Hume: Calgary’s mayor is now Canada’s mayor

[freshcutgrass]

Freedom of speech is muzzled in the name of political correctness.

Bigots are "free" to say anything they want, just as anyone is free to rob a bank if they want. As long as they are willing to face the possible consequences for such things. Making people accountable for their actions is not taking away their freedoms.

not only is today's liberal all for keeping the status quo but another irony of them is that they are often the most closed-minded people I meet.

This is exactly the fuzzy kind of logic the conservative-thinking mind starts churning out. It's bad enough to invent labels, but then you want to start reversing their meaning. It's like saying people who speak out against bigotry are themselves bigots...against bigotry. Sorry, but that's a merry-go-round I simply refuse to jump on.

 

[freshcutgrass]

While fear and rational thought are definitely factors in behaviour, love is also a strong factor. It explains that which can not be explained by either fear or rationality.

Ok...that's a bit out in left field. Not sure what it means. Are you talking about romantic love? Brotherly love...love for your fellow man?

The conservative-thinking mind, with its narcissistic tendencies, is not likely to have any love for their fellow man outside of their clique. If they did, they wouldn't have labels for everybody considered "the other". The conservative-thinking mind is not capable of working on the simple ethical ideal of reciprocity.

How you arrive at the conclusion that the conservatives are only motivated by fear is utterly baffling given that conservatives simply pine for days gone by. They believe that society was better in the past than it is today.

I don't agree that what they are "pining" for necessarily has anything to do with the past, present or future. Sure, they generally don't like "change" at all, but what the conservative-thinking mind simply wants is the world to conform to it. If society happened to better conform in the past, then they will long for the past. If they see a future where it better conforms, then it will long for the future. If they see the future as being less conforming than the status quo, they will want to keep the status quo.

This is because the conservative-thinking mind has a hard time seeing others as "individuals", they see them as extensions of themselves. That is why they fear those who are not like them. This is what drives a conservative-thinking person to think that same-sex marriage is a "threat" to "traditional" marriage.

Your apparent disdain for both conservatives and the NDP leads me to believe that you must be a left-leaning libertarian. Am I right?

First of all, nothing I have been saying refers to any political parties (with the exception of the NDP comment, which was really nothing more than a little interjected humour). And secondly, no...you are not right. I have no loyalties to any political party, which is why I have no "disdain" for anybody not believing in my party affiliation.

 

[nfitz]

Sorry nfitz, never been a member of UT before and I don't think you are naive, I just think you're some guy who hand-picked some really obvious examples of inhumanity from the past to suggest that is the type of conservatism I believe in because of course it isn't.

So to what time period do conservatives pine for?

Even today, many conservatives seem to be promoting inhumanity. Some even suggest such vile bigotry as banning gay marriage - hard to believe that anyone would suggest something so evil in public, but I have heard it directly out of the mouth of some conservatives.

 

[Phil McAvity]

Bigots are "free" to say anything they want, just as anyone is free to rob a bank if they want. As long as they are willing to face the possible consequences for such things. Making people accountable for their actions is not taking away their freedoms.

There's a huge difference between someone's words and their actions but today's politically correct liberal is increasingly blurring that line. Society can decide the merit of each individual, not human fights tribunals.

This is exactly the fuzzy kind of logic the conservative-thinking mind starts churning out. It's bad enough to invent labels, but then you want to start reversing their meaning. It's like saying people who speak out against bigotry are themselves bigots...against bigotry. Sorry, but that's a merry-go-round I simply refuse to jump on.

I'm not "reversing" anything so it's ironic that you accuse me of some sort of "fuzzy logic". One of the definitions of the word "liberal" is, "free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant", yet a great number of liberals I have known are anything but tolerant. If I don't agree with everything they say, they often become angry or else their minds close right down and they don't want to talk to me anymore. I'll give you this-at least you have enough intelligence to understand irony (and thus hypocrisy) which is a concept that is lost on many liberals.

 

[Phil McAvity]

So to what time period do conservatives pine for?

Amongst conservatives it would be implicitly understood that we prefer the time before the 1960's.

Even today, many conservatives seem to be promoting inhumanity. Some even suggest such vile bigotry as banning gay marriage - hard to believe that anyone would suggest something so evil in public, but I have heard it directly out of the mouth of some conservatives.

Sorry but I don't see anything inherently evil or inhumane in wanting to keep marriage between a man and a woman but then i'm also not really opposed to the idea either. This is one of those issues that has really gained traction amongst the religious right yet their opposition to it seems to be strictly biblical based. I just don't see anything odious abut two men or two women being married. Gays and lesbians should have every right to be married and thus, just as miserable, as us breeders.

Ok...that's a bit out in left field. Not sure what it means. Are you talking about romantic love? Brotherly love...love for your fellow man?

I don't know why you keep trying to drag me into these semantic arguments. Do you really not know what the word love means?

The conservative-thinking mind, with its narcissistic tendencies, is not likely to have any love for their fellow man outside of their clique. If they did, they wouldn't have labels for everybody considered "the other". The conservative-thinking mind is not capable of working on the simple ethical ideal of reciprocity.

Sorry pal but that works just as easily one direction as the other, hence the two words "liberal" and "conservative". Reciprocity is ethical? So if someone attacks you. the ethical thing to do is attack them back?

I don't agree that what they are "pining" for necessarily has anything to do with the past, present or future.

Yes it does. It's apparent that the English language is one of the first barriers to debating this with you so i'll turn to dictionary.com to help you again; "conservative" means, "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change", so yes it is clearly someone who would like to return society to what they consider the good old days.

Sure, they generally don't like "change" at all, but what the conservative-thinking mind simply wants is the world to conform to it. If society happened to better conform in the past, then they will long for the past. If they see a future where it better conforms, then it will long for the future. If they see the future as being less conforming than the status quo, they will want to keep the status quo.

This is a an excellent example of the type of nonsense I am used to from liberals. Conservatives aren't about conforming because there are many things that society wants us to conform to today that we reject like human rights tribunals, an increasingly out of touch judicial system, and political correctness.

This is because the conservative-thinking mind has a hard time seeing others as "individuals", they see them as extensions of themselves. That is why they fear those who are not like them. This is what drives a conservative-thinking person to think that same-sex marriage is a "threat" to "traditional" marriage.

I am very aware that others are different from me (in your case, very different ) so I don't know how you figure that conservatives suffer from some sort of malignant narcissism. I guess i'm a bit different from other conservatives because I don't have a problem with same-sex marriage.

First of all, nothing I have been saying refers to any political parties (with the exception of the NDP comment, which was really nothing more than a little interjected humour). And secondly, no...you are not right. I have no loyalties to any political party, which is why I have no "disdain" for anybody not believing in my party affiliation.

Unfortunately i'm not surprised you couldn't simply define your political beliefs, liberals have a hard time thinking in terms of black and white and you clearly have a hard time understanding the English language.

 

[nfitz]

Amongst conservatives it would be implicitly understood that we prefer the time before the 1960's.

Wow that far back.

There were huge social injustices in society back then. Racism was still rampant in Canada. It was well before the advances we saw in the official languages act ... which is likely the only reason Canada survived the late 1900s intact. The establishment was basically male and white.

Is this what conservatives really pine for? When the Canadian establishment was white, male, Abrahamic (but not Islamic), English, and in the closet?

Even I'm not this cynical. Perhaps I am naive?

 

[Phil McAvity]

Wow that far back.

Yeah that far back. What were you thinking?!?!?!? I'm old-fashioned. How I wish society were like it was back in 2008.

I also have no idea what "Abrhamic" means.

 

[freshcutgrass]

One of the definitions of the word "liberal" is, "free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant", yet a great number of liberals I have known are anything but tolerant

.

No such person exists...no one is "free" from those things. This is why I avoid the term "liberal", as it implies some binary system of "liberals" vs "conservatives". Everyone is guilty of conservative-thinking to some degree, but those who are much less so, we label as "liberal thinking", and the label is arbitrary, based on the observer's personal perspective. It's like the term "cold". There is no such thing as cold...there is only varying degrees of "heat". We arbitrarily attribute the term "cold" to a certain lack of heat.

If I don't agree with everything they say, they often become angry or else their minds close right down and they don't want to talk to me anymore.

Well, I suppose that would completely depend on the content of the conversation.

If your position was perceived as bigoted, intolerant or illogical, then as I mentioned before, it is not hypocritical of them to not be supportive of that position, as being "tolerant" does not include being tolerant of intolerance, because it becomes somewhat paradoxical. Also, the conservative-thinking mind is one that avoids any logic which may make their position seem incorrect. The conservative-thinking mind does not like to question or challenge their own beliefs...they only wish to reinforce it. That's why even empirical evidence that is contrary to their beliefs are ignored or denied. To get back on topic, this is why Rob Ford thinks streetcars need to be illuminated, even though logic and evidence indicates it will worsen the exact problems he thinks getting rid of them will solve.

Rob Ford is a fairly extreme example of the conservative-thinking mind. I'd be willing to bet money that under evaluation, he would qualify for several DSM disorders (NPD for sure). It's scary to think that it has been estimated that at any given time, about 15% of the general population would qualify for a serious mental disorder. This is not difficult for me to comprehend, as I do live in Parkdale, where the percentage is much higher. LOL

Or...you are simply encountering another conservative-thinking mind. In which case, it's a situation of mis-labelling, rather than hypocrisy. That's why inventing "liberals", who are "free" from conservative-thinking is a mistake.


Oh...BTW, you have quoted me as saying....

There's a huge difference between someone's words and their actions but today's politically correct liberal is increasingly blurring that line. Society can decide the merit of each individual, not human fights tribunals.

These are not my words.

 

[nfitz]

I also have no idea what "Abrhamic" means.

It means I made a typo ... though I thought it was pretty obvious that I meant to type "Abrahamic" ... is it really that difficult to figure out what word I meant

I'm just surprised anyone would want to return society to such a backwards racist and bigoted time! I really think you misrepresent conservative views ...

 

[Tewder]

The term I used was an adverb...not a noun. I imagine your confusion centres around thinking I am referring to "people" ("conservatives" vs "liberals"). I am not (A "liberal" is not the opposite of a "conservative"...a liberal is just a person who has a tendency to exhibit less conservative-thinking). Everyone is guilty of conservative-thinking to some degree or another. I am only pointing out a well known definition of a certain human behaviour, so it's not a "blanket statement"any more than saying 1+1=2 is a blanket statement about math.

Well I must confess that I didn't parse your statements that closely

So, you might say that Ford voters actually believed that his policies would result in improvements to what they thought was wrong. But anyone who looked past the rhetoric and meaningless soundbites, it was clear this was not the case.

I'm not sure it is as 'clear' as you suggest. The city may not improve in ways you prefer, subjectively, but may improve in ways that are preferable to others... or not, but at the very least this is what Ford-ites are hoping for. In the end he will be judged by them too.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I'm not sure it is as 'clear' as you suggest.

It never is.

The city may not improve in ways you prefer, subjectively, but may improve in ways that are preferable to others.

This I could understand, but I can't think of any examples that can apply. Can you come up with any?

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'm so tired of Hume. He's not the city's spokesperson, or its expert of urban planning. He's just a columnist at the Toronto Star. Why do his opinions mean more than anyone else?

 

[BobBob]

Because he's a columnist at the Toronto Star.

 

[archanfel]

I'm so tired of Hume. He's not the city's spokesperson, or its expert of urban planning. He's just a columnist at the Toronto Star. Why do his opinions mean more than anyone else?

His opinion doesn't mean much outside this forum. As was shown during the election.

 

[Tewder]

This I could understand, but I can't think of any examples that can apply. Can you come up with any?

Well the first one that comes to mind is transit. I understand completely that some may prefer TC and the David Miller plan with its degree of funding-in-place readiness etc., but I also understand that some prefer the subways plan of Ford even if it slows the process in a correcting-to-get-back-to-what's-right strategy. The point is, I've heard convincing arguments on both sides which leads me to believe that it isn't so much an issue of one ultimate rational rightness here but differing shades of rightness depending on the perspective in question... and this is not to say that Ford will deliver on his transit plan or not (remains to be seen), and this is not to imply that one shouldn't weight the options and make a choice. They should.