See - great minds think alike ;)

This definition, though correct in prinicple, is actually an empty generality. Who knows what another or even oneself deserves? Only God, if anyone. It is no good saying the law is just. because the law is made by men, and the law is an ass. Christ came to overturn the Law and substitute Love. Your sentiment of valorizing the enjoyment of suffering is fundamentally un-Christian. — John

>:O

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. — I will let you find out who said this

The issue is that "deserving suffering" is not justice. My point here is that he does not deserve to suffer. The world doesn't need it and nothing is gained from it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

So your argument is that because suffering doesn't give a gain to those who have lost, it is henceforth not necessary? I disagree - precisely because I take it as definition that justice is giving to each as they deserve. Do you disagree with that? If you don't, then do you agree that if someone does wrong, then they deserve to suffer for it? If you don't agree, then do you not see that it follows from the definition of justice - namely to each as they deserve - that the one who has done harm deserves precisely harm?

Well okay, then I will drop the short-form and just say "trust those who are at least somewhat anti-abortion, pro-family, pro life-long monogamous marriage, etc." happy? :D

Tangled or untangled roots, justice still needs to be done :P

Clearly false... the person who (supposedly) deserves suffering is part of the world. They have their own social connections, friends, family, etc.,etc. Others will be hurt by their suffering to. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ehmm so their friends etc. are "the world"? Look, saying that the person deserves to suffer isn't the same as saying that the world deserves to suffer. If he deserves to suffer of course it means putting more harm and suffering on him - that's precisely the point that we're discussing. So you're arguing in a circle - "the person who does wrong deserves to suffer" is wrong because "it just heaps more suffering on him" - of course! That's just the point. If my friend deserves to suffer, then I'll be glad to see him suffer, because justice is more important. Equally, if I deserve to suffer, then I should suffer - this is just what justice is - and I would desire to suffer if that is the case.

That's because liberalism has changed its meaning. Edmund Burke for example called himself a liberal. So did G.K. Chesterton. Now in today's world, they're not liberals. So what was known as classical liberalism has been turned into something completely different by the New Left. And of course conservatives disagree - primarily because they don't share the social values of the New Left.

It's just heaps more damage and loss on the world. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No you have just done a sleight of hand here. The person who deserves suffering is not "the world".

The point is this is not true — TheWillowOfDarkness

You got any argument for this?

No, it doesn't-- it stems from you definition of justice that suffering is deserved. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Suffering CAN be deserved, of course. So can rewards and goodness.

Missing the point, Agustino. The point is doing politics through the "liberal" or "conservative" label is lazy. It's trying to use a (frequently inaccurate) shorthand to specify who ought to be trusted by name, rather than on the basis of policy and values.

If we bother to check values and policy (as we should), there is no general framework. We know the candidates, we know the values, we know the policies in each case. The "general" is not needed becasue we know who we are talking about and what they stand for. — TheWillowOfDarkness

How is it missing the point? I'm saying social conservatives should be trusted. This means that these values - namely policies which are generally anti-abortion, pro-family, pro-monogamous, long-term marriage, etc. should be trusted.

Oh but it does, for the duration of their suffering, for they are meant to suffer. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well of course they are meant to suffer if they do wrong - this stems precisely from the definition of justice. As I have defined justice, and as Plato and many other philosophers have defined it, it is giving to each what they deserve. If X deserves his monthly salary, then it should be given to him. If X doesn't deserve his monthly salary, it shouldn't be given to him.

Well if you bothered to look into it (just check for example the one link I attached previously), you'd see that conservatives and liberals do have different values. Now of course not every conservative will have exactly the same values as other conservatives. But they will be along a general framework.

Of course there is such a thing as social liberalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism).

A check of the internet indicates somebody, at least, thinks the man called Confucius in the West was one; also Cato the Elder. Not the the other Cato, Caesar's enemy, but the Cato who wrote a treatise on agriculture--Cato the Censor, who condemned Scipio Africanus, who defeated Hannibal, for having fancy-schmancy Greek philosopher friends. He was, I think, the chairman of the Senate's Committee on Un-Roman Activities. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes these folks certainly did have social conservative elements in their philosophies, as did, I might add, MOST of the Ancients.

Okay, so what in your view is the difference between liberals and social conservatives? Clearly it seems that we agree that both can desire to change the world. So then, how do we decide who is more a liberal and who is more a conservative - if not by looking on their views on particular issues such as abortion, marriage, family, etc.?

No I'm just curious which thinkers liberals get their views of social conservatism from, just for me to compare with the thinkers a social conservative himself would look at, because it seems to me many of the liberals have views of social conservatism that I (who self-identify as one) don't share. Hence why I'm thinking maybe they're looking at different sources than I would be for example.

Yes exactly - because justice cannot be dealt with by the person who was harmed - the person's mind is clouded and cannot determine a just punishment.

No. No-one deserves it, not even Hitler. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Can you justify this please?

doesn't deserve any sort of existence or happiness — TheWillowOfDarkness

Who said this? It's only been said that if someone does something wrong they have to pay for it - the fair share of payment, not more and not less. The fact that they need to pay for their sins isn't to say they don't deserve any sort of existence or happiness - that, at least in most cases, is too extreme of a punishment considering the offence.

f you'd said justice in the sense of preventing future harm, you'd be right. You didn't. "Paying back with suffering and pain" is always vengeance. It's jealously over the favoured world which someone took away from us. A fantasy we have power over others, which can return the lost world we desire so much-- "Burn them for eternity and the loss will be resolved."

It won't be. What is lost cannot be undone. — TheWillowOfDarkness

To each as they deserve - that's what justice is. If that's what justice is, then the evil deserve to suffer no?

on a person by another who has been harmed by that person — Wosret

Well we have justice precisely so that punishment isn't up to the harmed one to decide - because again the punishment needs to be fair. Vengeance would occur more frequently if there was no law. And still it occurs in cases which are not adequately and fairly governed by the law, and in which people are not adequately protected by the law.

Okay, I think I see the problem here. You seem to think a bunch of politicians in congress and the house are going to be able to get their way with Mr. "Art of the Deal", while I think he is a really smart negotiator who is going to run rings around politicians. I don't have many doubts that if Trump gets elected, he would repeatedly risk impeachment or government shutdowns for his agenda -- which is probably personal, (he even said he doesn't deal for money because he is already rich, he does it just to win). — swstephe

Okay, I understand your point.

Like I said, I got my information about narcissistic personalities from experience. I live near Silicon Valley. I worked in Larry Ellison's company for 15 years, even his biography retold a popular joke [url=The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison: *God Doesn't Think He's Larry Ellison]the difference between God and Larry Ellison[/url]. Yes, he micromanaged everything. I remember when he personally rejected the look of the icons for our software package because they were to "cartoony". His exploits were legendary. — swstephe

This seems to be already after he became rich and powerful. I doubt he got in that position this way. As I said, once people become rich and powerful, what it takes to keep succeeding is different than what gets you there in the first place. I have a family friend who is now a very rich real estate developer in my country. He's very arrogant now, does very little work, and always disciplines his employees and checks over everything. But he didn't get there doing any of this. He became like this once he was already big. He started out by selling flowers in the street - and he used to be very servile with everyone, even his first employees, many of whom still work with him and he treats them differently from anyone else (probably because they stuck with him for so long).

As you say, you met with him only a few times. His company was already quite big, I must assume, by this point.

I remember when he personally rejected the look of the icons for our software package because they were to "cartoony". — swstephe

That's not really micromanagement - micromanagement would be to tell you how to draw it / code it. This is really attention to detail - but not actually getting involved in your job. It's still up to you how to get it done, he simply doesn't like the way you've done it.

That's what vengeance is, and it always come too late. — Wosret

Not really - justice has a sense for a fair punishment. Vengeance is just unfair punishment (and often also unlawful one) - overly great punishment for the wrong that was committed.

part of us wishes to pay back that suffering and pain — Wosret

That's just what justice is.

Excellent! Seeing evil destroyed is a good thing!

I am actually curious - who do liberals view as key intellectual social conservative thinkers both past and present?

I don't think a self-labelled conservative in this or any other era has any business talking about a "new dispensation of history." You are a liberal. — Mongrel

Give me a break. If that's what counts as a liberal, then I too am a liberal, and the biggest kind of liberal possible. Look at this. If I want to conserve that white post in front of my house is it sufficient to keep it as it is? No - because if I keep it as it is, it will turn black over time. If I want to conserve it, I have to do something to it - I have to change it. And I'm (well really, G.K. Chesterton, whose example I plagiarised, even though he affirmed he was a liberal) not the only one who dispelled with this strawman before. The father of conservatism, Edmund Burke said it much better:

"A state without the means of some change, is without the means of its own conservation"

The people in the group who are most devoted to preserving those skills and passing them on to the next generation are the conservatives in the group. The guy over there trying to put up a tent in a way nobody's ever done it before.. he's a liberal. He thinks "changing the world" is important. — Mongrel

This is again false - especially with regards to social conservatism.

Look at general demeanor. Conservatives tend to be somewhat afraid of change. They clearly see the risks in doing things differently. — Mongrel

This isn't true for all conservatives. For reason-skeptical conservatives like Burke yes. For reason-friendly conservatives like myself, certainly not. There is a difference between the two forms of conservatism, which is quite well explained here - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ - esp. Burkean vs Rational conservatism.

Liberals come to the foreground of human life when the old ways aren't working. We have to try something new even if it's risky. That's obviously you. — Mongrel

If the old ways aren't working, it may be possible, that just like the post in front of my house, they have become black due to the passage of time, and so need to be re-painted once again. So again, it's not necessarily true that this makes one a liberal.

I agree with Mongrel that your platform makes you much more of a liberal than it does a conservative, at least in the common parlance of the day. And I agree 100% with your education plank and the essential importance of the individual plank. Does that make me a conservative? — Bitter Crank

So BC, does the fact that I want to change society make me a conservative or a liberal? :P

Privileging the good of the community over the individual conflicts with the sacredness of the individual. — Bitter Crank

This is again assuming some liberal biases. Now, there is no such thing as absolute sacredness of the individual. This is always bounded by the community. For example, an individual whose passion is discovering new ways to break into people's homes and stealing from them - or whose passion is discovering new ways to murder people - such an individuality isn't to be prized or respected, and liberals agree. But now when we get to something like adultery - liberals suddenly are like "Oh but we have to respect their individual choices!". Conservatives have a wider sense of what is included in morality and civic life - something that liberals lack. For liberals, it's all about let everyone do as they wish provided they don't harm others - of course we will exclude such harms as committing adultery, etc. These aren't really harms, because everyone is a free individual and should be allowed to make their own choices - that's how the argument goes. So conservatives go a step forward and value community bonds over individual selfish desires. It is important for people to become individuals - but becoming an expert thief or an adulterer - that's not becoming an individual from a conservative point of view, because becoming an individual involves fulfilling certain objective criteria which are demanded by the process of individuation. These criteria are very general - so they allow for example one to find their individuality in painting, and another in leadership, and another in building houses. But - they demand fulfilment of those general standards by everyone for them to be individuals.

The game that narcissists play is to make themselves look great on the surface. If you dig past the surface and uncover failures and harm, they are quick to shift blame onto others. They don't need to restrain themselves up front, they thrive off the initial attention and admiration. It is only when you get into personal relationships that all the flaws come out. Then you are stuck -- it is either "my way or the highway". — swstephe

What is this, some quotes from Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power and other silly writings like that? Machiavelli's Prince? These things have no place in this world.

You either give into their demands or they will destroy you. It isn't too hard to tell if they are pathological up front. Do they blow up at the slightest negative comment and start coming out with threats of physical violence or legal threats? Does their comments of past failures and rivalries border on conspiracy theory? They manage to get through life because they are skilled at appealing to the narcissism in others. — swstephe

I so disagree with this. If you have that attitude in business you won't survive much - you'll be gone in no time. First, you will easily find people who worship you on the surface so they can dig you. If you're a narcissist, you're a weak target for such folk - especially, I should say, women who seek to seduce you and later use this against you. Second, you will alienate people, and you will develop a reputation for alienating people - soon very few are going to want to work with you, and some of those who do want to work with you will actually want to hurt you rather than help you. The big secret is that Trump doesn't blow up at the slightest negative comment, nor does he come up with threats. I've watched him. When he's talking with someone who is in a superior position to him, or someone whom he needs, he's very respectful, and he always bows down - he's almost servile. That's how he is when he talks with bankers for example. Now - he does create this persona of greatness and superiority with folks whom he has control over - this explosive, and uncontrollable persona. But this is only helpful to him - because when he actually talks with a banker, and he is servile, it gives off the impression "Oh this guy is really much nicer than I thought he is. He must be quite a nice man afterall!"

Now there's a very big difference between this that I described above and a narcissist. This is just someone who is adept at using others, and very pragmatic. Has very little heart, and probably thinks that he is a special human being. But there is NOTHING clinically wrong with them. From a medical point of view, they're highly capable of functioning in society. The narcissist on the other hand is self-obsessed in a pathological sense - you find him in the doctor's office - he's unable to form relationships, has few friends/aquaintances, and in other words behaves in the same self-centered way with everyone - a way which alienates him from others. Trump isn't a narcissist - he's entirely rational. He behaves as he does because this is what it takes to win. He doesn't behave in such a way because he is compelled to, and can't control it. He's totally in control of it.

It's like running the mafia - the mafia boss isn't someone lacking any or all moral qualities and who is a narcissist. He's a very rational person, who understands the needs of others, and who is capable to build a community around himself - who is capable to extract loyalty out of others. The only difference is that his sense of morality is built around an "us vs them" mentality - highly focused on in-group loyalty, and in-group benefits to the negligence of anyone else.

Trump threatens to sue those he has control over - Rosie O'Donnell - she's a nobody to him. Of course he makes a big show and threatens to sue her. It teaches other similar people to be careful with him - not necessarily because he can do anything to them, but simply because they don't want to go through all the fuss with him. Secondly, all his life he has guarded the idea that he is rich, and has always inflated his wealth. Why? Because others want to work with rich people - others respect rich people much more. And respect is one of the necessary things in order to be able to make money and make others work for you. If you want to start your own shoe making business who's gonna want to work for you? Assuming you have little money, and no experience in such a business nobody! You're not going to have people to put to work. But on the other hand, if they think you're a big designer, they will all rush to work with you, even for free. If your name is Elon Musk, investors will easily give you billions to start your spaceship program - because your name is big. Doesn't matter how crazy your idea is - just your name.

Sure, he will play nice with conservatives, evangelicals and even white supremacists as long as they support him, while barely containing his brutal personal attacks on everyone else. — swstephe

Trump is a snake. But because he is a snake, he is very rational and he is controllable. I know for certain that he cannot betray the social conservatives without ruining his presidency, probably even risking losing his seat due to Congress. He will satisfy social conservative agendas so long as he is permitted to satisfy his own agenda - which in this case is an economical one. Trump is a man who makes compromises - he's a man who is rational - you can strike a deal with him, even if he doesn't agree with you. That's very good - many people aren't like that. Hillary on abortion for example - that's my way or the highway. Furthermore Trump wants to be known as great - people who want to be known as great aren't narcissists - because it takes a great deal more than self-love to be known as great. You have to actually do something good - at least for some people - to be known as great. Alexander the Great for example - not a narcissist - if he had been one, he wouldn't have managed to do anything.

But don't take my opinion. What about the Koch brothers? They usually spend billions on their conservative candidate. They have decided to sit this election out because they don't believe Trump or Clinton is going to do what they want -- and have instead focused on house and senate races. They join a long list of billionaires who won't have anything to do with Trump, even his friends. — swstephe

The Koch brothers have primarily ECONOMIC interests, not social conservative ones.

In this line of thought - Bill Clinton is much more of a narcissist, because he's actually engaged in a lot of non-rational activities which have sabotaged him and his family - such as rape. Why did he need to rape anyone? He was already getting quite a lot of women willingly.

There have been dozens of reports from people that actually worked with Trump. He is obsessive, micro-managing every detail, and doesn't give an inch on anything. — swstephe

This is just nonsensical drivel - they say that about everyone. The same was said about Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates for example. But it's just not true. If someone is obsessive and micro-managing every little detail (like me quite frequently) - they're very slow. They don't do a lot of things. They're always stuck on some small thing. They're not working on the big picture. Furthermore, they risk annoying people to the extent that they stop working for them - or if they keep working for them, they become very uninterested and produce low quality work. You see Steve Jobs bully employees once he's rich and powerful. Why? Because for people to be willing to work for you and to do what you want (along general lines, because at micro-level they still need freedom, simply because you yourself will lack the expertise) they have to either be given sufficient freedom and status in the company, OR they have to think that you are great, a different sort of human being. The bullying helps prove that. But Steve Jobs didn't get there by bullying people - quite the contrary, he got there by being servile, and like Trump, a snake. He sold the first computer that Wozniack built and gave him only one tenth of the money - he lied about the selling price. Clearly he didn't go around being like "Oh Woz, now you have to do X, I don't care what the fuck you think about it, just do it because I know better" - if he had done that, he would have been a loser. Instead he was like "Oh yeah Woz, this what you're doing is truly great! Maybe you should add XYZ, I was looking at it before, I think it would look great! What do you think?". So he clearly wasn't busy micro-managing anything - he was busy keeping people happy, and looking at the big picture, what has to be done in order to get an advantage. So he was quite the opposite from obsessive and micro-managing. He became that much more once he became powerful simply because he had to in order to get folk to work for him.

But Trump was saying the truth. Some women do let you do that if you are rich and powerful. Just ask Bill Clinton. That's a big problem we have in our society, and this progressive media that you so love seems to be totally unconcerned with it. That, for them, is normal. They're only making a fuss about it because it's Donald Trump who said it, who is the Republican candidate. If it was Bill Clinton, they would have been entirely silent. Hell - they're entirely silent about his rape accusations, which are much worse than merely saying how you grab women.

You know as well as I do that trying to make this about Bill Clinton is a diversion. — Mongrel

It doesn't matter if it's a diversion - it's the truth. Who cares why Trump is doing it? It's all true. That's what really matters. Not that Trump is trying to divert attention from the comments that he's made - that is true - but irrelevant to the discussion we have about Bill.

Come on Agustino! You have no bias in this?! — Erik

I have no bias in saying who won the debate(s) not in who I'd want to win the election.

Sure you're not a US citizen, but that doesn't mean your vehement dislike (hatred?) of Clinton - as the representative of the liberal progressives you detest - does not affect your judgement. — Erik

Of course it does. As we all have something to gain or lose from this. The social conservative agenda has a lot to lose if Clinton or the liberal progressives win this election. Do you not think so?

>:O

Marriage as a religious ceremony isn't a "legal" matter. It's a religious one. And yes, religions should be allowed to discriminate based on their own understandings of morality. If religion X doesn't approve of gay marriage, than gay folks shouldn't expect to get married in a religious ceremony - that should be self-evident. Nor should they expect religious people to recognise or uphold their marriage.

That's just factually incorrect. The only scientific poll (i.e. based on a random sampling etc) I've seen gave the debate to Clinton.

" CNN's poll found that by 57-34%, a majority of voters watching them thought she got the best of him."

Simply attacking someone doesn't win a debate. You have to come across as at least somewhat likeable. Trump played to his base, which love everything he does anyway, but made no inroads with any other demographics. Not a winning strategy. — Baden

I told you my analysis, which is supported by many other people, who also think that Trump won the debate. I have no bias in this - I freely admitted Trump lost the first one. But this time, when Clinton couldn't answer even a single issue that Trump brought up - this was shameful for her.

And by the way Baden - did you see Bill's face during the debate? Priceless ;)

So you didn't enjoy Trump trashing the place with Clinton? :P This debate was a clear Trump victory (last one, as I have admitted before, was a clear Clinton win). But he finally attacked her on all the issues he should have, including emails, Bill, etc.

So that means that he will not betray the social conservative agenda which he is sorrounded by currently.

Haha - you try doing that, let's see you succeeding ;)

Unfortunately, I know from experience, that this is not the way narcissistic personalities work. — swstephe

Look, Trump is a businessman. He got some very complex building projects completed without losing all his money - that's quite an achievement in itself - an achievement that is impossible if his narcissism was wholley unrestrained. This shows that he has intelligence, and he is able to collaborate with others to get things done. He is narcissistic, but not to the point where this would outright harm himself. You mistake pathological narcissism - which actually harms the one who is narcissistic - with Trump's narcissism, which doesn't harm him directly because he knows when he has to hold it back. He just knows how to work with others to get things done. One cannot easily flip-flop on deals without losing his reputation (and his money) in business.

I cited a book and a study, I may as well go forth and cite Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World which explains the theory behind mimesis.

The idea that President Clinton's behavior somehow made "the masses" more accepting than they previously were of adultery is laughable. — Moliere

And the idea that it had no effect on what people thought of adultery is equally laughable. It certainly influenced what some folks thought about it, and it would be quite extreme to deny that. Do you not see so many 10-12 year olds do exactly what they see Kim Kardashian and other celebrities do? The same pattern of miming behaviour that is perceived as cool, either because it comes from a well-known leader, or otherwise, exists in adults.

This ignores that Trump isn't alone in this race. He needs an entire support network to do anything as President - a support network he must satisfy. That support network includes a lot of social conservatives, including the VP Mike Pence. He cannot betray the social conservative agenda without screwing himself up. Trump may be a narcissist liar, but he's not stupid.

Yes that's a big issue too - but then Nigel Farage and his ilk aren't social conservatives. Europe probably has very few social conservatives. Nigel is just some lunatic.