Using ‘conservative logic’ to defend evil

[marc]

A comedian challenged people to name any criminal or villain, real or fictional, that he wouldn’t be able to defend with the kind of arguments used by conservatives (and sometimes by people here). Yea, these arguments do sound familiar


For example:
[TWEET]https://twitter.com/gregmlarsen/status/1300338866239332352?s=20[/TWEET]

 

[Trausti]

How are these meant to be “conservative” arguments?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A comedian challenged people to name any criminal or villain, real or fictional, that he wouldn’t be able to defend with the kind of arguments used by conservatives (and sometimes by people here). Yea, these arguments do sound familiar


For example:
[TWEET]https://twitter.com/gregmlarsen/status/1300338866239332352?s=20[/TWEET]

Yeah...I do remember when all the conservative closet feminists suddenly came out to push war in Afghanistan because of freeing the women.

Example of how feminism was a pro-war tool:
Paper(PDF)

But this is going to trigger some conservatives into denial and disingenuous inability to make connections.

 

[Worldtraveller]

It would be a lot of work, but it would be even funnier if he linked to examples of conservatives (Faux Noise) making these arguments.

Hell, 2/3rds of them could probably come from Tucker Carlson by himself.

 

[Trausti]

A comedian challenged people to name any criminal or villain, real or fictional, that he wouldn’t be able to defend with the kind of arguments used by conservatives (and sometimes by people here). Yea, these arguments do sound familiar


For example:
[TWEET]https://twitter.com/gregmlarsen/status/1300338866239332352?s=20[/TWEET]

Yeah...I do remember when all the conservative closet feminists suddenly came out to push war in Afghanistan because of freeing the women.

But this is going to trigger some conservatives into denial and disingenuous inability to make connections.

But how are these “conservative” arguments? You can rationalize anything to any absurdity. To point out the obvious, if these were “conservative” arguments in support of terrible people, there would be real world examples of conservatives making these arguments. Cite those.

 

[laughing dog]

A comedian challenged people to name any criminal or villain, real or fictional, that he wouldn’t be able to defend with the kind of arguments used by conservatives (and sometimes by people here). Yea, these arguments do sound familiar


For example:
[TWEET]https://twitter.com/gregmlarsen/status/1300338866239332352?s=20[/TWEET]

Yeah...I do remember when all the conservative closet feminists suddenly came out to push war in Afghanistan because of freeing the women.

But this is going to trigger some conservatives into denial and disingenuous inability to make connections.

But how are these “conservative” arguments? You can rationalize anything to any absurdity.

As readers of your posts are well aware.

To point out the obvious, if these were “conservative” arguments in support of terrible people, there would be real world examples of conservatives making these arguments. Cite those.

Any defense of Trump qualifies. Here is a link to Lindsey Graham's defense of Trump's firing of Vindman (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lindsey-graham-defends-trump-firing-vindman-sondland_n_5e403e1ac5b6b7088701db57) or Tom Cotton defense of Trump's comments on soldier's serious brain injuries (https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2020/01/27/tom-cotton-defends-trump-referring-to-soldiers-traumatic-brain-injuries-as-headaches-and-not-very-serious).

 

[Treedbear]

A comedian challenged people to name any criminal or villain, real or fictional, that he wouldn’t be able to defend with the kind of arguments used by conservatives (and sometimes by people here). Yea, these arguments do sound familiar


For example:
[TWEET]https://twitter.com/gregmlarsen/status/1300338866239332352?s=20[/TWEET]

Yeah...I do remember when all the conservative closet feminists suddenly came out to push war in Afghanistan because of freeing the women.

But this is going to trigger some conservatives into denial and disingenuous inability to make connections.

But how are these “conservative” arguments? You can rationalize anything to any absurdity. To point out the obvious, if these were “conservative” arguments in support of terrible people, there would be real world examples of conservatives making these arguments. Cite those.

Exactly right. It's always seemed strange to me that conservative Republicans can be so opposed to the Taliban and Iran's Islamic regime when they have such similar conservative principles such as the enforcement of strict roles for men and women and religious doctrine and its intrinsic role in government.

 

[TSwizzle]

How are these meant to be “conservative” arguments?

They are substandard Monty Pythonesque “arguments”.

 

[Trausti]

But how are these “conservative” arguments? You can rationalize anything to any absurdity. To point out the obvious, if these were “conservative” arguments in support of terrible people, there would be real world examples of conservatives making these arguments. Cite those.

Exactly right. It's always seemed strange to me that conservative Republicans can be so opposed to the Taliban and Iran's Islamic regime when they have such similar conservative principles such as the enforcement of strict roles for men and women and religious doctrine and its intrinsic role in government.

Ah, conservatives are for limited government, individual rights, freedom of religion, free speech, personal responsibility, and meritocracy. But, go ahead, slay your strawman.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iQPqOwtvYbw

 

[bilby]

But how are these “conservative” arguments? You can rationalize anything to any absurdity. To point out the obvious, if these were “conservative” arguments in support of terrible people, there would be real world examples of conservatives making these arguments. Cite those.

Exactly right. It's always seemed strange to me that conservative Republicans can be so opposed to the Taliban and Iran's Islamic regime when they have such similar conservative principles such as the enforcement of strict roles for men and women and religious doctrine and its intrinsic role in government.

Ah, conservatives are for limited government, individual rights, freedom of religion, free speech, personal responsibility, and meritocracy. But, go ahead, slay your strawman.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iQPqOwtvYbw

That's a Barnum statement. Almost everybody of all political persuasions are for those things.

Of course, they all disagree about what they mean, and what their order of priority is.

 

[marc]

Ah, conservatives are for limited government, individual rights, freedom of religion, free speech, personal responsibility, and meritocracy. But, go ahead, slay your strawman.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iQPqOwtvYbw

That's a Barnum statement. Almost everybody of all political persuasions are for those things.

Of course, they all disagree about what they mean, and what their order of priority is.

I would amend that as almost everybody states they are for those things. It is not hard to find examples of supposed conservatives only applying them to their own groups, like freedom of (conservative christian) religion.

 

[bilby]

Ah, conservatives are for limited government, individual rights, freedom of religion, free speech, personal responsibility, and meritocracy. But, go ahead, slay your strawman.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iQPqOwtvYbw

That's a Barnum statement. Almost everybody of all political persuasions are for those things.

Of course, they all disagree about what they mean, and what their order of priority is.

I would amend that as almost everybody states they are for those things. It is not hard to find examples of supposed conservatives only applying them to their own groups, like freedom of (conservative christian) religion.

That's the point. A Barnum statement is one that everyone agrees applies to them.

An horoscope is the classic example. A bunch of apparently specific, but actually very vague, statements that every reader will agree applies to their own lives, while also believing that they don't apply to everybody.

 

[lpetrich]

End protection welfare!

Abolish all government military and police forces! They must all be turned into private companies or else disbanded.

Here are some conservative and libertarian arguments for doing so. WARNING! Some of them have a blame-the-victim quality in them.

• Let the market decide. If soldiers' and cops' services have any value, people will hire them, or else people will become vigilantes. Government coercion is unnecessary.
• Government protection is one-size-fits-all. Vigilantism, hired guards, and mercenaries can be adjusted to individuals' protection needs and desires, while government protection cannot.
• Government involvement in protection crowds out private investment in protection solutions, solutions that will invariably be superior to government ones.
• People who refuse to protect themselves deserve to be conquered and beaten up and stolen from and extorted from and raped and enslaved and murdered and whatever other crimes that they might suffer. Protection laziness ought to have consequences, and government protection protects people from the consequences of their actions.
• Crime victims are really crime enablers, and they deserve to suffer the consequences of their crime enabling.
• The cult of crime victimhood should be recognized for it is: a part of the cult of victimhood, a very popular way for people to try to evade responsibility for their actions.
• Self-protectors should not have to protect non-self-protectors by the government stealing from them to do so. Government protection is governments robbing Peter to protect Paul.
• Individuals are much better at protecting themselves than governments. Therefore, government protection is unnecessary and people should not be stolen from to pay for it.
• Advocates of government military and police forces are very condescending with their insinuation that people have no agency, that they are incapable of protecting themselves.
• If there are any people who are not capable of protecting themselves, then private charities like vigilantes will do much better at protecting them than governments.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The free market dictates that for all private security firms, the ones who murder civilians the least will be the most successful. So the free market minimizes murder.

 

[KeepTalking]

How are these meant to be “conservative” arguments?

They are substandard Monty Pythonesque “arguments”.

No, they are not.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How are these meant to be “conservative” arguments?

They are substandard Monty Pythonesque “arguments”.

^sub-standard conservative argument

 

[Bomb#20]

How are these meant to be “conservative” arguments?

They are substandard Monty Pythonesque “arguments”.

No, they are not.

I'm afraid they are.

 

[Keith&Co.]

A f we years back, a Democrat in Congress expressed concern that the island of Guam might tip over if there were too many people on it.
He drew scorn and humor from both sides.

But if Trump were to make a similar claim about Oahu, he would draw scorn from thd left, but many on the right would abandon their current degrees in immunology and begin justifying the geologic conditions that pose just such a threat to the entire chain of islands in the once-great state of Hawaii.
Their geology wouldn't be any better than their biology, or their constitutional law they argued way back at the impeachment.

 

[bilby]

End protection welfare!

Abolish all government military and police forces! They must all be turned into private companies or else disbanded.

Here are some conservative and libertarian arguments for doing so. WARNING! Some of them have a blame-the-victim quality in them.

• Let the market decide. If soldiers' and cops' services have any value, people will hire them, or else people will become vigilantes. Government coercion is unnecessary.
• Government protection is one-size-fits-all. Vigilantism, hired guards, and mercenaries can be adjusted to individuals' protection needs and desires, while government protection cannot.
• Government involvement in protection crowds out private investment in protection solutions, solutions that will invariably be superior to government ones.
• People who refuse to protect themselves deserve to be conquered and beaten up and stolen from and extorted from and raped and enslaved and murdered and whatever other crimes that they might suffer. Protection laziness ought to have consequences, and government protection protects people from the consequences of their actions.
• Crime victims are really crime enablers, and they deserve to suffer the consequences of their crime enabling.
• The cult of crime victimhood should be recognized for it is: a part of the cult of victimhood, a very popular way for people to try to evade responsibility for their actions.
• Self-protectors should not have to protect non-self-protectors by the government stealing from them to do so. Government protection is governments robbing Peter to protect Paul.
• Individuals are much better at protecting themselves than governments. Therefore, government protection is unnecessary and people should not be stolen from to pay for it.
• Advocates of government military and police forces are very condescending with their insinuation that people have no agency, that they are incapable of protecting themselves.
• If there are any people who are not capable of protecting themselves, then private charities like vigilantes will do much better at protecting them than governments.

The market did decide.

Barons set themselves up with lots of hired goons, built castles, and generally got on with free marjet policing. Then over time, they established contracts amongst themselves to build a hierarchy of power, with one guy (the "king") at the top - his position being based largely in his ability to pay for enough security (men, weapons, castles, etc.) to enforce his will on the subordinate barons.

Over time, the contracts became more complex, and inheritance of personal wealth less important, ultimately leading to our current situation, where power is given to an executive under the terms of a contract that grants him a virtual monopoly on the use of force, payed for by contractually mandatory fees (known as "taxes"), and in exchange for which the people who pay taxes are allowed a share of a regular vote to determine who is going to be king for the next few years.

That's what the free market came up with. Of course, there were many disputes (sometimes violent ones) along the way.

Meddling with this free market outcome is clearly very popular and widespread - but that meddling is itself an expression of individual will in a marketplace whose 'regulation' is only by consent of the free men and women who work within it. We, the people, have granted a monopoly on the use of force to a hierarchy of executives, whom we pay to apply that force in accordance with the social contract. We therefore already live in a libertarian world, and always have.

Modern libertarianism is simply an ignorance of how things actually work when free people interact, and an appeal to oversimplify things to make them comprehensible to libertarians. But reality is under no obligation to be sufficiently simple for everyone to understand it. The markets have spoken; modern libertarianism isn't being implemented, because the free activities of individuals don't lead to the caricature of real society for which modern libertarians yearn.

Sorry, not sorry.

 

[scombrid]

But how are these “conservative” arguments? You can rationalize anything to any absurdity. To point out the obvious, if these were “conservative” arguments in support of terrible people, there would be real world examples of conservatives making these arguments. Cite those.

Exactly right. It's always seemed strange to me that conservative Republicans can be so opposed to the Taliban and Iran's Islamic regime when they have such similar conservative principles such as the enforcement of strict roles for men and women and religious doctrine and its intrinsic role in government.

Ah, conservatives are for limited government, individual rights, freedom of religion, free speech, personal responsibility, and meritocracy. But, go ahead, slay your strawman.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iQPqOwtvYbw

Conservatives are for government by a corporate oligarchy where the corporations are free to dump all of their negative externalities on the commons while they loot the treasury and bankrupt the democratically elected real government. Conservatives are not for individual rights or freedom of religion. Conservatives think that local and state governments should be free to impose the majority religious doctrines on people within their jurisdictions. They say they aren't but it is what they try to do when they refuse to grant equal protection under the law to all people irrespective of sex or sexuality. They think that a corporation should be free to do anything it pleases but that you should not have an automatic right to marry whomever you please. They even favor deed covenants that restrict who can and cannot buy property. They talk a good freedom game but they never put it into practice when it comes to individual basic rights. It is smoke and mirrors with total corporate control being the end game.

They grouse about the big bad EPA regulating a 'puddle' on some farmer's property claiming that property rights mean that you should be able to do whatever you please on your property irrespective of downstream effects. They couch it in terms of David versus Goliath. But they are really angling to free up the multinational agribusiness and development corporations to be able to operate as cheaply as possible while dumping on the folks down stream with impunity.

And meritocracy? Is that how Jared Kushner and all of the other incompetents got their jobs in the McConnell administration? Yeah, they really live by meritocracy.