Social conservative intellectuals don't exist

Social conservatism / Traditionalism is based on perpetual certainty. When you believe that everything you need to know was written in your holy book 2000 years ago or personal experience, you are naturally inclined to close-mindedness. There's no reason to entertain alternatives if you know what is already true.

The issue is that this isn't how the world actually works. There is inherent uncertainty in every belief, aside from the assertion of uncertainty itself. Your moral system can never be shown to be "correct." It's simply a product of subjective values you have for personal reasons. Intelligent people tend to recognize the uncertainty intuitively, and thus tend to be willing to entertain alternatives.

That willingness to entertain alternatives makes social conservatism incompatible with being an intellectual. It is no surprise that the university professor, regardless of field, is probably going to be to the political left of the rest of the population politically. You cannot be a physicist who believes we know everything about the universe. You can't be a psychologist and believe we know everything about people. In either case, you are assuming not just a gap in your knowledge, but also the source of that knowledge.

Social conservatism works in the opposite manner. They assume there are no gaps that haven't been filled by their God or their experiences. They lack a thirst for knowledge that doesn't come from their preordained sources of "truth." That isn't how we progress socially or technologically.

Don't waste you time on nu pol. These high schoolers think their opinion's matter.

It is quite funny that you state that social conservatives pretend to know the final truth, which is incompatible with the scientific mindset.

In economic science at least, the exact opposite is true. The leftists believe to know the final truth while the rightists freely admit that they know very little.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." - Friedrich August von Hayek

>You cannot be a physicist who believes we know everything about the universe.

but they are 100% guaranteed that global warming is real and caused by burning oil

relativity is crypto, designed to dead end research into physics.

No one LEARNS relativity, they beat their head against it until they give up and bow to social pressures.

>refused to address me instead opting to let his thread die so he could post it again
embarrassing

>Social conservatism / Traditionalism is based on perpetual certainty. When you believe that everything you need to know was written in your holy book 2000 years ago or personal experience, you are naturally inclined to close-mindedness. There's no reason to entertain alternatives if you know what is already true.

actually traditionalism has roots in world experience. Liberalism is based on ignorance of reality. want some proofs?

>Black lives matter when cops kill blacks less than whites and the main killer of black people are other blacks
>degeneracy. wanting to have sex with children, gay pride etc,
>lack of borders regular lead to your country's destruction. i.e. jews

these are three example of traditionalism that liberals can't accept

prove me wrong niggers

>There is inherent uncertainty in every belief, aside from the assertion of uncertainty itself.
Uh-uh. Can't do that. You can't just claim that all beliefs are uncertain and then magically make an exception for that very belief without justification. If you're acknowledging that it IS possible for beliefs to be certain, then social conservatism is indeed coherent.
By the way, social conservative intellectuals exist and have for millennia.

The very basis of leftism is an appeal to novelty fallacy
The very basis of conservatism is an appeal to tradition fallacy
What is the difference?
We can look at history to evaluate traditions
We have no resources to evaluate whatever leftists come up with, yet they're always certain the solution they offer is "progress"

With that in mind
All traditions were at one point new and novel ideas.
Every single failed tradition is in fact a failure of leftism, for it means people attempted something new and different and failed.

this

>"don't exist"

The Founding Fathers

self-governance require a virtuous people

>In economic science at least, the exact opposite is true. The leftists believe to know the final truth while the rightists freely admit that they know very little.

Both extremes are certain about the economy, but the left is composed of far more people who are pragmatic. The right is primarily individuals who have a religious-like devotion to "trickle-down economics" and "the market." They have to because economic conservatism is code for "selfish." Their goals aren't to do what's best for the people, but rather prevent others from reaching the top or closing the economic gaps.

that is the dumbest thing I've ever read - thanks burger

We don't need to be 100% certain about something to believe it. If we did, we would believe nothing but the present moment.

People who believe the Earth is 5000 years old don't get a seat at the table.

>he right is primarily individuals who have a religious-like devotion to "trickle-down economics" and "the market." They have to because economic conservatism is code for "selfish." Their goals aren't to do what's best for the people, but rather prevent others from reaching the top or closing the economic gaps.
Citation needed for all this bullshit. Unjustified ad-hominem meme assumptions are not arguments.

>We don't need to be 100% certain about something to believe it.
You literally dismissed all social conservatism solely because it's impossible to be 100% certain about anything.

>People who believe the Earth is 5000 years old don't get a seat at the table.

and people who think me farting ripped a hole in the ozone layer. Or when green first started to to preach about global warming pushed for "green credit" which is growing corn, using oil to harvest corn, burning corn, and the putting them in our engines to further burn corn. genius. the same people who believe in (((global warming)))

You limit yourself by not questioning both left and right interpretation of ideas.
Trick-down economics works.
However, we live in a globalized economy, so who experienced the most in gains?
The Chinese middle class of course!

See social security as well.
Stop out-sourcing the critical thinking to other people.

ross perot theorized during the 90s that globalism would led to an endless parade of rise and fall of nations. rich countries will go to poor countries to build their factories. e.g. US to china and India. But soon those countries will become to rich and the jobs will move again as we are seeing from China to Africa. It will continue until the old rich countries (like US) will be on the bottom and jobs come back. thus the fallacy of globalism

and liberals attacked him for proving a point. Guess traditionalism wasn't that bad was it libbys?

Conservatives want to conserve traditions that have been passed down through the ages by trial and error. We didn't get traditions by rational argument or conscious design; we got them by natural selection and cultural evolution.

>inclined to close-mindedness
>Assumption that traditionalism or conservatism is based in one book
>assumption that professor is economically left leaning due to the fact they are a professor at a university, without considering other causes.

Cause proves correlation fallacy.

Just because a statistic might show
>Professors are economically left does not mean that the cause is their "open-mindedness" nor that people on the economically left are more suited towards academia
>left are far more pragmatic
>is code for "selfish"
>Prevention of success
Hmmmm, It seems like you're making a lot of assumptions that these are true statements.

>You can't just claim that all beliefs are uncertain and then magically make an exception for that very belief without justification.

The justification is that without the exclusion the claim is paradoxical. Set theory shows a set cannot contain itself.

I recognize that conservatism is rooted in real experience. That is the problem. It only considers real experience. It doesn't analyze or interpret. And besides, "real experience" shows us that the world is dynamic and the assumption that the future will behave precisely as the present is wrong.

You are speaking of purely superficial values. Neo-traditionalism (sounds like an oxymoron, but hear me out) can marry the wisdom of the past with the realities of the present. If you think fags go to hell, you're a brainlet. If you understand that promoting homosexuality is degenerate becaues it discourages the family, which is the fundamental unit of Western civilization, and that the absence of civilization is hell, you can easily see that the Christian concept is close enough to objective truth that nitpicking about gods really doesn't fucking matter at all and social conservatism is still justified.

>That willingness to entertain alternatives makes social conservatism incompatible with being an intellectual.
What do you consider an intellectual? It seems like you have a very particular idea of intellectualism that is very specific and doesn't seem connected to the ability to efficiently solve problems.

>They assume there are no gaps that haven't been filled by their God or their experiences.
That's not true lol. "The Lord works in mysterious ways" is a common Christian saying that is the equivalent of saying "we don't know what the fuck is going on". Otherwise those ways wouldn't be "mysterious". Attributing it to God is just a way for men to reconcile what happens to them with the ultimate question of why they exist, it's just a psychologically vaccine against the blackpill.

more and more every day i believe this

Samuel Clemens is einstein.

Him and JP morgan concocted this "Einstein-Relativity" thing to divert attention from Tesla, so they could steal all of his inventions.

They are still using techniques such as this, only on a larger scale.... using the department of education to find all of the smart kids, and basically wrecking their lives and stealing ideas from them.

The Renaissance was thank you to Christianity. Con-science is informed by science. Major develops occur when we reason our intellect and will is a gift from the Creator and made in the image and likeness thereof. Calculus is the study of infinity.

Look up Nicolaus of Cusa, La Rouche, Poincare. Even Louis Pasteur invented pasteurization in the effort to disprove "spontaneous generation" later named "darwininism" a wort that has not gone away since the greeks.

Einstein was a fraud btw.

>I recognize that conservatism is rooted in real experience. That is the problem. It only considers real experience. It doesn't analyze or interpret. And besides, "real experience" shows us that the world is dynamic and the assumption that the future will behave precisely as the present is wrong.

You act like real experience was static since the beginning of civilization but suddenly in 2017, everything changed. what a retard. "real experience" as you argue is based on dynamic occurrences that traditional conservatism has acknowledged and interpreted in the past.

what you're bitching about is some form of imaginary experience that can only be solved by liberalism because it has yet to exist in the world. guess what kid that's called schizophrenia

people ignore that tesla was a virgin and a devote christian. Something modern day physicists would adamantly deny

Liberalism is not based on the novelty fallacy. That is simply wrong. Liberalism's goal is freedom, not novelty. The opposite of the appeal to tradition fallacy isn't the novelty fallacy. It is the non-fallacious appeal to consequences.

Liberalism and conservatism are not the mirror image of one another.

Is not studying the world around you and analysing history, patterns, or what ever counted as a "real experience"?
How do you differentiate a real experience from a non-real experience?
Why do you assume that conservatives are not capable of analysing their "real experiences".

I dismissed social conservatism because it is intrinsically stupid. By definition, social conservatism is about inhibiting progress and shutting down alternatives.

whereas liberalism is all about "progress" by ignoring history or "real experiences"

>humans have existed for 250k+ years and have always done things the same way, we've built everything we have on traditional values
>we need progress
>capitalism has brought the world into a new era that every human before us would stare at with slack-jawed envy
>we need progress, god dammit
>socialism fails every time and destroys everything it touches
>for fucks sake it's the current year, give us progress!
>the entire point of books is to take the wisdom of learned and wise people and be able to apply it to young and stupid people
>WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE GET ME SOME PROGRESS
BURN THE BOOKS! FUCK HISTORY! WE NEED PROGRESS!
Lefties are actual retards. This is why the voting age should be 25.

put in another way

liberalism makes an assumption that everything that has happened in the past is nothing similar to what is happening now.

So liberalism decides to disregard the past and create a solution. But herein lies the liberalism flaw. once the solution is found it must be disregarded as what has been found is now a part of history.

so each time a problem arises whether it is the same or different liberalism has to create a new solution. this leads down to a paradox whereby the "new solution" found will eventually be the same as a solution found in history. so what progress have you made?

American liberals do not want freedom, you're thinking of classic liberals which are modern libertarians.

Please don't call lefties "liberals" because they are clearly not. They're so-called "progressives." They stand for nothing but hate. They don't stand for freedom and they're certainly not liberal.

>inhibiting progress
What is progress?
Can you quantify it?
History is filled with scenarios where people just like you claimed they wanted "progress" yet not all succeeded. The great irony is that you think you're open-minded, when in reality you're a close-minded and think that your specific solutions are the only way to "progress".

>strawman 1st sentence
sage

Social conservatism is simply appealing to a novel idea of the past. That's the problem with leftism. You seeks to replace the old with new, even if the new is inferior to the old.

>What is progress?
Killing white people.
>Can you quantify it?
Number of white dead bodies. Bonus points for straight men.
>wanted "progress" yet not all succeeded
Because of white people.
>when in reality you're a close-minded and think that your specific solutions are the only way to "progress"
As opposed to racism promoted by white people.

That's leftist talking points in a nutshell. You can't even argue against it. It's so stupid you have to be stupid to think it's smart. And there's a lot of stupid people out there.

Only fools learn from their own mistakes (to the extent they learn at all).

What fools call prejudice the wise call learning from the mistakes of others.

>Social conservatism / Traditionalism is based on perpetual certainty.
No, conservatism is literally the protection of values you deem worthy of protecting. To conserve. But good on you about that stawman, you fucked him up real good.

>this is why the voting age should be 25

Bullshit. It should be 50. At least.

But if something works in your own experience why shouldn't you do it just because it's not working for others?

There is nothing about the core tenets of Christianity that are close to "truth."

Homosexuality is not anti-family, and the fundamental unit of "modern" Western civilization is the individual. Trying to reduce someone's freedom to have sex with consenting adults sounds much more "anti-family" and atni-Western civilization to me.

But even still, you just expressed why conservatism is so dumb. Society not being in its ideal conditions doesn't justify turning back the clock. The intelligent, ie liberal, way of solving an issue with society is actually in solving the problem, not assuming that reality is a video game where you can just load previous saves as if all the progress since then never happened.

What is an intellectual? An intellectual is a person who analyzes the universe and the human condition for the purpose of understanding, and who does so within a framework that prioritizes justified true belief.

Or we can just make it men-only again. That'd solve the issue of leftism almost over night.

Saw this thread a month or two ago. OP got destroyed. Why is he posting the same shit again?

Progressives are desperately afraid, and see that their beliefs are founded on quicksand. Their beliefs are fundamentally dehumanizing and wicked. The hubris is their downfall.

tl;dr
moralfagging the right is done by braindead lefty commies
intelligence isn't a line
jews have a different form of thinking to us, the smartest people were less than half jew or not jew at all (Feyman, Archimedes)

regressives
authoritarian regressive fundamentalists

>makes appeals to fundamental units of western civilization
>makes appeals to the family
>makes appeals to freedom
All of these are traditions user
Do you think homosexuality is a novel idea that never existed before? Homosexuality predates Christianity itself in the Roman Empire, though it was viewed in a slightly different way.
Endorsing Homosexuality is more reactionary than endorsing Christianity.

black men vote more leftist than white women.

In fact, "progress" a couple thousand years ago meant routing out all the homosexuals out of Rome and punishing them for their sins.

But most of them are too busy shooting each other in the streets, user.

So Romans were Muslim?

If conservatives analyzed they would recognize that the assumption that the future will behave as the past is wrong and that the past quickly becomes no more better an alternative than any of the other points on the infinite amount of timelines the universe could have gone. The liberal solution to problems is finding a solution. The conservative solution is turning back the clock. This is because they have difficulty conceptualizing alternatives.

Repent dude. Christ is coming. Modern man is building Babel all over again. Homosexuality is a disorder. Society is crumbling. Wake up.

Youve made lots of assumptions and projected them onto a strawman, nothing more

This whole post is retarded. Again, the liberals are actually the fucking conservatives today.

The regressive left's solution to problems is to make up more problems. Manspreading wasn't an issue until 5 years ago. Literally millions of years of evolution and now the problem is men sit with their legs open. And God forbid you look at a woman in this day and age. It's rape!

Meanwhile Muslim men are actually physically beating and raping your women and you're sitting there nodding and muttering "progress, yes."

Test

Trst

There are conservative intellectuals, they're just not famous enough for you to mention.

I got banned illegitimately.

>Homosexuality is not anti-family,
Promoting it as a lifestyle is, that is a biological fact that is represented in Christian doctrine.

>Trying to reduce someone's freedom to have sex with consenting adults sounds much more "anti-family"
if you dont have kids then you arent a family. i dont give a fuck if gays want to fuck, it doesn't matter at all to me, but they shouldnt recieve tax benefits unless they adopt children. they should not be allowed to be surrogates because they are genetically faulty and may pass that off onto biological offspring

> Society not being in its ideal conditions doesn't justify turning back the clock.

there is no clock. traditional family simply provides a stable social structure that allows for learned advancement in the sciences, rebuilds art as being for entertainment instead of social protest, and promotes the preservation and dignity of the human species

> An intellectual is a person who analyzes the universe and the human condition for the purpose of understanding, and who does so within a framework that prioritizes justified true belief.

why does understanding untermensch have anything to do with intelligence? it's perhaps a necessary step in manipulating them, but understanding in and of itself isn't intelligent, it's passive. intelligence means putting into action that knowledge for the betterment of the human race. so-called "progressive" ideas are passive, weak, cucked ideas

The difference between how conservatives and liberals view the past:

Liberals look at the past and try to take from it abstract patterns that we can always apply, eg looking at the causes and results of both world wars and using them as guiding principles on international relations today.

Meanwhile, conservatives look at the past and get nostalgia and based on that argue we should go back there. They actively avoid considering what may have been bad. "Make America Great Again" is a perfect example of how the Conservative American views the past. When, exactly, are they saying America was great? We still don't even know which time is being used as a reference point for "again." Conservatives couldn't tell you either, really. They just get positive feelings about "the past" and that's good enough for them.

> conservatism is literally the protection of values you deem worthy of protecting

>looking at the causes and results of both world wars and using them as guiding principles on international relations today.
Yet you still push socialism despite knowing it sets off world wars.
>When, exactly, are they saying America was great?
Compared to today? Today. Compared to other countries around the world at the time you're comparing them? Any point from 1789 to today, with maybe an exception for 1860-1865, but even that was a pretty good time for anyone that wasn't a white man... or a slave, obviously.

Thought experiment for you: if America was never great, show me a single country that was.

But don't worry, I know you'll ignore this post like you ignore all the other posters that give you a challenge.

>If conservatives analyzed they would recognize that the assumption that the future will behave as the past is wrong

>Liberals look at the past and try to take from it abstract patterns that we can always apply

Fucking retard.

Remember when Venezuela was a really up-and-coming wealthy nation in South America and then they liberally looked to the past for abstract patterns to apply and decided socialism was a good idea.
Then remember when, as predicted by literally every person ever so slightly to the right of center, it became a dictatorship and now everyone in Venezuela is starving to death and killing each other in street gangs?

No of course not, because we liberally burned the history books! Forward! Progress!

kek, nice catch

>Social conservatism / Traditionalism is based on perpetual certainty
stopped reading lol

Since theres no such thing as social conservatism of course you defined it to mean something nonsensical. Conservatives are interested in the conservation of rights, not social or fiscal concerns. Your 'social' definition is really just a strawman to deflect from anti human rights ideologies that dominate the political left. You can pretend to have a social or economic moral high ground all you want, as long as you are violent and anti human rights you will lose for all eternity. Reverse racism, communism, socialist economics, social justice, these things infringe on the lawful and nonviolent freedom of agency guaranteed by the bill of rights.

As long as your party is anti intellectual, in reality, in how it effectively functions, you will never win. You can create false dichotomies over 'social conservatism' strawmen all you like. Rights based ideologies will always win because de facto authority is nothing other than applied violence by the in group, and you cannot take action without being based in agency. Therefore the ideology that allows for expression of agency will become the dominant ideology because it reflects what is phenomenologically real about human behavior. Since rights based behavior is the physical reality we live in, anything below that is an illusion by definition (basically all leftist ideologies, purely incidental). These illusions cannot be enforced because they make no allowance for agency, meaning there is no authority. In place of agency leftists use globalist authority and values in a social game of mockery, locking the participants in a culture than uses abuse as social capital instead of agency. Because of this the leftist ideology implodes on itself ad infinitum, no matter which shit.

>Conservatives are interested in the conservation of rights, not social or fiscal concerns
this is not true
human rights are not real

>pic related once said that the only thing more infinite than the universe is stupidity.

This is what commies actually believe

I said the ASSUMPTION is wrong, ie it is wrong to say "The past was this way, therefore the future will be this way." This doesn't mean you can't apply reasoning and come to general conclusions and use them as a guiding principle for which direction to go. The difference between the conservatives and liberals is not just in the generality of the liberal idea but also the certainty. "Guiding principle" is the keyphrase. There isn't an assumption that this is the correct direction. It may end up not being. It may be the case that we reason a different way is even better. But either way there's flexibility.

That's pretty lazy, come on now.

Pls respond.

So this guy's entire argument is pretty simple, it's just a huge strawman.
>conservatives believe something stupid, watch me knock it over by sucking Marx's dick

Have a cutie Chinese cosplayer and go fuck yourself incel.

This. This faggot has never read a fucking book, many of the greatest philosophers were theistic and socially conservative. He also completely strawmans Traditionalism.

Not to mention he's completely ignoring his Liberal presuppositions of "progress", as well as other retardation like materialism and empiricism.
I swear 99% of atheists/leftists/liberals are just projecting. They can never make an actual argument without strawmanning.

0/10 obvious leftycuck shilling.

Retard
The anti-intellectuals have frequently won. They won in soviet russia, they won in the middle east, theyve won in africa, and soin they will win here too. We're going to reach that -100% face

I'm not going to debate with you the stupidity of saying "social conservatism doesn't exist" and that conservatives don't have "social or fiscal concerns."

There is a group of people in this country that, on principle, refuse social change, and when things are changed, demands, on principle, to have them go back to the way they were. That is the social conservative.

Social conservatives, The Right, whatever you want to call them, do not win. They are perpetually losing, since things always change. Part of the problem with social conservatism is it is inherently incompatible with the modern day. This has really been the case since 20th century mass media. As people have gotten more connected to each other, able to see and judge the actions of each other, social conservatism has been increasingly untenable. You complain about "globalism", but, guess what, NOTHING you do matters. Our actions will become more and more interconnected because there are compelling human reasons to do so. That is a good thing. It is the reason why humans will not destroy one another. (as for some other, non-human entity that is another thing)

As for liberals: I do not agree with everything that the liberal, the leftist, or anyone else on the "not selfish" side of the political spectrum does or believes. Anti-intellectualism, anti-human rights, are products of the right-wing. I see where you're going, accusing the other side of being what you are, but I'm not falling for that one.

That's the difference:

True science is descriptive. It wants to find out how things work.
Progressive "science" is prescriptive, it states, how things ought to be.

The use of the term "trickle down" implies that the task of economics would be to figure out the right distribution of wealth. The task of real economics is to find out how economies work.

The same problem occurs in climate "science". Instead of describing how the world's climate system works, today's climate science assumes that it works in a certain way and prescribes, what we as humans ought to do. This is - again - not science. The realm of prescription is the sphere of politics and religion, science has to be pure description to actually produce something worthwhile.

>tfw to intelligent to debate
>*ignores presuppositions*
>just give up goy there's nothing you can do
>no u

The absolute state of leftycuck argumentation.

what kind of a person even saves that image?

One who wishes to arouse Canadians

Science is never prescriptive, and no one suggested otherwise.

It is one thing to look at the actual science, accept it, and decide that you simply don't care enough about the planet. You're a horrible person who should be excluded from the discussion, but you can't be scientifically wrong.

However, it is another thing to claim that the science is false, whether that is the denial that the earth is warming, denying of human influence, or insincere "skepticism." That is the point where the scientist must step in and tell you that you are wrong and ensure everyone else knows that you are wrong too.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Read more history, chump.

What nigger, every set does contain itself. For any set A, A is a subset of A, because all the elements of A are in A.

"Contain" as in be an element of.

To think humans are solely responsible for all the climate change happening recently is extremely arrogant

Let's say the industrial revolution didn't happen and that 2017 looked technologically like 1517.

Then climate change wouldn't be an issue. It's as simple as that.