 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:31
|
|
Good ol' Slowwy, right on schedule. 
That's an interesting point to make about moderates, that moderates are fundamentally conservative, in resisting change.
However I take fault with che's definition of progressive.
"Progressives are like liberals with spinal cords. Here you find the activists, socialists, social democrats."
There are also conservative activists, but you do not have a label for them. All you have are conservatives and reactionaries.
I think we need to work out some fundamental definitions of what is liberal and what is conservative before trying to discriminate between conservatives and liberals.
Now, conservatives believe that man is inherently bad, in that regardless of the society, human nature cannot be changed.
Liberals believe just the opposite, that with the proper society, one can change people's behavior. The only reason we see people do bad things is because of the society and not the person.
That's just for starters. I want to see what other people have to say about the fundamental distinctions between liberals and conservatives.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001 time: 00:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand
The spectrum of degrees involving liberal to conservative was being discussed within a thread, and the thought occured to me that the need for discussion required it's own separate and distinct thread.
Radical Liberals and Radical Conservatives, are so unknowingly close to each other, they're about to bump asses.
Let me tell you why.
Most people envision this spectum as linear, moving from Left to Right.
The concept that I present to you now, is much the same as early exploration marking the difference between a flat world, and a round world.
Liberal-------------Moderate-------------Conservative.
I don't think the increments and terminology used between either point and Moderate is that critical.
What's critical is the addition of Radical, which follows.
Rad Lib----Liberal-----Moderate----Consevative---Rad Con
Now, rather than in the linear example we see above, make it circular.
In this manner you'll see that the Radicals becomes adjoined.
I'll stop here and let the analysts analyze, and we can go from there.
What do you think? Am I making myself clear as mud, again? |
So your hypothesis is that small government = big government?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999 time: 23:31
|
|
quote: Compromise = sell-out. |
if you say so. just remember, if they didn't have a compromise, you could kiss the formation of congress and our government goodbye. not that that would be a bad thing, necessarily--but can you guarantee that something better would have taken its place?
quote: Well, we can't execute criminals anymore but we can kill all the unborn babies we want!!!WooHooo... |
i think it's important to be as consistent as possible. which is why i oppose euthanasia, capital punishment, and abortion. that said, abortion is still believed by many to be a good thing, and we cannot allow a tyranny of the minority to exert its will on those who do not share those same beliefs. as for euthanasia, it's still wrong, and as long as the laws have it on the books, i'm all for keeping it illegal. if this schaivo case goes to the supremes, and they rule in favor of euthanasia, then i'll have to accept that it's legal, albeit wrong.
in such cases where what is correct is not yet believed by the majority, you cannot impose your will on them. you must convince them first.
quote: But that'd require me to say you were right. |
Sure, he's on the right. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999 time: 00:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Good ol' Slowwy, right on schedule. 
That's an interesting point to make about moderates, that moderates are fundamentally conservative, in resisting change.
However I take fault with che's definition of progressive.
"Progressives are like liberals with spinal cords. Here you find the activists, socialists, social democrats."
There are also conservative activists, but you do not have a label for them. All you have are conservatives and reactionaries.
I think we need to work out some fundamental definitions of what is liberal and what is conservative before trying to discriminate between conservatives and liberals.
Now, conservatives believe that man is inherently bad, in that regardless of the society, human nature cannot be changed.
Liberals believe just the opposite, that with the proper society, one can change people's behavior. The only reason we see people do bad things is because of the society and not the person.
That's just for starters. I want to see what other people have to say about the fundamental distinctions between liberals and conservatives. |
Naw, thats not right at all. If anything its liberals who have the belief that man is inherently bad, or perhaps more accurately, inherently dumb and incompetant. People cannot be trusted to run their own lives and others must step in to do it for them.
This isn't just a biased interpretation I cooked up, I had a long discussion with an old girlfriend about this and this is what her political views boiled down to.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Good ol' Slowwy, right on schedule. 
That's an interesting point to make about moderates, that moderates are fundamentally conservative, in resisting change.
However I take fault with che's definition of progressive.
"Progressives are like liberals with spinal cords. Here you find the activists, socialists, social democrats."
There are also conservative activists, but you do not have a label for them. All you have are conservatives and reactionaries.
I think we need to work out some fundamental definitions of what is liberal and what is conservative before trying to discriminate between conservatives and liberals.
Now, conservatives believe that man is inherently bad, in that regardless of the society, human nature cannot be changed.
Liberals believe just the opposite, that with the proper society, one can change people's behavior. The only reason we see people do bad things is because of the society and not the person.
That's just for starters. I want to see what other people have to say about the fundamental distinctions between liberals and conservatives. |
I woud say that its radicals who believe that man is inherently good, and can so society should be remade in order to reshape man. Conservatives believe that man is inherently bad, and that society needs to control mans badness. Liberals Id say, tend to want to avoid mans nature altogether - they want the state to avoid the question and focus on pragmatic issues. Or, to put it differently, they view human nature as something good ENOUGH that it doesnt require change, and can be trusted to manage itself, for the most part. Im trying here to use liberal in the broad sense - a Lockean ideology that covers BOTH classical liberals and contemporary welfare state liberals (who I think are strongly linked, despite differences on specific policies)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999 time: 00:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
quote: Originally posted by OzzyKP
Naw, thats not right at all. If anything its liberals who have the belief that man is inherently bad, or perhaps more accurately, inherently dumb and incompetant. People cannot be trusted to run their own lives and others must step in to do it for them. |
Actually, the liberal view isn't that you needed to be protected from yourself, it's that you need to be protected from others.
quote: This isn't just a biased interpretation I cooked up, I had a long discussion with an old girlfriend about this and this is what her political views boiled down to. |
She sounds like an idiot. |
She's gonna be a teacher. And my guess is her thinking isn't much different from most teacher union types. She is very intelligent, and while it may sting a bit for most liberals to admit it, I think this is a real characteristic.
Now I'm not talking leftist anarchists, they would fundamentally disagree. But her views are indicative of most mainstream liberals, socialists, and commies.
I still keep in touch, and we actually saw this division play out in a discussion the other day. I introduced her to the Wikipedia and I was extolling its virtues to her and she really had a problem with it because there was no executive oversight, editing and control over the whole project. Not to say that isn't a common criticisim, but faith in humanity is not a trait I assign to modern liberals.
KH summed up my response. Yes, people are falliable and often can't be trusted. I'd rather give that falliable person the power to screw up only his/her own life, rather than give that fallable person the power to screw up everyone's lives. My ex, and many liberals disagree. Of course many conservatives disagree too. Which is why I don't fit on your line, Sloww.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|