Phatscotty wrote:tkr4lf wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry wrote:lynch5762 wrote:Ummm... for the record; Conservatism is not a political belief it is a basic human instinct.
Example; Imagine yourself in a tribe of starving people back when the buffalo still ran... but only 9 of the 10 men have gone on the hunt for months. When they finally brought home the food, who do you think ate last if he even got to eat at all?
Just wondering....
Are you saying that the US Cavalry wiped out the last remaining native American conservatives?
No, he is saying that Conservatism is a necessity and liberalism is a luxury. In his example, the person who does not do any work to get the food will only get food if there is a surplus provided by the workers. None of the people who did the work are going to go hungry for the person who didn't do any work, and it doesn't matter the reason.
New rule: Every time you start off a post with "so you are saying...." just follow it up with a "no" so then you will have the correct answer every time.
The underlined seems to be a staple of the internet. Almost anytime somebody starts a post with that phrase, it's a pretty safe bet that it is not what the person was saying at all.
But to be fair, Symmetry didn't start his post with that saying. He asked if he was saying that.
Every time you start off a post with "So you are saying...." or "Are you saying that...." it means a stupid fucking analogy is on the way.
Eh, I don't know about that. It could simply mean that somebody is about to bastardize what you said, or any number of other things. It doesn't necessarily mean an analogy would be used. But yeah, I agree with your general sentiments about it.
To address this:
Phatscotty wrote:No, he is saying that Conservatism is a necessity and liberalism is a luxury. In his example, the person who does not do any work to get the food will only get food if there is a surplus provided by the workers. None of the people who did the work are going to go hungry for the person who didn't do any work, and it doesn't matter the reason.
While I agree that Conservatism was necessary back when we were in tribes, as you and the person you have quoted pointed out, I think it's something we can and should move past. There are other things that were necessary/important back when we lived in tribes that should be moved past as well. Take racism, for instance. I think racism served an important function back when we were in tribes, since it payed to immediately be hostile/suspicious of anybody that wasn't a member of your tribe. But now that we live in cities and intermingle and interbreed with races from all around the world, it seems like the practice doesn't serve a purpose anymore.
To continue the analogy, we as a society can afford to be liberal with our resources now that we live in cities, produce surpluses of food, etc. Back when we lived in tribes, sure, it payed to be conservative. But we're not living in tribes anymore, so perhaps it's time to move away from such antiquated thinking.
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}