Liberalism versus conservatism in skepticism

[Darat]

...snip...

Simply because one supports the status quo does not mean that one "assumes" that the status quo is best. It seems to me that you are starting from the position that the status quo is not best, therefore the only POSSIBLE reason someone might support is if they're being irrational. So you are the one not being skeptical. I could just as easily say:

Your restatement doesn't work because it doesn't arise from the principles of liberalism whilst mine did arise from the principles of conservatism.

Liberal principles do not lead to an argument that "change is good" as a reason for change but conservative principles can lead to an argument that "tradition" is a reason for not changing. In other words "Because we have always done it this way" is a perfectly good conservative argument for not changing something, there is no liberal counterpart of "Because it is a change" as a reason for doing something.

 

[Darat]

Darat, give it up, this fight has been lost, you may as well try and enforce use of the word "crisps", or insist that it's better to drive on the left.

You may be factually correct, but the issue has already be settled.

But in the US they are used pretty much interchangeably. Whether that is correct or not is a different question, but most of us in the US understand them as synonyms.

I understand this but what it actually means is the USAians ability to conduct political dialogue and arguments is diminished. We can say people shouldn't throw out terms like "left" and "right" but we create words to facilitate communication so to not only lose such a word as "liberal" but for it to be redefined in such a way that actually mis-categorise what it means, well I think that should be a concern. (And we see the result of that in this section time and time again. )

And I also find it such a shame as the USA was founded by liberals on liberal principles not right wing or left wing principles!

 

[Chaos]

That's one of the reasons I started this thread. I'm a Democrat, I vote Democrat, all my friends are liberals (mostly) and I support all the traditional liberal values, yet on this forum I seem to have a lot more in common with the conservatives than I do with the liberals.

Why?

Well, part of it is that although I consider myself liberal, I consider myself a moderate liberal. Pretty close to center, actually, but still to the left of center. My theory is once you chop away the lunatic conservative, then a moderate on the left might become right of center just because the center has now moved.

Make sense?

I can only repeat it: if you are not a staunch conservative - in the "blast the dirty liberal traitors whenever they rear their ugly heads", "never met a Republican I didn´t like" sense - you do a damn god job at hiding it.

 

[brodski]

I understand this but what it actually means is the USAians ability to conduct political dialogue and arguments is diminished. We can say people shouldn't throw out terms like "left" and "right" but we create words to facilitate communication so to not only lose such a word as "liberal" but for it to be redefined in such a way that actually mis-categorise what it means, well I think that should be a concern. (And we see the result of that in this section time and time again. )

And I also find it such a shame as the USA was founded by liberals on liberal principles not right wing or left wing principles!

I agree to a certain extent, however I think that worldwide there have been so many different definitions of "liberal" that it is a pretty meaningless label anyway.However many posters tend to use the term "liberal" like the proverbial drunk uses a lamppost.

 

[Melendwyr]

I can only repeat it: if you are not a staunch conservative - in the "blast the dirty liberal traitors whenever they rear their ugly heads", "never met a Republican I didn´t like" sense - you do a damn god job at hiding it.

No, he doesn't.

If someone makes a point against him, he'll restate what they said in a form of a long and complicated question, often pretending to ask whether they intended to communicate the sentiment that they obviously just expressed. He'll change the subject. He'll change the emphasis. But if left to himself, he inevitably begins to make snarky and insulting statements about any and all viewpoints he doesn't like, and expressing positions that fit perfectly into the neo-con worldview you just mentioned. It's only when people point this out that he pretends to be interested in dialog.

He's a great deal like hammegk.

 

[Mycroft]

I can only repeat it: if you are not a staunch conservative - in the "blast the dirty liberal traitors whenever they rear their ugly heads", "never met a Republican I didn´t like" sense - you do a damn god job at hiding it.

Or maybe it’s that I’m fast approaching 40.

 

[Mycroft]

No, he doesn't.

If someone makes a point against him, he'll restate what they said in a form of a long and complicated question, often pretending to ask whether they intended to communicate the sentiment that they obviously just expressed. He'll change the subject. He'll change the emphasis. But if left to himself, he inevitably begins to make snarky and insulting statements about any and all viewpoints he doesn't like, and expressing positions that fit perfectly into the neo-con worldview you just mentioned. It's only when people point this out that he pretends to be interested in dialog.

He's a great deal like hammegk.

You really have a hard-on for me, don't you?

 

[rikzilla]

You really have a hard-on for me, don't you?

Don't fret it man...Mel gets harder than Chinese arithmetic when he posts lies about me....or fantasizes about burning me on his altar... Doncha boy?

-z

 

[Mycroft]

Don't fret it man...Mel gets harder than Chinese arithmetic when he posts lies about me....or fantasizes about burning me on his altar... Doncha boy?

-z

No worries, I'm just amazed he spends as much time as he does worrying about what I think and do. I guess there was a vacuum that needed to be filled.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Your restatement doesn't work because it doesn't arise from the principles of liberalism whilst mine did arise from the principles of conservatism.

My post responded to the point you actually made. You can't just make up some new point, then criticize my post for not addressing that point.

Liberal principles do not lead to an argument that "change is good" as a reason for change

Some do.

but conservative principles can lead to an argument that "tradition" is a reason for not changing.

I see nothing unskeptical about that. Tradition is a reason for not changing. Not the determinative issue, but still a reason.

 

[Darat]

My post responded to the point you actually made. You can't just make up some new point, then criticize my post for not addressing that point.

If you believe that you misunderstood my initial point.

Some do.

Then please show me.

I see nothing unskeptical about that. Tradition is a reason for not changing. Not the determinative issue, but still a reason.

If you use "traditional" to mean more or less "We've done it this way for many years and it has been proved to work" then it is a sensible and sceptical reason to challenge the idea of changing the status quo. However if you use "tradition" in a sense of "We've always done it this way" and claim that is sufficient reason to not change something then that is being "un"skeptical". Because then tradition has nothing to do with whether something is good or works.

Indeed since conservatism is in the end always a relatively defined political stance its practical meaning can vary tremendously. For instance after the USA was founded you would have been a conservative to support the liberal principles the country was founded on and political party in the USSR could rightly be called conservative even though it calls for the return of communism.

In the end these are just words and people will continue to redefine them to suit their needs. The ideas won't change but the labels will.

 

[epepke]

Well, I'm not so sure. I have never heard anyone on the left say "America is always wrong" in so many words but there exist people whose words and deeds show that they take that attitude, i.e. the Ward Churchills of the world.

I have seen people who have said explicitly that there was not a single thing they liked about America. This comes pretty close to "America is always wrong," as far as I can tell.

 

[Orwell]

I have seen people who have said explicitly that there was not a single thing they liked about America. This comes pretty close to "America is always wrong," as far as I can tell.

Who?