Needed - A new conservative apologetics

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

The term "apologetic" always rubs me the wrong way, but I do know what you mean, and I love that you're thinking outside the box. We need new approaches, new perspectives, and new information. We cannot keep doing what we have been doing and expect better results. It just ain't gonna happen!

I'd like to see a call for Apologetics from all political ideologies and persuasions. I want to see conservative and liberal and libertarian and green and Constitutionalists ALL become Apologetics who explain their philosophies, their values, their guiding principles, why they think this way is the best way. And at the same time ALL become listeners and really try to understand the other person's position, and more important the virtue in their position. The better we understand and respect each other and each other's positions, the better we can find reforms and solutions that best address everyone's needs and rights.

At the same time, the better we understand the virtue in someone's perspective or position, the less likely we are to dismiss, judge or condemn someone. We can appreciate someone's end goal even if we don't appreciate their methods of reaching that goal.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Annee

If you are, it doesn't come through in your posts because somehow I've never read anything you've written and said, "Wow, Annee just nailed me in a nutshell." Other posters have done a decent job of it, but not you. You do have a good tendency to nail all the worst tropes of what the progressives think I think.

There are Republicans (Conservatives) and then there is “Right of Right. I’m sure you’d call me a RINO.

I’m in AZ. I have gone to both Republican & Dem meetings. I don’t really like the Reps — they’re just way too uptight. I’m not particularly Left — “That which is not earned has no value”.

I rarely discuss my own political beliefs.

a reply to: Annee

I rarely discuss my own political beliefs.

You are aware that we can see what you post on ATS, right?

Your Posts

I don't think that the word "rarely" means what you think it means...

/facepalm

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

We need to promote freedom, rights, individual liberties and support and defend the Constitution as it was written, not how the left now interprets it.

Sure, but we need to establish the apologetics and have persuasive spoke people use it and get the public to consider the conservative point of view, maybe even adopt it.

The conservatives have Qanon and Alex Jones, how much more persuasive spokes people do you need.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I got this.

I apologise that I want to be free. I am sorry that our leaders on both sides have sold their souls to china and globalism. I am sorry that I supported the right so they could sell us all out in order to keep their jobs where they get paid off to not accomplish anything.

I am sorry I voted for a bunch of politicians that can't even lead a company that can deliver mail efficiently, even though they have had 200 years to figure it out.

I am sorry I was born male and white. I am sorry I even existed in the first place. I am sorry.

Folks also need to be taught the sense of pride and accomplishment they get from doing things on their own through taking ownership.

Everyone likes those stories. Do you notice how many Democrats even run on them? The stories of struggle to make it and achieve? But then those same democrats turn around and promise to enact policies to protect everyone from having the same experiences themselves.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

We need to promote freedom, rights, individual liberties and support and defend the Constitution as it was written, not how the left now interprets it.

Sure, but we need to establish the apologetics and have persuasive spoke people use it and get the public to consider the conservative point of view, maybe even adopt it.

The conservatives have Qanon and Alex Jones, how much more persuasive spokes people do you need.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ah. Yes! All conservatives are CT-believing extremists.

“Maybe we should just drone them”?

a reply to: Boadicea

The term "apologetic" always rubs me the wrong way, but I do know what you mean, and I love that you're thinking outside the box. We need new approaches, new perspectives, and new information. We cannot keep doing what we have been doing and expect better results. It just ain't gonna happen!

Yeah, apologetics always sounded like some one was apologizing for their beliefs to me and yeah, we need to get some ideas going that will work. I have others, of course, but I'm not sharing those. It's not that these other ideas are illegal in any way, I just don't want to give the opposition any forewarning about certain things.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

We need to promote freedom, rights, individual liberties and support and defend the Constitution as it was written, not how the left now interprets it.

Sure, but we need to establish the apologetics and have persuasive spoke people use it and get the public to consider the conservative point of view, maybe even adopt it.

The conservatives have Qanon and Alex Jones, how much more persuasive spokes people do you need.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

By that reasoning, all liberals are Antifa-BLM marxists that are just waiting for their turn to be the new James Hodgkinson.

So the best thing to do is be proactive and put them in camps to "re-educate" them before they destroy America.

For the children, of course.

Hint... You are painting with a really broad brush because your owners want you to think that way.

Dehumanize the opposition and it is much easier to garner enough public support to get rid of them.

Hitler literally did that.

Are you a fan of his?

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Annee

I rarely discuss my own political beliefs.

You are aware that we can see what you post on ATS, right?

Your Posts

I don't think that the word "rarely" means what you think it means...

/facepalm

Yes. I post opinions based on logic & perspectives.

The tunnel vision clone posts have little to no perspective.

But, my own political beliefs I rarely post.

a reply to: Annee

False.

I have never seen you use logic only emotion.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Annee

I rarely discuss my own political beliefs.

You are aware that we can see what you post on ATS, right?

Your Posts

I don't think that the word "rarely" means what you think it means...

/facepalm

Yes. I post opinions based on logic & perspectives.

The tunnel vision clone posts have little to no perspective.

But, my own political beliefs I rarely post.

Quoted for a rather high level of hilarity.

Logic and you have never been in the same room together.

Based on your posts.

Own it.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Annee

I rarely discuss my own political beliefs.

You are aware that we can see what you post on ATS, right?

Your Posts

I don't think that the word "rarely" means what you think it means...

/facepalm

Yes. I post opinions based on logic & perspectives.

The tunnel vision clone posts have little to no perspective.

But, my own political beliefs I rarely post.

Quoted for a rather high level of hilarity.

Logic and you have never been in the same room together.

Based on your posts.

Own it.

How would you know?

You’d have to exit from the clone tunnel.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Annee

I rarely discuss my own political beliefs.

You are aware that we can see what you post on ATS, right?

Your Posts

I don't think that the word "rarely" means what you think it means...

/facepalm

Yes. I post opinions based on logic & perspectives.

The tunnel vision clone posts have little to no perspective.

But, my own political beliefs I rarely post.

Quoted for a rather high level of hilarity.

Logic and you have never been in the same room together.

Based on your posts.

Own it.

How would you know?

You’d have to exit from the clone tunnel.

Is that a 1980s Conservative term?

I dunno, I wasn’t alive then

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Find those who promote freedom, left and right, and you’ll be in good company.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck
After reading the article in the OP I would say that there is a disconnect in the goals of the author and modern society.

As a reference point I also looked at the site of the Conservative Party USA

Now, I have often read, from members here who lean conservative, a somewhat popular phrase "I am fiscally conservative but socially liberal".

That idea drives a wedge into the group that might call themselves conservative.

The article says that that particular essay isn't the place for details but they did mention a few things that would probably turn away all liberals and probably those conservatives who identify with the phrase mentioned earlier. The conservative party site also mentions them.

The mention from the conservative party is in parentheses

1. Religion: "Until roughly the 1960's, this state religion was Christianity" (The Conservative Party USA takes a strong position on protecting our nation’s Judeo-Christian ethic)

Right off the bat they are alienating a whole bunch of americans.

2. Homosexuality/same sex marriage: "mainstream conservatism is not trying to re-stigmatize homosexuality, but only to limit the advance of its legitimization." (Family formation in marriage is between one man and one woman, the exclusive conduct of which is reserved to them by nature...)

Again, even many people who consider themselves conservative might not see this as something they stand for and the left is all about LGBT+.

3. Abortion: The article doesn't touch on it but does mention it in a paragraph that ends with "But at this late hour we need to fight back, and the only cure for bad ideas is good ideas, aggressively promoted." (Life Begins at Conception and Ends at Natural Death)

Same as number 2.

The conservative party does have a page with their platform and there are many issues which conservatives might agree with, in varying degrees, but I doubt they will get converts from the left just because they find a way to "package" what they are selling.

So, that disconnect I mentioned is that the author of that article outlines a stance that is so extreme (sorry, but that is the only word I could think of) that even conservative leaning americans can be at odds with it. I mean they did say "The necessity of gaining votes by not offending the uncommitted has led the Republican Party to abandon any meaningful support for most issues of authentic conservatism."

If they shun and even put down part of the conservative group, how can they hope to even get a foot in the door with someone who is diametrically opposed?

a reply to: daskakik

I noticed that as I read along. I was left thinking that this author wasn't a very good apologist, but it was an article directly related to the thread, the only one I found. I believe that like most of the search results I got, this one too was related to Christian apologetics, but to a much lower degree than the other articles I found.

So what you have posted is very important and such critical thinking is needed to form a viable conservative apologetic, untainted by the religious ones. Obviously issues like abortion, etc., are important to many conservatives, but not necessarily to core conservative principles. Plus, it wouldn't help to shove the hot topics in anyone's faces when you are merely trying to get them warmed up to the idea.

One of they ways to avoid hot button issues is to leave the opposition on their own to question those issues. One such question I've read about was to ask, "At what point will you draw the line?" within their belief system or organization. Of course for that to work, you would have to have a line as well and both would be left to question the extremism of their causes. I never figured out that article's point really, other than to let the opposition come to a conclusion on their own, a conclusion you wanted them to make.

a reply to: daskakik

If your value is the human being, then your value is the individual human being which means the life of every individual is precious because they are an individual and as such are irreplaceable. That means you recognize that every individual, much like every work of art, is worth protecting because they are an individual and not a simple cog in a machine of the group.

Collectivism is the idea that humans are mere parts in the herd of humanity. One person is replaceable by others. Collective policy prizes the greater good above all else, so the life or lives of individuals are seen as insignificant as compared to survival of the whole. Your existence as daskakik is less than the existence of the group.

For conservative thought and the basis of the Judeo-Christian ethic (which is not the same as religion, btw), your existence as daskakik is more important because you are daskakik and because of that we should save you and preserve your life and it should be lived rather than sacrificed to the perceived good of any "group good" or greater good. That's not selfish, just a recognition that no one else in the world is daskakik or could be daskakik and contribute exactly what you are.

a reply to: ketsuko
Guess that is the flavor of conservatism you hinted at earlier that differs from the stereotype but really you are just proving my point, conservatives don't agree on every issue.

I think your description of collectivism is as bad as the one liberals paint of conservatism.

a reply to: daskakik

No it's not.

It is a collectivist mindset that decides that children that won't be wanted are better to be sacrificed. If no one wants them, they're nothing but a burden bringing down your collective herd.

Children like this are better off never being alive.

Defective heart *and* defective chromosomes and never more than a burden to the herd. This is why some places brag about curing Down syndrome when they really mean aborting 100% of these kids before they're born. It's collectivism. Sacrificing for the greater good, and never seeing the intrinsic value of the individual as a precious life worth experiencing and saving.

Why do people risk their lives for others? It's because we recognize the essential humanity of other human beings, but collectivism, at its root, denies that. It's the drive that compels the ACLU to come out and say that men and women are no different. It's the philosophy that we should all have equal outcomes and that every group in every activity and every workplace should reflect the perfect proportions of every subgroup of society. People are drones, not individuals reflecting the sum totals of our personal preferences, and cultural lives and experiences added on top of our genetics.