hello
I think there are only eight members of this group (excluding myself, whose entry here is likely to be abolished at the moderator's first glance) for a reason: conservatives are inherently slow when it comes to society and its advances. This is why there exists no counter-arguement for the previous post, touting equality movements as products of liberal idealism. Are you people just holding back, or are you too pent-up within this community to feel the need to justify the "joke" of this poster?
Allow me, aware of the need for objective proof in conveying an opinion, to provide an explanation for my statement concerning conservatives and their status in our constantly progressing society. One of the axioms of your alleged political stance is, unarguably, as the author of The Politics of Prudence Russell Kirk puts it, "custom, convention, and continuity," as "order and justice and freedom...are the artificial products of a long social experience." What he clearly does not understand is that society, the product of collective interpersonal relationships, began just as humans did. And unless you don't believe in cavemen, you don't know that we were once as untamed and atavistic as the creatures that now surround us, only more brutal as we realized our competition for survival. Thus, if we had always championed convention entirely, we would be savage and no more evolved than our predecessors. We would still shun and maul the dark man, would still exert pure force over the weaker of our species. Establishments would be nonexistant, even your pedestaled churches, which are progressive in their advocacy of human equality, an ideal which (most) conversatives today uphold as if it were never challenged or even unheard of, as it was years ago. But as they still disapprove of liberalism, they are being hypocritical, for by upholding many of their principles they are ignoring the fact that they once were considered unconventional and therefore unacceptable, by that era's conservatives. For examples of such ideals, read that poster.
Allow me, aware of the need for objective proof in conveying an opinion, to provide an explanation for my statement concerning conservatives and their status in our constantly progressing society. One of the axioms of your alleged political stance is, unarguably, as the author of The Politics of Prudence Russell Kirk puts it, "custom, convention, and continuity," as "order and justice and freedom...are the artificial products of a long social experience." What he clearly does not understand is that society, the product of collective interpersonal relationships, began just as humans did. And unless you don't believe in cavemen, you don't know that we were once as untamed and atavistic as the creatures that now surround us, only more brutal as we realized our competition for survival. Thus, if we had always championed convention entirely, we would be savage and no more evolved than our predecessors. We would still shun and maul the dark man, would still exert pure force over the weaker of our species. Establishments would be nonexistant, even your pedestaled churches, which are progressive in their advocacy of human equality, an ideal which (most) conversatives today uphold as if it were never challenged or even unheard of, as it was years ago. But as they still disapprove of liberalism, they are being hypocritical, for by upholding many of their principles they are ignoring the fact that they once were considered unconventional and therefore unacceptable, by that era's conservatives. For examples of such ideals, read that poster.