Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definitions of Liberal and Conservative
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 16 of 46 (613957)
04-29-2011 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Theodoric
04-29-2011 1:44 PM


Re: Topic?
Theodoric writes:
Tram law writes:
Theodoric writes:
I am not asking you to reply with the quote button. I am asking you to reply with the reply button, not the general reply button.
But since you have decided to be different and not be courteous to other members of this board I will let it go.
Now do you have anything to see that actually addresses the topic?
Do you agree or disagree that a simple definition of liberal and conservative is not possible?
No, you're not asking, you're demanding and doing everything you can to brow beat me into submission. And you're getting all upset over this and keep on harping on it when I said I don't agree with you.
You are the one who's creating this problem and who are continuing it it, not me, and in doing so you are derailing threads.
Stop making this an issue. It is not an issue.
And I don't have to agree to it. If I absolutely have to agree to it then it it is not a matter of common courtesy and is instead a hard rule.
Ok so we agree that it is a common courtesy issue, but you evidently don't feel you want to be courteous to other people on this board. Nice thing to know about you.
Now again I ask, do you have anything to say that actually addresses the topic?
Do you agree or disagree that a simple definition of liberal and conservative is not possible?
I have let the other subject so please do the same.
Do you agree or disagree that a simple definition of liberal and conservative is not possible?
No, I do not believe it is a simple thing. Because what they say they believe and how they act are two different things.
And they both behave in similar ways to each other, so that muddles the water a bit.
Because I for one, place importance on how people behave in accordance to their beliefs. If they act completely contrary to their beliefs it becomes very confusing.
Such as if people claim to be tolerant of other people's beliefs then start insulting a person to no end because they rationally have a different opinion than the other person. Insulting people to no end is not very tolerant. Such as when non theists start insulting theists just for believing in God, and vice versa. I just can not see how being so insulting in this fashion is tolerant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Theodoric, posted 04-29-2011 1:44 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Rahvin, posted 04-29-2011 2:09 PM Tram law has not replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 17 of 46 (613958)
04-29-2011 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
04-29-2011 1:48 PM


crashfrog writes:
And I would appreciate it if you would please stop calling me kid.
I don't believe I've done that in any post to you.
I apologize, because I misread something. Sometimes some words look like other similar words to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2011 1:48 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 18 of 46 (613959)
04-29-2011 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tram law
04-29-2011 1:53 PM


Re: Topic?
Such as when non theists start insulting theists just for believing in God, and vice versa. I just can not see how being so insulting in this fashion is tolerant.
Remember that this site is a rather special case - its specific purpose is for debating religious, scientific, and occasionally political issues. Disagreements will obviously abound, and sometimes particularly wrong beliefs (or of course beliefs that are just vehemently opposed) will garner insults, incredulity, and the like.
In short, this is not a place where "tolerant language" is to be expected. As a debate site, we begin with the premise that not all beliefs are equally accurate or logically justified, and specifically set out to convince each other of the errors in our thinking.
But in normal life, that doesn;t mean we are so intolerant. On a debate forum, I'll call Creationists morons and go off on a long diatribe on Biblical errors and the absurdity of believing in magic men in the sky or worshiping crucified zombie deities, or the occasional political rant when we discuss those topics. In my real life, I don't do that unless someone specifically seeks to engage me in a debate first (Jehovah's Witnesses, for example).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 1:53 PM Tram law has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 19 of 46 (613960)
04-29-2011 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
04-29-2011 12:12 PM


From a Canadian perspective (though I'm sure many Canadians would disagree with me):
A liberal believes that healthcare should be universally available to eveybody regardless of their ability to pay.
A conservative believes that healthcare should be universally available to everybody regardless of their ability to pay but those who do have the ability to pay should be allowed to go to the front of the line.
A barking-mad, howl-at-the-moon ultra-conservative believes that healthcare should be in the private sector.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-29-2011 12:12 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 2:23 PM ringo has replied
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 04-29-2011 10:43 PM ringo has replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 20 of 46 (613961)
04-29-2011 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ringo
04-29-2011 2:12 PM


ringo writes:
From a Canadian perspective (though I'm sure many Canadians would disagree with me):
A liberal believes that healthcare should be universally available to eveybody regardless of their ability to pay.
A conservative believes that healthcare should be universally available to everybody regardless of their ability to pay but those who do have the ability to pay should be allowed to go to the front of the line.
A barking-mad, howl-at-the-moon ultra-conservative believes that healthcare should be in the private sector.
Why shouldn't healthcare be in the private sector? Why should it be the government's job to provide healthcare?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 04-29-2011 2:12 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Theodoric, posted 04-29-2011 2:28 PM Tram law has not replied
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 04-29-2011 2:34 PM Tram law has replied
 Message 23 by Rahvin, posted 04-29-2011 3:10 PM Tram law has replied
 Message 26 by Jon, posted 04-29-2011 4:31 PM Tram law has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 21 of 46 (613962)
04-29-2011 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tram law
04-29-2011 2:23 PM


Why shouldn't healthcare be in the private sector? Why should it be the government's job to provide healthcare?
Lets look at this another way.
Why should the government provide schools?
Why should the government provide roads?
Why should the government provide police protection?
Why should the government provide fire protection?
I can continue. Why do you think health care is different than the above?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 2:23 PM Tram law has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 22 of 46 (613963)
04-29-2011 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tram law
04-29-2011 2:23 PM


Tram law writes:
Why shouldn't healthcare be in the private sector? Why should it be the government's job to provide healthcare?
Simple answer: because the private sector fails to provide it universally. The government does what the private sector can't or won't do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 2:23 PM Tram law has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 9:07 PM ringo has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 23 of 46 (613964)
04-29-2011 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tram law
04-29-2011 2:23 PM


Why shouldn't healthcare be in the private sector? Why should it be the government's job to provide healthcare?
The private sector has failed, utterly.
It's a matter of incentives, Tram:
A private health care corporation has very little incentive to provide excellent health care, and a very large incentive to deny care regardless of need. Every time the company must pay out for a claim, that money is a direct subtraction from their profit. A private company has no free-market incentive to provide care for a cancer patient, for an HIV patient, for an MS patient, etc - these individuals can never ever pay in premiums what it will cost to treat them. Under a free-market health care system the incentive is to let these people die.
Public health care disregards income or the amount of money required to treat an illness. Under public health care, cancer patients and HIV patients and MS patients are treated, according to their need. Rather than being answerable to stockholders, the system is answerable to the people it serves in the form of the voting public. The incentive, rather than to make profit, is to efficiently and effectively disperse the allotted funds to provide the maximum level of care to all citizens.
The ethical differences between these two systems are blatantly obvious.
Economically, we have examples of private health care costs in the US and public health care costs everywhere else to compare with. In every example, individuals in the US pay more while receiving less in terms of people covered and problems covered. There could be no more clear evidence that the private system is utterly inferior in every way, ethically, economically, and even in terms of achieving the basic goal of providing health care.
There is no excuse or reason whatsoever to support private health care given the evidence available. NONE. At all.
Afraid of the costs? Public care costs less for everyone in every case everywhere. In teh US it costs something like $800,000 for a heart transplant - in the UK, it's more like $50,000.
Afraid of lowering the quality of service? You can;t get much lower quality than the people who have no coverage at all because of a "pre-existing condition." Even excluding them, the US has worse metrics in terms of longevity, infant mortality, and other relevant statistics than nations with public health care. The stories of long wait times are myths, urgent needs receive urgent care, you won;t wait months for an immediately necessary procedure, and waiting exists in the US too!
THERE IS NO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE HEALTH CARE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SIMPLE FACTS OF REALITY.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 2:23 PM Tram law has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 9:13 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 24 of 46 (613966)
04-29-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
04-29-2011 12:12 PM


The problem that I see with defining conservative or liberal is that the resolution can not be high enough and is, therefore, mostly useless. I suppose there is the perception that once you decide which camp you belong to then you don’t have to consider issues on an individual basis.
At the level of a particular issue you may be able to classify someone’s position as either conservative or liberal. As soon as you try to extrapolate that classification to include more than one issue it becomes less and less meaningful.
It is a forced dilution of your opinion set.
We should be doing away with the labels and dealing with the issues as they arise. The idea of left or right as a position leads directly to group think and corruption. I think a much more productive question would be why do we need anyone in between us and the decisions? What laudable purpose does the party system serve?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-29-2011 12:12 PM Phat has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 25 of 46 (613968)
04-29-2011 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
04-29-2011 12:12 PM


In addition to the problems others here have raised, the terms are constantly changing. 250 years ago, democracy was a liberal idea. Today, nobody would call Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann liberal just because they professed to support democracy.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-29-2011 12:12 PM Phat has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 46 (613969)
04-29-2011 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tram law
04-29-2011 2:23 PM


Why shouldn't healthcare be in the private sector?
Because it's a public good.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 2:23 PM Tram law has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 27 of 46 (613970)
04-29-2011 5:33 PM


Courtesy of Ambrose Bierce
CONSERVATIVE, n.
A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 28 of 46 (613972)
04-29-2011 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
04-29-2011 12:12 PM


My own personal rant.
In this country, the word Liberal has been turned into such a pejorative that it's virtually political suicide for a politician to call himself one. If you doubt me, watch C-SPAN for even a few hours, and count how many times a Republican will refer favorably to Conservative values and policies, and then compare that to how often the Democrats praise Liberal values and policies. Partly this is because Limbaugh et. al. have for years used the word Liberal to describe every perceived evil under the sun, and partly this is because there is no real representation of Liberal values in the US government today. Living in a plutocracy, why would you expect anything else? I think it was jar who said a while back that what we have is a moderate Republican party, and a bat-shit crazy Republican party.
In theory, Conservatives value tradition, respect for authority, rules and stability over innovation, openness, and change. In themselves, these aren't necessarily bad things, but these values can be perverted into prejudice, dogmatism, intolerance, and fear of The Other. Today's conservatives, despite how much they might claim that they're all for individualism and self-reliance, really do love big government as long as it purports to support their values. The plutocracy doesn't really give a damn about outlawing abortion, keeping same-sex couples from getting married, or putting up Christmas or 10 Commandment displays. Politicians in thrall to the ruling class know that as long as they keep saying that they're on the "right side" of these issues, they can keep promoting policies that only benefit the ruling class, even when those policies go directly against the interests of their supporters.
A genuine Liberal, as far as I'm concerned, is someone who supports progressive and humanistic policies that value long term good for people and the planet over short-term profits for the few. If we had real Liberal politicians in power today, we'd be seeing more solar panels than strip mines, fewer laws that impose repressive religious values, more money going to universal health care and fewer tax cuts for the already absurdly wealthy. There are certainly a few typically Liberal policies that I think are muddleheaded and wrong, such as hate crime laws. For the most part, however, I can be pretty sure that whatever position a Conservative is going to take on an issue, I'm going to think that they're either wrong or really, really insanely wrong.
There's my totally partisan point of view.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-29-2011 12:12 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dogmafood, posted 04-29-2011 8:29 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 29 of 46 (613974)
04-29-2011 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by ZenMonkey
04-29-2011 7:01 PM


Re: My own personal rant.
Nice post and I agree with all of what you said except that isn't this
I can be pretty sure that whatever position a Conservative is going to take on an issue, I'm going to think that they're either wrong or really, really insanely wrong.
the essence of prejudice?
Can the conservative label really cover a persons entire belief spectrum in any meaningful way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-29-2011 7:01 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 30 of 46 (613978)
04-29-2011 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ringo
04-29-2011 2:34 PM


ringo writes:
Tram law writes:
Why shouldn't healthcare be in the private sector? Why should it be the government's job to provide healthcare?
Simple answer: because the private sector fails to provide it universally. The government does what the private sector can't or won't do.
Why must it be provided universally?
Why can't some health care companies be ebtter at providing it than others?
To use a slippery slope, why can't this principle of "things must be universal" be applied to the banks or corporations or other kinds of business and companies?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 04-29-2011 2:34 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 04-29-2011 11:13 PM Tram law has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024