What are some good 20th century conservative philosophers who are not neocon sellouts or far-right loons?

>spengler
>le zoologist man talking about the philosophy of history
>legit

being a well rounded renaissance man means you cant be a philosopher

i hope someone told Aristotle

Thanks for the suggestion.

I'm not that same user, but I've read a lot of cognitive scientists usually claim that high intelligence individuals are often have rebellious traits, prone to drug use or alcohol abuse, loners, and anti-authoritarian.

These are traits that are pretty much against the conservative mindset. I'm not saying there aren't intelligent conservatives, there certainly are, but overall, I'd say the character profile for what I just gave probably lends itself to progressives or even reactionaries, rather than conservatives, who are pretty much the opposite of all those things, by the nature of being conservatives.

This aligns with my personal experience, too. Conservative politics often attracts fairly simple, take things at face value people, while I know a lot more intelligent progressives (and the odd reactionary, but they tend to have poor social skills, from my experience). That's not to say there aren't really stupid progressives, or at least, stupid people on the left. And as old left values become the new status quo, that seems to be happening more and more.

Anyway, for influential conservative philosophers, look at Nozick (a libertarian) and Sandel (a right wing communitarian) . Sandels arguments are deeply flawed, in my opinion, but he's still influential.

Keep in mind that communitarianism and libertarianism both have left wing variants. Following from Nozick and Sandel, there are even some feminist libertarian theorists and feminist communitarianism theories, which is pretty interesting.

Both Sandel and Nozick respond primarily to John Rawls' liberal egalitarian (left wing) theory as outlined in his book A Theory of Justice.

Speaking of communitarians, there's Alasdair Macintyre, who is Catholic but has a socialist bent iirc

>Alasdair Macintyre

Yeah I was trying to remember his name.
And there's also Michael Walzer. Again, a communitarian.

Literally a shill for the tobacco industry. He does not escape the sell-out category OP is excluding.

>This aligns with my personal experience, too. Conservative politics often attracts fairly simple, take things at face value people, while I know a lot more intelligent progressives (and the odd reactionary, but they tend to have poor social skills, from my experience).

I'm sure there's no chance at all that you are more likely to dismiss simple-minded liberals and more likely to take simple-minded conservatives as being representative of their movements.

Also, at this point, are you so confident that liberalism is more rebellious than conservatism? Does that mean a college student who doesn't support same-sex marriage is more liberal than one who does?

He may well be right in that same-sex marriage will eventually become disputed only by people classed as reactionaries.

>“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types -- the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.”
G.K. Chesterton

actually to add on, this is already becoming established among some of the West's "far-right"
>we must protect our Western traditions of equality for people of all sexual orientations from homophobic Muslims

>I'm sure there's no chance at all that you are more likely to dismiss simple-minded liberals and more likely to take simple-minded conservatives as being representative of their movements.

I didn't say otherwise. You could very well be right. I did say it was only my opinion and experience.

>Also, at this point, are you so confident that liberalism is more rebellious than conservatism

Classical liberalism is conservatism. My idea of left wing is liberal egalitarianism, which I think is what I think you're talking about, if you're American, and I agree with you to a certain extent, for most western countries at least.

Liberal egalitarianism is quickly becoming the status quo, but it also exists uneasily with older free market capitalist ideology.

I tend to think of left-wing more as socialist or, less extreme, social democracy, or syndicalism.

>Does that mean a college student who doesn't support same-sex marriage is more liberal than one who does?

Same sex marriage is still progressive because it largely hasn't been implemented in most places, and it is still largely controversial. In Australia, they're spending 200$ million just to have a debate about whether to implement it or not.

The problem with conservatism is that the position is basically: "Don't change anything because it's already as good as it's going to get."

Meaning that the way our societies are set up now is the best we can achieve, which is probably not true.

That's a little Hyperbolus

this

Not sure why you're comparing me to an ostracised Greek.

What an interesting qoute

It's the other way around actually
Leftism always leads to communism and communism is inherently anti-intellectual

>Leftism always leads to communism and communism is inherently anti-intellectual
Justify this in a non-retarded way please.

Communism fails in economics

Contemporary economics is based on capitalist assumptions that don't necessarily hold true for all epochs. Also, communism has only been tried in a Leninist style, which isn't the only type of possible communism.

So it doesn't really follow that communism is inherently anti-intellectual.

Also, you haven't justified that leftism always leads to communism. (it doesn't.)

>Also, you haven't justified that leftism always leads to communism. (it doesn't.)
Do I even have to give you evidence at this point? Look at any university in america, canada or australia
props for leftists shilling for pedophilia now btw

>props for leftists shilling for pedophilia now btw
s-source?

Too lazy to look it up now, there was a school in australia that handed out pamphlets to young students how to engage in gay-sex, going through various stuff like water-sports and fisting, the school principals were all convicted pedophiles
The push for Legalizing pedophilia is also rapidly gaining momentum on tumblr
Ofcourse there's also NAMBLA and the like

>Look at any university in america, canada or australia
>I attend university in Australia. I literally haven't encountered a single communist. Lol.
>props for leftists shilling for pedophilia now btw

Source or you're a retard.

>Too lazy to look it up now, there was a school in australia that handed out pamphlets to young students how to engage in gay-sex, going through various stuff like water-sports and fisting, the school principals were all convicted pedophiles

No. You can't just say this is true without evidence.

>The push for Legalizing pedophilia is also rapidly gaining momentum on tumblr

Source.

>Ofcourse there's also NAMBLA and the like

Is this a leftist organization? No.

billmuehlenberg.com/2016/03/17/seven-things-you-must-know-about-the-safe-schools-program/

>maybe if I shitpost REALLY hard no one will notice I don't have any arguments

Leftism doesn't automatically lead to communism. Infact its safe to say that we will not see many if any communist states arise in the next centuries.

I was a leftist until the flooded europe with sandnigger economic migrants for shits and giggles

And this is communist how?

The teachers at the school promoted communism

it was probably the last death rattle we're seeing of leftism with the petrol dollar almost dead, they had to go out with a bang to fuck things up real bad for following generations

That article is conflating homosexuality with pedophilia, and isn't about safe spaces, it's about safe schools. It isn't about universities.

And it mentions ONE person who reportedly advocated paedophilia in the early 80s.

The right wing capitalist overlords love migrants because they provide cheap labour.

55% of homosexuals are pedophiles

>55% of homosexuals are pedophiles
Source?

They're not right wing or left wing, they're globalists
The migrant invasion was all promoted through leftists principals

This. They would have appropriated any ideology for this.

๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎

ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎

An extremely small percent of the migrants are capable of doing labour, the capitalists are really not the culprit here at all
said it pretty well
Today it's globalists vs nationalists, not right vs left

>An extremely small percent of the migrants are capable of doing labour,
Quite a few western nations are dependant on migrant labour.

Yes I realise that, but these are not your ordinary migrants, nothing to do with religion either since muslims in Russia manage to integrate very well and live peacefully despite having the biggest muslim population in Europe, These arabs have severely diminished IQ and empathy through centuries of inbreeding

>ITT: a lot of people who need to put down the fiction *and* stop reading "science" articles from newspapers
OK, OP, try
Mortimer Adler
Michal Heller
Alisdair MacIntyre
John Haldane
Peter Kreeft
Etienne Gilson
>Do they even exixt?
There has been a resurgence of actual Conservative thought in the last century.

>Catholic, but
Don't confuse Libertarianism with Conservatism AND don't confuse Solidarity with Liberalism

Jacques Maritain

>Classical liberalism is conservatism
The core idiocy of most modern politics.
Just because your Overton Window stretches only from Social Liberalism to Classical Liberalism does not make Liberalism Conservative.
Liberalism is in two 'camps'; Social/Progressive/Egalitarian Liberalism and Classical/Liberty/Market Liberalism. That doesn't magically place the camp you aren't in within Conservatism.

How tf is his skin so perfect? Sorry for off topic genuinely curious

>Classical/Liberty/Market Liberalism
Which in most western countries is the conservative ideology and the ideology of the right-wing, conservative parties.

You must be American.

MacIntyre isn't a socialist.
From what I can tell, he's in line with the Catholic social teaching, which is opposed to both socialism and capitalism.
It's been implemented in one from or another in just about every western country that isn't Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the odd small country.
Hilaire Belloc is a must read for anyone interested in this, he's extremely insightful.
Chesterton too is very interesting, but far more proficient as a writer than a philosopher.
Russel Kirk is, from what I've been told also very interesting.
F. A. Hayek is a classical liberal, but is a valuble resource.
Hanna Arendt is similar to him, personally not necessarily conservative in total, but interesting. Her critiques of modernity strike at both progressives and capitalists.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is IMO Dostoevsky of the 20th centutry.
MacIntyre is a personal favourite. Reading Whose Justice? Which Rationality atm, After Virute is incredibly interesting.
Benedict XVI is a must if you want your conservatve thought mixed with theology.
T.S. Elliot did some cool essays too.
Peter Geach and Elizabeth Ancscombe are probably the most interesting conservative analytical philosophers out there.
Flannery O'Connor and Grahm Greene have very philosphical novels so that can work for you.
Carl Schmitt is pretty cool if you like law.

Edward Feser and David S. Oderberg are cool contemporary thomists.

The European New Right is very interesting, though Alain de Benoist is probably their only author of note.

Dugin is a meme and pretty nuts but he's a fun read

No, I am not an American. But is appears that English is not your first language, so let me repeat myself in simpler terms.
Calling a Liberal a pickle doesn't make him a pickle.
Calling a Liberal party Conservative does not make it Conservative.
But plenty of people *think* it does and don't realize that all they are doing is revealing their own limited reasoning.
Look at your own post
>Classical/Liberty/Market Liberalism... ...in most western countries is the conservative ideology... ...of the right-wing, conservative parties
Or, stipping it down
>Liberalism is Conservative
You didn't even realize the direct meaning of your own statement. Hell, you thought it was a rebuttal!
In actuality, all that is going on in the vast majority of Western politics is a fight between two groups of Liberals

>Which in most western countries is the conservative ideology and the ideology of the right-wing, conservative parties.
It's orthogonal to left/right. For example, UKIP (obviously in the UK) is heavily pro protectionism, closed borders etc yet is a right wing party. On the other side Labour have only just really come back to this sort of argument in the main (and it's a massively contentious issue). This side of the liberal-democrat party is also typically viewed as pro EU.

In general places that have historically a strong labour movement and a weaker agricultural class have favoured free market type economics on the left, whereas in places like the US where the reverse is true it's more typically right wing.

Listen, you smug douche. English is my first language. It is YOU who misunderstand, and it is your comprehension that is lacking.

Your idea that classical liberalism isn't conservative is a unique one, and it goes against the common meaning of conservative. It also goes against how political philosophers view the whole thing. It seems like you haven't even read any Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Rawls or Nozick.

The fact of the matter is, that laissez faire has been the dominant ideology for a long time. If people are trying to conserve anything, they're trying to conserve that.

You can't just decide upon the meanings of words alone, you know. We live in a world were the meanings of words are created by mutual agreement.

>Hell, you thought it was a rebuttal!

You are a sophist cunt. I bet you're a hit at parties.

>In actuality, all that is going on in the vast majority of Western politics is a fight between two groups of Liberals

More or less, but one group of those liberals represent the status quo, are conservative, don't want change, and one group want to do things that haven't been done. Not to mention that the left wing parties in most western countries are more social democratic or sometimes outright socialist than they are liberal egalitarian.

>F. A. Hayek is a classical liberal, but is a valuble resource.

I highly recommend reading Friedman's take on economics because the two go hand-in-hand

anti-intellectual and anti-intelligence are two different things
conservatism is very pro-intellectual but very anti-intelligence

>Listen, you smug douche. English is my first language. It is YOU who misunderstand, and it is your comprehension that is lacking.
>It seems like you haven't even read any Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Rawls or Nozick.
>You are a sophist cunt. I bet you're a hit at parties.

Not him; I mean I know this is Veeky Forums and all and should have expected this, but your earlier posts actually seemed to have more value instead of just resorting to insults to "win" an argument on the internet.

But I guess that all gets thrown out the window when you've got cognitive scientists on your side :^)

>but your earlier posts actually seemed to have more value instead of just resorting to insults to "win" an argument on the internet.

I was responding to that user's blatant rudeness, elitism and smug condescension. .

>But I guess that all gets thrown out the window when you've got cognitive scientists on your side :^)

Huh?

How is it anti-intelligence?

because conservatives are all idiots
there has literally never been a single non-retarded conservative

why are you even here

because this place hasn't fully become /r/the_donald yet

>Your idea that classical liberalism isn't conservative is a unique one
"Liberalism: The ideology that the primary or sole purpose of government and society is to maximize individual liberty and equality. Modern versions are grouped into two broad camps - Social/Progressive/Egalitarian Liberalism, which is focused on equality and Classical/Libertarian Liberalism, which is focused on Liberty"
vs
"Conservatism: The ideology that society and government evolve organically and that traditions have value because of their organic development. Conservatives reject egalitarianism for hierarchy and see individual liberty as subordinate to social mores"
It isn't unique, it is the same as PoliSci textbooks and the freakin' encyclopedia.
Your ignorance is not an argument.
>Bentham, Mills, Rawls and Nozick
So you aren't aware that the Manchester School and the thoughts of Bentham, Mills, and their contemporaries are the *origin* of the term "Liberal"?
>laissez faire has been the dominant ideology for a long time
1) Laissez-faire is explicitly Liberal
2) Show me a nation that has an actual laissez-faire economy
Then we can talk about how it is 'dominant' over Socialism, Communism, Social Democracy, etc.
>You can't just decide upon the meanings of words alone
I didn't - I used the dictionary. You're arguing with the dictionary.
>You are a sophist cunt.
Which is your way of admitting I was right.
>I bet you're a hit at parties.
Well, you got *something* correct
>one group of those liberals represent the status quo, are conservative
>those liberals are conservative
>liberals are conservative
You're doing it again.
Just because you like Liberal Policy A and don't want it to change doesn't make you a Conservative.
Are Classical Liberals in favor of social hierarchy? No. Do Classical Liberals view individual liberty as subordinate to social mores and cultural norms? Nope. Why not?
Because they are Liberals, not Conservatives.

>You must be American
Looks like you threw the first insult

From the Oxford dictionary (the only popular dictionary worth anything):

"Conservatism: 1. Averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.
2. (in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas".
2.1: Relating to the Conservative Party of Great Britain or a similar party elsewhere.
‘the Conservative government’"

Notice where it says "favouring free enterprise and private ownership." Also where it says: "The Conservative Party of UK" which is a party that identifies most closely with neoliberal economics as descended from classical liberal individualism and laissez faire. Note that they are generally ideologically opposed to liberal egalitarianism.

>*origin* of the term "Liberal"?

I'm aware of the origin, which is why I asked if you are.

>2) Show me a nation that has an actual laissez-faire economy

They don't anymore. That doesn't change the fact that it was the first instance of a liberal market, have slowly been moving toward liberal egalitarianism.

>I didn't - I used the dictionary. You're arguing with the dictionary.

But you're also arguing with dictionaries. I don't even know what dictionary you used. You're also arguing with the majority of political commentators, the majority of people and the way most people use the term "conservative"

>Which is your way of admitting I was right.

No, it's a way of me pointing out your arrogant rhetoric.

>Well, you got *something* correct

:)

Your definition of conservative refers to a pre-liberal era.Are you using a dictionary from like 1928 or something? I think the word you're looking for is reactionary.

Keep fighting the good fight, user

Always remember that these /pol/donald types aren't 'real' posters, they're shills paid for by american techbros: theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/23/oculus-rift-vr-palmer-luckey-trump-shitposts

Actually, the quote is
>"...free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas"
Private property is not unique to Classical Liberalism, nor is the vague concept of 'free enterprise' which includes such economic frameworks as Mercantilism, Distributism, and even Technocracy. 'Socially Conservative', of course, means objective morality, the subordination of the individual to mores and traditional culture, social hierarchy, etc.
In other words, that does not mean "Liberals are Conservatives".
>Relativing to the Conservative Party"
This is Veeky Forums; I assumed you would understand the concept of a Proper Noun. In Australia the political party that most matches the American Republican Party and the British Conservative Party is the Liberal Party. Do you take that to mean that Republican, Liberal, and Conservative are all synonyms? These parties are all members of the International Democrat Union - does this mean
>Republicans are Democrats
?
The equivalent from Spain is the People's Party - does that mean that you think People is a synonym for Conservative is a synonym for Liberal, so all people are Liberal Republican Conservatives?
Or could it be that you are STILL missing the main point of my original post which is
1People are sloppy in their use of language and this leads to confusion
?
Yeah, I am pretty sure you are not only missing that point, you are a perfect illustration of how misuse of language leads people to think
>But Liberals ARE Conservatives!
isn't nonsense but is an actual argument.
I mean, look at the rest of the confusion you are tossing out-
*Pointing to the foundational writers of Liberalism and claiming they will somehow rove that those writers were Conservatives
*Thinking that a definition of Conservative as being Socially Conservative refutes the idea that Conservatives are Conservative.
*Repeating the phrase "liberals are conservative"over and over like a magic spell.
It is ridiculous.
Again, sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking - which you illustrate amply.

>People are sloppy in their use of language and this leads to confusion

Are you sure it isn't you who isn't sloppy? As I said, words have meaning by popular agreement on semantics.

>Again, sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking - which you illustrate amply.

Aint no one sloppily thinking here other than you. And the fact that you have to resort to little jibes indicates to me that

You're constantly setting up strawman's by the way, and reading more into what I'm saying than there is. Of course I don't think the Republican, liberal and conservative are synonyms, but the Republican party, Liberal Party and Conservative Party are all conservative parties. They want to conserve.

The Liberal Party is commonly referred to as the conservative party in Australia, right, and they define themselves as liberal.

The Conservative Party also define themselves as liberal, and conservative is in the fucking name. I know you're going to say something silly like "blah blah proper noun doesn't mean its blah blah." but I think you're really struggling to make your argument.

>Pointing to the foundational writers of Liberalism and claiming they will somehow rove that those writers were Conservatives

I didn't do such a thing at all. I stated that it initially seemed like you hadn't read them.

>Thinking that a definition of Conservative as being Socially Conservative refutes the idea that Conservatives are Conservative.

You seem to be making massive leaps. Where did I make any such assertion?

>Repeating the phrase "liberals are conservative"over and over like a magic spell.

You've done the same, m8.

>It is ridiculous.

>Again, sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking - which you illustrate amply.

Why are you so emotional about this? It's a stupid, pointless discussion on Veeky Forums.

Anyway, I'm going to bed.

btw read this page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism

Read the first paragraph, then go down to where it lists conservative liberal parties, and notice how Liberal Party of Australia is on there, and the People's Party.

That's kind of a bad example user, since conservatives (in my experience) are saying it because they know it will have some effect on liberals. Also there's the lesser of two evils arguments etc.

>words have meaning by popular agreement on semantics
>"Liberals are Conservative, regardless of the definitions"
>"Conservative? You mean Reactionary?"
Uh-huh
>you have to resort to little jibes
Like
>You must be American
>you smug douche
>You are a sophist cunt
No. No, that was all you, wasn't it?
>They want to conserve
Conserve? You really think that when a Classical Liberal party contends with a Socially Liberal party *that has been in power* that the Classical Liberals are 'conserving' anything?
You want me to believe that the Homeland Union of Lithuania is "conservative" because they are "conserving" - what? Communism?!
The foundations of America as a republic were (not surprisingly) Liberal; wanting to keep something Liberal != being a Conservative just because you could say 'they are *conserving* Liberal ideas'.
That's actually part of my point. Your entire argument boils down to
>"Well, sure, Classical Liberals hold Liberal positions, promote Liberal ideas, and match the definition of Liberal but! Since a lot of people call them Conservatives they are really Conservatives"
That isn't an argument, it actually matches the definition of sophistry.
>I stated that it initially seemed like you hadn't read them.
Wny? because I actually understood what was written by them?

>It's a stupid, pointless discussion on Veeky Forums.
which made you call people names and stamp your little feet!

Far-right has some really diverse views actually
But most are ok with gay people as long as they don't push their propaganda from what I gather

slaughterdyke

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism
>"Part of the Series on Liberalism"
>"Conservative liberalism is a variant of liberalism..."
Which is what I have been saying
I mean, I appreciate you pointing out another source proving my original point - that what we call "Conservatives" are really just a branch of Liberalism, I do. But since I knew this, why tag me?

It's all a fucking circus really, it doesn't matter which colors the clowns wear, they're all just clowns. You'd have to be something of a rube to get bent out of shape over any of it.

>blah blah blah I'm a faggot rape my face
You're mom

>You must be American

Isn't an insult unless you think Americans are inferior. I thought you were using "liberal" in the way Americans understand the term.

>you smug douche
>You are a sophist cunt

Was a reaction to your condescending elitist tone and insulting remarks ("you can't speak English" or whatever you said)

>ou want me to believe that the Homeland Union of Lithuania is "conservative" because they are "conserving" - what? Communism?!

No. In that country they would be progressive, wouldn't they. Fuck. Every post you make is presumptuous as hell.

You've made up your own very specific meaning of "conservative", that very few people would agree with. And that is my entire argument, because I think you're using the word wrongly. If I were to reduce what your saying to something like you just did, yours is:

>Liberalism isn't conservative because I say so and everyone else is wrong including Wikipedia, the dictionary, because I have the right meaning of the word that conforms to my own worldview.

Again: and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

If you go to that wikipedia page, it will list the two first ideologies of the Republican party as liberal and conservative, because they are on the conservative end of liberalism in that they want to maintain low taxes etc etc neoliberal blah blah. They aren't in the tradition of equality, they are in the tradition of focusing on "liberty"

You already know this, though.

Again: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)

Conservative party (notice, again, conservative) and also notice that the two major ideologies listed are conservatism and economic liberalism.

>I mean, I appreciate you pointing out another source proving my original point - that what we call "Conservatives" are really just a branch of Liberalism, I do. But since I knew this, why tag me?

That was my original point, m8.

Conservatives are reactionary right now.

Thanks again

>Was a reaction to you
Translation
>When I use direct insults it is justified because you said something I can't quite recall, so there
>No. In that country they would be progressive, wouldn't they.
Which is *obviously* my point, as was obvious to everyone but you it seems
>Every post you make is presumptuous as hell.
No. I am responding directly to what you *wrote* because that is all I have. You wrote
>"They want to conserve"
That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they are ideologically Conservative! The Chinese Communist Party is working VERY HARD to "conserve" their political power - this doesn't mean "COmmunism is Conservative"!
You consistently confuse 'the ideological stance named Conservatism" with 'the act of conservation of [something]'.
They are different.
>You've made up your own very specific meaning of "conservative",
False - it is straight from the Encyclopedia Britannica and various PoliSci textbooks. That;s why it matches the definitions of guys like Mills, Smith, Rothbard, and Mises!
>very few people would agree with
Just scholars of political science, philosophers, and other well-educated people. Or anyone who has read the definitions,. Sure.

OMG! I love, LOVE, your "reduction' of my argument! The first three words are so fucking spot on!
>Liberalism isn't conservative
Yeah.
That is my fucking point.
The ideology of Liberalism is not the ideology of Conservatism. Liberalism is NOT Conservatism is, indeed, my point.
And I - and others! - have pointed to numerous sources to show that wikipedia, dictionaries, encyclopedia, etc. all agree that no, Liberalism is not Conservatism.
>[The American Republican Party is] on the conservative end of liberalism... ...They aren't in the tradition of equality, they are in the tradition of focusing on "liberty" "
Yeah.
That is what I have been saying all along.
Over and over and over again.
You are proving my point for me AND DON'T REALIZE IT!
I have been saying *repeatedly* that what you call 'conservative' is actually just part of Liberalism, the part that focuses on liberty rather than equality.
That is almost a quote of my initial post, you dolt.
You are so messed up in your thinking that you think confirming my point is a refutation.
I mean - are you on drugs?

I guess he finally went to bed....

That doesn't inherently have anything to do with the pedophilia thing.

ofcourse, just saying...

This thread literally makes me lose hope in humanity. All those long posts are from two reasonably intelligent people who at least have a general idea of modern politics. It's just that language is so vague and undefined that they'll never get on an equal spot. They have different definitions of 'conservative, which might both be true to some degree.

The problem is that they think of their own opinion highly, and when the argument starts they want to 'keep the upper hand' and 'be right' so those two originally intelligent people start insulting each other over nothing.

That's because this is Veeky Forums

wtf I'm liberal and conservative now

Oh, yeah!
Fuck off and die for being reasonable and level headed, you ape.
All kidding aside, I think the guy who said politics is a mess because of language made his point

hiou 09/23/16(Fri)18:05:02 No.8540878▶
๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎
>>

>English is my first language. It is YOU who misunderstand
Fucked up on that lie so quickly