3
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 74:
Line 74: +
Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's Law (view source)
Revision as of 15:41, March 26, 2011
, 15:41, March 26, 2011→Putting Conservapedia's Law in perspective
:That's an interesting point Mr. Schlafly. Charity can definitely be an outgrowth of logic, and chivalry can be an outgrowth of faith in good gender relations. However, as I said in a previous comment, there are definitely more components to conservatism that may or may not fit under the umbrella of "logic and faith". For example, self-reliance, a decidedly conservative trait; I'm not sure it can fit neatly under logic or faith. It can't fit under logic neatly because logic by definition is coming to one, undeniably correct solution. WHile I of course agree with self-reliance, and believe it to be correct, it is possible to look at the other side's argument with an open mind and not immediately dismiss it. Self-reliance can't neatly fit under faith because faith in the power of oneself can never surpass, or come close to, faith in the power of God. This is just one example; conservatism is so much more wondrous than the two components of logic and faith, and that over-simplification may deter [[liberals]] from coming to the right side. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 01:23, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:That's an interesting point Mr. Schlafly. Charity can definitely be an outgrowth of logic, and chivalry can be an outgrowth of faith in good gender relations. However, as I said in a previous comment, there are definitely more components to conservatism that may or may not fit under the umbrella of "logic and faith". For example, self-reliance, a decidedly conservative trait; I'm not sure it can fit neatly under logic or faith. It can't fit under logic neatly because logic by definition is coming to one, undeniably correct solution. WHile I of course agree with self-reliance, and believe it to be correct, it is possible to look at the other side's argument with an open mind and not immediately dismiss it. Self-reliance can't neatly fit under faith because faith in the power of oneself can never surpass, or come close to, faith in the power of God. This is just one example; conservatism is so much more wondrous than the two components of logic and faith, and that over-simplification may deter [[liberals]] from coming to the right side. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 01:23, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, if a conservative insight can't generate even a single corresponding edit to Conservapedia, it isn't really a conservative insight. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 14:49, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, if a conservative insight can't generate even a single corresponding edit to Conservapedia, it isn't really a conservative insight. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 14:49, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:::So I was reading the essay and had an interesting idea: conservatism was absolute before the Fall, and Eve's corruption of Adam after her temptation by Satan marked the introduction of liberalism into the world. What was the temptation to Eve? It was for her to usurp the natural order and roles assigned by God. Would it therefore be valid to say that the Fall not only introduced liberalism into the world, but was caused by the first act of feminism? [[User:NateCev|NateCev]] 11:41, 26 March 2011 (EDT)