jeffpugh Posted June 11, 2008 Author Share Posted June 11, 2008 [quote name='Didymus' post='1568578' date='Jun 11 2008, 05:25 PM']what exactly does Pope Benedict have to do with conservatism again?[/quote] It doesn't. I'll be in a "traditionally Catholic" college for my duration at university. The Pope poster is just a sign of where my loyalties stand, just in case I'm the odd one out when it comes to "conservative" numbers and "liberal" numbers . Not meant to be a sign of hostility though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 [quote name='Deb' post='1568278' date='Jun 11 2008, 01:24 PM']They prefer to believe that if social programs were removed from government funding, the rest of the citizenry would step up to the plate. [/quote] What a depressing way to go through life, thinking so negatively of your fellow American. We are one of the most generous peoples around, in addition to all the mismanaged social projects the government forces us to participate in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 While the word "liberal" originally meant "free," modern liberalism has very little to do with freedom in the true sense (though it does embrace moral license, which is not the same thing as true freedom). [quote name='rkwright' post='1568172' date='Jun 11 2008, 11:25 AM']Certainly conservatives value freedom also. I think conservatives value economic freedom; no government intervention. But conservatives want more government intervention in social aspects; ie the government should outlaw gay marriage, obscenity laws, polygamy laws, ect. 'Liberals' value social freedoms, like the freedom to marry whoever you want, freedom to smoke whatever you want, freedom to choose whatever you want. But they don't value, IMHO, economic freedoms; they would rather the government intervene in the economy. So in a weird way I think both conservatives and liberals both value freedom and seek to restrict some freedoms.[/quote] I don't think the generalization that liberals support social freedoms, while conservatives oppose social freedoms is really accurate. It's more that conservatives favor traditional morality, while liberals oppose it. Not legally recognizing homosexual "marriage" does not involve "more government intervention" - it's not like states have been happily marrying homos all these years, and now conservatives want to intervene - but rather the state NOT giving extra benefits to this behavior. And liberals generally support using the power of the federal government to overthrow the freedom of other entities (states, local governments, churches, businesses, etc.) to make decisions on these matters. While liberals might support "freedom" of such immoral things as abortion, obscenity, and homosexual behavior, many are more than happy to restrict the freedom of those who oppose such an agenda - i.e. "hate (don't hate, appreciate) speech" legislation, banning voluntary prayer in public schools, anti-abortion demonstrations, public displays of Christian religion "offensive" to atheists and others, etc., etc., as well as restricting the freedom to buy, own, or carry guns, and to do any number of things deemed unsafe, unhealthy, or environmentally unfriendly. It's less about social freedom vs. social restriction as it is about opposing "moralities." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 [quote name='Socrates' post='1568927' date='Jun 11 2008, 11:01 PM']While the word "liberal" originally meant "free," modern liberalism has very little to do with freedom in the true sense (though it does embrace moral license, which is not the same thing as true freedom). I don't think the generalization that liberals support social freedoms, while conservatives oppose social freedoms is really accurate. It's more that conservatives favor traditional morality, while liberals oppose it. Not legally recognizing homosexual "marriage" does not involve "more government intervention" - it's not like states have been happily marrying homos all these years, and now conservatives want to intervene - but rather the state NOT giving extra benefits to this behavior. And liberals generally support using the power of the federal government to overthrow the freedom of other entities (states, local governments, churches, businesses, etc.) to make decisions on these matters. While liberals might support "freedom" of such immoral things as abortion, obscenity, and homosexual behavior, many are more than happy to restrict the freedom of those who oppose such an agenda - i.e. "hate (don't hate, appreciate) (don't hate (don't hate, appreciate), appreciate) speech" legislation, banning voluntary prayer in public schools, anti-abortion demonstrations, public displays of Christian religion "offensive" to atheists and others, etc., etc., as well as restricting the freedom to buy, own, or carry guns, and to do any number of things deemed unsafe, unhealthy, or environmentally unfriendly. It's less about social freedom vs. social restriction as it is about opposing "moralities."[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) sure, liberals have bad thigns associated with them. liberals are known for being hte ones who are environmentally friendly, not conservatives. or for being against the excesses of capitalism. liberals are the ones known for being for women and black rights. since this is all based on stereotypes, at least give the stereotyhpes credit where it's do. otherwise... you're just falling into the game that cookie cutter political people play.... defining "liberal" or "conservative" to suit your agenda... as anything good, and anything that's not this is by definition bad. i mean... i might even support saying liberalism is generally in practice bad... but to not be able to acknowledge their good points, shows cookie cutter mentality, and probably so much bias that you can't even think of the good that in fact exists. Edited June 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) Dairy, I am in favor of women and minority rights; however, I am [b]not[/b] in favor of affirmative action or other programs that penalize me because I am a white male. I am in favor of environmentally-friendly behavior; however, I am [b]not[/b] in favor of taxing corporations into the ground because relying on the free market is much more responsible and would easily address this problem. Incentives always provoke change quicker and more effectively than economic coercision. I am in favor of capitalism; however, I am [b]not[/b] in favor of allowing businesses and corporations stomp on the human rights of workers. Modern liberalism does [b]not[/b] resemble the liberalism of the early 1900s, so I think it's unfair to lump FDR in with Obama simply because they wear the same color shirt; rather, understand that liberalism in America has become about promoting [i]license[/i] not [i]liberty.[/i] Edited June 12, 2008 by kujo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) yes, much of liberalism has become that. but it's still unfair to lump them all together. that'd be the same as people saying conservatives all believe in anything goes torture and don't care about rights etc etc. just because some conservatives believe it, it's not fair to characterize the whole group like that. this i still insist is a game of semantics and stereotypes. you can have reasonable conservatives... but just acknowledge there can be reasonable liberals. it's only fair. so.... since it's a game of stereotypes, the only fair thing to do is give each side what it'd steretotypically deserve... liberals are for the environment etc etc. otherwise, i still insist you're just paying the name and cookie cutter game. really, giving what they stereotyipcally deserve is just meaningless generality mostly. that's why this whole thread, which is my true position, is sort of pointless and semantical. most people that get caught up in it, are just blinded by politics. Edited June 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I hat.e the idea of labeling anyone. In politics, that might keep people from becoming educated and changing their minds because they get lost in the party line. Maybe we should disband political parties, and have everyone run independent. Think of the chaos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffpugh Posted June 13, 2008 Author Share Posted June 13, 2008 Ha! "Reasonable" liberals and Conservatives are neither left nor right... but centre... arent' they? I dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 [quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1570143' date='Jun 12 2008, 09:44 PM']Ha! "Reasonable" liberals and Conservatives are neither left nor right... but centre... arent' they? I dunno.[/quote] Right reason invariably leads one down the Right path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG45 Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 (edited) [quote name='Socrates' post='1570164' date='Jun 12 2008, 11:54 PM']Right reason invariably leads one down the Right path. [/quote] However the "Right" is not always "Right". Case in point Adolf Hitler, Attila the Hun (to poke fun at another thread), various dictators who believed in Right Wing ideals installed by the CIA in the 1960s and 1950s, and any number of ultra-nationalist groups worldwide. The same goes for the Left, either side can play dictator. The struggle between Fascism (a far Right ideology) and Communism (a far left ideology) are a good, if extreme, dichotomy of this. In short, I'm playing semantics. A person can be "Right" and go down the "Right" path, while still being a centrist comparatively. Edited June 13, 2008 by BG45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 [quote name='BG45' post='1570235' date='Jun 12 2008, 10:42 PM']However the "Right" is not always "Right". Case in point Adolf Hitler, Attila the Hun (to poke fun at another thread), various dictators who believed in Right Wing ideals installed by the CIA in the 1960s and 1950s, and any number of ultra-nationalist groups worldwide. The same goes for the Left, either side can play dictator. The struggle between Fascism (a far Right ideology) and Communism (a far left ideology) are a good, if extreme, dichotomy of this. In short, I'm playing semantics. A person can be "Right" and go down the "Right" path, while still being a centrist comparatively.[/quote] I think the idea that Nazis were conservative (and conversely, that conservatives are Nazis, or Nazi-like) is one of the biggest lies of the Left. The Nazis were only considered "Right" because they were fighting the Communists for power. They were not conservatives (German conservatives at the time were the monarchists, whom Hitler once said he considered a greater enemy than Communism). The most conservative parts of Germany (such as Bavaria) were the least supportive of Nazism. While the Nazis (National Socialist German Workers Party) and the Communists were at war with each other, they were hardly opposite ideologies, but were far more similar than different. In fact, Hitler studied Lenin's Communist revolution to get ideas on how to organize his own Nazi revolution. Both Communism and Nazism are godless, revolutionary, statist, totalitarian regimes. Any serious student of history can see that they resembled each other far more than they were different. Tweedledee battling Tweedledum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 [quote name='kujo' post='1569577' date='Jun 12 2008, 10:54 AM']understand that liberalism in America has become about promoting [i]license[/i] not [i]liberty.[/i][/quote] Well stated my good man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 (edited) [quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1570143' date='Jun 12 2008, 09:44 PM']Ha! "Reasonable" liberals and Conservatives are neither left nor right... but centre... arent' they? I dunno.[/quote] probably. most things in life are not so clear cut. the center of what people claim is usually true. what a reasonable liberal slash conservative is though... is someone who is not a cookie cutter caraciture of the right or left. both sides are social conventions only, products of a random snapshot in time of human thought represented by political parties... just as there was different types of repub and dem back in the day and varying other parties, to marrow will change too. so the parties of today are surely not indicative of anything objective. to be one side or te other.... is probably only reflective of one's need to conform than anything objective. some might legit belief one side or the other in its totality without being brain dead about it.... but statistically speaking, it's not at all likely as those extremes are just snap shots of a spectrum of possible beliefs, and to have coagulation towards the extremes indicates most of them are just ocnforming. Edited June 13, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Only a fool conforms himself to false dichotomies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now