Concentration of far-right extremists on PPR
I use "right" and "conservative" pretty much synonymously. It's still false to label these people as either right or conservative.
I use "right" and "conservative" pretty much synonymously. It's still false to label these people as either right or conservative.
right and conservative are not synonymous. It is not false to label them as conservative.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
I use "right" and "conservative" pretty much synonymously. It's still false to label these people as either right or conservative.
right and conservative are not synonymous. It is not false to label them as conservative.
What is the precise definition of each? Why don't each of you provide a definition of what each of you think these words mean?
I suggest he read the full of both articles but consider these footnotes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80 ... t_politics
The terms left and right are often used to spin a particular point of view rather than as simple descriptors. In modern political rhetoric, those on the Left typically emphasize their support for working people and accuse the Right of supporting the interests of the upper class, whereas those on the Right usually emphasize their support for individualism and accuse the Left of supporting collectivism. As a result, arguments about the way the words should be used often displace arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean
and
Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
I use "right" and "conservative" pretty much synonymously. It's still false to label these people as either right or conservative.
right and conservative are not synonymous. It is not false to label them as conservative.
Nitpicking my words is just a distracting technique that has nothing to do with the my argument. If you want to make an argument please explain to me how the founding fathers had a "conservative" political leaning. Use whatever definition suits your fancy.
Fine, conservatism is as following the definition i posted above is "A political philosophy that advocates traditional values; A risk-averse attitude or approach" seeing as those ruveyn listed set up/contributed to the way our government stands today, any change would be reactionary our progressive if you will. That would place those ruveyn listed as conservatives for the most part. They set up the traditional values of our government that would make their policies(the ones they put in place for our government) the policies that any conservative would be espousing if they are following the definition of conservatism that you have consented for me to use.
EDIT: it is not nitpicking words are the building block of language and as such an important part of any discussion/argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80 ... t_politics
I haven't read the entire article yet but none of portions you quoted pertaining to the definitions of left-vs-right or conservatism seem to apply to the founding fathers. If anything, their ideals were liberal for their time as the established ideal in Europe was of monarchy and aristocratic rule. The Enlightenment movement was a liberal/progressive ideal in the context of the times.
We are not talking about their time we are talking about our time
EDIT: in case you don't quite understand the importance of this. whether or not they where considered liberals in their time is irrelevant as we are discussing politics in the present time and must use the definitions of present time. a liberal of the past is not necessarily the liberal of today.
EDIT: in case you don't quite understand the importance of this. whether or not they where considered liberals in their time is irrelevant as we are discussing politics in the present time and must use the definitions of present time. a liberal of the past is not necessarily the liberal of today.
And this is your own proclamation based on your own conservative views. You see ideas as static and independent of time and circumstances. Not everyone see's things the same way you do. Going by your definition every single reformer throughout history should be labeled a conservative.
Your view of the founding fathers as conservative is no more correct than my view of them as reformers/progressives. Your insistence of having a fixed time reference is completely arbitrary.
EDIT: in case you don't quite understand the importance of this. whether or not they where considered liberals in their time is irrelevant as we are discussing politics in the present time and must use the definitions of present time. a liberal of the past is not necessarily the liberal of today.
And this is your own proclamation based on your own conservative views. You see ideas as static and independent of time and circumstances. Not everyone see's things the same way you do. Going by your definition every single reformer throughout history should be labeled a conservative.
Your view of the founding fathers as conservative is no more correct than my view of them as reformers/progressives. Your insistence of having a fixed time reference is completely arbitrary.
Why am i a conservative? Ideas are influenced by the the people who implement them and their surroundings but ideas themselves are independent of direct influence. No going by my definition every single successful reformer is a conservative by today's standards. By successful i mean their policies have been assimilated as part of the current government identity. and yes my idea of the founding fathers being conservative has more weight than of yours claiming they are progressive. That is not to say that all of them are conservative but just that most of them are after all if our government still implements their policies in a way that does not completely twist what the founding fathers put into place then claiming the founding fathers as conservative is a perfectly justified statement. While you are viewing them in the context of the past i am viewing them as their ideals stand in the present. I will say it again what was progressive in the past is not necessarily progressive in the present.
PPR is a smug fit.
Aimless likes this.
Thanks, it was really fun squeezing two puns into a five word sentence.
I was in turn amused and pleased in that particular aspie way when your reply was exactly the same length as my post.
_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.
EDIT: in case you don't quite understand the importance of this. whether or not they where considered liberals in their time is irrelevant as we are discussing politics in the present time and must use the definitions of present time. a liberal of the past is not necessarily the liberal of today.
And this is your own proclamation based on your own conservative views. You see ideas as static and independent of time and circumstances. Not everyone see's things the same way you do. Going by your definition every single reformer throughout history should be labeled a conservative.
Your view of the founding fathers as conservative is no more correct than my view of them as reformers/progressives. Your insistence of having a fixed time reference is completely arbitrary.
Why am i a conservative? Ideas are influenced by the the people who implement them and their surroundings but ideas themselves are independent of direct influence. No going by my definition every single successful reformer is a conservative by today's standards. By successful i mean their policies have been assimilated as part of the current government identity. and yes my idea of the founding fathers being conservative has more weight than of yours claiming they are progressive. That is not to say that all of them are conservative but just that most of them are after all if our government still implements their policies in a way that does not completely twist what the founding fathers put into place then claiming the founding fathers as conservative is a perfectly justified statement. While you are viewing them in the context of the past i am viewing them as their ideals stand in the present. I will say it again what was progressive in the past is not necessarily progressive in the present.
I don't know what you are. All I'm saying that you choice is just as arbitrary as mine. People like ruveyn are conveniently presenting the views of people like Jefferson in a fixed framework just so they can claim the Founding Fathers support the modern conservative movement from beyond the grave.
I could equally argue from a fixed framework that the founding fathers were pro-slavery. Therefore if you're against slavery you shouldn't pay any heed to the constitution as it was written by racist oppressors. I think this is a fallacious argument but can you see why?
What fixed framework? Current conservative fews match up with past progressive views thats a perfectly valid statement.
Also arguing that the founding fathers are pro-slavery is a little twisted seeing as they had to include a clause preventing the government from abolishing slavery for a set amount of time.(otherwise not all of the states would have joined) The only reason slavery wasn't immediately abolished is because of practical concerns.(not enough people where against it at that time) That is to say many founding fathers where against slavery but implementing their views at that time was not possible. This is largely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned however most of the founding fathers(and most people back then) where racist and even if they had freed the slaves then it likely wouldn't have amounted to anything for quite some time.
Also i would say your argument is invalid because the constitution does not encourage racism regardless of what its writers may have felt.
The reason this(the tendency towards racism in the founding fathers) is hardly ever if not never pointed out is because for many it would destroy the credibility of the founding fathers.(there would be no grounds for it of course but it would still happen)
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." ~Article 1 Section 9
And that's not what ruveyn stated. He stated that the Founding Fathers were right-wing which I interpreted as conservative. You yourself are saying that they had progressive views.
And that's not what ruveyn stated. He stated that the Founding Fathers were right-wing which I interpreted as conservative. You yourself are saying that they had progressive views.
I am saying that they had progressive views for their time, they are conservatives by today's standards.
The constitution allowed for slavery at one time. Whether or not it was done as a matter of political expediancy in getting the other states to join the union isn't relevent. Allowing slavery for the means of political expediancy was still wrong as slavery is wrong. If the constitution was wrong at one point in time it could very well all be wrong. Maybe we should rewrite it.
