "white". Gray, blue, purple, etc. just don't exists. Application: When someone presents an argument #1 just ignore it, #2 assign them a position that is the exact opposite of yours, #3 whip out the only argument you have regarding this issue now that you've made it easier for yourself to handle.

WWE referee syndrome: Ignore (ostensibly on purpose) one wrestler hitting another with a chair, conveniently turn around when the assaulted wrestler retaliates. Example 1) Ignore the mistreatment of a group then complain when any attempts to repair damage done by this mistreatment are tried and call the attempts at repair "special treatment" ignoring the mistreatment in the first place. Example 2) drive someone bat $h!t crazy, ignore everything you said and did to drive them nuts even after it's pointed out to you, then declare that they're the one that needs help when you're the one that drove them to insanity. 

This is not really a 4th because it fits into all categories but... Refuse to understand anything that conflicts with your beliefs simply because it conflicts with your beliefs.

That's an excellent summation which, (non-coincidentally), fits those blindly holding religious faith as well.  Given that you're rebutting the same guy who invalidly argued that "atheism is a religion", expect a bland denial, (complete with irrational non-reasoning), of the valid points you made.
Apparently, such a pattern is being repeated in the forlorn hope that his fabrications and tangential illogic will somehow magically transform into substantive and logical arguments.


"If you could (sucessfully) reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."
-- Gregory House

[BJohnsonPP]

That's an excellent summation which, (non-coincidentally), fits those blindly holding religious faith as well.  Given that you're rebutting the same guy who invalidly argued that "atheism is a religion", expect a bland denial, (complete with irrational non-reasoning), of the valid points you made.
Apparently, such a pattern is being repeated in the forlorn hope that his fabrications and tangential illogic will somehow magically transform into substantive and logical arguments.


"If you could (sucessfully) reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."
-- Gregory House

Oh, I 100% know that. You're absolutely correct. It's clear that the same "reason" and tactics used to defend their religion are used to defend their politics. Religion forces you to accept things that just make no sense but the threat of eternal damnation scares you blind to that fact. "Accept this or die". How can silly logic compete with death threats?

Religion prevents you from thinking clearly. It's not about holding false beliefs, it's about the mechanism to examine those beliefs being damaged. Once that mechanism is damaged, it affects (infects) everything else i.e. politics.

[falcon9]

It's clear that the same "reason" and tactics used to defend their religion are used to defend their politics. Religion forces you to accept things that just make no sense but the threat of eternal damnation scares you blind to that fact. "Accept this or die". How can silly logic compete with death threats?

Religion prevents you from thinking clearly. It's not about holding false beliefs, it's about the mechanism to examine those beliefs being damaged. Once that mechanism is damaged, it affects (infects) everything else i.e. politics.

I concur and would add that the reasoning applies to any political party/political stance as well as any religious belief system.  If cognitive dissonance does not apply in some instances, it would only be because those blinded by preconceived notions aren't aware that their preconceived notions are blinding them.  In the instance of many 'conservative religious adherents', (your opponent in this thread, for example),
it would not apply and yet, some of them would try to misapply the term to those arguing against their unreasoned beliefs, (by suggesting or falsely asserting that arguments consisting of an aware application of reasoning against irrationality somehow constitute "cognitive dissonance").

The degree of self-deception required to suspend rationality in order to believe in the irrational may evade cognitive dissonance however, it does not elude the accurate adjective of dishonesty.

[Abrupt]

Ah.... I really want to... I just won't. Anyway... Typical conservative response. Let me sum the conservative mindset:

Cognitive dissonance (or reaction to it): When made aware that you're holding mutually exclusive ideas, don't seek to resolve the conflict, just pound the hell out of that square peg until it fits into that round hole.

Binary (which makes your sig so appropriate): If your argument is "black" any other argument regarding that particular issue must be "white". Gray, blue, purple, etc. just don't exists. Application: When someone presents an argument #1 just ignore it, #2 assign them a position that is the exact opposite of yours, #3 whip out the only argument you have regarding this issue now that you've made it easier for yourself to handle.

WWE referee syndrome: Ignore (ostensibly on purpose) one wrestler hitting another with a chair, conveniently turn around when the assaulted wrestler retaliates. Example 1) Ignore the mistreatment of a group then complain when any attempts to repair damage done by this mistreatment are tried and call the attempts at repair "special treatment" ignoring the mistreatment in the first place. Example 2) drive someone bat $h!t crazy, ignore everything you said and did to drive them nuts even after it's pointed out to you, then declare that they're the one that needs help when you're the one that drove them to insanity. 

This is not really a 4th because it fits into all categories but... Refuse to understand anything that conflicts with your beliefs simply because it conflicts with your beliefs.

That's an excellent summation which, (non-coincidentally), fits those blindly holding religious faith as well.  Given that you're rebutting the same guy who invalidly argued that "atheism is a religion", expect a bland denial, (complete with irrational non-reasoning), of the valid points you made.
Apparently, such a pattern is being repeated in the forlorn hope that his fabrications and tangential illogic will somehow magically transform into substantive and logical arguments.


"If you could (sucessfully) reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."
-- Gregory House

Is that you peeping through my window again?

[Abrupt]

Ah.... I really want to... I just won't. Anyway... Typical conservative response. Let me sum the conservative mindset:

Cognitive dissonance (or reaction to it): When made aware that you're holding mutually exclusive ideas, don't seek to resolve the conflict, just pound the hell out of that square peg until it fits into that round hole.

Binary (which makes your sig so appropriate): If your argument is "black" any other argument regarding that particular issue must be "white". Gray, blue, purple, etc. just don't exists. Application: When someone presents an argument #1 just ignore it, #2 assign them a position that is the exact opposite of yours, #3 whip out the only argument you have regarding this issue now that you've made it easier for yourself to handle.

WWE referee syndrome: Ignore (ostensibly on purpose) one wrestler hitting another with a chair, conveniently turn around when the assaulted wrestler retaliates. Example 1) Ignore the mistreatment of a group then complain when any attempts to repair damage done by this mistreatment are tried and call the attempts at repair "special treatment" ignoring the mistreatment in the first place. Example 2) drive someone bat $h!t crazy, ignore everything you said and did to drive them nuts even after it's pointed out to you, then declare that they're the one that needs help when you're the one that drove them to insanity. 

This is not really a 4th because it fits into all categories but... Refuse to understand anything that conflicts with your beliefs simply because it conflicts with your beliefs.

How can you lead off with a fallacy of Ad Hominem and yet continue with your response?  You also know that I don't identify myself as a conservative, but because you are such a blind follower of your ideology you must see me that way in order for you to be able to focus your ire.

You didn't even correctly define cognitive dissonance the other day so don't pretend to be an expert now.

What you indicate as 'binary' is what is known as a false dichotomy.  What you present in your application description is non sequitor and is actually what is known as a strawman fallacy.

What you describe in your conclusions is exactly what you have done here, but you carried it to an extreme level and shut the door as quickly as the discussion began.  I was willing to carry the conversation to the end and it was you that took a threatening posture and balled up your fists and shut the door and you would now propose to tell me that I "refuse to understand anything that conflicts with your beliefs...". 

[falcon9]

Is that you peeping through my window again?

I'll take that as your tacit admission of the accuracy of the content of the reply posted to "BJ".