Page 1 of 7 [ 99 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

TheModestBighead
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 48
Location: Mars

21 Apr 2011, 8:42 pm

Briefly speaking, I observe that conservatives are more likely to go by "It is what it is" meaning it's to be accepted for what it is (maybe because of conservatives' less need for change for change's sake and also the religious aspect that often comes along with conservatism) while liberals are more likely to go by "Why is it what it is?"

Therefore, conservatives are more likely to be "There's no reason why anything's wrong with it/him/her", and liberals more likely to be "What can we find that's wrong with it/him/her?"

Giving conservative environments more potential for a vulnerable or traumatized person, who's perhaps suffered through being so-called "different", to thrive.



minervx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,155
Location: United States

21 Apr 2011, 9:06 pm

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have changed a lot since their first context. In the 1700's and 1800's liberals preferred revolution to turn monarchies into democracies, with the aim of ending aristocracy. Conservatives preferred divine right of monarchs because they a revolution as too violent.

Timelessly, conservatives aren't against change in general, but prefer it to be more gradual to keep stability, and liberals prefer change to happen more quickly.

Though the terms have had many uses, and the definitions have changed over time, they do not apply to human relations in the way you suggest. It's not as if conservatives generally accept that people won't change, or the opposite for liberals.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

21 Apr 2011, 9:09 pm

TheModestBighead wrote:
Briefly speaking, I observe that conservatives are more likely to go by "It is what it is" meaning it's to be accepted for what it is (maybe because of conservatives' less need for change for change's sake and also the religious aspect that often comes along with conservatism) while liberals are more likely to go by "Why is it what it is?"

Therefore, conservatives are more likely to be "There's no reason why anything's wrong with it/him/her", and liberals more likely to be "What can we find that's wrong with it/him/her?"

Giving conservative environments more potential for a vulnerable or traumatized person, who's perhaps suffered through being so-called "different", to thrive.


You're reading way too much into conservative and liberal reformist stances on institutions. Their stances on institutions aren't the same as their stances on people and, at least on gay rights, it seems that (social) conservatives are much less accepting of differences than (social) liberals.

Furthermore, most peoples' politics, I'd tend to think, really aren't based on some deep ideological principle so much as a mish-mash of individual prejudices based on discrete experiences and enviroments.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

21 Apr 2011, 9:42 pm

here is a proposal for more meaningful political lingo.

conservatives - means someone who defends the status quo
who likes the way things are.
so he would defend existing law.
on the spectrum we use in america these would be
moderate republicans and conservative democrats.
usually weathy so they like thing just like they are.

radicals- - folks who want the world to be very different.
one would place in this category, libertarians,
leftists, single taxers, pro-lifers, proponents of theocracy.
tea-partiers, most progressives (excluding the ones who are just defending the great society)
, anarchists, free marketeers, neo-cons, national socialists,
usually disinfranchized in some real or imagined way and want to change the world

liberals -folks that are moderately disenchanted with the world and want to change it
in a pragmatic fashion. (not to be confused with democrats.) In reasonable countries
this can be called the radical center. in America it is not represented by a political party.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

21 Apr 2011, 10:59 pm

Since so much emphasis is placed upon the glories of change and the evils of status quo within this little paradigm, how about having it so that there's a new status quo once each second. Now, soon that would become the status quo, so the rate of change of status quote would need to be alternated so as to keep things fresh, right? And once that's become the status quo perhaps yet another function for varying the frequency of status quo alternation would need to be effected. And then that would get boring too after a while, so yet another set of changes to the rate of status quo change would need to be made so that full glories of arbitrary and nebulous "change" can be fully realized, right? Or I suppose since you'd probably think left is right, left?



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

21 Apr 2011, 11:30 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Since so much emphasis is placed upon the glories of change and the evils of status quo within this little paradigm, how about having it so that there's a new status quo once each second. Now, soon that would become the status quo, so the rate of change of status quote would need to be alternated so as to keep things fresh, right? And once that's become the status quo perhaps yet another function for varying the frequency of status quo alternation would need to be effected. And then that would get boring too after a while, so yet another set of changes to the rate of status quo change would need to be made so that full glories of arbitrary and nebulous "change" can be fully realized, right? Or I suppose since you'd probably think left is right, left?


are you talking to me?
cuz I think my language is biased against change.
the radical group gets the least amount of sympathic language.
or you are talking to the op?


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

21 Apr 2011, 11:34 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Since so much emphasis is placed upon the glories of change and the evils of status quo within this little paradigm, how about having it so that there's a new status quo once each second. Now, soon that would become the status quo, so the rate of change of status quote would need to be alternated so as to keep things fresh, right? And once that's become the status quo perhaps yet another function for varying the frequency of status quo alternation would need to be effected. And then that would get boring too after a while, so yet another set of changes to the rate of status quo change would need to be made so that full glories of arbitrary and nebulous "change" can be fully realized, right? Or I suppose since you'd probably think left is right, left?


are you talking to me?
cuz I think my language is biased against change.
the radical group gets the least amount of sympathic language.
or you are talking to the op?


No, I wasn't talking to you. I was responding to the original post.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

21 Apr 2011, 11:40 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Since so much emphasis is placed upon the glories of change and the evils of status quo within this little paradigm, how about having it so that there's a new status quo once each second. Now, soon that would become the status quo, so the rate of change of status quote would need to be alternated so as to keep things fresh, right? And once that's become the status quo perhaps yet another function for varying the frequency of status quo alternation would need to be effected. And then that would get boring too after a while, so yet another set of changes to the rate of status quo change would need to be made so that full glories of arbitrary and nebulous "change" can be fully realized, right? Or I suppose since you'd probably think left is right, left?


are you talking to me?
cuz I think my language is biased against change.
the radical group gets the least amount of sympathic language.
or you are talking to the op?


No, I wasn't talking to you. I was responding to the original post.


oh good I though you went insane. :lol:

my point was
the conservative says "I kinda like things how they are."
a liberal says "I mostly agree, but I think we could make some changes for the better"
the radical says "blreep rata tat dring booong!! !!"


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

21 Apr 2011, 11:44 pm

TheModestBighead wrote:
Therefore, conservatives are more likely to be "There's no reason why anything's wrong with it/him/her", and liberals more likely to be "What can we find that's wrong with it/him/her?"

Giving conservative environments more potential for a vulnerable or traumatized person, who's perhaps suffered through being so-called "different", to thrive.

Sounds pretty accurate to me.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

21 Apr 2011, 11:47 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Since so much emphasis is placed upon the glories of change and the evils of status quo within this little paradigm, how about having it so that there's a new status quo once each second. Now, soon that would become the status quo, so the rate of change of status quote would need to be alternated so as to keep things fresh, right? And once that's become the status quo perhaps yet another function for varying the frequency of status quo alternation would need to be effected. And then that would get boring too after a while, so yet another set of changes to the rate of status quo change would need to be made so that full glories of arbitrary and nebulous "change" can be fully realized, right? Or I suppose since you'd probably think left is right, left?


are you talking to me?
cuz I think my language is biased against change.
the radical group gets the least amount of sympathic language.
or you are talking to the op?


No, I wasn't talking to you. I was responding to the original post.


oh good I though you went insane. :lol:

my point was
the conservative says "I kinda like things how they are."
a liberal says "I mostly agree, but I think we could make some changes for the better"
the radical says "blreep rata tat dring booong!! !!"


There was a scientist in the 1800's who said, "You cannot control what you don't measure." Nebulous promises or desires for "change" are, in my opinion, worse than stagnation. If a change is not carefully calculated and planned with sufficient forethought such change is worth about as much as the throwing of dice.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

22 Apr 2011, 12:10 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Since so much emphasis is placed upon the glories of change and the evils of status quo within this little paradigm, how about having it so that there's a new status quo once each second. Now, soon that would become the status quo, so the rate of change of status quote would need to be alternated so as to keep things fresh, right? And once that's become the status quo perhaps yet another function for varying the frequency of status quo alternation would need to be effected. And then that would get boring too after a while, so yet another set of changes to the rate of status quo change would need to be made so that full glories of arbitrary and nebulous "change" can be fully realized, right? Or I suppose since you'd probably think left is right, left?


are you talking to me?
cuz I think my language is biased against change.
the radical group gets the least amount of sympathic language.
or you are talking to the op?


No, I wasn't talking to you. I was responding to the original post.


oh good I though you went insane. :lol:

my point was
the conservative says "I kinda like things how they are."
a liberal says "I mostly agree, but I think we could make some changes for the better"
the radical says "blreep rata tat dring booong!! !!"


There was a scientist in the 1800's who said, "You cannot control what you don't measure." Nebulous promises or desires for "change" are, in my opinion, worse than stagnation. If a change is not carefully calculated and planned with sufficient forethought such change is worth about as much as the throwing of dice.


exactly- I ponder and stare when folks say they know how
the world, economy etc works and that they know how to fix it.
panaceas scare me.

inaction is usually better than rash action.
but being adverse to change is part of my diagnoisis
so this could be self-serving.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

22 Apr 2011, 2:45 am

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

-Winston Churchill


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

22 Apr 2011, 2:48 am

It depends. I consider myself a conservative, but of a very classical liberal kind. One can be both a liberal and a conservative at the same time.



cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

22 Apr 2011, 3:06 am

John_Browning wrote:
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

-Winston Churchill


lol what's Churchill advocating tin men & straw men?



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

22 Apr 2011, 12:12 pm

cdfox7 wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

-Winston Churchill


lol what's Churchill advocating tin men & straw men?


I would disagree with Churchill on people being under 30 and not being a liberal (assuming we're not talking about a Juan Williams style liberal), I actually have a heart and do care about others. I agree with him on the over 30 though.

Since when is it okay for a White House to tell a US company they can't build a manufacturing and assembly plant in a US state?



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

22 Apr 2011, 12:29 pm

John_Browning wrote:
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

-Winston Churchill


The Churchill Cent wrote:
Quotes Falsely Attributed | Print | E-mail

These quotes make for good story-telling but popular myth has falsely attributed them to Churchill.

"Conservative by the time you're 35"

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"



http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/s ... attributed


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/