Muslims in Toronto demand end to freedom of speech and expression.

[kraychik]

Who said it was and what does that have to do with it?

It has everything to do with this thread. Do you not pay any attention, at all? The main thrust of this dialogue is that we're importing people into our country that subscribe to a core set of values that are antithetical to Canadian values (which you're unable to articulate, due to your leftist moral/cultural relativism). Where are these core values coming from? Their take on the Quran, taking it at face value. Even when we hold your hand and help you hold the crayon, you still can't connect the dots in the metaphorical colouring book.

[Black Dog]

Sometimes green, eh? Best lay-off the catnip.

Green Sky Effect

[bleeding heart]

Right, because you think conservatism and leftism are mutually irreconcilable, and they're NOT. The values of conservatism are dependent on context, so a contemporary American conservatism holds values that are antithetical to those of conservatives in Russia in the 1990s. What defines a conservative is the context within which he or she exists, what values are trying to be preserved? The values of leftism, unlike conservatism, are NOT contingent on context. Therefore, you can be a conservative leftist if the values you're trying to conserve are communism or Islamism. I normally assume this is elementary.

No, your argument is entirely specious...it's nothing more than the masturbatory notion that conservatism, if applied properly (an impossibility thanks to the irritants to your hypothesis, known broadly as "human beings") is not only good; but that, in obeisance to tautology, what is bad cannot be conservative.

.

[kraychik]

Sometimes green, eh? Best lay-off the catnip.

He's incapable of serious discussion, and he gets mad when adults carry on in dialogue within which he cannot participate. The analogy I always use to describe people like him is the screaming child at the dinner table. While the adults at the table are talking about something top complex for the child to comprehend, he starts shouting and demanding attention. "Watch me! Watch me! I can tie my shoelaces!". He then proceeds to tie his shoelaces, simultaneously destroying the conversation that was taking place and receiving the attention he needs. All in all, a pretty impressive performance by the (man)child.

[kraychik]

No, your argument is entirely specious...it's nothing more than the masturbatory notion that conservatism, if applied properly (an impossibility thanks to the irritants to your hypothesis, known broadly as "human beings") is not only good; but that, in obeisance to tautology, what is bad cannot be conservative.

That's not what I said. Conservatism means something very different in Canada when comparing it to conservatism from the Taliban. Why? Because we're each conserving something entirely different. You're so out of your league it's not even funny anymore. I'm not gonna continue with this, either, if you can't understand what I'm saying by now then there's really no point.

[DogOnPorch]

Meh...BD's first words to me on arrival at this forum were more or less 'when are you leaving?' I said 'nice to meet you, too.'

[Black Dog]

He's incapable of serious discussion, and he gets mad when adults carry on in dialogue within which he cannot participate. The analogy I always use to describe people like him is the screaming child at the dinner table. While the adults at the table are talking about something top complex for the child to comprehend, he starts shouting and demanding attention. "Watch me! Watch me! I can tie my shoelaces!". He then proceeds to tie his shoelaces, simultaneously destroying the conversation that was taking place and receiving the attention he needs. All in all, a pretty impressive performance by the (man)child.

More from the master baiter.

[cybercoma]

Yes, I am directing it at you. Sometimes the answer is not "yes or no" but "why are we debating this ?"

Are you suggesting that I get sucked into meaningless debates that we shouldn't even be having?

Because I do.

[cybercoma]

Which is the one true faith ? What's your favourite bourbon ?

All faith is the true faith. Highland Park 18 (scotch, not bourbon).

[bleeding heart]

That's not what I said. Conservatism means something very different in Canada when comparing it to conservatism from the Taliban. Why? Because we're each conserving something entirely different. You're so out of your league it's not even funny anymore. I'm not gonna continue with this, either, if you can't understand what I'm saying by now then there's really no point.

I realize you're frustrated that your lack of thinking on the matter has come back to nip at your heels.

But again: even your criticisms of what you deem "the left" are almost entirely distinct from, often opposite to, the Islamist belief systems.

That's not a controversial assertion, but a truism.

Sorry if it shatters your cherished talking point, plagiarized from some professional red-baiter or other on some blog that had a profound effect on you.

The Islamists are not leftists.

They're conservatives.

And I do you one better here: I say at their conservatism does not reflect on you.

Whereas your obssessive Left-hatred allows no such distinctions.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm here for you.

[kraychik]

Conservatism and leftism are not mutually exclusive in certain contexts. You can be a conservative leftist (not in Canada or America, of course). You're making the mistake in assuming that conservatism in the context of Canada is part of a universal conservatism (there is no such thing, as the values of conservatism are contingent on context). The ideology of leftism, on the other hand, is universal, and doesn't change based on context. I guess I'm still banging my head against the wall with you.

[cybercoma]

I'm here for you.

Glad we had this chat. I look up to you.

[bleeding heart]

Conservatism and leftism are not mutually exclusive in certain contexts. You can be a conservative leftist (not in Canada or America, of course). You're making the mistake in assuming that conservatism in the context of Canada is part of a universal conservatism (there is no such thing, as the values of conservatism are contingent on context). The ideology of leftism, on the other hand, is universal, and doesn't change based on context. I guess I'm still banging my head against the wall with you.

I'm not trying to frustrate you.

On the other hand, the laughable notion that the Isamists are a bunch of leftists is certainly a head-bang worthy notion, slightly to the right of Creationism.

Edited October 3, 2012 by bleeding heart

[DogOnPorch]

I'm not trying to frustrate you.

On the other hand, the laughable notion that the Isamists are a bunch of leftists is certainly a head-bang worthy notion, slightly to the right of Creationism.

He does have a point. Your Western POV is what makes you see left and right in the first place. Islam is about the collective rather than the individual...Submission to God.

[bleeding heart]

He does have a point. Your Western POV is what makes you see left and right in the first place.

I'm sure there's truth to that...but I was responding to his idea of "left," so I don't quite see how your criticism doesn't apply to his (rather fringe-y) view.

[kraychik]

He does have a point. Your Western POV is what makes you see left and right in the first place. Islam is about the collective rather than the individual...Submission to God.

This is exactly what I was getting at when I was describing Nazism as a leftist ideology. The one thing we can all agree on (except bleeding heart, of course) is that the left-right paradigm is about full economic control on one end and complete economic anarchy/decentralisation on the other. Therefore the understanding of left and right from this starting point is universal. Conservatism is something else entirely, and is outside of this paradigm. Depending on context, one can be a conservative right-winger in one time and place and a conservative communist in another.

I use the term leftism to mean more than just being on the left-wing of this economic paradigm, however. I use it almost synonymously with statism and collectivism. And this is where Nazism, communism, and Islamism all share a crucial and important common denominator - a massive state with a great degree of control over people. In other words, a great erosion of individual freedoms. This is why I categorise Islamists as leftists, because they operate in a very similar manner to contemporary socialists, they just march more slowly.

[DogOnPorch]

I'm sure there's truth to that...but I was responding to his idea of "left," so I don't quite see how your criticism doesn't apply to his (rather fringe-y) view.

I'd argue that Islam is about the collective as stated. It doesn't ask one to seek God each in his/her own way. Quite the contrary. What it might translate to on the Western political scale is dubious if anything.

[kraychik]

I'm sure there's truth to that...but I was responding to his idea of "left," so I don't quite see how your criticism doesn't apply to his (rather fringe-y) view.

My view is certainly not fringe. Your ignorance of basic concepts and terminology associated with politics, however, is quite mainstream.

Edited October 3, 2012 by kraychik

[bleeding heart]

My view is certainly not fringe. Your ignorance of basic concepts and terminology associated with politics, however, is quite mainstream.

Mmmm. How's your research on libertarian socialism coming along? Quite well, or more conveniently ignored?

[DogOnPorch]

This is exactly what I was getting at when I was describing Nazism as a leftist ideology. The one thing we can all agree on (except bleeding heart, of course) is that the left-right paradigm is about full economic control on one end and complete economic anarchy/decentralisation on the other. Therefore the understanding of left and right from this starting point is universal. Conservatism is something else entirely, and is outside of this paradigm. Depending on context, one can be a conservative right-winger in one time and place and a conservative communist in another.

I use the term leftism to mean more than just being on the left-wing of this economic paradigm, however. I use it almost synonymously with statism and collectivism. And this is where Nazism, communism, and Islamism all share a crucial and important common denominator - a massive state with a great degree of control over people. In other words, a great erosion of individual freedoms. This is why I categorise Islamists as leftists, because they operate in a very similar manner to contemporary socialists, they just march more slowly.

I view the Nazis as more oligarchy in action. Each Nazi prince with his own empire to run...rarely cooperating except when it came to making trains run on time.

[bleeding heart]

This is exactly what I was getting at when I was describing Nazism as a leftist ideology.

An incorrect decription, which is why almost every person with even rudimentary knowledge (and a fair bit of knowledge; and a tremendous amount of knowledge) on the subject disagrees with you.

Or did you not notice that?

[kraychik]

I view the Nazis as more oligarchy in action. Each Nazi prince with his own empire to run...rarely cooperating except when it came to making trains run on time.

Remember, the economic activity of Nazi Germany was still driven by state demand. At the core of it all is the state. Beyond that, let's go into the social sphere of freedom - clearly tyrannical, and clearly leftist in the sense that it is all about the big government (the collective) at the expense of the individual. In the words of Dennis Prager, "the bigger the state, the smaller the individual". That's what took place in Nazis Germany.

[bleeding heart]

Remember, the economic activity of Nazi Germany was still driven by state demand. At the core of it all is the state. Beyond that, let's go into the social sphere of freedom - clearly tyrannical, and clearly leftist in the sense that it is all about the big government (the collective) at the expense of the individual. In the words of Dennis Prager, "the bigger the state, the smaller the individual". That's what took place in Nazis Germany.

This sounds about right. Proof positive that conservatism can be statist and draconian.

[DogOnPorch]

Remember, the economic activity of Nazi Germany was still driven by state demand. At the core of it all is the state. Beyond that, let's go into the social sphere of freedom - clearly tyrannical, and clearly leftist in the sense that it is all about the big government (the collective) at the expense of the individual. In the words of Dennis Prager, "the bigger the state, the smaller the individual". That's what took place in Nazis Germany.

We're going to have to disagree here. The Nazis allowed business as usual with normal competitions for military contracts right up until 1944 and Totaler Krieg. Heinz Guderian, then inspector general of armored forces, had to deal with people chasing the almighty Deutsche Mark when it came to tank production. That over a dozen competing designs were being built in the factories was the height of inefficiency.