Slavery

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty
EDIT: a technical problem for the moderators, if they will fix. a person cannot simply vote for one and leave the other blank. so, i need a forth category in each subpoll. the first one should say null vote for liberals. and the second one should say null vote for conservatives.

[mod]Poll options added, each question now has a maximum margin of error of +/- 9 votes -Aloysius[/mod]

Edited April 20, 2007 by Aloysius

[Socrates]

(Well, due to technical difficulties, I had to vote as both a conservative and a liberal. )


I'm not sure what the point of this poll is, but if it's to bash current-day conservatives (or liberals, for that matter), it is entirely irrelevent and anachronistic. The issues of 150 years ago were very different from the issues of today, as were the political factions.
Modern political liberalism and conservatism would evolve later.
Practically nobody, liberal or conservative, advocates slavery today, so applying these labels to people living a century and a half ago regarding a now-dead issue really sheds no light on contemporary liberal vs. conservative issues.

One might consider the advocates of slavery "conservative" in that they sought to preserve the old status-quo social order. However, it must be noted that the war between the states was not primarily about slavery but about states' rights. (Freeing the slaves was originally not even on the Northern agenda.) Many on the Confederate side were not fond of slavery, but were against the Federal government's use of violent force to subjegate individual states and deny them what they saw as a constitutional right to secession. (But this is vearing off-topic - merely to point out that the issues involved in the war were not primarily slavery vs. anti-slavery.)
Also a number of people believed slavery would eventually die out on its own, without need of violent force and social disruption (as it in fact did in other countries where it was practiced.)

However, 19th century abolitionism was largely a religious movement, and quite a few were "Bible-thumper" types, who some might see as analogous to the modern "religous right." They wished to "impose their morality" on the country as a whole.

While issues such as federalism vs. states' rights, etc. still have political relevence today, slavery largely does not. Nobody taken seriously by conservatives argues for bringing slavery back.
The modern conservative movement was formed much later, in the 1950s, in reaction to the dominant liberal orthodoxy of the time (and had nothing to do with slavery).
If the point of this poll is to taint modern-day conservatives as being somehow associated with slavery, it is a dishonest straw-man tactic (though one beloved of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and co.)

But, in short, the politics of the 1850s-60s are not the politics of today, and to apply contemporary political labels to the people of that era is anachronistic.

Edited April 20, 2007 by Socrates

[kujo]

Furthermore, the political parties now are not the same as they were back then. A Democrat in the 1800s is a Republican now, and a Democrat now was a Democratic-Republican then.

[thessalonian]

I won't participate in these polls becuase they are trying to make the point that liberalism is okay. It's not. It's a sin. There are ditches on both sides of the road, the right and the left. The best way to be is Catholic, under the guidance of the papacy (which consistently condemned the type of slavery in the US 300 years before this country was formed0 and vote conscience rather than party. Today that conscience if properly formed cannot vote for ANYONE who is pro-gay/pro-abortion. In the past the democrates were for the worker and against the matters when I was young. One could morally vote for them. My dad, a diehard CATHOLIC democrat for 70 years says "I didn't leave the party, it left me".

Edited April 20, 2007 by thessalonian

[Aloysius]

racism was an ideology of liberals, coupled with the rise of Anthropology.

[dairygirl4u2c]

my two main reasons to make the poll. to see how many conservatives said liberal. i'm surprised how many did. i wonder why.
the other reason is that even though conservatism's changed, it can still shed light on how people lived myopically then in denying rights and their way of governance, and they do now too. you may not understand it now, but your fellow conservatives will in the future. and they will have nothing to do with you.
not that liberals can't be myopic. i don't see many myopic liberals on this phorum though, just myopic conservatives. it is a conservative phorum, go phigure.

[Aloysius]

I don't remember if I actually posted this in the other thread: there is a difference between being "Conservative" and being "traditional". Being "traditional" transcends these things, because it connects to long-standing root principals and is able to challenge the status quo. Conservatives are just about conserving the status quo... which is why ~"the business of liberals is to go around making mistakes; the business of conservatives to stop them from being corrected"~ GK Chesterton (paraphrase). But tradition transcends both temporal errors.

Conservativism cannot be vilified as if conserving the status quo is always wrong and bad; as if the status quo always needs to be changed in all ways for the sake of "progress". both the status quo and new changes need to be evaluated and critiqued in line with tradition and deeply rooted philosophical principals.

[thessalonian]

You like to throw around labels too much Dairy. The majority here are not liberal or conservative i dare say, but Catholic. You simply don't understand what that is.

By the way, did you learn that word so you could ad hom people without thinking you were really doing so. More underhanded insults of the people on this board.

2. unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted.
3. lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.

I think your myopic.

Edited April 20, 2007 by thessalonian

[dairygirl4u2c]

thes every time i start a convo with you you leave or don't answre my questions. i defy you to start a thread and prove me wrong. at least some other conservatives here do or acknowlege things. you are the epitome of myoptic.
and most people i agree are not conservative, but catholic. but, in everything they can be conservative in, they are status quo conservative, largely. there's something wrong wihen you can read a pamplet and know what a person believes inside and out. maybe minus a few things or two. it's okay to use terms like that when refering to a general ideology, espeicially when the person is so simple they happen to fit the standard definition to a tee.

you have to define what myopic and narrow minded is. most agree people who are at least willing to acknowlege the other sides points and uncertainties and respond or say they do not know how are not myopic.
now, you could construe the definitino to say that if you do not succumb to a position, then you are myopic for it. so be it. i'm myopic. i can't be open to everything or i'd be nothing and a contradiction. i'm sure you feel the same about you. but, it seems you defy even the agreed definition. this is not because of your catholics positions, but how you treat your catholics position and moreso because of your other positions, all different than where other good catholics can flex.

i think it shows something about you that you took this thread personally thes. well... i guess i did insult you in the other god thread by calling you a zeolot...
i'd be more than happy to let you tell me somethings about you besides catholic things that you disagree with general conservatism on.

Edited April 20, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

~"the business of liberals is to go around making mistakes; the business of conservatives to stop them from being corrected
i like the quote

[thessalonian]

[quote]thes every time i start a convo with you you leave or don't answre my questions. i defy you to start a thread and prove me wrong. at least some other conservatives here do or acknowlege things. you are the epitome of myoptic.[/quote]

I've never answered your questions? I gave up long ago. I don't enjoy discussions with you because you try to be some sort of intellecutal and it just doesn't do anything for me. Sorry.

Edited April 20, 2007 by thessalonian

[Aloysius]

Here's the actual quote (the other one was a paraphrase from memory, I looked it up this time):

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." -GK Chesterton

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1250277' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:52 PM']my two main reasons to make the poll. to see how many conservatives said liberal. i'm surprised how many did. i wonder why.
the other reason is that even though conservatism's changed, it can still shed light on how people lived myopically then in denying rights and their way of governance, and they do now too. you may not understand it now, but your fellow conservatives will in the future. and they will have nothing to do with you.
not that liberals can't be myopic. i don't see many myopic liberals on this phorum though, just myopic conservatives. it is a conservative phorum, go phigure.[/quote]
I'm not sure what that bit of garbled prose is supposed to prove.

If there were conservatives on here (or elsewhere) arguing for bringing back slavery, you might have a point.
But otherwise, your poll is pointless, and seems a diversion from actually debating the issues.
It seems that rather than actually debate the arguments of conservatives, you want to discredit conservatives by associating them vaguely with slavery. ("You conservatives are meanies, just like the people who wanted slavery!")

This fits the pattern I see regularly, where rather than engage my actual arguments, you dismiss them as being "status quo conservative." Much easier to sling labels than to debate ideas.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's just a causal poll soc.
you too are one who always runs away. probably much like thes, you don't like the intellecual debate. or, at least in your case, intellectual debate that takes you outside of your preprogramed zone. the problem is that that's where the answers to the differences lie. whereas other catholics here are willing to engage and change their views slightly, much like i do, you and thes (just mentioning who's here) never do. i doubt it's due to your immaculate views.. (or let don't let on if you change your views)
i'm always up for a debate and i'd never run away from it.


some catholics who engage in actual extended debate...
mat el feo, al, jaimie, era might, apotheon... well that's all i got off the top of my head. but you got the idea.

Edited April 21, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[thessalonian]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1251205' date='Apr 21 2007, 12:22 AM']it's just a causal poll soc.
you too are one who always runs away. probably much like thes, you don't like the intellecual debate. or, at least in your case, intellectual debate that takes you outside of your preprogramed zone.[/quote]


You know, I've had about enough of your ad-homs.