How can Aspies be conservative except under duress?

Post Reply New Topic

It is not in the least unknown. This one has been around for a while, and it is solidly attributed. Politicians have been manipulating it to reflect their own prejudices for years.

The earliest English language quotation in substantially the same form is from John Adams:

"A boy of fifteen who is not a democrat is good for nothing, and he is no better who is a democrat at twenty." (Jan. 1799)


In its most common pattern, with the reference to heart and head, it is clearly originated by François Guizot

«N'être pas républicain à vingt ans est preuve d'un manque de cœur; l'être après trente ans est preuve d'un manque de tête.» (undated)


As a reference to socialism/conservativism, it is most often credited, probably apocryphally to Clémenceau:

«N'être pas socialiste à vingt ans est preuve d'un manque de cœur. D'être à trente ans est preuve d'un manque de tête.»
(Not being a socialist at twenty shows a want of heart. Being one at thirty shows a want of head.)

What Clémenceau undoubtedly said (on being told that his son has joined the communists) was:

«Mon fils a vingt deux ans. S'il n'était pas devenu communiste à vingt deux, je l'aurais renié. S'il est encore communiste à trente ans, je le ferais alors.»
(My son is 22. If he hadn't become a communist at 22, I would have disowned him. If he's still communist at thirty, I will do it then.)

I consider myself a Conservative (vote democrat usually). I have compassion for the poor, probably too much compassion. I just want what's best for people not what makes me feel best. I don't think a lot of liberal policies work to actually help the poor because it takes Conservative principles usually to move one's self forward. I am not, however, a Republican. I find some of them to be heartless and just stupid, especially the Tea Party. Someone mentioned Margaret Thatcher. I happen to admire her, I don't admire her policies but I do admire her conviction to her ideals.

Conservatives put reason before empathy, liberals put empathy ahead of reason. A simple example, there are roughly 450 people who have been illegally living in Norway since their applications for political asylum were denied. The left wants to allow these people to stay, thereby putting into law "ignore the law long enough and you get your citizenship anyway". With the consequences that each of those 450 get access to "family reunion" which means that they get to import as many of their family members they more or less want. The right is saying, yes, its sad that we can't let them stay, but doing so would be circumventing the law based on empathy rather than reason with consequences you are too irrational to understand.

The sooner people realize that people who put empathy ahead of reason have no place in government, the better.

If empathy means wanting to see people have food, clothing, and shelter before death overtakes them - even if that means forestalling getting work - then I'll take empathy any day.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Um hell no, No thank you government deciding what legitimate health care should be available to my doctor to provide for me. In the US we have states implementing these restriction and it's incredibly ineffective and has lead to women being forced to carry unviable pregnancies until they spontaneously abort (which can lead to serious infection) and in some cases women dying because "threat to the life of the mother" wasn't recognized in time. Politicians don't make good doctors.
Your very words "someone has to live with one's action" gives up the goose that lack of abortion access is mean to punish slu*ty sluts for having had sex. Birth is not a punishment or payment for having had sex, no one should be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy, it's morally wrong.


Yeah nope. Conservatives put questionable morals, greed, and nationalism over the good of the many (especially when the many are female, gay, poor, or *gasp* brown)

*all my politics are USian*

To begin with, in my heart I am pro-life, but, eventually those places where abortion is banned will see a reemergence of the illegal abortion trade, followed by the inevitable deaths brought about by unsanitary, unprofessional procedures.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

That is not what "conservative" means. It means conserving the Constitution as the Law of the Land. The U.S. Constitution has been pretty well shredded. If people want to change the constitution we have ways of doing it. Turning the meaning of the text inside out, particularly in the courts is sneaky and contrary to the public being the source of law.

ruveyn

Ah, so so true.

Anyway, I've been pretty officially diagnosed (well long involved NVLD diagnosis, and then a bunch of psychs going "yeah dude, you got Aspergers.) I'm conservative-ish. I consider myself a libertarian, but I'm personally socially conservative. I am against abortion, though. Gay marriage, I figure theoretically the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, and it should only be a religious ceremony, but uh, if the government is involved with it, whatever, let the states decide it. I personally don't like the idea, but hey. With conservatives, my relation to, say, the Fox News crowd was more "the enemy of my enemy" kinda thing. That's more or less how I relate to conservatives.

Part of it could be from upbringing, my dad was very much the same way, but he'd listen to shortwave radio and the like, bigger on conspiracy theories and the like than even I am (and I'm quite big on that sorta stuff.) So it probably rubbed off onto me during my formative years. Then in highschool, when I read "Anthem" by Ayn Rand I was like "YES!" Then I discovered libertarianism, and yeah. Also was raised in a Christian household, too, so there's that, still Christian today, though some bumps in that road over the years.

But liberalism is just like, the anti-thesis to everything I like. Whereas libertarianism and conservative views have that whole rugged individual thing going on, liberalism really thinks of people as a "collective" and not individual people. and genuinely in life, what I want most is simply to be left alone, and libertarianism promises that, whereas liberalism in it's modern form promises the exact opposite.

But that's how I view stuff. Conservatives the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, I pretty much view them as "enemy of my enemy" and when they're "useful" to things I like (ie, gun rights, though both of them aren't too pro-gun) then good for them, but yeah.

So long as you get to be "individualist" and do what you want to do and not have your right infringed upon, it's all good right? Other people disadvantaged by society can go hang.
You're against big gov. because it has to be small enough to get in my vagina.
Guess what, my rugged individualist self doesn't want my autonomy legislated away by big gov.
wtf do you care if gay couple receive the same legal (from the government) rights (taxes, inheritance, hospital visitation) as straight couples
Churches will never be forced to marry anyone, ex. as a jew, a catholic priest would likely not agree to marry me to someone.
Guess what, you and your individalist ways wouldn't survive without infrastructure (like roads). This is the fallacy of the self made man, the belief he had no help from society when society privileges him in almost every way.

I don't believe their empathy is impaired at all but I do believe there is a sadistic appeal to the ideology.

This is why discussions are so silly, if you can't even come up with a realistic example but have to in worst case be straw-manning and in the best case be hyperbolic it kind of ruins the fun. I could have characterized liberals as people who want to save everyone and are willing to spend as much of other people's money to accomplish that as they need to, preferably getting said money under duress. However I didn't.

Even hard line conservatives want people to have food, clothing, shelter, medical help and so on. Conservatives do not want to watch people just die, just as liberals do not want "death panels" the sooner we can get rid of the stupid characterizations and loaded language the sooner a real debate can be had.

By the way, have you stopped beating your wife?

Well, maybe you're a closet liberal, too.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I'm neither really, my "conservative" and "liberal" sides balance each other out.

I identify as liberal, and I don't think the government should be the main actor in society, although it really depends on your definition of "main actor".



Your point of view seems very biased. Honestly, I don't see any basis for your generalization.



My impression was that some of the hard line conservatives didn't want any government involvement in helping disadvantaged individuals.

Okay I'll go, If empathy means I won't have to endure a non-medically necessary, invasive, painful procedure before receiving legal medical care. Even if it prevents me from being appropriately shamed and punished for my non-christian lifestyle/mistake/assault. I'll take it.
If empathy means my insurance (that I pay for) will cover preventative care that allows me to work full time and be a productive member of society without debilitating pain, even if that care may also prevent pregnancy, I'll take it.

Those tend to be hard-line libertarians. Of course there may be the odd grouping that feels that way, I don't know every hard-line conservative in the world, so I can't say. However, I did see a statistic that said the majority of tea party members like social security and medicaid. Let's also be honest, the U.S military is the largest job program in the world.